Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive310

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

Guerillero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Johnpacklambert (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/Conduct in deletion-related editing#Johnpacklambert topic banned

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

1. 19 August 2022 Johnpacklambert requests that Nythar "have a look at" an article that may be PRODable. Since the message from Nythar mentions PROD in the proceding message this is an unambiguous request to proxy for Johnpacklambert. This is in a gray area and was reported on my talk page while I was away, so I wanted to bring this behavior here for further discussion with other admins.

@Dennis Brown and Firefly: Any thoughts on the block time? I was thinking a month, the max time for a first violation. We are just coming off of the case where Johnpacklambert was informed that they should stay away from deletions. I would personally like to send a clear message that arbcom topic bans are not to be trifled with. There is also an extensive history of community topic ban violations that make me skeptical that a softer approach will be taken seriously --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:36, 22 August 2022 (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 am very sorry about this. I did not think this would be a violation. I thought I was OK in pointing out to people other articles they might want to look at. I was not trying to suggest anything but reviewing the article. I was not trying to propose any action. I am very sorry about this. I will avoid pointing people to look at any specific article in the future. I see now that this was not the best action on my part. I am very sorry about it. I see now this set of actions was unwise on my part. I was not trying to do anything but point out to the person other articles they might want to look over. I should have thought about this more and avoided it. I am very, very sorry. I was not trying to be disruptive, and did not realize this would be so problematic. I will not do it again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really was trying to develop a congenial atmosphere with another editor. I realize now I should have found a different approach. I am very, very, very, very sorry about this. I understand now that this was out of line and unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am really sincerly sorry about this. I see now that I should not have mentioned any specific pages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a question about the scope of the topic ban. It realted to categories. Someone told me that I should avoid CfD. I am wondering though, since most of CfD (categories for discussion) is not about deletion but renaming, is the ban for any CfD, or only that related to deletion. What is even the best place to ask this?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have not participated in CfD. Another editor suggested to me that maybe CfD would in some cases be acceptable, and I am asking about it. This desire to punish people for even trying to get understanding and guidance is very, very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am asking the question again, because others urged me to ask it. I only had one person respond before, so I was trying to ensure this was actually a broad opinion. I do not like being attacked for trying to get clarity. That is a very frustrating process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the fact that totally not understanding the scope of a previous ban and getting a block is used to try and justify extreme harshness for this mistake is not justified. Last December I really did think that mentioning people on my talk page in ways that did not directly discuss my topic ban but who were under my topic ban was OK, as long as I did it without mentioning them in relation to anything related to the topic ban. That was a total misunderstanding on my part. I have avoided any mention since then, even when the issues had absolute nothing to do with the topic ban. This was a very different issue, because this topic ban is mainly focused on behavior. So it bans a clear set of actions. I was not thinking how my action was a related sub-set action. I am very sorry for that. Very, very sorry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I was not trying to violate the ban. I was trying to be collegial and add to positive interaction of Wikipedia, while also trying to avoid anything that would run afoul of the topic ban. I clearly misjudged the matter, but I was trying not to, and trying to not say anything that would actually directly relate to deletion. I was really trying to have positive communications with another editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• In the imposing of the ban I was told that if a discussion could directly result in a deletion I should stay away from it, but if it was a more general discussion I could participate in it. I thought that if I did not mention deletion at all, nor directly than the person for his deletion actions, I would be safe. Clearly I misunderstood some things, and for that I am very sorry. The fact that an editor has used this as a chance to engage in character assassination against me and attacking my integrity is very, very disturbing. I am an honest and sincere person. I have scrupulously tried to abide by the restrictions that have been placed on me. The viciousness against me is truly uncalled for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clear violation, should result in a block. nableezy - 00:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get Dennis on length, but I think that time has passed us by. There comes a point when these tailor made bans that somebody keeps coming right up to the edge to, and then seeks clarification on what that edge is so they can inch ever so slightly closer, transforms in to something wider, and that point came with the full topic ban from ArbCom. That there was significant support for a site ban should have been enough to let any editor know that they should not keep trying to find where exactly the line is that they may not cross, that they should stay the hell away from the line entirely. The ARCA, while it shouldnt be blockable in itself, is just more of the same. Stay away from anything remotely related to deletion. Dont even edit Lana Del Rey because the del key is short for "deletion". And if at this point you dont get that, then you need to be shown with escalating blocks, up and until indefinitely. nableezy - 14:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to be blocked? it should be for no more then one week. Because of the t-ban, you're going to be under extra scrutiny. Best bet? walk away entirely from anything to do with 'deletions'. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A month block, for a mistake? That's too harsh, IMHO. These types of blocks are suppose to be "preventative" in nature, not "punitive". GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Johnpacklambert when he says that he is sorry and that he honestly did not know that what he was doing was a violation of the ArbCom order. That isn't an excuse, but a problem. We apparently have an editor who doesn't understand the restrictions, maybe because he isn't capable of understanding or isn't trying to understand. I don't know what should be done, but I don't think that the usual pattern of escalating sanctions will be effective. I believe his statement, and that is a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I do think this probably qualifies as a violation of the "spirit" of JPL's TBAN, if not the actual letter. I've been following this user's saga from the periphery, just as a lurker on the litany of ANI threads. I haven't really interacted with them otherwise.

One of the things I think we should all consider on AE threads is "Is there a better course of action the user could have followed, in good faith, to exercise the impulse they felt? If so, what would it have been?" In this case, JPL could have gotten clarification from an admin if the talk page comment would have run afoul of their TBAN. They could have posted about the page's actual issues (e.g. notability, etc) on a noticeboard or Wikiproject page, without juxtaposing it directly next to someone else talking about a PROD. etc. etc.

As to the length or severity of this violation of a TBAN, though, I think some of the suggested durations are a bit harsh, aren't they? One month, for posting "Another article you may want to have a look at it Giacomo Serra (sport shooter)."? I, like Robert McClenon, believe Johnpacklambert when he says that he is sorry and that he honestly did not know that what he was doing was a violation of the ArbCom order. But I also believe it's not something that requires a month-long block. 48 hours? 1 week maybe?

I know it typically isn't the purview of commenting non-admins to discuss the length of such blocks, and they should be escalating in nature. But I would appeal to empathy. The user clearly did not intend to violate the TBAN, and it is also clearly a grey area that we all think is worth talking about.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do not believe JPL when he expresses remorse. Or, at least, do not assume that remorse correlates with a reduced likelihood of violating the ban in the future. I was suckered into believing how distraught he claimed to be during a previous block situation, and tricked into intervening which, in retrospect, likely saved JPL from a community ban at that time. I suggest imposing as long a block as uninvolved admins are willing to place. JPL is a timesink, and I imagine he has wasted more than a hundred person-hours of other people's time over the last half year, and probably more than half of that time wasting is due to my previous intervention preventing a community ban. I'm sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Clearly a violation. I would note, this is a new sanction, yet the tone of the comment seems to be that he knew that he was skirting his restriction. I would like to hear Johnpacklambert's take on it before having an opinion on sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, obviously a one month block is within our authority. I wouldn't argue against it, but if I was acting alone, I would be more inclined to block for a week or two, depending on previous block history. Had the circumstances been different, I would have warned or done a 24 hour block for first time. I tend to take JPL's pleas with a grain of salt, but it is a first time breach. "Setting an example" is kind of tricky, and always ends up meaning "punishing one person more to dissuade others". That has some value, but raises the question of equal treatment. But again, I don't have a strong argument against a one month block. To Johnpacklambert, you can ask Arb for clarification, but to me, CfD would definitely be off-limits, and clearly be under "broadly construed". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So we have Johnpacklambert leaving a somewhat cryptic message on the talk page of someone who had just nominated a bunch of PRODs, and then pointing them to another article to "have a look at". Despite not mentioning PROD or deletion in any of their messages, it seems clear to me that Johnpacklambert's intent was to find someone to proxy for them, which certainly violates the spirit if not the letter of their topic ban. firefly ( t · c ) 07:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guerillero - Agreed. Given that the relevant case was closed less than a month ago (20 days exactly!), I find it unlikely that Johnpacklambert could be unaware of the seriousness of the topic ban. If TBANs are to be truly effective, we must take just as dim a view of pushing just over the boundaries or dragging uninvolved editors in to proxy as we do of bright-line violations. Support a one month block for the reasons you outline. firefly ( t · c ) 11:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't behavior I like to see; I struggle to interpret this as a good faith error, and can't see any mitigating circumstances. JPL has been a noticeboard frequent flyer, and I echo Guerillero's desire to set a hard boundary here. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While a merge discussion at CfD, where deletion isn't on the table, may technically be outside the scope of the TBAN, I would echo Ealdgyth's advice that JPL ought to pretend deletion doesn't exist on Wikipedia. No CFD, no RFD, no new page patrol, nothing. Just go write content.

  Tide rolls, I do not believe we are authorized to place indefinite blocks as part of arbitration enforcement: 1 year is the maximum we can do. In any case, I would prefer to start with a month. JPL's conduct has been a problem for a while, but penalizing him for behavior that ARBCOM already sanctioned him for does not sit well with me. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur that it's an unambiguous violation. I don't really object to a month-long block, but since their two last TBAN violation blocks were both reversed within days, I think a shorter one (maybe two weeks?) that actually sticks might also do the trick. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade: "Reversed" perhaps wasn't the best wording – my underlying point is that the previous sanctions were both listed within days (the second one within 24 hours), so a block that actually lasts two weeks would still be a significant escalation. But I really don't feel strongly about this one way or another, I just wanted to put the thought out there. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm in agreement ... and I think a month is a good start. We've been down this road before with the "I didn't think it was a violation" and the groveling apologies, but ... at this point, I'm not sure I believe the groveling. JLP, some advice. When you get back from this block, do not think about deletion, just pretend it does not exist on wikipedia. If someone else discusses it - ignore it and do not reply. This applies to anything connected with deletion - CfD/PROD/AfD/MfD... and all noticeboard/talk page/anything discussions that TOUCH any of those processes or are philosophical discussions of deletion or anything else. You have repeatedly shown that .. (in the most charitable view) you cannot judge the edge-cases well ... so the only safe thing for you to do is utterly ignore the concept of deletion on wikipedia. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Johnpacklambert, in answer to your question regarding categories, if you need a clarification about the scope of a topic ban imposed directly by ArbCom, the logical place to request such clarification would be at the ArbCom amendment/clarification request board. That said, yes, I believe this was clear boundary pushing, and in this case, stepping over it. In the context of a thread about PRODded articles, "take a look at this article" is a crystal clear "wink wink" request to PROD that one too. I would also note that the above two sanctions noted by Blablubbs were not actually reversed; they were just shortened in length. That clearly has not been effective, so I would support a month-long block, with a clear understanding that any more boundary testing may result in something more severe. The general idea of a topic ban is that one is to stay well clear of said topic, not constantly try to step right up to its border. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Reading the previous comments, I was going to refrain from commenting. As well as my respect for the admins commenting, my opinion would not be following the consensus so far. However, reading JPL's last post I cannot see their abiding by any topic ban that could be constructed. There is no easier concept to understand than avoid all XfD. They've had adequate explanation and more than adequate opportunity to comply. I have to propose that an indef block with some long period before appeal be enacted. Tiderolls 12:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde93: I understand where you're coming from. Please understand that I wasn't proposing a penalty; I was simply trying keep us from being back here in 60 to 90 days. Tiderolls 13:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a clear violation, and I agree with the others above that there are no mitigating circumstances here so we need to take it seriously, particularly given multiple arbitrators were in favour of a site ban based on the 5 year history of JPL failing to heed warnings and violating previous restrictions so I support a block for a month. @Johnpacklambert: regarding CfD, you asked that question on the proposed decision talk page and L235 gave you an unequivocal answer: CfDs and other XfDs are definitely covered (prohibited) by the topic ban. [1]. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @L235: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Gillcv (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:ARBCAM WP:ARBPS

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

1. [2] 29 August 2022, 15:34 UTC—edit warring to reintroduce crappy POV source
2. [3] 29 August 2022, 16:11 UTC—obstinate edit warring to reintroduce crappy POV source
3. [4] 31 August 2022, 02:21 UTC—they still think they were right
4. [5] 31 August 2022, 03:11 UTC—refuses to apologize, they think they were right

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

[6] 29 August 2022, 15:22 UTC

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

About from my own experience, I know that the therapy, applied correctly, is useful: sorry, that's not knowledge (Greek episteme), that's opinion (Greek doxa). It's just a testimonial. Wikipedia has no obligation to conflate a sincere statement with the scientific truth. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldenRing. You have misread the time. They were warned at 15:22 UTC, not 16:22 UTC. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gillcv: See law of holes. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

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 the wikipedia entry "Cupping therapy" I introduced the following paragraph;

However, this is not the first situation when folk medicine is unjustly blamed by "scientific" medicine. The negative effects of suction cup therapy may also be due to improper handling of the suction cups. It is true that there are also negative effects of suction cup therapy, but which "scientifically" designed drug does not? But there are also scientific studies that rehabilitate this therapy.^[1]

This paragraph was deleted twice. On the second re-introduction, in the motivation, I wrote that, from my own experience, I know that the therapy, applied correctly, is useful. The last deletion was motivated as follows: the source is not reliable. In other words, the author of the second deletion allows himself to make me a liar. In addition, without documenting himself, he says that the journal is not reliable! Here is the journal information: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-acupuncture-and-meridian-studies.

Gillcv (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu

Mi statement is what: is an opinion?! So, according to your knowledge of logic and language, is a testimony an opinion?

If it is not an opinion, then it is the testimony of many own experiences (with positive results).

quote @Tgeorgescu : Wikipedia has no obligation to conflate a sincere statement with the scientific truth. Well:

1) logic, again! This is not a statement is an affirmation.

2) This affirmation was not inserted in the body of the paragraph in the Wikipedia article, but in the motivation for reintroducing that paragraph.

3) The scientific truth is supported by the citation of an article from scientific journal (not crap!) Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies.

Finally, did you read something about this journal? There!

1) Quote: The Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies is a bimonthly, peer-reviewed, open access journal. (my emphasys).

2) Quote: It includes new a paradigm of integrative research, covering East and West, and traditional and modern medicine. (my emphasys).

3) Quote: The journal is indexed in MedLine/PubMed/Index Medicus, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, DOI/Crossref, Korea Citation Index(KCI), SHERPA/RoMEO, EZB, and Research Bible. Gillcv (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing Nevertheless please read my statement and the reply to @tGeorgescu. Gillcv (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Black Kite please read my statement and the reply to @tGeorgescu. Gillcv (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to continue this argument endlessly. Maybe only if you recommend me to the Dutch Commune Zwolle so that I can also receive some money. Gillcv (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell in the mishmash of timezones the site presents me with, the DS notification (at 16:22) comes after the diffs (15:34 and 16:11), so this request is not actionable no matter what the merits of it might be. On a very quick glance it looks like it would have merit, but pseudoscience is not my bag. @Gillcv: I'd take this as your warning to go careful. GoldenRing (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS I'd close this myself but I forget what the propriety is of doing this kind of admin action where I don't actually hold the bit. GoldenRing (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: you are right, my bad. I'll go figure out how to get wiki to always give me times in UTC. GoldenRing (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have just seen this. I had already partial blocked Gillcv from Cupping therapy for disruptive editing - not as an AE action. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As for discretionary sanctions, the article talk page isn't tagged with DS notice, although I don't think that is required. Not sure which area would be best, as tagging them isn't what I normally do. In all events, I think BK's block was the right move, under the right authority. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This is disruptive and I agree with the partial block. The same end could be achieved with a topic ban. Hut 8.5 18:05, 31 August 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

Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MrLag525 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

1. MrLag525/sandbox (now deleted - both versions)
2. Ad hominem against user issuing DS alert
3. Statement of intent to continue aggressive POV-pushing attempts

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)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrLag525&oldid=1108136542

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

MrLag525 has made it crystal clear their goal is to aggressively push a pro-Trump POV, and have written two sandbox screeds to that effect, excoriating editors who would push back against them.

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.

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

• AE should be saved for people who might actually be productive elsewhere given a topic ban. MrLag's contributions are solidly in the realm of WP:NOTHERE, and I have blocked them as such as a normal admin action. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, Dark Brandon, etc., not nuanced enough for AE. El_C 18:41, 5 September 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

Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Carter00000 (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:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide

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

At WP:ITNC, the user has bludgeoned arguments for excluding any link to Uyghur genocide in the blurb, essentially resulting the same argument being restated about 8 times. These include:

1. 08:41, 1 September 2022 The relevance of the bolded article is also in question, given the scope of the report and the fact that the report make no mention of genocide.
2. 12:43, 1 September 2022 The word "genocide" does not appear anywhere in the report and the allegations don't come close to that either
3. 13:29, 1 September 2022 I think that the link to the article is already questionable, given that the reports scope is on counter-terrorism strategies, while "Uyghur genocide" implies much more serious actions.
4. 14:59, 1 September 2022 the scope of the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism related operations of the government, and makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all,
5. 15:59, 1 September 2022 I would like to reiterate that the report makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all.
6. 15:13, 2 September 2022 the scope defined in the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism & extremism related operations of the government, making no references to genocide, or include the word "genocide" at all. ... Given the above, it seem to be a significant exaggeration of the facts for the link featured in the blurb to be "Uyghur genocide".
7. 16:55, 2 September 2022 Given that background information already exists in the report article as previously noted, suggest to remove the link to the now redundant Uyghur genocide article, as per my previous concerns on the accurate reflection and the fact that genocide in not alleged or mentioned in the report.
8. 09:01, 3 September 2022 Given that background information exists in the bolded article, the link to the Uyghur genocide article is now redundant. Per my previous concerns on accurate reflection of the report contents, and the fact that no genocide is alleged or mentioned in the report, the link to the article makes the blurb WP:SYNTH, as it combines material in a way which is not reflected by the report. Furthermore the blurb is WP:SENSATIONALISM, as it effectively presents allgations of potential actions as a genocide, which is a very large escalation in magnitude.

After being cautioned about bludgeoning on their talk page and about beating a dead horse in the discussion itself, the user continued to bludgeon the discussion and then pinged a bunch of editors who were involved at a discussion on another page:

1. 12:29, 4 September 2022‎ wall of text
2. 16:07, 4 September 2022‎ pings to 5 editors

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

• Alerted about generalsanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see this diff.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff and diff

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe that the above shows that the editor has bludgeoned, has been warned about bludgeoning, and has no interest in stopping bludgeoning. I'd ask that the user be blocked under general sanctions for 72 hours for repeatedly bludgeoning at WP:ITNC with respect to the Uyghur genocide article. I believe this will allow time for the user to calm down and will prevent further disruption in this thread. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: In the past, the user has gone to WP:ERRORS when the ITNC discussion was briefly closed and again made the same sort of argument for why they didn't like the blurb in an effort to get it pulled (i.e. The scope defined in the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism and counter-extremism related operations of the government and makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all). A partial block from ITNC would likely just push the bludgeoning back to WP:ERRORS based off of the user's past behavior in the thread. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for 72 hours is that it's the standard first-offense edit warring sanction; I think that bludgeoning is somewhat akin to talk page analogue of edit warring (i.e. using brute numbers of edits to try to get one's way). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: A topic ban would also work to prevent disruption and, given that the editor doesn't really edit articles in that topic area anyway, I don't have concerns about it unduly impacting the editor's editing. It might even be more narrowly tailored than the block. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Carter00000: Is there a reason you canvassed ITNC about this AE thread? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the initial edits, I would like to note that the edits linked were made at different stages of the ITN nomination. I felt that given that the discussion had entered into new stages, it was reasonable to address the same concerns again, given that each stage was for a separate action.

I would like to note that I stopped making the above argument after being warned. The two subsequent edits made related to the nomination in general, and was to address issues with the process of the nomination, given the number of concerns raised by other editors. The concerns were cited to editors who had raised those issues in brackets, pinging them at the same time as a means to request their comments on the discussion. The pings to the five editors in the second comment was to request comments from all participants of a concurrent discussion on the subject on a different page. Carter00000 (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please find my clarifications on the points mentioned.

• I would like to note that I don't edit much in ITN, with only occasional contributions. I have also mostly limited myself to a few comments for each nomination commented on in the past.

• I have previously not made any edits relating to this DS topic, these were my first edits to this topic.

• As per my previous comment, I would like to re-iterate that I did stop making the point which I was warned for, after I had been warned. My understanding is that sanctions are only imposed for continued disruption after being warned.

Given the reaction here at AE, it has been made clear that I have overstepped in a topic of contention, which should have been apparent to me given the topic DS. I would like to signal my willingness to take a step back, re-assess my actions, and to contribute appropriately to this topic area going forwards. Carter00000 (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Please note that the previous cases relate to actions initiated by myself against the conduct of other editors which I felt was against policy.

In this case, my actions are in relation to content issues on an article. I feel that these issues are of a different nature, and that it is obvious that I would be more proactive in the former case.

I further note that this noticeboard is for enforcement of DS's on specific topics, so it seems unreasonable to constantly bring up my actions in other parts of WP not related to this topic area. Carter00000 (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Noted on your further comments and understand your concern on my recidivism. FWIW, I do want to note again that upon being warned on the initial set of eight comments I made on the nomination, I did not bring up that point on the nomination again. I feel that this shows that I am in fact capable of heeding warnings. As explained earlier the subsequent posts I made were an attempt at summarizing other editors concerns on the nomination and to ask for further discussion on those concerns, which I felt was separate from my previous point. As per the above, I am similarly willing to re-assess my actions and to contribute appropriately to this topic area going forwards.

@InvadingInvader Noting that (1) this is our first interaction on WP and (2) you were not a participant in the main nomination, it is my opinion that your suggested sanction may be too extensive, given your limited background knowledge (as you yourself noted) on the situation.

I would like to emphasize again that this is the AE board. I note that I previously have not edited in the topic area of concern, nor have I received any sanction in the topic area (or received any sanctions at all). I feel that as a matter of due process, I should receive only a formal warning for this filing, given my limited and clean record in this topic area. As I have mentioned above, I am capable of heeding warnings and am willing to contribute appropriately to this topic area going forwards. Carter00000 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever sanction that is deemed necessary, I'll support, ncluding a topic ban from WP:ITN/C for extraordinarily disruptive conduct, even after being asked to stop. Yes, I recognize I may have partially prompted this by closing the discussion here, but these closures are not atypical on ITN/C once a consensus is reached, as it had been, and the proper thing to do then is discuss any changes to the blurb at WP:ERRORS. Even when he is the sole voice of opposition, Carter00000 has been dominating the discussion both on WP:ERRORS and WP:ITN/C in a way that represents battleground mentality.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: My only other encounter with Carter00000 was on WP:ANI when he opened up two threads: once against Citobun and again against Alsoriano97. In the latter case, there was a great deal of suspicion regarding his own conduct. It seems he also opened up an ArbCom request which was also quickly shut down. I'm not sure if that means he also needs to be topic banned from WP:ANI and WP:RFAR, but it's clear he is overzealous and quick to instigate drama in areas where it would be more prudent to disengage and mediate. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went back to the declined ArbCom request to refresh my memory, and given what took place there, I now believe his disruptive conduct was and is such that an indef WP:NOTHERE block may be more appropriate.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After filing multiple Arb cases and ANI cases, I think it's time for a topic ban from ITN. This is just ridiculous. Since they dragged me to Arb (which was immediately declined for not having merit), I will comment in this section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not had any direct interactions with Carter outside of this most recent debacle on Xinjiang, but I'm not hearing happy notes about this guy. I do think he frequently disrupts consensus, and if he/she/they had spent more time on Talk:2022 with regard to Xinjiang, I believe many arguments he would bring up would be redundant and unproductive.
Most people seem to be suggesting a TBAN or Block; my recommendation would be to TBAN Carter from Xinjiang permanently and a block of at least 9 months followed by a permanent "probation" period. He's caused problems before, but I'm one who believes in reform. If he's able to prove himself after he/she/they block to be a constructive editor who respects consensus, I think he could be an awesome contributor, but if more stuff pops up about him disrupting consensus, "playing Karen" and dragging people to arbitration, acting in a manner in which he demonstrates behavior contrary to WP:OWN, or anything else that would show he's WP:NOTHERE, the permablock may be needed. What I'm personally worried about is if he does get permablocked too early, he's gonna IP sock vandalize since a permablock could be interpreted by Carter that he can't go lower on Wikipedia, giving him motivation to have a grudge against us forever. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Statement by Deepfriedokra A 72 hour block seems like a milder sanction than is usually doled out here. Would a WP:partial block of 72 hours duration for that page (WP:ITNC) not serve as well?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Welp, I'll go one better as a partial block would not work. How 'bout a WP:TOPICBAN on anything to do with the Uyghur genocide, anywhere at all on Wikipedia, broadly construed, of three months duration persuaded by my colleagues.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Perhaps Carter can find a constructive way to contribute apart from that area. I'll support almost anything. I'm easy to get along with. 😀 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that it's the overall content here that is in question. Changing focus not withstanding. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @WaltCip: If I remember correctly, Carter00000 mostly edits mostly in the ITN area. Hast here been other disruption not about the Uyghur's? If so, that should be the focus of any TBAN. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think if we accept Cart0000's assurances and do not impose a TBAN now, we will just find ourselves back here again. Past experience with three ANI's and two ArbCom requests tells me Carter0000 just cannot recognize when to stop without more structure. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• A 72 hour block is going to do very little in my opinion. It appears that Carter has a bee in their bonnet about this issue outwith ITN (e.g. here) and therefore I think that a TBAN from the topic area of some duration is what we should be looking at. No real opinion on the duration, but I'd happily support DFO's suggestion of three months. firefly ( t · c ) 18:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is going to be a tban, it should be indef -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Carter0000 just cannot recognize when to stop without more structure opines DFO above - I tend to agree. And I also agree with my colleagues here that a TBAN should probably be indefinite - on further thought a definite TBAN can lead to it being "waited out" with little resultant change. firefly ( t · c ) 16:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I think an indefinite TBAN is warranted given Deepfriedokra's valid concerns. Indefinite is not infinite--or the other way around, whatever it was. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef TBAN. Which is still permitted, though the new changes to AE, mercifully, may not encompass WP:GS (i.e. gonna suck, ARBCOM disconnect). El_C 16:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Pranesh Ravikumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 04:17, 28 August 2022 Removes a reliably sourced addition claiming it's RGW. (1st revert)
2. Follows it up with this intimidation/accusatory message to the editor who added it over what's essentially a comment dispute at this stage. Warned for disruption. They copypaste the warning message, claim that I'm hounding them and other things in retaliation (diff).
3. 05:13, 30 August 2022 Removes it again. (2nd revert) Warned for edit warring.
4. [13:28, 30 August 2022] (revdelled) Removes it again and replaces it with a cherrypicked copypaste while citing a different source. (3rd revert)
5. [15:39, 30 August 2022] (revdelled) Same as above but this time they cite the real source. (4th revert) Warned for copyright violation.
6. In the meantime we have a long winded discussion on my talk page which ends with them insisting on a personal standard that for "verification doesn't guarantee inclusion" to apply, one must present a refutation to the source.
7. 13:10, 2 September 2022‎ Partial restoration of their addition which includes similar close paraphrasing (Compare with source) and without any attempts to gain consensus through a third opinion or an RFC for it. They are well aware of ONUS due to the above discussion but they simply dismiss the dispute by claiming that it "wasn't sensibly disputed". (5th revert)

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on 15:43, 29 August 2022 and 13:01, 27 May 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Discussing something with them itself is a pain due to the fact that they just tend to double down whenever a mistake is pointed out, argue against straw men and it's ultimately fruitless when they just go IDHT. In addition note that this behavior may be motivated by the nature of the content itself, the initial addition reflected negatively on the Premiership of Narendra Modi which they first tried to remove and then tried to minimise/distract from by adding tangential material. They have also previously been blocked for POV pushing and warned for copyright violations.

Overall a particularly frustrating combination of uncollaborative combative behavior, edit warring, copyright violations and a general refusal and/or inability to understand and follow policies and guidelines. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just lying. I didn't admit to anything, all I accepted was that there was minor error, a difference between "15 out of 16" and "16 out of 16". The content you were trying to remove is much more than that. Neither Libreravi nor TrangaBellam who introduced and restored the section seem to agree that it included "misrepresentation of sources, over-exaggeration, and exceptional claims". No one else supported your position, you clearly didn't have a consensus and you were arguing against things no one said. Case in point saying that "Claims like Indian government is operating a Gestapo would require peer-reviewed scholarly sources" (diff) when there was no mention of any gestapo in the addition.

And the objection against your addition is simple, that it deviates from the subject of the article. You can't wish that away by claiming that "there can be no sensible objection". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding D4iNa4's statement, I'll stand by my messages at User talk:D4iNa4#September 2022, the evidence is linked in the messages themselves for anyone to see what's what.

I should point out though, the discussion had 5 editors who all opposed inclusion at the time when D4iNa4 decided to comment at 16:17, 3 September 2022 (after reinstating the disputed content) and pinged 4 different editor of their choice while seeking support for inclusion; not an RfC, 3O, Wikiproject or noticeboard. Even then I gave it quite a bit of latitude. It's also irrelevant whether those being canvassed are in good standing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, do you consider any of my messages to D4iNa4 unjustified? I try my best to discuss content disputes but it becomes a problem if all I get is a complete dismissal of policy based concerns and forceful insertion of disputed material without seeking appropriate venues of dispute resolution, which is something both Ravikumar and Di4Ni4 did and continue to do so.

For instance, Ravikumar's present response to something being undue or coatracking is that it's just JDL, earlier it was "not sensible", Di4Ni4 argument was an unfounded accusation of stonewalling and followed by a comment saying that there was no "actual explaination". Both of them tried to restore the material while the discussion was ongoing and largely against inclusion.Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark, to see what they think about this. I should also add, since both Ravikumar and Di4Ni4 keep bandying them around claiming that they support inclusion (as if it takes away from the conduct issues), as far as I can tell all they have said is that there may be scope for inclusion which is not something I even disagree with, rather my position is that it isn't due at the present state of the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Deepfriedokra, I said "now you're just lying" because Ravikumar said "Tayi Arajakate admitted their edits involved misrepresentation of sources and over-exaggeration not supported by sources." What am I supposed to say if someone puts words in my mouth? And where's the evidence that I was stonewalling? This is not battleground behavior, throwing accusations over a content dispute is. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Johnuniq, fine, I understand. Wasn't my greatest moment. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• D4iNa4, 2 of those reverts are of copyrighted material and "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" (see WP:ONUS). It wasn't my responsibility to open the talk page discussion in the first place but on those who want to include it, yet I did. And yeah I'll stand by the message because you made a serious conduct accusation sans any evidence which is a personal attack and used it as a justification to restore content that was removed on policy based objections. This was your very first action in the dispute and you didn't even bother to join the talk page discussion until the material was removed again.

And just because something is sourced does not mean it has to included, the same policy linked above clearly states that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, this has already been stated in the discussion. It's ironic that you are talking about CIR and IDHT. This conduct pretty much mimics that of Ravikumar's. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And "Conflict between India and Pakistan" does have a lot to do with "Indian government", both also fall under ARBIPA. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

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

Why this report is being filed when the content dispute has been already resolved? I am saying this in the sense that there can be no sensible objection to the content that exists in the present version.

The content which I had removed included misrepresentation of sources, over-exaggeration, and exceptional claims.

But the content which I wrote was in fact expansion and was based on quality sources like Christophe Jaffrelot.

I admit I had to focus more on rewriting, but I haven't breached copyrights since.

Tayi Arajakate admitted their edits involved misrepresentation of sources and over-exaggeration not supported by sources.[9]

After this, I discussed reliably sourced content backed with multiple sources with Tayi Arajakte on their talk page, but only to see them failing to provide a sensible reason to remove the reliably sourced information. After nearly 3 days of discussion I restored the content.[10]

I was following WP:BRD here and gave every opportunity to Tayi Arajakte to provide a good explanation behind the removal of the content backed with quality sources. I also told Tayi Arajakte how they can justify the removal.

If the community was consulted over this content then I am sure it will favor my position that the reliably sourced content should not be removed. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Deepfriedokra: Depends on the claims that are being made but scholarly sources are more ideal supporting the text which is exceptional, though the dispute was not just about the use of news sources but also the misrepresentation of the existing sources. I had 3 DS alerts this year, 1 was about ARBIPA, 1 was about BLP and 1 was about South Asian social groups. But that is clearly not indicative of any 'disruption' because alerts are notifications, not warnings, the message box of DS alert clearly notes "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Seraphimblade: I wanted to address the reverts and warning on my talk page this is why I made the message on user's talk page to address all this together but from next time I will ensure addressing content-related issues on the talk page of the article. I am not brushing off the copyright violation but stating how it could be avoided. Isn't it more important to show how one has recognised what went wrong and try to avoid making the same mistake next time? I had a reading of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE and I promise not to violate copyrights again. You should see Talk:Premiership of Narendra Modi#Use of investigative agencies where Tayi Arajakte is aggressively relying on his WP:JDL-based explanations to get rid of the content reliably sourced to the best available source of this subject after edit warring to remove it here without gaining consensus. At least 3 far more experienced users (including 2 admins) have agreed with my position. You shouldn't be topic banning a user who is on the correct side in this dispute. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC) was[reply]

• @Deepfriedokra: You can trust me with another chance. I read the new inputs provided here, especially that of Vanamonde93. Once again I am reassuring you that I will be more careful and the problems that have been highlighted about my editing with regard to handling content dispute and copyrights won't emerge again because I am capable to avoid any further issues with my editing. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Deepfriedokra: It could be because I got reported for the first time but I can avoid any issues with my editing from occurring again. I edit a good number of articles related to India where I have been productive. I would reiterate that you can trust me with another chance. Thanks Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Seraphimblade and Deepfriedokra: The report was filed nearly 2 weeks ago and I have been able to bring constructive edits in this topic area since. The sanction would seem punitive. Two more admins have commented here of which one had no comment on sanctioning me and one admin said I should be at least warned. This shows that it is not urgent to topic ban me. I have provided my assurances with full understanding not to engage in any form of disruption again and explained how I will avoid the issues from reoccurring. I am just saying I should be given one last chance failing which I won't be opposed to any sanction. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Johnuniq: I would insist that I am sincere with the assurances I have made here and I am already showing extra caution with my editing and avoiding any disruption. I am assuring you that the issues won't be reoccurring again. I hope you will give me one last chance. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Deepfriedokra: TylerBurden is wrong with saying that "Ravikumar seems to have a POV" because if I had POV then I wouldn't be making edits like this (creation of Premiership_of_Narendra_Modi#Democratic_backsliding section) on this same article. "TBAN from WP:ARBIPA areas of indefinite duration" covers Pakistan, Afghanistan and India and a topic ban from anything related to these 3 countries would be too much. At broadest, the mentioned problems with me only concern the topic area of "Indian politics". Note that I have been safeguarding List of Brahmins, List of Jains, List of Yadav people, List of Indian Christians, List of Mudaliars, List of Bunts, List of Nairs and other pages from frequent vandalism and BLP policy violations for long. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 13:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Making my statement here because of 2 frivolous warnings I received from Tayi Arajakate right after I made my comment on talk page.

First warning falsely claims that I violated WP:NPA because of the word "WP:STONEWALLING" I used here, followed by the false claim of having a "rough consensus", despite no consensus is developed in less than 2 hours for removing reliably sourced content. No evidence of WP:NPA violation was ever provided.

Second warning falsely claims that I violated WP:CANVASSING by notifying the long term contributors in good standing who have edited this article for years.

Either this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior or a WP:CIR issue, or a combination of both. You can't go around spamming frivolous warnings just to get discourage your opponent in a content dispute. Admins need to take a look at this misconduct of Tayi Arajakte. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Tayi Arajakte adds in response to my comment above that "I'll stand by my messages at User talk:D4iNa4#September 2022", and this is after being already told how they are wrong with their battleground mentality. This shows there is not only a competence issue with Tayi Arajakte but also IDHT. You don't hold high ground when you have yourself made 3 reverts[11][12][13] to remove reliably sourced content just before you are starting the discussion on talk page.[14] D4iNa4 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @Deepfriedokra: "Conflict between India and Pakistan". Though it has nothing to do with this particular subject. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is ridiculous that Tayi —who is one of the most competent and cooperative editors about Indian topics— is being considered for a TBan. That too, based on flimsy evidence from someone who is under an indefinite AE sanction (since 2018) and has since commited less than 500 edits. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I had intended to sit this one out *sigh*). I read the section of Jaffrelot's book that's under dispute. That source is indeed the best on the topic that I am aware of. It constitutes three substantial paragraphs discussing how the administration of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has used its investigative agencies to intimidate and/or harass political opponents. The section begins with a passing mention of a historical instance when a politician of the opposing party used the same tactics. If I were interested in genuinely improving that section, I would summarize what the source had to say about the Modi administration. Instead, PraneshRavikumar has decided to lead with the single sentence that's critical of a different politician. This was after he first tried blanking the section. His edit-summary was dreadful, too. I can't help but believe PR has an axe to grind here, and would benefit from some time away from this dispute. A logged warning is the minimum I'd recommend: South Asian politics requires more collaboration and less belligerence, and his attitude toward the copyvio situation was...cavalier. I see no substantive evidence here against Tayi Arajakate. The templated warning wasn't necessary; no attacks were made; but I don't think highly of D4iNa4's choice to jump right into an edit-war after 2+ years of not touching the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed all this carefully (RL busyness) but I don't think a tban for Tayi Arajakate is a good idea. No comment on Pranesh Ravikumar. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a topic ban is reasonable here, poor behaviour went on for far too long and only seems to have turned into remorse now that consequenses look likely. The topic area is complicated enough without editing like this and Pranesh Ravikumar seems to have a POV that is strong enough to get in the way of constructively editing the topic. --TylerBurden (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Since when do we require peer reviewed scholarly sources? What we require is content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking."-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like Pranesh Ravikumar needs a TBAN from ARBPIA. Notice they have three(?) DS alerts. Will await further input. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Still waiting for more input. Noting @Seraphimblade:'s comment. Is Pranesh Ravikumar's counter argument sufficient? However, I now wonder if Tayi Arajakte does not need a TBAN, based on D4iNa4's statement. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Pranesh Ravikumar's comment on my talk is germane here -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks like enough battle behavior to go around. I will say that, "Now you're just lying," falls below my expectations for the conduct of members of the Community. So, I'd like another admin to unravel this knot of naughtiness. Maybe TBANs for Pranesh Ravikumar and Tayi Arajakat? Yes, Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark will offer the needed insight. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @D4iNa4: Are you under an indefinite AE sanction? For what area? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, Vanamonde93, for bringing light where there was darkness. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So, with that, the false trails of the red herrings have been cleared away and I am back to my original impression-- that Pranesh Ravikumar needs "some time away from the subject area" . I apologize to @Tayi Arajakate: to whom the false trail had led. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid I do not find Pranesh Ravikumar's assurances very reassuring. It is a pity this awakening of awareness did not occur sooner. Assuming the TBAN is enacted, we can hope this new-found awareness will help them appeal it in the future. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've noted Pranesh Ravikumar's latest and am not fully persuaded to go with just a warning unless @Seraphimblade: is in agreement. (Or any admin who has not yet opined in this section.) Though other admins have commented, they commented as regular users, and not in the result section. Vanamonde93 felt a warning is a minimal response to these problems and did not oppose a TBAN. Frankly, being on one's best behavior for a couple of weeks is a good thing, but is it good enough? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Johnuniq. You are the tie-beaker in my mental deadlock. TylerBurden has summed up my feelings. Tayi Arajakate's contrition, while belated, is noted and appreciated. Pranesh Ravikumar's belated contrition is noted. While belated, it offers hope for removal of the TBAN further along. A TBAN from WP:ARBIPA areas of indefinite duration (not infinite) and appealable in six months. (It's a big encyclopedia, and you might find something you enjoy that is less contentious.) And please do not go a long period of time w/o appealing unless it is your wish to eschew this area for a long period of time. On the other hand, please don't assume the TBAN is expired after a length of time. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not impressed with Pranesh Ravikumar here. I'm not sure why they brought the content discussion to a user talk page rather than the article talk page; that's generally unproductive. And I'm even less impressed with repeated copyright violations, and then characterizing that with a brushoff I admit I had to focus more on rewriting.... I'm inclined to agree with a topic ban here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems, then, that there are no further objections to resolving this with the aforementioned topic ban against Pranesh Ravikumar. Unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects, I will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Deepfriedokra, I'm similarly not terribly convinced, as I should think one might be on one's best behavior while an AE request regarding that behavior is open. Of course, I've seen people unable to manage even that, but that's pretty minimal. Still, I suppose some improvement is better than none. If I were to agree to a warning, it would be a formal logged warning, with a clear understanding that any more trouble is almost certain to result in sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Having read through the comments above, particularly those of Vanamonde93, I support the topic ban of Pranesh Ravikumar with no other action.
  @Tayi Arajakate: Regarding "now you're just lying", the policies are WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If you are unable or unwilling to comply with those policies you should not work in topics under discretionary sanctions. If someone puts words in your mouth, you politely but firmly say that the claim [brief outline here] is not correct—you said nothing like that. You might also ask the person to strike their comment as it was not correct. If a polite request to do that does not lead to what you regard as a desirable outcome, you might try one more time by politely but firmly repeating your request on the person's talk. Their response or lack of response will be available for others to see if a report such as this subsequently occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tamzin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Screendeemer (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:GENSEX

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

1. 21:19, 25 August 2022 Precursor #1 to the main dispute: First attempt to insert a mention of the artist nicknamed "Chris Chan" onto a DAB page in a manner inconsistent with MOS:DAB, as an end-run around longstanding consensus at Talk:Kiwi Farms and at AN and DRV to not host mainspace content about her.
2. 17:02, 22 September 2022 Precursor #2: Creating a redirect to Kiwi Farms for a work by Chris Chan, even though the work is not mentioned at the target.
3. 01:02, 30 September 2022^{deleted revision} Beginning of main dispute: Creating an article on non-notable YouTuber Chris Chann just to flesh out the coming DAB.
4. 01:14, 30 September 2022 Creating Chris Chan (disambiguation) with, in the "see also", a link to Kiwi Farms, which only mentions Chris Chan in a cited headline, never in prose.
5. 01:18, 30 September 2022 Refining the link to CWCki, making the connection clearer between the name "Chris Chan" and the intentionally-unnamed person in the section CWCki redirects to.
6. 01:57, 30 September 2022^{deleted revision} Contesting deletion of Chris Chann: ... seems to be a bogus attempt at removing an actual article for whatever perceived reason.

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

• Notified 2 August 2022
• ds/aware for good measure

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This reads to me as a transparent attempt to game the system. Given Screendeemer's strong interest in Kiwi Farms and participation on the article's talkpage as recently as 22 September, while this matter was being discussed there, it seems very unlikely that they are unware that there is a strong consensus not to have mainspace content about the artist nicknamed Chris Chan. If they were unaware, we would see that by them attempting to add a mention to the article, and it being reverted, or them attempting to create an article on her (or requesting a relevant title's unsalting). Their awareness is also evidenced by a pattern of edits that would make no sense except as an attempt to game the system. Why create a disambiguation page for "Chris Chan" featuring three people not referred to as Chris Chan? Why first create an article a completely non-notable person with a similar name? It also seems unlikely that they created Sonichu comic without first attempting to create Sonichu, from which they would have become aware of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 11 § Sonichu.

This is gaming the system, plain and simple, in an attempt to abuse redirects and DAB pages to create a link between the name "Chris Chan" and the Kiwi Farms article.

Screendeemer also has a history of controversial GENSEX redirect creations: Milked for laughs → Kiwi Farms; Virgin with rage → Incel; Gamergate and Gamergaters → Misogyny [27] [28].

Jurisdictional note: Kiwi Farms' activities are the subject of a gender-related dispute or controversy, and Chris Chan, a trans woman, is an associated person.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

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

Just wanted to point out as it may make the rest of this thread somewhat moot, that at 11:52 UTC, Screendeemer was blocked as a compromised account, and at 12:06 UTC, they were additionally globally locked for being a LTA. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Apparently Chris Chann (double n) is a skateboarder and YouTuber. However, given that the links in the report confirm Screendeemer's interest in Kiwi Farms and the Chris Chan (single n and aka CWC) who is the target of harassment by followers of that website, it is very reasonable to conclude that Screendeemer is doing what they can to ensure Wikipedia contributes to the harassment. If that is Screendeemer's purpose, they should be indefinitely blocked. However, there may be some doubt (perhaps it's just lack of maturity or whatever). Accordingly, I propose an indefinite topic ban although wording to specify the bounds of a ban needs to be determined. Would it be "all gender and sexuality topics" or perhaps something more focused on Kiwi Farms and Chan? Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, per Black Kite, I am being naive. My instinct tells me that an indefinite block is the right approach although that would have to be an admin action (not AE). I'm happy to do that and I'm happy for anyone else to do it, but now that we're here, I might wait a while for more views. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• It's obvious what they're doing, and in my opinion an indefinite block is required for editors who pull stunts like this. Black Kite (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]