Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive300

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

Encyclopædius (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:COVIDDS

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

1. 08:44, 24 December 2021 Sadly even the Church has been infiltrated by the globalists/Big Pharma, Justin Welby is saying Jesus would have had the vaccine. I bet Pfizer gave him a nice check. Even the Salvation Army, who my grandfather's brother was once the leader of in Australia and Canada has gone all woke and saying white people should apologize for their racism. As Elon Musk rightly says, wokeness is a "mind virus" intended to divide the masses and eat away at society. Institutions we used to trust can no longer be trusted. These comments, which do not appear to be in jest, show that Encyclopædius appears to hold a conspiracist worldview.
2. 17:15, 27 December 2021 Describing a tweet by the FDA advising against using Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 as "propaganda"
3. Talk:Ivermectin_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic##Pure_propaganda (27 December 2021) Total failure to understand WP:MEDRS, uses newspaper articles and single trial studies to support Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, against general medical consensus.
4. Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#And_now_the_pushback (27 December 2021) Same as above
5. 08:24, 28 December 2021 There are a number who want a more globalised system of governance, that's not a conspiracy theory. Many of them have invested heavily in Big Pharma and are profiting from the vaccines, those I was referring to. Sure, there's a lot of disinformation and crazy claims on social media, and it's often not easy to find the truth, but I believe I'm well justified in personally believing that COVID is a planned pandemic and that controls such as passports and passes could lead to a global social credit system gradually being introduced. I believe the media, various institutions and various prominent people have been paid off to optimize the number who are vaccinated, and suppression of alternatives goes hand in hand. This was posted in response to this AE request, but was subsequently removed by Encyclopædius. I don't think I need to comment on why this is problematic.

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

• COVID-19 DS given 16 July 2021
• Notified of this request

They are aware of this request. They reverted the notice, with the reply Utter nonsense. What's the matter, the truth is a threat eh?.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is far from Encyclopædius's first rodeo with COVID-19 misinformation. They were pushing the exact same line about Ivermectin back in September, see Talk:Ivermectin#Misinformation, and still appear, months later, to have absolutely no grasp of WP:MEDRS. Their comments on their talkpage from the 24 December appear to show that they have a conspiracist worldview, which is incompatible with editing an encyclopedia. In a conversation back in July at Talk:Antibody-dependent_enhancement#Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic Encyclopædius also displays a conspiracist worldview, talking about Big pharma diff and claiming that Youtube/Twitter/Facebook delete most videos of non anti vaxx scientists claiming this and "credible" mainstream sources won't cover it because there is an agenda to vaccinate everybody. diff I think a permanent topic ban from COVID-19 is the minimum necessary sanction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to XOReaster, I should note the edit they made to their talkpage in June 2021 implying that there was voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, referencing the Maricopa recount. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

I strongly disagree with the way Wikipedia echoes a certain narrative put out in the media when there are sources which contradict them. As somebody who believes in a neutral encyclopedia which is free to edit, I detest this level of control and response to anybody questioning the "narrative". I've tried to ignore COVID on Wikipedia but the propaganda with the horse and tweet is very obvious. I do believe that there is a global agenda to vaccinate the world population and that many people and institutions are bought and paid for, including sources we often use to claim key points. I have good reason to believe that. I don't care enough about the subject matter to feel the need to edit it or discuss it often though. I will avoid editing articles on this subject as I largely have been doing, even if I believe they are compromised, so any ban or response is unnecessary.₪ Encyclopædius 22:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of what I think about the pandemic being very suspicious based on extensive research I've done, my viewpoint has no place on Wikipedia and is certainly not threat to content. I just believe that articles should be neutral and there's something gravely wrong with immediately trying to ban me from a topic for pointing out mainstream sources (not fringe) in India and Philippines which say Ivermectin is a success in treating Covid and linking some scientific papers to point out that the claim in the article not entirely true. I don't have a history of editing medical articles and am not interested, why would I be aware of guidelines for writing medical articles if I never edit them? Articles I've strayed into with biology and earth sciences I've always used scientific papers along with books and presumed for this they were valid sources. The bottom line is I want Wikipedia to be neutral and accurate and not try to suppress certain information to meet a narrative. I'm seeing the same editors editing and protecting articles, particularly those who've spoken out about the vaccines, and I am concerned that they are not neutral editors and operating in a coordinated way. Other than this I have no interest in pursuing this or anything related to COVID.₪ Encyclopædius 08:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In two years, where is the evidence that I've been trying to pollute the encyclopedia with bizarre COVID conspiracy theories to warrant a ban? I don't edit medical or COVID articles and have never been of that mindset. I don't think I even mentioned Covid or conspiracies on my talk page before. All I asked was for articles on a few people speaking out against the vaccines to be neutral, and use stronger sources to make big claims. If the Ivermectin article was more neutral I wouldn't have commented. For somebody innocent without an agenda Alex you sure don't act like it. Banning me would just prove I'm a threat to your operations. ₪ Encyclopædius 09:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question for arbitrators Why do you think I am liable to edit COVID-related articles or speak about it again in a problematic way, do you not think I get the idea from this that it's clearly a no-go zone if you want peace? Where is the evidence that I'm constantly causing problems in this field to warrant a ban? All I've asked for is to try to be more neutral and use good sources for strong claims in articles on claims related to questioning the vaccine and alternatives. If I promise to not edit or talk about it on here again, why wouldn't you trust me on that?

Comment I have no problems with gender, sexuality or racial equality, I am all for equality and justice, I have a problem when it is used in an extreme, unpleasant way to push an agenda and it creates divisions with people and problems. I don't edit articles in this field but to dismiss me based on half a comment seems outrageous. On my political test I was slightly on the left and am very tolerant of race and sexuality when there is genuine injustice. Such comments are extremely rare from me and were more about feeling that the Salvos were singling out white people as all racist.₪ Encyclopædius 16:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Slatersteven That's been there a while, but do you see me frantically going through articles neutralizing them? Nope. I'm British and centrist in outlook, I see issues with both sides in US politics. Both should read neutrally, but it's a fact that articles were trashed on anybody claiming fraud or has an issue with the vaccines. Maybe they are indeed bogus claims, but we should still strive to write neutral articles. My stance remains but that doesn't mean I don't have the self discipline to avoid the articles or rant about them. I have no problem agreeing to avoid articles and will do if respected without being so heavy-handed, I just wish editors like Alex would respect our neutrality guidelines more and act like somebody editing in good faith who is open to suggestions. ₪ Encyclopædius 21:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to valereee Spot on, and thank you, I agree to a self-imposed avoidance of editing and commenting on COVID-related articles, it's a non-issue as I largely avoid the articles anyway. If my promise isn't kept then this would be appropriate. All I ask is for the regular editors to be a bit more respectful towards the article subjects even if they personally disagree, and not display so much ownership of them. Alex does not own our articles on COVID and related topics. ₪ Encyclopædius 21:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Shibbolethink How do you define "disrupt". Two sources were mainstream newspapers in India and the Philippines. I did not intentionally want to "disrupt" anything, merely question the claim and why the horse and tweet was used. I acknowledge that Alex, Slater and a few others have put in a lot of work on this subject and there's other content I've seen that I don't have an issue with. I concede that it wasn't in good faith to accuse them of propaganda, but the horse pic and tweet didn't seem right to me. I don't have a history of editing Covid treatments, and I certainly have no intention of doing so again, I think I've only questioned the Ivermectin situation, given that I've seen two sets of completely different claims, but I don't want to pursue it further. There's been a mixed bag of information from the media in all fairness, contradictory a lot of the time, and difficult to know what is the truth or reality at times. Even the health officials have said various different things. I certainly don't fully trust certain sources as I did anyway. Y₪ Encyclopædius 11:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Vanamonde Where is the evidence that I've pushed conspiracy theories in the mainspace or have a history of this anywhere? Given that I rarely even look at COVID articles, why wold you not take my word for it to avoid this subject again? ₪ Encyclopædius 20:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said Vanamonde93 I have already agreed to stay well clear of COVID-related topics and discussing it on here again, which I have pretty much done every day for two years. In a normal wiki environment it would be fair game to ask why a horse would be used to illustrate an article on a drug administered to humans for 6 years and question how accurate one of the statements was. If there is large-scale medical census in journals and big organizations globally that Ivermectin isn't backed to treat COVID then by those guidelines we have to follow that, but one would presume that if the drug has been formally approved for domestic use in the countries the article identifies then in those countries you'd think there would be some kind of central medical consensus that considers it an effective treatment.₪ Encyclopædius 10:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing else to say Slater.. Have a good day/night everybody, see you next year... ₪ Encyclopædius 19:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Dennis The question is Dennis Brown, why is any ban whatsoever is necessary when I've promised to now stay well clear of COVID topics after this closes. Self-imposed. I've barely even looked at COVID articles in two years. If I challenge a Covid article or talk about conspiracies again on here then it might be warranted. A number of editors are driving by and saying I was intentionally "disruptive", but that illustrates a complete lack of understanding in me as an editor who only wants the project to be neutral and accurate. Editors question neutrality and dispute accuracy all the time on here and all I did was reveal sources which contradict the claim. I hadn't even seen that big guideline before, otherwise I would have looked in journals in Japan and Mexico etc. And I haven't been monitoring sanctions and arb behaviour surrounding Covid articles to know that something like this would ever be brought here. Topic bans should be served to editors who repeatedly cause major disruption on articles. I have not done so. † Encyclopædius 09:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Alex All I did was question why a bog standard "fact checker" website would be considered a reliable source to dismiss the viewpoint of a seasoned medical professional (you'd think the standard for sourcing would be the same as medicine articles) and to take care in making bold statements about misinformation. Just make sure they're neutral and the dismissal are reliable sources. I've barely looked at COVID articles, where is the evidence I've caused mass disruption in the article space and have a long history of it?. Given that any accounts I have used can be easily checked in a checkuser and has been done probably half a dozen times since I started I'm hardly likely to use accounts for nefarious purposes. I object to this unnecessary heavy-handed treatment and attempt to impose upon my freedom, Valeree seems to be the only one who gets that. It is quite frightening actually that things have come to this.† Encyclopædius 12:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, I have NOT blown the trumpet of these people. I've never been an anti-vaxxer type either and have had lots of jabs over the years. It is valid to ask how such people who are supposed to be very respectable, highly knowledgeable medical professionals in their given fields got things so wrong. People who should on paper not be an anti-vaxxer type and who should know a lot better than this if they're in the wrong. This is not a healthy environment to build an encyclopedia if nobody can question the accuracy of a statement in a COVID article without being topic banned. A desire for neutral articles doesn't mean that I expect them to cover a Fringe viewpoint in detail or claiming that they are right against wide mainstream consensus, you're way off on this. It means a well-balanced, comprehensive coverage of their careers. Articles often have undue weight on their conspiracy claims using poor quality sourcing in relation to career or make bold claims in the lead saying they put out misinformation or are anti semetic etc. It is understandable given the widespread media coverage that articles should contain this content, but it shouldn't be a determining factor in article tone and weight of coverage. † Encyclopædius 14:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, PhD, independent virologist and vaccine expert, formerly employed at GAVI and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. According to his site. GAVI approves funding for malaria vaccines in Africa, and you think he's an anti-vaxxer? I think Geert was the one who challenged the WHO for a collegial, balanced debate on the vaccines and was dismayed at the lack of response. † Encyclopædius 14:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question for arbitrators The big question is why won't you trust me to agree to fully avoid editing COVID related articles and commentary? My level of activity on Wikipedia is nowhere near what it was, and how many COVID articles have I actually edited much less disrupted in two years? I am not a threat to actual content. All I removed from that article has stayed that way. And it's not as if I can't be check usered in the future to ensure that I've complied if that is a concern. I get the message to stay well away from this.† Encyclopædius 11:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picking up on what Black Kite noted about the dog-whistle for "Jewish", I will point out –– without assuming bad faith, since this could just be a coincidence –– that the meander symbol which Encyclopædius has chosen to incorporate into their signature bears a striking resemblance to the logo of the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn. If this is not an intentional connotation, Encyclopædius, perhaps you could explain what it does mean? Generalrelative (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context, MrOllie, though it still begs the question of why they would choose to use that symbol in this way. And of course it is possible for the symbol to be typeable because it represents the new shekel and at the same time work as a dog-whistle because it resembles the Golden Dawn logo. Again, I don't intend to assume bad faith here, but I'd suggest that it might be informative to hear Encyclopædius comment on this. I see that until recently they used the Christian cross in the same position, e.g. in the diff Black Kite provided below: [1]. What prompted the switch? Generalrelative (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my previous comments since there seems to be a consensus that Encyclopædius probably doesn't intend for this symbol to convey the meaning I suspected it might. Perhaps I'm just a bit scarred from seeing it plastered all over Europe during the years when Golden Dawn was at its height. In any case, happy to drop this line of inquiry in the interest of a more focused discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth does such an experienced editor justify heavily redacting their previous comment –– without striking or leaving any other visual indication of what has taken place –– after it has already been responded to? For anyone not following the history of this conversation, some of the more conspiratorial stuff referred to below was removed by Encyclopædius here: [2] Generalrelative (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: That's the symbol for the Israeli new shekel. - MrOllie (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the examples listed above, I'd add We also seem to be censoring when it comes to COVID, most of the people who've spoken out against the vaccines have had their biographies somewhat unfairly trashed and editors seem to be protecting them in that state [3]. Perhaps also relevant is the claim that CNN and MSNBC and numerous mainstream media sources controlled by the left are as unreliable as Newsmax and OAN for American politics, just in the opposite direction [4]. It is hard not to see this as a conspiratorial mindset. XOR'easter (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does a user with 600,000 edits not use WP:INDENT? How does an editor who used to indent[5] now not? I appreciate this account has been CU'd and is apparently technically secure, but my mind is boggling. Alexbrn (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• From this it is sadly apparent that for whatever reason, ‎Encyclopædius is completely in thrall to conspiracism. They're correct that this "has no place on Wikipedia", but their editing has put it here. Medical misinformation, such as they are promulgating, also has no place on Wikipedia. Given the vaccine comments, I think a TBAN from all biomedical topics is a minimum, but predict if they start on about the Archbishop of Canterbury is in the pay of Big Pharma (etc.) then their editing onward career in wider topics is likely to be a short one. Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• From the alt accounts which were temporarily (?) revealed, it appears there are ground for suspecting WP:UPE from this person. Is this something that's going to get considered here, as it seems significant? If indeed UPE did occur, I would support a site ban. 19:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Other COVID discussions

I think Encyclopædius' edits in this area are a bit more extensive than is currently apparent in this AE

e.g.

At Talk:Sucharit Bhakdi (bio of extreme COVID denier and antivaxxer)

• [To me] "Oh you again, funny that. ... Somebody of his level of expertise should know what he is talking about." [6]

At Talk:Antibody-dependent enhancement (reason given by antivaxxers why the COVID vaccines should be avoided)

• "... there is an agenda to vaccinate everybody. No media outlet we consider a 'reliable' source will allow this to be discussed fairly with two sides to an argument."[7]

UPE

I have spent some time looking at the contributions of the alt accounts which were temporarily named in this AE, and despite looking suspicious, ultimately I think there is no compelling case they are UPE, rather than just idiosyncratically detailed about certain companies' activities. I do think it would be good to have something out of this AE which clarifies whether Encyclopædius in permitted to make/use alt accounts. Is their strong desire to avoid a formal sanction connected to the ability to use alt accounts in future? Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Encyclopædius - It's not "all you did" though is it? By dog-whistling with your "you again, funny that" and referring to "your operations" you are bringing your conspiracist worldview into Wikipedia and using in your interactions. And here you are[8] banging the drum for Geert Vanden Bossche, another extreme antivaxxer.[9] Basically, I can sort of understand that an editor has no clue about standards for scientific sourcing, or about WP:GEVAL but if that gets weaponized into arguments on Wikipedia then it becomes a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to Encyclopædius: You write "the articles don't even attempt to cover things neutrally, that's my issue". If this is what you now believe, then you just don't understand NPOV. Which, with 600,000 edits, is quite a sad indictment. Alexbrn (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Encyclopædius edits more constructively in other areas. I doubt that the account is compromised, some previous talk page posts also lacked proper indentation. As for the COVID topic, I wonder if it's also an AP one. Those conspiracy theories are unfortunately typical. Instead of being a great effort and a step forward to mitigate the pandemic, vaccines must only be some Big Pharma money hoax, ineffective COVID-19 treatments like ivermectin must be competing establishment-suppressed magical solutions, major reputable medical bodies must be corrupt disinformation outlets (and their public health education campaigns be commercial-driven propaganda)... And for whatever strange reason "woke" is thrown in. I initially thought that an AE report was a bit early, but from some presented diffs I understand. —PaleoNeonate – 04:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generalrelative: User:Encyclopædius/Sig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) just fun, I presume, other characters were also used. —PaleoNeonate – 04:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last comment contains more of the same. "Articles should be neutral" WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV, part of the WP:NPOV policy, specify that a false balance should not be promoted between mainstream consensus views and fringe theories or primary research. The only part that I recognize as having merit is that some organizations have warned about the potential for some authoritarian regimes to take advantage of the situation for human right abuses. You'll find no reputable source claiming that the pandemic was manufactured and no MEDRS that claim that ivermectin is effective against SARS-CoV-2 (if there were, WP should reflect that). Non-effect or low toxicity at low doses also doesn't mean anything: most people recover without treatment, the problem is that they also transmit it and that a high enough percentage is vulnerable to severe disease, to be overwhelming. Cherry picked statistical glitches and primary research like individual trials are also very prone to error and that's also why MEDRS matters: we can only really know from a higher level when enough data is available from properly run trials. Not being a journal, WP is not to do the science, but to report about its results... If we worked with primary sources, all editors would also need to be experts in review, how to evaluate in-silico, in-vivo, in-vitro, animal studies, human trials... —PaleoNeonate – 09:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a threat to your operations. or simply to the accuracy of the encyclopedia (and spent community time for otherwise trivial matters)... —PaleoNeonate – 16:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia: But only the CSM, —PaleoNeonate – 04:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I checked Encyclopædius as a potential compromise - maintaining the security of accounts with template editor permissions is fairly important as they are able to do quite a bit of damage. In the course of the check, I noted a number of accounts which were  Confirmed to Encyclopædius:

I must however stress that TBAN notwithstanding, they have been used in a matter consistent with policy. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 09:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I said "I will out of politeness not block them as long as you either cease to edit from them or disclose your connections to them, and stick to one account (or disclosed alts) in the future." - seeing as my request was ignored, and this AE opened, it seemed pertinent to any result to mention them directly. Where do you believe I said that I wasn't going to "reveal the identity"? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 09:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC) ( Clerk note: was a reply to ProcrastinatingReader)[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: I was hoping for an affirmative to "not edit further" - perhaps I should have been clearer on that expectation. I will address your other comments on your talk page if that's okay with you? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 10:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I didn't want to drive away Encyclopædius, which it seems I may have done - I've removed my listing of their accounts and revision deleted those revisions. That revdel is quite out of policy so I will undo it if anyone complains -- TNT (talk • she/her) 10:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

( Clerk note: the below were split from a threaded discussion in TheresNoTime's section)

@TheresNoTime: didn’t you say you weren’t going to reveal the identity of the other accounts as long as they didn’t edit further from them? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed implied, since you didn’t mention the names of the account in the original message, and then gave the editor a choice to either disclose them OR stop operating them. If you’re going to disclose them anyway, it doesn’t make sense to give the choice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’d add by saying it's not clear he ignored your offer, since there are no edits on any three of the accounts recently, and since none edit in any relevant area it's not relevant to this AE. Plus you disclosed content in emails onwiki. Perhaps none of this violates policy but it all seems like bad practice to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free, although don't feel like you have to spend more time on this matter; you've more than rectified the situation since my last comment and I don't have outstanding concerns. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact they have announced they are retiring due to being topic-banned from COVID is not a good sign. I have no idea about what they were in the past, but that is a pretty good sign they are not wp:nothere now, whatever their past was.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they have not said "due to a TBAN" but comments like this "Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 and the 2020 US election I've strongly disapproved of the way Wikipedia echoes the endless lies put out by the media and the way we've become censored. I'm particularly appalled at the trashing of articles and completely disregard for neutrality on anybody who has spoken out about election fraud or against the vaccines, in areas which should be as neutral as the rest of the encyclopedia." are in fact declarations of wp:rightgreatwrongs, hence why I do not give them the benefit of the doubt.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It maybe stale but it seems they did make a stand on election fraud claims [[10]] [[11]]. But OK, lets give them a chance. No TBAN but an explicit warning that if they breach their agreement there will be a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order to demonstrate you will abide by a gentleman's agreement, it might be a good idea to stop arguing about the stuff you are being reported for. It is very hard to take seriously your offer to walk away when you are so determined to argue your case.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re. to Slatersteven, and answering the query what they were in the past: they were User:Dr Blofeld. ——Serial 18:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about this user, other than that they have dipped their hand into COVID matters from this perspective before (especially with regards to Ivermectin) [12] [13][14][15].

At the same time, I would say it's clear they have no interest in editing around these controversial COVID spaces on Wiki, because they know the ire it draws. I think the project would be safe, and disruption satisfactorily minimized, if Encyclopaedius were just TBAN'd from COVID-19 treatments.(see latest comments- 17:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)).

This is the controversial area of this topic that the user actually disrupted. And I would actually disagree with any ban from politics or gender/sex topics. I think it's extremely important that we restrict TBANs and sanctions to actions which actually interfere with consensus building and/or involve article-space editing. The diffs presented as evidence for these other TBANs appear to be limited to user talk space, where I think it is entirely okay to have and share these opinions, as long as it is not done in a harassing manner. I think it's important for the health of the project that we do not set a precedent of TBANing based on opinions shared, but instead on actions done.

Likewise, the core of WP:NOTHERE is counterproductive (or a lack of productive) editing. That is clearly not the case for this user. Sharing controversial opinions in user talk space, but not letting those edits show through in your article space contributions, I think should absolutely be permitted. We treat user talk space more liberally for a reason. I am rarely, if ever on the side of "CENSORSHIP! THOUGHT POLICE!" people, but i think this is the very rare situations in which that fear is justified. Don't restrict people for opinions they hold, restrict them for actions they do. We have no reason based on the conduct presented so far, to believe that Encyclopaedius has any intention to disrupt these other areas.

Encyclopaedius should be TBAN'd only from the things they actually did disrupt, namely COVID-19 treatments. (see latest comments- 17:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC))— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And just to clarify, I have very little sympathy for the "You're going to TBAN me?!? Not if I retire first!" response of this user. I do not think admin sanctions should at all be influenced by that response. It's all about precedents set and standards upheld, in my opinion. Let the restriction fit the offense. And ignore any grandstanding or soapboxing that occurs in the lead up to any sanctions. If anything, it gives me less sympathy for the actions of this user. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given @Alexbrn's recent statements, I would support a wider TBAN for Encyclopaedius from COVID-19, broadly construed, indefinitely. I say indefinitely because Encyclopaedius' approach is the issue, not just his beliefs. He does not appear to support NPOV or MEDRS as written, and is not applying them selectively to these topics. Even if the science changes, I do not believe we have evidence that this user's approach will change. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shibbolethink's statement is spot on. I've read the recent Talk:Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 1#Pure propaganda discussion, as well as the user talk page discussions from which several concerning diffs were given above, and from this it is absolutely clear to me that this user should not be editing anywhere close to COVID-related issues. I also have a broader concern that the conspirational thinking in evidence is inextricably tied with a failure to identify and defer to expert opinion, both of which lie at the heart of any kind of Wikipedia-editing. If the user continues on this path of questioning mainstream expertise (or perhaps rather, the fact that WP should follow –and even emphasize– mainstream expertise), problems are likely to surface in other topic areas as well.

However, I agree that we should not deal out TBANs preemptively, but only there where articles or their talk pages are affected. I think that with regard to Ivermectin (cf. already "the media is lying" in early September), that line has been crossed. If as a response to the criticism they agree not to edit in the topic area, so much the better: isn't this what a TBAN is, an agreement not to edit in a certain area for a while because other editors have raised concerns? It's meant to restore trust, and I think that could work out well if the user is able to place the concerns raised here in the right framework. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A TBAN from Covid topics seems reasonable. MEDRS exists for a very good reason, and someone who has issues understanding that should not edit medicine-related topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not edit in these areas but I had found his commentary on Ivermectin to be disruptive - a TBan will put an end to that. I agree that the comments on CRT etc. are concerning. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Yeah, I did actually wonder if the account had been compromised, but I see that User:TheresNoTime had already checked for that (User_talk:Encyclopædius#Account_checked). Regardless of the conspiracy theory issues, a refusal to follow MEDRS is immediately a red flag for editing COVID articles, and I agree we probably need a topic ban. As a complete aside, claiming that the Church of England has been infiltrated by "globalists" shows that Encyclopædius doesn't even really understand the conspiracy theories themselves, given that "globalist" is a dog-whistle for "Jewish". Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Is a topic ban enough? Someone who is practically scuba diving in the kool aid probably needs wider sanctions. At some point, everything becomes a conspiracy. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that a TBan would stop the immediate problems. I don't currently see any evidence that articles in other areas are being affected (though I'm not a fan of stuff like this). A lot of Encyclopædius's (good) editing is in areas like music, which are probably immune from such bizarre theories. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My bad. I missed the Dr Blofeld part. Yes, a tban is probably more than enough. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As above, Encyclopaedius has done positive work in other areas less prone to conspiracy-type thinking. Hopefully a topic ban will curb the disruption while allowing that to continue. However, I will strongly caution Encyclopaedius that articles should reflect the consensus of the best available reliable sources, even if you personally disagree with it, and you will be required to hold to that standard while editing in any area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A Tban is definitely required given the evidence above, made worse as they reverted the notice, with the reply "Utter nonsense. What's the matter, the truth is a threat eh?." I also am not convinced it's enough. I see that they state that they have retired, but that shouldn't allow them to avoid the Tban. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Also Support Tban from AP and gender/sexuality per the diffs below. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A COVID t-ban at a minimum, but I would include modern American Politics and Gender/Sexuality due to these comments [16] [17] --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The closer should probably remind Encyclopædius that WP:CLEANSTARTs are not allowed for accounts under active sanctions iff this discussion is closed with a topic ban, as it currently looks -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've split the threaded discussion between TheresNoTime and ProcrastinatingReader into their own sections. I think the clerknotes should make it clear how the discussion originally went, but please feel free to refactor as necessary to clarify. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure it's fair to characterize the retirement statement as "due to being tbanned from COVID". I read it as "due to being Tbanned from an area I've agreed not to edit in, which seems heavy-handed." I feel like he's got a point. Can't we just accept his promise that he'll avoid topics that are clearly COVID? Realize that a Tban from COVID is practically a Tban from 2020-202?. I'm certainly not comfortable with 'COVID, broadly construed'. —valereee (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• These diffs are very concerning. A TBAN from COVID-19 is definitely needed. If the problematic comments had been restricted to talk pages, a voluntary commitment may have been sufficient, but if they're pushing conspiracy nonsense in mainspace, a sanction is inevitable. The diffs about AP2 are also concerning, but I'm not certain about a sanction there given that we have no mainspace diffs. I would support a warning about the need to follow WP:RS. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I replied to this on my talk page, Encyclopaedius, but the diff removing the FDA tweet and characterizing it as propaganda is quite problematic. To not support a topic ban, I need a commitment about the behavior, not the topic; Covid is relevant to too many things, and the same issues are relevant to too many other topics. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I really didn't want to dive into this, but here I am. Having unpopular opinions isn't against policy (and isn't sanctionable), however, letting that bleed into your work can be. There is obviously a problem with MEDRS/COVID, an area he normally doesn't edit in (by his own admission on his talk page). Long story short, I think a 1 year topic ban on COVID related articles and topics (not broadly construed, I really don't want to be setting a trap here), is sufficient. That will do the job of preventing disruption without going overboard. Encyclopædius is a known quantity, which doesn't justify "going easy" but it does justify keeping the sanction as targeted as possible. From my perspective, anything more than this is either simple overkill, or punishing his ideas rather than his actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedius, to be clear, the 1 year tban is the maximum I would support. While I can see there is a problem, my concern was that the sanction would be disproportionate to the disruption, in part, as a knee jerk reaction to other ideas you (seem to) hold that are minority. My observation over the years is that people with minority ideas tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to sanctions, even when those ideas haven't bled into their edits. Not just by admin, but the community as a whole. To me, "indef" anything here would be overkill, and I see my proposed idea as something that is a compromise that addresses the problem without stepping into indef territory. However, I do see your point that this isn't an area where you have had repeated problems, as it isn't something you normally edit. With that in mind, a shorter topic would be warranted, but I get the feeling the consensus says some kind of tban is warranted, even a short one, simply to prevent disruption. This is probably more of an issue right now, given the surge, than it will be several months from now. As stated, I think 12 months is the maximum, and less would be fine, given your willingness to avoid the area and long history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel the behavior shown in the evidence above is far below the increased standards that topics under discretionary sanction are under. I feel an indefinite topic ban from the topic of COVID, broadly construed, is required. I do not think retiring changes anything, it may or may not be permanent but either way the topic needs to be avoided by this user. If there is not support for an indefinite duration then I think at least 2 years is in order. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the suggestion of a temp ban from the Covid topic area, as some of their arguments here on the talk pages, they should be aware are nonstarters. Wearing ones belief in what they recognize is a fringe position as openly as they have doesn't help. That said, they are right on the sentiment that we (as editors) do a poor job of writing neutrally on topics taken as negative in RS. In that we tend to pile on as much negative criticism as RSes offer at the expense of covering noncontroversal aspects of the topic. Eg in Covid it absolutely is a must not to give weight to alternatives to vaccinations that don't have any widespread scientific approval. But we should still be trying to document how these all treatments came about and how they have influenced the politics of Covid. This can be done without giving credence or validity to these treatments, and can typically be using RSes. However as a group of editors, this type of approach tends to be eschewed because some feel that gives validity to the alt treatments and may seem counter to what RSes present. There is something about the focus on short term and current opinion instead of writing for the long term view here. I don't think everything they have said for is actionable and hence the need for a temp ban, but they are right in the concern about neutrality in these topic, just that there are different approaches within policy to correct them than what they have suggested. --Masem (t) 16:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Saad Arshad Butt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan (or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons if that's preferred)

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

1. 20:46, 26 December 2021 Adds unreferenced date of birth to living person Saad Hussain Rizvi (all future edits refer to this article, unless stated otherwise)
2. 21:23, 26 December 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit
3. 22:32, 26 December 2021 Adds date of birth with fake reference (the only date of birth referred to in the article is the 1966 date of birth of his father)
4. 14:16, 30 December 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit
5. 14:25, 30 December 2021 Amends reference from previous edit to one that still doesn't supported the claimed 1994 date of birth
6. 14:30, 30 December 2021 Adds unreferenced, and incorrect, claim that Dars-e-Nizami is equivalent to a Master's Degree (although that only says "Master" see Talk:Saad Hussain Rizvi#Education where the claim is expanded upon
7. 14:33, 30 December 2021 Adds claim unsupported by reference that he is an "Islamic Scholar"
8. 14:52, 30 December 2021 Adds "Allama" and "Hafiz" honorifics (in violation of MOS:ISLAMHON, unreferenced "Islamic Scholar" claim and date of birth (again!), and truly hopeless "This surely is a result of grooming offered by the movement TLP as he accompanied his father Khadim Hussain Rizvi at every stage from the beginning of his religio-political career"
9. 00:21, 31 December 2021 Re-adds "Allama" and "Hafiz" honorifics, claiming they are part of his name (false)
10. 01:15, 31 December 2021 Adds absolutely hopeless section, "Unfortunately organization and workers couldn't notice but Khadim Hussain Rizvi R.A in his life", and more blatatly " This allowance after 25 years by Khadim Hussain Rizvi was a great sign for intellectuals of TLP that Khadim Hussain Rizvi is preparing for his temporal final breath. I would take liberty mentioning that recently Liaqat Bagh to Faizabad Namoos-e-Risalatﷺ March, which later transformed to Dharna Faizabad against French Blasphemy, was officially under the superintendence of late Khadim Hussain Rizvi R.A but it was actually administrated and led by his son Allama Hafiz Saad Hussain Rizvi in the field, leading from the forefront against 22,000 tear gas shells and direct firing of thousands of bullets. As per my understanding, Allama Hafiz Saad Hussain Rizvi holds a loyal place among grass root level organization and supporters of TLP especially in youth of modern education sector because of his backstage strenuous and protracted innings from the beginning with Khadim Hussain Rizvi"
11. 01:24, 31 December 2021 More hopeless writing, most blatantly "After Hifz-e-Quran under his father Khadim Hussain Rizvi's superintendence he again entered school for further education but as per ALLAH's will, he was not meant for English schooling"
12. 02:15, 31 December 2021 Edit warring to re-add hopeless writing
13. 02:20, 31 December 2021 More of the same

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

IPA notification, BLP notification

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Diffs #10 and #11 are the most damning. Per this, the editor is associated with Saad Hussain Rizvi, and even offers to provide his ID documents to prove a date of birth. The editor identifies as Saad Arshad on their userpage, if required I can provide a social media link proving someone of that name is a member of the political party Saad Hussain Rizvi is in charge of. They are also editing while logged out, the minimal difference between the IP's version and Saad Arshad Butt's version isn't likely to be a coincidence.

@Ymblanter: I believe they are also editing as 182.191.178.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in the last couple of hours reinstating Saad Arshad Butt's disputed additions despite the lack of consensus at Talk:Saad Hussain Rizvi#Education, this IP is the same ISP and geolocation as this talk page edit by an IP signing as Saad Arshad Butt (and Saad Arshad Butt edited one minute later, so I don't think there is any dispute about the IP and Saad Arshad Butt being one and the same). FDW777 (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is to be a topic ban, please make it all BLPs based on the current disruption they are causing while editing logged out at Ilyas Qadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), who appears to be a rival. This is a long way beyond the pale. FDW777 (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: see Bhat for the many Asian people with that name. FDW777 (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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

There are 90+ "Arshad Butt" profiles in Linkedin .... TrangaBellam (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

moved by me to her own section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. The username is plausibly legitimate, per Google searches for the name and fragments of the name.
2. Looking at the contributions, this is a WP:SPA behaving badly after multiple warnings, WP:IDHT. They have no other global contributions.
3. The standard remedy for such an SPA is indefinite block. Please don't make bureaucracy or pass the buck; please indef block (if there’s current disruption) and leave a friendly block message with the standard offer to unblock if they demonstrate an understanding of what they did wrong and can explain how would like to participate constructively. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. They haven’t made a consequential edit for over two weeks. This may be stale. Jehochman ^Talk 21:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• On one hand, the edits do not look good, and the user only has 124 edits. On the other hand, it looke more like WP:CIR case than WP:NOTHERE case, and, judging from their talk page, they are willing to learn, even if the learning curve is not particularly steep. The bad edits are more for BLP case than for India-Pakistan case, and they have not edited in the articles after being notified specifically on BLP. I am curious what the user has to say, but preliminary I think some sanction like a topic-ban from BLP may be needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not so sure it's not a WP:NOTHERE case. On the face of it, the editor has only one interest (and possible COI), Saad Hussain Rizvi, and that's usually best addressed with an indef nothere. But a topic ban might achieve the same thing so, sure, let's go with that. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Both Arshad as well as Butt are common South Asian Muslim names so I don't think that's an issue at all. The editor is obviously an SPA and should be blocked as WP:NOTHERE. They haven't edited since January 4th so, perhaps, we can hold off on this. But, if they reappear, and continue on the same vein, I'll likely just block them as a normal admin action.--RegentsPark (comment) 00:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @FDW777: I've blocked the IP and semi-protected both articles. @Ymblanter: not much point with a topic ban imo, they're going to ignore it, we'll issue escalating blocks, and they'll end where an indef NOTHERE block will take them anyway. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I think blocks are fine. I would give one block for smth like a week, and then if they do not improve their behavior the second one indef. I see no reason to do it in too many steps.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would actually be interested to hear from Saad Arshad Butt regarding this request. Specifically, do you understand that many, if not most, of your edits have been inappropriate, and that continuing to do that is not acceptable? Perfection is not expected, but a willingness to listen and respond to feedback from more experienced editors very much is. If so, I might be amenable to a sanction like a topic ban. Otherwise, I think we would be wasting time and effort with that; an editor who won't respect any of our other policies probably won't respect a topic ban either, and will just end up indeffed anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• On the one hand, the name might be legit. But on the other, "Sad Arse Butt" looks a lot like a troll name. Not an expert on the linguistic origin of names though, so take me with a grain of salt. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm generally willing to AGF as that goes, as long as it's not too outrageous. There are plenty of "foreign" names that sound like some type of joke in English, but are entirely legitimate and real. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Cygnis insignis (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#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. 16:53, 18 January 2022 - a revert on page Mass killings under communist regimes, user say in edit summary that "restore backdated ...". Hence, that was a revert, and they knew it.
2. 20:10, 18 January 2022 - this is a violation of 1RR restriction on the page
3. 17:42, 19 January 2022 (please note edit summary) - WP:NPA violation in response to polite advice/warning
4. 20:59, 19 January 2022 - false personal accusations

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

31 October 2010 Toddst1 ask me, no sanctions or topic bans on this or any other pages. ~ cygnis insignis 22:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The user was given a notification [18]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am not sure if 1RR violation alone would justify this request, but the comments and behavior by this user are highly confrontational, including diffs 3 and 4 above and their removal of comments made by other contributors [19], removing their own signature [20], edit warring about tag date (diffs 1 and 2) etc.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here [21]

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 did restore that, noting the warning about 1rr within 24 hours above the edit window and reckoned that I hadn't. I then mentioned this in an active discussion on the tag, those opposing its presence also objected to an indication of how long synth concerns had existed (which spun off to two or three sections as things do on that talk). After a substantive period of time, with no further edits to that page by me, the user thought to undertake a sanction process. I am also currently involved in discussion with this account on the Abortion article's talk page, where their concerns are as creepy and bizarre as their username. And how are you? Have a lovely day, wont you? ~ cygnis insignis 22:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor in good standing can query the edits I made, including those assembled by trolling and baiting for this purpose. ~ cygnis insignis 22:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is extremely cut and dry, I don't see a long drawn out process being needed. 72 block for 1RR, another 24 hours for the personal attacks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

DaxServer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lokeshwaran V R (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

1. Move log Most of the moves were reverted back to their original location, per WP:COMMONNAME
2. 05:20, 3 January 2022 Move after my final warning on 29 December 2021
3. 13:00, 14 January 2022 Same as above

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

• IPA notification at 17:27, 29 October 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user has a long history of not abiding to the naming conventions. See move log. The talk page is full of warnings and discussions on this particular topic: WP:COMMONAME, Article title, Article moves, December 2021, Page moves. Almost all of the moves, if not every, doesn't have a move summary as to why the move is made by the user. This long-lasting moves against the naming policy suggests the user has no understanding the policy itself. I'd request an indefinite move ban within the topics of India, broadly construed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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

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

• Indef blocked as a regular admin action, as the problem is more than one topic. See their talk page. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions, WP:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#May 2014

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a very unorthodox request, to be sure, but the situation is such that the alternative is just spamming RFPP every few months and the standard AE template is of absolutely no use to me. I'm seeking to make the current 500/30 on Sushant Singh Rajput · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions] - presently set to expire in 2024 - indefinite and to likewise indefinitely semi-protect the talk page of the article.

Since Rajput died by hanging in June 2020 the article's been facing cyclical disruption from drive-by IP editors who are pushing conspiracy theories, fed mainly by right-wing Indian media, that he was murdered by his girlfriend or someone else who was/is part of either of their inner circles. (Reliable sources report that it was suicide, based on the initial autopsy and a review of that autopsy.) Every time the article proper is unprotected, IPs/unregistered users quickly come in and reintroduce content in support of this conspiracy theory. The issue is less pronounced on the talk page but still present, in that every few months we get a surge of drive-by IPs demanding we add the conspiracy theory material in meritless edit requests, ignoring an FAQ written and pinned at the top of the page. Because of the nature of the disruption, editor-level sanctions are not viable as an option to stem the tide, since the IPs make their edit and never show up again, making sanctioning them directly moot.

While content about Rajput specifically will lose BLP protections in June, there is no guarantee that the conspiracymongering - which, again, focuses on people who are still alive - will stop at that point, especially given Rajput's family members have stirred the pot a couple of times, triggering another surge every time.

Again, I apologise for the grossly nonstandard template, but it is not built to request page-level sanctions in a situation where the users themselves are drive-bys.

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

• I'm...sorta-involved here from an administrative perspective? I've handed out a few of the SSR-related page protections. I would be willing to carry out these requests as a normal administrative action. I think applying existing DS here are a bit of a stretch, and with the persistent disruption I think these actions are entirely warranted. Part of this, of course, stems from my general reluctance to use DS when normal admin actions are already justified. Will hold off for a while to hear what other folks have to say. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• DS is a stretch. In fact, BLP should be considered expired and the template on the talk page removed, if not now, by June when it will be 2 years since his death, the maximum we extend BLP protection. I can see semiprotecting the talk page as a standard admin action, although given the traffic, that is a little extreme but would likely stand up to scrutiny. 1 year max, 6 months would be much easier to justify the use of the admin tools. If EC is already good for 2 more years, we absolutely can't extend that, there is zero justification. The expiration is simply so far in the future, we can't predict what the traffic will be like in two years. You need to bring it up when it is about to expire. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page has been protected before, so I went and protected it for 6 months as a regular admin action. When it expires, if there are more problems, you don't need to ask at WP:AE to get it reviewed. You can ask me directly on my talk page, or WP:RFPP, or any uninvolved admin. At this time, that's all we can do, but it should be enough. And as for your format and confusion, it's fine, no worries. It isn't always obvious where to go or how to format. Leaving open in case another admin has a comment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hemantha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Devesh.bhatta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

• On Conversion of non-Hindu places of worship into temples

Source (my bolding) - "... Mughal ruler Babur who ordered its construction in 1500s. Hindu tradition maintains that the mosque was built on the site of a Hindu temple destroyed by the Mughals

Edit The prominent hindu temple was demolished by Mughal commander Mir Baqi under the orders of Babur – the first Mughal emperor, who then constructed the Babri mosque.. Searching the book fails to show any mention of Mir Baqi anywhere in it.

• This and this on Ajmer rape case : Version before these edits had a single weakly referenced mention of accused belonging to the clan of caretakers of the Moinuddin Chishti Dargah (shrine).

Source only says Officials privately admit ... as many of the accused belonged to the influential "khadim" (caretaker) families of the dargah (of Moinuddin Chishti), as do all others available.

Their two edits (my bolding) - Main accused Farooq Chishtee was descendant of Moinuddin Chishti

• On Tablighi Jamaat - bulldozing of source's very careful, nuanced wording to imply link between Jamaat and covid spread. One sentence added as is from the source.

Source An increasing number of people in Kyrgyzstan are calling on the government to review its policy on religious organizations and learn more about the activities of Tablighi Jamaat

Edit Kyrgyzstani People called on the government to ban Tablighi Jamaat.

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

• Alerted by another user on 2021-12-12

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The listed instances are just from this past month after DS notice was given. There is more instances of reckless sourcing from before for which I had, politely and later forcefully, asked them to be more careful. There was no response or an attempt at cleanup, but they have also not tried to restore my reverts yet. But their slow edit war at Krishna Janmasthan Temple Complex and a continued misrepresentation of sources show that their contributions in this topic area are to push a POV, not to improve articles.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion

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

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

• I dropped a link to WP:Communication is required on his talk page. This is one of those cases that really needs the named party to participate so we can understand why they are making the edits being made. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'm inclined to agree with Johnuniq's comment below, and would support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The report outlines significant problems. Dennis Brown's message (diff) at User talk:Devesh.bhatta was at 11:36, 23 January 2022. If there is no response from Devesh.bhatta within 72 hours (that is, by 11:36, 26 January 2022), there should be an India-Pakistan topic ban, broadly construed. Devesh.bhatta may not resume editing by that deadline but this report should not be put on hold for a protracted period. Johnuniq (talk) 09:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with User:Johnuniq's suggestion. Not responding shouldn't be a way to escape sanction. Doug Weller talk 10:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I think we are ready for a topic ban. The user has not edited since 22 January.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

1. 09:43, 28 January 2022 Adds cotent previously removed as a WP:BLP violation stating that offensive historical tweets of Dolans had been uncovered. The named tweets included making fun of disabled people. Following the revelations, Dolan subsequently deleted a large number of tweets from her profile. As detailed here the references provide detail a single (not multiple) historical tweet, ann nothing about large numbers of deleted tweets.
2. 09:51, 28 January 2022 At another article, restores similarly removed material stating her tweets contained multiple accounts of anti-Protestant sectarianism, body shaming, misogyny, and downplaying the Holocaust. As detailed here, there were several tweets but not covering all the issues claimed, and I invited the editor to compose something that accurately reflected what the references say. The further negative claim of Ennis was subsequently forced into locking her Twitter account and then proceeded to delete a large volume of historic tweets in order to avoid further scandal has no reference at all
3. 11:07, 28 January 2022 Makes clear they don't intend to stop with "I will continue to restore as this feels like protecting sinn fein"
4. 11:09, 28 January 2022 Restores content from diff#1
5. 11:11, 28 January 2022 Restores content from diff#2
6. 12:35, 28 January 2022 "do you work for Sinn Fein? If so I will be reporting this"
7. 12:39, 28 January 2022 "You've been found out, a shinnerbot"
8. 16:19, 28 January 2022 Restores content from diff#2
9. 16:25, 28 January 2022 Restores majority of content from diff#2

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Recent storm in a teacup involving three politicians tweets from 10 years ago, from before they were even politicians. I'm not opposed to any mention of this whatsoever as my comments at Talk:Sinéad Ennis show, but the constant attempts to go way above and beyond what the references say is unacceptable. I've made user talk page as well as the article talk pages to explain the problems to the editor, they just reply with wild accusations and cries of censorship. FDW777 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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

Storm in a tea cup. This guy is a Sinn Fein supporter and will not allow facts to be printed about them.

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

• Given that the user has a total of 17 edits at this point, they are probably just net negative.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I've fully protected all three articles for a week. How these issues should be framed in the articles should definitely be something that occurs in a discussion. Unimpressed by this and this as well. Oh, and it's "sectarian". Black Kite (talk) 19:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4 / Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community

If this doesn't belong at WP:AE but at WP:ANI, please simply inform me, it isn't very clear. Davidbena has a topic ban from ARBPIA basically (exact restriction can be found at the linked editing restrictions page). I noticed, while new page patralling, the creation of Outline of Jerusalem, which I moved to Draft:Outline of Jerusalem as it seemed extremely one-sided in its POV, claiming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel without any indication of the very disputed state of this, and with an outline that didn't even mention Palestine or the Palestinians, nor the division in East and West Jerusalem. After explaining at the talk page why I moved this POV page to draft, I checked the history of the editor, only to notice that they have recently come of a two month block for violations of their ARBPIA ban. As the above POV problems are quite clearly ARBPIA / post-1948 politics related, I believe this to be a flagrant breach of their topic ban. Fram (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[22]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [23]

In reply to Davidbena's statement, an article which includes the controversial claims of one side (Jerusalem as the capital of Israel) but excludes the controversial claims and even every mention of the other side (Palestinians) is not a neutral post and is not avoiding the inflammatory stuff, but putting it right there, from the start and until the end of the outline. Fram (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really plan to reply again, but this statement by DavidBena is so far of the truth... When you are banned from an XY dispute, and you then write an article claimed by both X and Y, but only write it from the X point of view and totally ignore Y, then you are not "avoiding the XY dispute", you are taking a clear position in it by choosing only the X position and ignoring Y completely. So yes, you have clearly broken your topic ban. Fram (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Actually, my limited topic ban (see here) permits me to edit articles carrying the Israel/Palestine conflict area tag, which I have been doing ever since, writing specifically on historical, geographical, cultural, archaeological issues related to, both, Palestinians (Arabs) and Israelis (Jews), but WITHOUT engaging specifically in those areas of conflict that are well-known and inflammatory, such as war, extra-judiciary killings, terrorism, etc. See Draft:Outline of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a city that has been settled by both peoples, Jews and Arabs alike, and although the city is contended by one indigenous people, my current topic ban prohibits me from saying so. As you can see, I have avoided writing anything about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and have only mentioned the two peoples that live in the city, each with its own language and dress customs; nothing, however, about war and conflict. I am also permitted to write on Palestinian issues after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, such as on geography, such as I did on Jerusalem, when such edits do not divulge in the specific areas of conflict, such as Palestinian claims over East Jerusalem. Even Fram, the submitter of this enforcement request, admits here that I have not broken my limited topic ban.Davidbena (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam:,@Ealdgyth:,@Dennis Brown:,@Girth Summit:,@Seraphimblade:,@Hut 8.5: This article came to describe Jerusalem; not the government. It just so happens that Israel’s Parliament is situated in West Jerusalem, and there are, I suppose, members of that Parliament who would like to see two independent states in our country – divided along ethnic lines, but I am not concerned with these matters in this article. Keeping everything as simple as it can possibly be, based on what people have always known to be Jerusalem for thousands of years, before the current conflict. Needless to say, with respect to both ethnic groups living in this city and who both have historical ties to the city dating back centuries, it is unanimously opined that both ethnic groups – Jews and Arabs – should remain in this city and pursue their own individual lifestyles without disturbance. There are no grounds for the claim that it is the government (Israeli, or otherwise) that has determined its ancient borders, or has given to it its name, since the people living in the city for centuries have already determined the name of the city, neither are the trees and the stones found there able to be delineated as not belonging to Jerusalem. My limited topic ban allowed me to address historical and geographical issues, even in relation to cities in Israel/Palestine, and even the 1948 Arab/Israeli war. The permit to edit pages with the I/P tag proves that. I call God to my witness that I respect all peoples in this land, and I have no qualms against any man, be they Jew or Arab Muslim. If I should be thought worthy of an extended topic ban, I will eventually ask to repeal it. True, not having this "limited topic ban" could have avoided all this confusion. Moreover, unlike some editors here on Wikipedia, I strongly disdain having to write about war and conflicts, except where it might be to show how one place-name in the country was changed because of that conflict, and this, too, is purely related to history, with no ill-intent in my mind.Davidbena (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy:, thanks for your kind words. I wish to only say that the page in which I was editing (Draft:Outline of Jerusalem) asked for the current government over the city and I could not possibly think of leaving it blank, although perhaps you can come along and re-submit the draft copy, but add this time that its status is disputed. I could not do that because of my limited topic ban. I was not advocating any international acceptance of the current government, because, honestly, if you ask my personal opinion, I would prefer a monarchy over Israel's current political system. That's my own view. Secondly, I am against dividing up the country with barrier fences, etc., because this gives the impression that Jews and Arabs cannot get along, when I think we can. I work with Arabs from Surif and other nearby villages, and I can tell you that I highly respect and love some of these families, and I would love to visit them in their respective villages, if it were not for the tensions created by some of those of a more radical mindset and who upset dual co-existence in our mutually shared country.Davidbena (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Previous report Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077#Tban enforcement and clarification, discussion not closed, ARBPIA sanctions were separately applied for canvassing. Tban says "...indefinitely banned from (a) any edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed,..." The Tban permits editing unrelated to the modern conflict, a potential lack of clarity resulting imo in the editor pushing the boundary. Although a community sanction it does seem an ARBPIA matter and I think the page being created is not a permissible exception. Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me that you are trying to artfully frame your statement as if I had been negligible, when, in fact, I had not been. On the contrary, I have, carefully, avoided engaging in "geopolitics," and only mentioned that the city is inhabited by, both, Jews and Arabs, without mentioning the "geopolitical claims that one side has over East Jerusalem." Everything here in my edit in the article "Outline of Jerusalem," as anyone can see, was kept neutral, and I did not infringe on my limited topic ban. In fact, my limited topic ban specifically allows me to write about geographical matters. Jerusalem is a geographical area. Let someone else come along and add in the article the relative ideological/political nuances.Davidbena (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Floq, I agree it is the latter. David, I know speaking directly to you isnt quite the normal process on this board, but as somebody who has over and over again argued for you to maintain an ability to edit you really have to understand the limits of your ban by now. Stay away from the modern politics of the State of Israel, full stop. Jerusalem's status as capital has been one of the most contentious topics in the history of Wikipedia as far as I know of. We still have a page level sanction forbidding anybody from modifying the language of its status as capital in our Jerusalem article absent a new RFC. You have to know that saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a contentious statement specifically because of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Just stay away from anything about the modern state of Israel that is even a little bit contentious. I still think highly of you, and still believe you are editing with a good faith belief that you are not violating your ban. But you are. And sooner or later you are going to exhaust the patience of the people who have repeatedly made special carve outs for you (sometimes at my own urging). And when enough people decide that it simply is not worth your positives to try to ensure you edit within the scope of the tailor made ban you are just going to end up banned from WP as a whole. And since I still think highly of you, I would really like that not to happen. nableezy - 16:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article came to describe Jerusalem; not the government. It just so happens that Israel’s Parliament is situated in West Jerusalem, and there are, I suppose, members of that Parliament who would like to see two independent states in our country – divided along ethnic lines, but I am not concerned with these matters in this article. Keeping everything as simple as it can possibly be, based on what people have always known to be Jerusalem for thousands of years, before the current conflict. Needless to say, with respect to both ethnic groups living in this city and who both have historical ties to the city dating back centuries, it is unanimously opined that both ethnic groups – Jews and Arabs – should remain in this city and pursue their own individual lifestyles without disturbance. There are no grounds for the claim that it is the government that determined its ancient borders, or has given to it its name, since the people living in the city for centuries have already determined the name of the city; neither are the trees and the stones found there able to be delineated as not belonging to Jerusalem.Davidbena (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The outline was set up based on the assumption that the entirety of Jerusalem is in Israel. This is clearly a violation of the PIA topic ban. Thinking that this is OK is evidence of either underhandedness, or the inability to understand the clear philosophy behind the allowed exceptions. I'm inclined to assume it's the later, but the effect is kind of the same in either case. I'd suggest, based on the very recent 2 month block, that this not be treated as an opportunity to just remind Davidbena not to do this. Instead, I'd recommend either an even longer block - to confirm to him that this is serious and will simply not be tolerated - or an expansion of the topic ban to remove the current exception, to make it easier for him to understand the scope. I don't have much of an opinion on which one, I'll defer to other admins. I'm somewhat curious what Davidbena would prefer, but won't let/make him choose, just as a point of information. I have no opinion on whether this is an AE issue, or an ANI issue. If Davidbena plans to object based on whether this is an AE issue or not, he needs to do so now, not wait to see whether there is a sanction and what it is. FWIW, my guess is that he might fair worse if this is moved to ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Floq - clearly this is a topic ban breech. I slightly lean towards just removing the exception at this point - making the topic ban one against Israel and Palestine, full stop. I can't see how anyone can claim with a straight face that they don't think creating an outline article on Jerusalem would not run into issues with their topic ban. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • from the draft "capital and the most populated city in the State of Israel." ... taking a side in the dispute over the status as the capital is violating your topic ban. The solution to the problem would have been to not create/edit the article/draft, because there was no way you could deal with the disputed status as the capital without breeching your topic ban. If you can't see that, we need to make the topic ban simpler and easier for you to see the boundaries. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree this is a violation - the draft stated that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and that the whole of Jerusalem is in Israel, which is one of the main points of contention in the Arab-Israeli conflict. We have a lengthy article entirely about the issue. Someone familiar with the subject should definitely know this. The topic ban forbids "any edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed", and explicitly says this includes borders and territories under dispute. The sanction is community-imposed, so we can't modify it here and I'm not sure this request should technically be here. However given that this came off a two month block for other breaches of the sanction I think it would be reasonable to reimpose the original ban, which is in scope for AE. Hut 8.5 19:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Stretching Fram's words is kind of the final straw. Realistically, the only solution is extending the ban to it's broadest interpretation, all things PIA. Then there is no way he can claim to misunderstand the interpretation of the tban. As for any other sanction, I guess we could but I'm only concerned with broadening the tban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this was a clear violation of the ban. I support the idea of extending the ban to cover the entire PIA topic area - that will help avoid any further confusion about what is, and is not, within its scope. The only alternative would seem to be a longer block, but I'd prefer to try the ban extension first. Girth Summit _(blether) 14:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no issue handling this at AE. A violation of a community sanction is a type of misconduct, and any type of misconduct in a DS-covered area can be addressed here. I agree that this was a clear violation of the sanction, and the general consensus seems to be to impose a broader AE topic ban across the entire Israel-Palestine topic area. Unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects, I will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – FDW777 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic banned from all pages related to Steven Crowder for 3 months

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

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

It is alleged I engaged in "repeated edit warring . . . to restore contentious material without consensus". On the contrary, the material has consensus. It was originally added to the article at 14:29, 13 October 2020, and appears to have been stable in the article until Crowder's latest video. As I have conistently pointed out over the last 24 hours, if something has been in the article for so long it represents the consensus version of the article. At Talk:Steven Crowder#Regarding Bloomberg's citation of a graduate student as an expert multiple editors reject the idea that you can dispute long-standing content that is properly referenced, remove it, and then insist other editors obtain consensus for its restoration. That's simply not how WP:CONSENSUS is written, as @MrOllie: states here WP:ONUS doesn't mean that one (or a handful) of objections mean we have to keep well established content out, that would completely paralyze any article on anything remotely controversial. FDW777 (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FDW showed no signs that they were going to stop this behaviour after being informed. My last edit to the article was at 08:40. That was reverted at 10:16, which I received a notification for. This was re-added by someone else at 12:05. I edited between 10:16 and 12:05, without restoring the content. Surely that's a sign in itself? As already stated WP:ONUS was met by virtue of the content being in the article since October 2020, it's absurd to suggest that any time anyone disputes long-standing content they can remove it immediately (with the exception of clear and obvious WP:BLP violations, which this was not) and demand other editors obtain consensus to add it back. FDW777 (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely did not attempted to edit war disputed BLP material back into the article. The relevant part of the policy reads When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections (my emphasis). Nobody at any time, cited a BLP violation as a removal. There is the initial removal, the summary says first opinion has no direct relevance to the YouTube channel and the second one is textbook UNDUE.. The BLP policy does not say all removals about living persons that have been deleted requires consensus for restoration, only material that has been deleted as a violation of BLP. If people wish the BLP policy to be extended in this way then please change the policy first, rather than using DS a backdoor for an interpretation of policy that is above and beyond what is currently written. FDW777 (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Talk:Steven Crowder#Regarding Bloomberg's citation of a graduate student as an expert. is a discussion started by one of Crowder's sockpuppets in December. The section title is clear and unambiguous, anyone with the page watchlisted could not have failed to see what it refers to. Prior to Crowder's "call to arms" video, there were replies by NorthBySouthBaranof, Drmies and MrOllie dismissing the objection and none agreeing with it. But apparently despite that, and despite the content having been in the article since October 2020, some new "consensus" is required because of people acting after Crowder's "call to arms". This is not some low-profile BLP with nobody watching that has seen objectionable content slipped in under the radar. FDW777 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: articulates my feelings perfectly. Has this been new content, or content removed with an edit summary making it clear it was removed as a (potential) WP:BLP violation, I would absolutely not have restored it.

Anyway, I'd prefer to move on to other things and leave Steven Crowder behind as there's plenty of other editors involved at present. To that end, I will offer not to edit Steven Crowder's article or talk page ever again (and any closely related articles, say for example should a standalone article be created on "Louder With Crowder"). In return I would like the official topic ban rescinded, as I consider it an unfair black mark against my name. FDW777 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the sanction as written. FDW777 is aware of discretionary sanctions in this area as they filed an AE request for a BLP sanction today, thereby fulfilling criterion 4 of awareness. What FDW included here is only a partial representation of the sanction as stated. They left out that this conduct is directly violating principle 1 of the arbitration committee's final decision in BLP: "do no harm". WP:BLP states that WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are the three core content policies that must be strictly (emphasis not mine) adhered to. The verifiability policy additionally states that there must be consensus for the inclusion of disputed content, not the other way around. FDW has been made readily aware of that in the talk page discussions (awareness, response) and edit summaries (revert, response). Then he continuously contravened the aforementioned policies while discussion was initially taking place on the talk page and was subsequently escalated to BLPN. FDW showed no signs that they were going to stop this behaviour after being informed and their statement here has further indicated that they are unlikely to change their combative behaviour in this area, which solidifies how I originally came to this decision. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to MrOllie's comment: my lone edit to the article was as an administrative action based on WP:VNOT, the arbitration committee's longstanding resolution in this area, and the discretionary sanctions active in this area (WP:BLPDS). These discretionary sanctions include the ability for page related sanctions at the discretion of an administrator; ensuring content in violation of our core policies is not kept on a BLP, especially while a discussion is ongoing regarding the matter, I view as entirely within the realm of administrative discretion in enforcing the "do no harm" clause of WP:ARBBLP on this article (of which BLPDS are a remedy to). WP:INVOLVED states specifically that administrators who act purely in an administrative role are not prohibited from continuing to act in an administrative role in relation to a topic area or editor/set of editors. This is unquestionably how the Wikipedia community views what it means to be involved vs uninvolved and in no way have I violated that here. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What FDW777 has shown here is a consistent inability to comprehend how the consensus process works in relation to disputed content and, specifically, how it works in relation to disputed content on BLPs. The continued comments here stating things like "WP:ONUS was met by virtue of the content being in the article since October 2020", which is a complete reversal of what is written in ONUS, are further evidence as to why FDW777 should not edit in relation to this article at this time. As this shows, FDW777 is either refusing to accept what the policy says or is unable to, either of which would indicate than an even broader topic ban from the entirety of the BLP space may be in the best interests of the project. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to Zaathras' comment: the arbitration committee's stance is not that there must be an egregious violation for disputed content to be kept off of an article while a discussion takes place; the arbitration committee's position, as I've quoted and is readily available to read, is that any material that is even questioned on a BLP should be removed until a discussion is had and a consensus is found to include the questionable content. It even specifies that this is to be done rather than including it until a decision to remove it is reached, so there can be no room for err in understanding the arbitration committee's position here (which is specifically what is being enforced in this arbitration enforcement action). The committee's position then is, by far, a much lower bar than even the "disputed content" laid out in VNOT and an infinitely lower bar than the concept of the content needing to be egregious. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously, with the wide range of administrative interpretation here, there needs to be more clarification on this matter. To that end, I will be taking this matter to ARCA. I thank FDW777 for their agreement "not to edit Steven Crowder's article or talk page ever again (and any closely related articles…)." I appreciate the commentary provided by the administrators participating in the discussion, regardless of subjective disagreements. I will log the sanction being removed, as per standard procedure. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an edit war that TheSandDoctor took part in: [24] - they are clearly not an uninvolved administrator. - MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Hmm, per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." No one was seeking to include disputed content here, it appears that a single editor removed it on 1/28, this was objected to the next day, then the edit warring by Coffee began, helped by SandDoctor.

Yes, "it has been in the article for awhile" is not a shield against removal forevermore, but longevity should be given some due when someone comes in to remove content. And outside of egregious BLP violations, allowing the material to stand as it has while under discussion also would not do the subject harm.

Two administrators completely misread the circumstances of the content being reverted. One did a WP:CRYBLP to keep a preferred version, the other issued an arbitrary topic-ban when they were (despite protests above) involved in the reverting. Not in an admin capacity, but as a user. This is bordering on tool abuse.

I also count 6 editors who were in favor of retaining the text, FWIW. Against 2 admins and the Lettuce guy. Zaathras (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. Doc, you're basically doing argument from authority. "Arb says X", "I say I'm doing X", "I'm right." No. Merely saying "it's a BLP concern" doesn't automagically make it so, hence the sage advice in WP:CRYBLP. In the case of the subject, Steven Crowder, it appears that his article already describes him as utilizing homophobic and racist speech. The material you reverted was a reliably sourced observer's opinion that Crowder's channel content was overtly racist, and contained examples of such against Asians. The BLP of a man who is already described as using racist slurs is not materially harmed by including examples of such, and an opinion of such. Your argument falls flat. Zaathras (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TheSandDoctor's statement that the arbitration committee's stance is not that there must be an egregious violation for disputed content to be kept off of an article while a discussion takes place; the arbitration committee's position, as I've quoted and is readily available to read, is that any material that is even questioned on a BLP should be removed until a discussion is had and a consensus is found to include the questionable content is patently absurd and writes a license to gut and destroy any BLP on the slightest handwave. BLP is clear license to remove unsourced or poorly-sourced material without discussion. The "poorly-sourced" part is certainly a matter of interpretation, but there is no reasonable interpretation of policy in which Bloomberg News constitutes a "poor source".

TheSandDoctor's interpretation of policy would require a formal consensus to be found on literally every single word of every single article relating to a living person prior to inclusion, and allow users to unilaterally remove every single word of any such article which has not received such a consensus, merely by declaring that they have questioned the material. This would be a wild overreach of policy and practice, and quite obviously needless bureaucracy. BLP is a vital policy and I have repeatedly stood in its defense, but this stretches it to the point of absurdity. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingoflettuce: The slippery slope is, well, right here in front of us. This issue involves a demand that an editor be empowered to unilaterally remove longstanding, indisputably-reliably-sourced content about a living person who is an indisputable and voluntary public figure. There is no claim that the content is libelous, invasive of privacy, unreliably sourced, or presents the subject in a false light, or that there is a BLP1E issue. Rather, the objection is that the content is negative and possibly UNDUE. Neither of those are grounds for unilateral removal under any reasonable reading of policy, guidelines, or practice. To accept it here is to accept it anywhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I think you have summed up the situation perfectly, Ed. What I do not understand is why certain editors keep insinuating that the editors on the "other side" e.g. myself, Coffee, Doc, are "trolls" or "vandals" "crying BLP" (as if that was a sacred policy as opposed to... Actual policies) and are so insistent on having those few sentences up while the discussion is still ongoing. I always had the impression that we erred on the side of great caution when it came to BLPs, especially those of contentious figures like Crowder... Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like, it's far from "well established" (thanks to the diff FW provided, I now am blessed with the knowledge that it was randomly included in a half-baked "Content Analysis" section by a self-avowed furry), nor will its removal "paralyse" the article. So I really don't see what's the big deal with just waiting for actual (not "default") consensus to emerge. Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And what's with the slippery slopes that Nomoskedasticity and NorthBySouthBaranof keep invoking? Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from admin section to this section because of involvement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood our BLP guidelines and now regret starting or getting involved in an edit war. Admittedly, I had never cared much for Steven Crowder, nor had I ever read his article, till the video began making the rounds. Even though I thought 99% of the video stunk, I thought that the way that the quotes were being presented on the Crowder article was obviously undue and by extension a violation of BLP guidelines. The fact that Coffee and others reinstated the removal when it was reverted gave me further confidence that it ought to stay removed, at least till clear consensus was reached. Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on talk whether anyone was willing to assert that this fell under BLP, and the most anyone was willing to assert was that it could be considered covered by WP:BLPKIND, which is emphatically not WP:BLPREMOVE (and nowhere near sufficient to satisfy the requirements of BLPREMOVE.) To be clear, it's not just that this is not the sort of BLP violation that would require immediate removal - at least in that discussion, none of the people trying to remove it were willing to assert that it rose to the level of BLP violation that requires immediate removal (looking over BLPREMOVE, it clearly does not.) It is an attributed statement from a high-quality source commenting on a public figure, not something that can reasonably be described as presenting an immediate threat to the subject's reputation. Obviously there is still room to discuss WP:DUE weight, focus, rewording, and so forth, but BLP is not a limitless blank check to instantly remove all longstanding text from any article which the article subject might object to; as it says, If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. BLPREMOVE is meant to be used to protect people's reputations in situation where they risk harm from unsourced or poorly-sourced negative material, not to remove well-sourced things just because the subject objects to including them; WP:BLPKIND says that we should be understanding towards the subject, not that we default to taking longstanding text off an article without discussion at their request.

I also want to particularly note that I feel that a huge part of the reason this went so poorly was because of Coffee's "procedural revert" where they implied they were indifferent to the text and were removing it solely on policy grounds (an indifference that they ultimately discarded when challenged.) Those sorts of reverts are terrible ideas outside of the most clear-cut of cases, which this very clearly was not, since they amount to a WP:STONEWALL situation - it means you're refusing to present or even endorse an argument related to the article content that can be engaged with or answered, instead claiming that policy "obviously" requires a specific outcome as though that is indisputable. Even when it comes to BLP, you need to be willing to assert a position on the content and sources so other people can reasonably answer and discussion can proceed; if WP:BLPREMOVE's applicability is obvious, then it should be equally obvious that the sourcing is insufficient, and it is particularly important to emphasize why you think that when invoking such a strong policy, so that discussion and consensus-building can follow up on that disputed point. --Aquillion (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would request that everyone concerned take account of the potential for disruption of the encyclopedia if we allow any "challenge" to underpin exclusion of material. This idea is increasingly attempted (and, it seems, increasingly successful), and it's not hard at all to appreciate the way it can be weaponized, by any motivated faction regardless of their ideology. If we allow a "challenge" to material supported by a Bloomberg article, we can allow a challenge to any material at all, no matter what the source. There is no lack of creativity in the invention of reasons, amounting to endless special pleading. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The history of Steven Crowder looks like a bad case of edit-warring for all involved, including (but most certainly not limited to) FDW and SandDoctor. I do not see how the topic ban is correct on either procedural grounds (TheSandDoctor at the absolute very least clearly looks involved - whether one revert is truly involved or not might be open to interpretation, but if they were unsure, they should have refrained or maybe asked for the opinion of someone else, completely uninvolved) or on merits (topic bans are supposed to be a last resort, like a block but with only some pages in mind, and usually spurred on by long-term disruption and editing against community norms.

On this second point, I simply do not see evidence of this kind of long-term disruption (the kind that would be sufficient to warrant an unilaterally imposed topic ban) in either FDW's comments at Talk:Steven Crowder (none of which I find objectionable, a prima vista) or in their actions on the article (2 reverts in total - which makes the question of whether SandDoctor was involved or not far more interesting...). Ok, sure, long-term editors should abstain from edit-warring as much as possible, but if FDW was really the main contributor to the problem [he isn't, and I note that clearly, this was something done by many other editors], then a partial block for edit warring - or, more likely, page protection, as that is what was required - would have been plenty enough. Nor does the (clean) block log contain any hint that this is a problem which previously lead to hypothetical disruption and sanctions which FDW would have had hypothetically ignored. The discussion at BLPN is certainly heated and contentious, but there again FDW's comment fall far short of what is usually considered disruptive (and given that policy issues remain unsettled, this is clearly a matter where reasonable editors could have different interpretations).

In short, the topic ban seems wrong both from the clear appearance of a conflict of interest and on the merits. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• TheSandDoctor looks involved. Had you made that one revert, then later took action on someone that wasn't involved in the series of reverts, I could understand, but you sanctioned someone who reverted you, an edit that was somewhat established, and not a clear and obvious BLP policy violation in itself, even if it is a bad edit. It boils down to: Is a sanction against FDW777 reasonable? Not sure. Should TheSandDoctor issued any sanction to this editor in this case? Absolutely not. I don't see malice, but it is an error in judgement, and they should have sought advice from the boards, from an admin that wasn't involved in a series of reverts. The standard isn't just that you don't feel you are involved, the standard is no appearance of involvement, which this fails. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would vacate the sanction, but would allow any uninvolved admin to reinstate it or a different sanction if they felt it was appropriate. I have no comments on the merits themselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The material in dispute is a question of WP:DUE and not unsourced defamation. (Editors agree that an unflattering outside opinion about Steve Crowder has been correctly quoted, but disagree on whether it should be included). If someone reverts a BLP to remove well-sourced material which they consider to violate WP:Due weight such a revert is not covered by any of the exceptions to 3RR. Such reverts ought to be seen as a matter of edit warring if they continue. My advice to User:TheSandDoctor would be to lift his topic ban from User:FDW777 and then open a thread at WP:ANI or WP:AN3 to see if another administrator wants to take action on the edit war. Several editors on each side have great confidence that they are right, so the closing admin might decide that five days of full protection is best. This might allow time for a consensus to be formed on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• When people try to remember what the WP:BLP policy says, they sometimes have the impression that 'all challenged material must be discussed before being restored.' However it doesn't actually say that.

Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1]

Note the qualifier

that is unsourced or poorly sourced...

In the case under review here, the material is indeed sourced, so the BLP policy doesn't prohibit restoring the text in dispute. TheSandDoctor's removal of the text (by itself) qualifies as just a regular edit, not an admin action. I agree that some leeway should be given to an admin who is trying to sort out a messy situation, but now that the dust has settled, it is reasonable for TheSandDoctor to lift their topic ban on FDW77. EdJohnston (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree quite strongly with Dennis Brown that TheSandDoctor looks involved, let alone is. The enforcement of BLP by the removal of disputed material while it is being discussed is clearly an administrative action, and one we should encourage to happen. Enforcing it by sanctions as well is a continuation of said administrative action, not an inappropriate action by an involved admin. As to the content itself, the BLP policy is very clear: Disputed material stays out while it is under discussion, and only goes back if and when a consensus is established that it is appropriately worded and well-referenced. In contrast to NorthBySouthBaranof's assertion, this is not required for "every word", only for disputed material. But once the dispute is made, the discussion is required, without exception. FDW777 attempted to edit war disputed BLP material back into the article instead of engaging in said discussion, and that is not acceptable. So, I see the sanction as being appropriately issued for what was indeed misconduct in a BLP, and would decline the appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Respectfully, had this been new material or an obvious BLP violation, I would agree, but it wasn't nor was it urgent that it be removed. Thus, reverting was an editorial decision, not administrative. This appears to be the crux of our disagreement. Imo, the content was not such that they were forced to act in both capacities, on the spot. They basically jumped into an existing edit war, escalating it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I would agree with Ed and Dennis here. That material had been in the article for well over a year and was immaculately sourced. There is certainly an argument for considering it WP:UNDUE, but that does not validate an edit war, and of course it does make TheSandDoctor technically involved. When you've got at least four respected editors saying "no, we think this is actually OK" you should probably step back and think about it, which some, notably Coffee and Kingoflettuce, clearly did not. I would vacate this sanction. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been a couple of days since TheSandDoctor has edited. There seems to be a consensus among editors and admin that they should not have issued any sanction due to being involved. Seraphimblade appears to be the only voice saying otherwise, and while I respect their opinion, they are in the minority here and at least a few others disagree with their perspective on whether BLP forces us to remove well sourced, long standing but negative text. Unless something changes, it is my intention to take action tomorrow by vacating the sanction as null and void (for the purpose of escalating sanctions, it never happened) and note this where appropriate. Technically, any uninvolved may still issue a sanction if they felt there was a violation, although it isn't likely as a number of people were participating in that edit war, including a few admin, and at this point, and the article is protected, thus it would appear punitive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Just another Wikipedian editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:ARBIPA

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

1. Talk:Sharada_Peeth#To_TrangaBellam 01 February 2022 - Cluelessness Exhibit 1(a).
2. 01 February 2022 Tampering with comments + Cluelessness Exhibit 1(b).
3. 02 February 2022 Stalking me to discussions.
4. 22 January 2022 POV pushing with misleading edit-summary.
5. 28 January 2022 More POV pushing. Misuse of minor edits check-box.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

P-Blocked a month ago for two weeks - I have not bothered to link relevant evidence.

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

WP:CIR issues; prob. too young. Either an indef or a TBan is necessary.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

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

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

• CU confirmed as N1234567 who was CIR blocked a few months ago. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]