Abrvagl[edit]

Abrvagl is formally warned for edit warring. Any further instances, including slow motion edit warring, will result in sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Request concerning Abrvagl[edit] User who is submitting this request for enforcement ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Abrvagl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:ARBAA2 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 14 April 2022 removes sourced information from lead 16 April 2022 removes sourced information from lead 29 April 2022 removes sourced information from lead 22 May 2022 removes sourced information from lead 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, on 26 January 2022 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Abrvagl repeatedly tries to remove the 2020 Ganja missile attacks being a response for the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert from the lead, despite there being multiple sources confirming this, as has been explained to Abrvagl many time on the talk page. Abrvagl also tries to add expressions of MOS:DOUBT further down in the article by writing, "According the Armenian sources, Ganja was hit in response to...". Eurasianet is clearly not an Armenian source, and the article leaves no doubt about what Abrvagl is trying to dispute: "The conflict zone in the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to expand, as Azerbaijani forces have hit the de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, and Armenian forces responded by hitting Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, Ganja."[1]. The constant WP:SEALIONING of the issue on the talk page, edit-wars, and refusal to drop the stick (doing the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edit even after a month) leaves me no choice but to bring this to AE's attention. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'm sorry, but what in the hell was this 7000+byte wall of text? For now, I'll just address these accusations against me. ZaniGiovanni previously was warned/banned for edit-wars [58] and personal attacks[59][60]. I observe the same behaviour against me: You're literally showing my first block when I registered here a year ago and a 72hour block, in an AE case against you, in an attempt to achieve something / browbeat me? I'm so confused. 1. 17:21 I did revert as no consensus was reached. 9 minutes later, at 17:30 uninvolved Zani created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text, where he blamed me edit-wars and disruptive editing. And you were edit-warring and being disruptive, not that it's the first time. That talk consensus is still against you btw, Talk:Melik_Haykaz_Palace#Azerbaijani_sources_refer. 2. Here, I raised issue, as material is not anti-sentiment related. I tried to reach a consensus, but Zani responded: You need to finally read that policy and understand that Wikipedia is not a repository for bullshit. Honestly, this is getting ridiculous. You pick one of my comments, no not even a comment, part of my comment from an overall discussion and present in an AE case against you for what purpose exactly? Do you think I'm going to walk away my statment or something? Yeah, Wikipedia isn't a repository for bullshit and I made my reference clear in the full comment (hint: extremely undue gov claim). ZaniGiovanni shadows me and challenges edits without solid justification. I put efforts to reach consensus, but it mostly ends with him ignoring or me taking obvious edits to the dispute resolution boards. Here [61] Zani argued against the simple BLP issue. Continued to argue even after BLPN[62]. He stopped only after warned[63] Another example of god knows what that you already showed in ANI against me that resulted in nothing Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#User:_ZaniGiovanni. I'm not even going to answer this again. If anyone is interested, please check my first comment in that thread (5th point). Here [64] is another example, where I provided detailed explanation, Zani replied with irrelevant comment and ignoring me since then, although I reminded him a number of times. Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions about random talk discussions in here, you need to understand that. I don't plan to reply to every WP:CRUSH comment, and I explained myself pretty clearly in my last comment. You even brought that source in RSN 3 days ago Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Hyperallergic, what is the relevance of it here? Are you just throwing as much pile at me as possible at this point? Here[65] many editors reached a consensus, but due to Zani this simple edit went through DRN[66] and RfC[67]. Zani never commented to RFC, which supports position of majotiry What the actual f*ck is happening, what is this essay of rants even suppose to mean? There was a discussion, Abrvagl opened a DRN about it [2] and it resulted in an RfC [3]. Now what are you trying to say again, that I MUST comment in that RfC? To be honest, I'm not interested about that discussion anymore and consensus seems to be formed in that RfC. Now why is this something weirdly being brought up against me, hello? Tbh I feel like gaslighted by all of these rants against me when I simply showed tendentious edits / edit-wars of Abrvagl and wanted to see a simple and valid explanation. Instead, I received absolute nonsense rants against me in a browbeat attempt and belittling of the actual report against Abrvagl, more than half of those rants were already tried and failed in the past. This editor is too nationalistic for AA topic area, like other editors have also suggested (diff1, diff2, diff3). This rant by them is just another sentiment to it. Sorry for the long comment, most of it was just replies to this slanderous nonsense against me. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] I'll address the underwhelming explanations by Abrvagl now: The statement was added by banned[42] user Steverci. Diff:[43]. Steverci added the statement without consensus: RfC and DnR. Gross misinterpretation of events. Looking at the RfC, it had no consensus against or for anything, it was literally closed as "Consensus is that this RfC did not conform to WP:RFCNEUTRAL"[4]. This doesn't prohibit users to edit the article (btw a user's ban after 7 fucking months of that edit doesn't mean anything, another attempt to belittle something you disagree with) and has nothing to do with the stable version of the article for more than a year that you changed without consensus and edit-warred over a month. Everything you show below is your attempts of overwriting stable version of the article without any achieved consensus. On their last revert, Abrvagl is casting doubt on a third-party source and attributing statement from it to "Armenian sources" [5]. Clear example of WP:TENDENTIOUS edit and this user's continual disruption of the article. The majority of reports didnot claim that Ganja was bombarded specifically in response to Stepenakert bombardment and cherripicking a single source and presenting it as fact is a violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral. This doesn't even make sense. Do you have a source disputing Eurasianet? The article makes it very clear that 2020 Ganja missile attacks was a response to 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, "The conflict zone in the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to expand, as Azerbaijani forces have hit the de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, and Armenian forces responded by hitting Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, Ganja.", and you have been explained this many times in the talk discussion. Third party user in talk also disagrees with you [6]. Your misinterpretation of events and unreasonable justifications for your edit-wars and reverts of stable version aren't convincing. Coupled with the groundless and disgusting rant you posted against me below this "explanation", which btw counts as a personal attack just like all baseless rants/accusations do, I firmly believe that this user isn't qualified to edit in a very contentious topic area like AA2. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] Rosguill Please note that this is the second time this user makes personal attacks against me either by baseless accusations or misrepresenting things I said, and they do it in a polite way. I'll reply for the final time if this continues, as I don't plan to reply to everything seasoned with WP:CRUSH, just like with some of their talk comments. The statement was added by the Steverchi, who knew that majority of the editors are against his edits on Talk-Page, and It was left unnoticed for a while. This doesn't change the reality that it was the stable version for almost a year and you edit-warred over your changes for a month without a consensus. The last edit was done after I made a consensus proposal on the talk-page but was ignored for weeks. When good faith editors provide new sources and ask you to stop with sealioning, you even discredited Eurasianet and accused me of sealioning instead, that's when I stopped replying to you. You then went and changed the article again without consensus. You couldn't remove everything just like previous times, so instead you added expressions of doubt further down in the article by writing "According the Armenian sources". And you still haven't provided a WP:RS that disputes a reliable third-party source like Eurasianet. Reviewing this case, please consider that ZaniGiovanni continuously does not follow civility rules... It is visible even from his replies on this report: "groundless and disgusting rant you posted", "Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions", "What the actual f*ck is happening", and examples I brought earlier. All editors are equal in Wikipedia. After I adressed your groundless accusations point by fucking point, you're still making accusations against me and taking my quotes out of content? "Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions about random talk discussions in here" - this is the full quote btw, don't you think it's extremely disingenuous to quote me out of context and make accusations based on it? And I explained why with diff, since you were WP:SEALIONING the issue in that discussion as well. You raised the same "NewsBlog" question even in RSN, where you also received opposition [7]. Going to your second example, saying "wtf is happening" isn't prohibited on this website, we're scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point aren't we? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning Abrvagl[edit] 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. Statement by Abrvagl[edit] I NEVER removed sourced information. 1.14 April 2022[8][9] I rephrased the statement. Reverted by ZaniGiovanni[10]. 2.16 April 2022, I reviewed the case in details, and identified following: - The statement was added by banned[11] user Steverci. Diff:[12]. Steverci added the statement without consensus: RfC and DnR. - Provided sources didnot support the statement. All sources are either primary or just quotes primary sources. The statement is WP:SYNTH and not in line with WP:NPOV. Considering the above, I removed the statement, and in detail explained myself on the talk-page[13]. Zani replied [14], but his reply was ignoring my points. So I wrote even more detailed explanation for him [15]. Number of times I tried to get solid justifications and answers to my concerns from the Zani [16] [17] [18], but Zani continued repeating The Armenian sources said it was a response to the Stepanakert shelling, and third party sources covered what the Armenian sources said although I had proved that opposite. Then Zani started ignoring me, and discussions stopped. 3. On 29 April 2022[19] I reviewed case again, ensured that statement definitely violates Wikipedia policies, and removed it again. On 30 April 2022 ZaniReverted edit[20]. 4. On 31 April 2022[21] ZaniGiovanni added new source. As new source was supporting the statement partially, I proposed a consensus[22], but Zani ignored me for 3 weeks. 5. On 22 May 2022 I rephrased the statement in line with WP:OR and WP:NPOV and according to last source provided by Zani, in order to reach consensus. Also removed unrelated sources[23]. I left a note on the talk-page[24]. I attributed it to Armenian sources, as an article in the body referring to the Armenian sources. Then I was going to take it to the NPOV/noticeboard because experts who conducted investigation do not support above statement HRW Amnesty. The majority of reports didnot claim that Ganja was bombarded specifically in response to Stepenakert bombardment and cherripicking a single source and presenting it as fact is a violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral. ZaniGiovanni previously was warned/banned for edit-wars [25] and personal attacks[26][27]. I observe the same behaviour against me: 1. 17:21 I did revert as no consensus was reached. 9 minutes later, at 17:30 uninvolved Zani created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text, where he blamed me edit-wars and disruptive editing. 2. Here, I raised issue, as material is not anti-sentiment related. I tried to reach a consensus, but Zani responded: You need to finally read that policy and understand that Wikipedia is not a repository for bullshit. ZaniGiovanni shadows me and challenges edits without solid justification. I put efforts to reach consensus, but it mostly ends with him ignoring or me taking obvious edits to the dispute resolution boards. Here [28] Zani argued against the simple BLP issue. Continued to argue even after BLPN[29]. He stopped only after warned[30]. Here [31] is another example, where I provided detailed explanation, Zani replied with irrelevant comment and ignoring me since then, although I reminded him a number of times. Here[32] many editors reached a consensus, but due to Zani this simple edit went through DRN[33] and RfC[34]. Zani never commented to RFC, which supports position of majotiry. Reply 2 Rosguill, This is not a case of WP:BRD. The statement was added by the Steverci, who knew that majority of the editors are against his edits on Talk:2020 Ganja missile attacks#2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, and it was left unnoticed for a while. However, that was not the reason for my edits. My point was that the initial statement was WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. Provided sources didn't support the statement at all. Later, Zani provided a Eurasianet article that partially supported the statement, based on which, as I explained earlier, tried to reach a temporary consensus. I did not remove but rephrased my first and last edits[35][36]. The last edit was done after I made a consensus proposal on the talk-page but was ignored for weeks. Only then I made an edit to see if there will be any positive or negative reactions to my proposal. I also left a note on the Talk-Page about that. By the way, I summarized my point on the Talk-Page[37] of the article. It is not for this report, but you can look at it to see the full picture behind my decisions. I want to assure you that I had no intent to edit war, and my active participation on the talk-page also supports that. Edit wars are disruptive and never help reach consensus, and we should avoid them. I always tried to stick to the 3 revert rule. From now on I will do my best to stick to the one revert rule, to eliminate misunderstanding. However, I'm not sure what to do when another editor is ignoring me or reverting my edits without proper justification. However, assuming good faith and keeping everything civil is as important as avoiding edit wars. Reviewing this case, please consider that ZaniGiovanni continuously breaking civility rules. He often gives personal remarks and uses hostile language. This creates a hostile environment, inflames disputes and ruins the collaborative atmosphere. It is visible even from his replies on this report: "groundless and disgusting rant you posted", "Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions", "What the actual f*ck is happening", and examples I brought earlier. All editors are equal in Wikipedia. I may be right or wrong; I might make mistakes, which is normal. We are all humans, and we are not perfect. But it does not matter if the editor is wrong or right or makes a mistake; no one has a right to use hostile language and mock editors for their views or errors or past. I find the tone/words that Zani uses insulting. --Abrvagl (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Armatura[edit] #diff It seems that user Abrvagl is struggling to grasp the meaning of BLD, simply reverting when he disagrees, even when he already knows there will be disagreement. I would support a warning at this stage (hoping he truly doesn't yet understand well how Wikipedia operates, being a relatively new user) and if he keeps beating the dead horse as he has done here in a discussion innvolving myself, he may need another review. --Armatura (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Result concerning Abrvagl[edit] This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. As far as the original complaint goes, there's two components: allegations of POV-motivated misrepresentation of sources, and edit warring. I'm somewhat inclined toward lenience on the former because it appears that the only source that actually directly states in its own voice that the Ganja attacks were in response to the Stepanakert attacks wasn't added to that claim directly (it was present elsewhere in the article for other claims) until May 1st, after the first three edits listed here; based on the BBC, Telegraph and Armenian news citations present when this dispute started, it is accurate to state that only Armenian sources connected the two events to the degree that the lead did. There are further attempts to discredit the Eurasianet coverage due to its use of Armenian sources by Abrvagl on the talk page. These attempts are a bridge too far: if Eurasianet is a reliable source, we can trust their journalists to evaluate primary sources and synthesize reliable secondary coverage in their own words––that is the whole point of journalism, and their claims should only be superseded by stronger sources (i.e. peer-reviewed publications or a chorus of journalistic sources with more clout), but I don't think that's necessarily sanctionable in itself, in the absence of a pattern of opportunistic exegesis. However, the edit warring is nevertheless problematic, and I would characterize even the early edits as edit warring, as the implicit consensus of nearly a year of silence erases the murkiness of the consensus when the content at-issue was first introduced. Beyond that, I haven't analyzed any of the tit-for-tat accusations made here in the AE discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 03:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] Abrvagl, I believe I already addressed the status of edit-warring and OR and do not see anything in your most recent comment that changes my assessment. As far as "intent to edit war", 3RR is a bright red line but not an entitlement to revert freely prior to hitting that limit: by May, it should have been abundantly clear that the changes you were proposing were contested and you should have proceeded to seek some form of dispute resolution rather than continuing to revert. I'm undecided on whether the polite accusations and rude expressions of exasperation here (by either of you) rise to the level of meriting sanctions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply] Since no one else has weighed in on this, I'm leaning towards closing this with a logged warning for Abrvagl regarding slow-motion edit warring. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

‎Fad Ariff[edit]

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.

Request concerning ‎Fad Ariff[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

‎Fad Ariff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics

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

1. In this diff (12:07, 27 May 2022) Revert of material against the consensus of two other editors, as openly admitted by the editor themselves in a talk page post minutes earlier in this diff (11:57, 27 May 2022).
2. Just over a week ago, this revert (13:14, 17 May 2022) by Fad Ariff was undone (13:50, 17 May 2022) by a previously uninvolved editor, SkidMountTubularFrame, who noticed the edit warring, only for the material to be reverted again (12:06, 20 May 2022) by Far Ariff - again reverting multiple editors without compunction in a conflict area.
3. In what appears to be a WP:1RR breach, this diff (12:05, 15 April 2022) followed this diff (12:06, 14 April 2022) - the latter being a revert of this diff (14:00, 13 April 2022).
4. Another WP:1RR breach in this diff (12:56, 12 March 2022) following this diff (15:37, 11 March 2022) - subsequently self-reverted ... after prompting.
5. Fad Ariff also brushes up against WP:1RR (with a second revert just outside 24hrs) on a regular basis in a manner that conveys a clear sense of entitlement to one revert a day. This includes:

• this diff (13:14, 17 May 2022) following this diff (12:04, 16 May 2022)
• this diff (12:08, 10 May 2022) following this diff (11:52, 9 May 2022 )
• this diff (12:22, 19 April 2022) following this diff (12:19, 18 April 2022)

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)

• Placement of DS alert on 12 March 2022
• Express explanation of WP:1RR (14:00, 12 March 2022), as clearly received and understood in this self-revert (14:00, 12 March 2022 )
• Another example (12:42, 19 April 2022) of an invitation to self-revert following the 19 April second revert after 24 hours and 3 minutes (an invitation that was ignored).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Despite a clear demonstration of an awareness of what DS and WP:1RR entail, and subsequent warnings that their double reverts in just over 24 hrs represents an entitled approach to WP:1RR that could be interpreted as WP:GAMING, they have only become bolder in doing just this, as well as edit warring against multiple other editors over the same material despite this being a conflict area with stronger than usual requirements for consensus. Reversion is being deployed to prevent any changes to the page that the editor just doesn't like in a manner that is increasingly reminiscent of WP:OWN. There are also civility issues with the repeated accusations of edit warring (with no apparent sense of irony). Iskandar323 (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In response to @Fad Ariff's claim of a WP:1RR breach on my part, I would like to note that the two diffs in question where both part of the same series of consecutive edits, so, for the sake of counting reversions, would be considering part of the same, single revert. I would also like to reiterate that, as you can see from Far Ariff's response on the subject of ignoring two other editors, they seem to think that they can justify this by slinging accusations of there being "problematic POV issues", which is obviously an extremely accusatory and not particularly WP:AGF stance to be taking. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: And another, so make that four reports. Fad Ariff has had a busy day. It's incredible the things you can achieve when you are an WP:SPA in a conflict area. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fad Ariff: I didn't allude to you being a single-purpose account; I suggested it quite clearly (and, quite obviously, you have, for many months, only editing within the post-1978 Iranian politics conflict area, and with a slightly pro-MEK leaning), but please also note that it is not necessarily a bad thing: why not read the essay? As for my COI enquiry, it's more or less a yes/no question. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notice of report filing

Discussion concerning Fad Ariff[edit]

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.

Statement by Fad Ariff[edit]

Hello. It’s my first time in one of these. May I please have a couple of days to familiarise a bit with this process? Thank you. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for allowing me some time to respond.

1. I had posted an explanation for that revert, so consensus for adding this to the article had not yet been reached. What Iskandar323 calls "consensus of two other editors" is actually Iskandar323 and Ghazaalch (another editor with a problematic POV issues who I'll discuss in a separate report) piling on each other’s posts in that article and then using that as a means to jump over substantive discussions in the talk page.

2. Here Iskandar323 again tried to make modifications to the article by jumping over the talk page discussion. I just reverted some of Iskandar323’s edits back to the article’s original version and then proposed reaching a consensus together for those edits on the talk page. The article’s rules does not allow to reinstate edits that have been challenged (via reversion), and Iskandar323 broke this rule here.[38][39] SkidMountTubularFrame, an editor that was not aware of what was going on, thanked me when I notified them in about this their talk page.

3. Here I did seem to have broken 1RR. If I been notified in good faith (as I have done with notifying Ghazaalch in good faith when they broke 1RR), I would have self-reverted (just like I did on point "4" below). Still, I apologize for this and it won’t happen again.

4. Here I still didn’t know about 1RR, so I self-reverted when I was informed.

5. If editing some minutes over the 24hrs period is not allowed in an article with 1RR then I won’t do it again.

Iskandar323 has been making many big changes to that article in the last weeks often jumping over the talk page discussions and reinstating edits that were challenged via reversion (something that is against the article's rules). They have also broken 1RR (for example, 14:05, 13 May 2022 and 14:13, 13 May 2022) but I wouldn’t report them for that because they could easily be notified instead. All of Iskandar323’s diffs in their report shows that I reverted edits to the article's original version whenever I found their edits to be problematic or in disagreement with talk page discussions. I did slip up breaking 1RR (Iskandar323’s point "3"), which happened after I had first become aware of 1RR (point "4"). I apologize for that and as noted it won't happen again. About Iskandar323’s claims that "There are also civility issues with the repeated accusations of edit warring", I will post a separate report so I can explain that in a clear way. Fad Ariff (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been a suggestion to merge the "Fad Ariff", "Iskandar323", and "Ghazaalch" reports (which I think makes sense) I think I should explain more clearly the connection between these.

I wrote "piling on" on the response to this report Iskandar323 made against me, and did not explain that well. For example Ghazaalch first reverts me saying "The article is already too long"[40][41], Iskandar agrees with Ghazaalch ("I agree with @Ghazaalch that the article is already too long and that we should in general be looking to remove material, not add ")[42], but then when I try to shorten the article Iskandar323 nullifies my proposal with comments like "And then its the usual bollocks about the article being too long"[43] (Ghazaalch does a similar type of gaslighting nullifying my proposals with comments like "The question here is that why you are focusing on shortening this section, while there are other sections that are longer than this? "[44]).

Iskandar323 accuses me of stonewalling but the talk page shows I aim to find compromises. It is actually Ghazaalch and Iskandar323 who have been stonewalling as shown by their lack of trying to reach compromises. For example, in this discussion[45] I make a proposal and ask that if they don't agree with my proposal they can post a proposal themselves (but they don't offer a proposal of their own, they just shut mine down). I even tried solving disputes at WP:DR, but when a mediator offered to mediate the dispute if all parties agreed to participate through some basic GF rules, both Iskandar323 and Ghazaalch stopped responding[46].

Then Iskandar323 reports me here even though I have constantly followed the WP:CRP and WP:BRD cycles (and self-reverted if I unknowingly broke 1RR and was notified). And Iskandar323 is now also resorting to alluding that I'm an "SPA"[47] and asking if I'm a "COI"[48], which are more bad faith and groundless insinuations.

Since much of this evidence seems obvious to me but may not be to others, please ping me if anything is unclear. Thank you. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghazaalch[edit]

The main problem with the Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran is that there is no admin to moderate in this page. There were a couple of them, but they exhausted with the way the discussions were going on and gave up. This is because there are always some pro-PMOI users such as Fad Ariff who are determined to eliminate the content that is critical of PMOI and do everything to reach their goals. Assassinations section (which is listing assassinations carried out by PMOI) for example and Cult of personality (which explain how Rajavi turned the PMOI into a cult) are among the sections that pro-PMOI users are determined to delete; and they do it through different tricks or under the pretext of summarizing and reorganizing the article. Most of them were blocked recently but new ones emerged, among them were TheDreamBoat, Hogo-2020 and Fad Ariff. Look at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran#Revert of names, for example, to see how the discussion started with TheDreamBoat. When TheDreamBoat was blocked, Ypatch took his place and continued the discussion. When Ypatch himself was blocked, Hogo-2020 took his place and continued the discussion; and see the way this discussion ends up. Because no admin is watching this page, and so they do what they like. As for Fad Ariff, like Hogo and others, he discusses, or better say, writes something, no matter what it is, to show that he is not convinced, and to show that there is no consensus yet; meaning you cannot add anything to the article without his permission. And again since there is no moderator to implement the consensus, he is not worried about the way discussions goes on. Here is an examples:

Fad Ariff writes: @Ghazaalch I reverted your edit because cult stuff is already covered in four different sections and in the lead of the article, which make the impression that what I added to "Cult of personality" section is repeated elsewhere in the article or at least there are some sections (other than "Cult of personality") where there is some information concerning the "Cult stuff" he is talking about, but the only sentence you can find is this short one in the lede: "Critics have described the group as "resembling a cult". That is all. But as you can see in the second half of this section, no one can convince him that he shouldn't have done the deletion.

Here is another example: Fad Ariff starts to explain here why he deleted/reverted a well sourced paragraph, and he makes the impression that he wants to justify the deletion, and he makes some suggestion, in order to reach consensus. Later on he writes that he will work on moving this and other information to sections where they are more suitable. By saying this, again he makes the impression that he wants to move the reverted/deleted information to another section, but in fact, under this pretext, he wants to move an old paragraph (that he cannot revert/delete), to other sections so that he could empty the section from its contents, in order to delete the section entirely little by little. (This is the volume of the section after his edit) Because the title of this section ( Cult of personality) attracts the reader's attentions and he does not like it. So Instead of restoring the new paragraph he reverted/deleted, he jumps into a RFC to remove the old one too.

And RFC is the ideal place for him and the other Pro-PMOI users as I said in a previous arbitration, because finding some People to vote for them is much easier than convincing their opponents using reliable sources. One of these voters, for example, is NMasiha who has appeared after a year to vote in these RFCs. Ghazaalch (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NMasiha[edit]

What Ghazaalch is saying about me here is false. I made a couple of edits to the PMOI article in February [49][50], and in its talk page on May [51] for example, so I have not suddenly "appeared after a year" like Ghazaalch is saying. I have also edited other articles in this area (although most of my edits are in the FaWiki). Ghazaalch is much more involved in this article and talk page than I am. NMasiha (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Fad Ariff[edit]

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

• Awaiting Fad Ariff's response. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Brad, it looks like some of Fad Ariff's response is the retaliatory filing below. Clearly, it would have been better if they had kept inside this section here, but I wouldn't throw the book at them for that; it's not really surprising that some users don't understand the WP:AE system perfectly. Fad Ariff's following attempt to take out another opponent concerns me more. Probably all three reports should be assessed together. Bishonen | tålk 08:13, 1 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Ghazaalch[edit]

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.

Request concerning Ghazaalch[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fad Ariff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics

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

1) WP:NPA: "Saying one thing and doing another thing is an act of hypocrisy, and the "hypocrites'" is another name used for The People's Mojahedin of Iran."(13:44, 23 May 2022) (comment directed at me and at the subject of the article)

2) WP:BATTLEGROUND: "If I were an admin, I would blocked People like you from discussing; and from editing, in the first place"(11:39, 25 April 2022)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not that I am aware

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

1. (14:51, 7 February 2021) Talk page notification
2. (15:53, 21 May 2021) Talk page notification
3. (22:49, 25 July 2021) In the case that led to WP:GS/IRANPOL, administrator User:Vanamonde93 said Ghazaalch had been a "party to this dispute"

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Ghazzalch has an obvious WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS stand towards the subject of the article as shown by their comment on point "1". Ghazzalch also shows constant "us vs them" battleground mentality with editors they disagree with (as shown in point "2" ). Fad Ariff (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[52]

Discussion concerning Ghazaalch[edit]

@Bishonen: I do agree with your comment that merging the 3 cases would make the reading of these cases easier, and thank you for your consideration of me being new to AE. About Ghazaalch's comment (point "1"), sorry but reading that again I don't think I explained myself well there. In Islam, the term "Munafiq" (or "hypocrites", or false Muslim) is used in a derogatory way. The Iranian regime consistently refers to the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (an Iranian political group that also happens to be Muslim) with this derogatory term ("The regime, claiming that the Mojahedin were unbelievers masquerading as Muslims, used the Koranic term Monafeqin (hypocrites) to describe them"^[1]). Ghazaalch's comment is alluding to that (making an attack on the PMOI’s Muslim identity, and trying to associate me to that through a vague “act of hypocrisy” comparison). Fad Ariff (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case this needs more clarification (which may have escaped me), the article itself clearly describes the "hypocrites" term with relation to the subject in two different sections.

"Monafiqeen (Persian: منافقین, lit. 'the hypocrites') – the Iranian government consistently refers to the organization with this derogatory name. The term is derived from the Quran, which describes it as people of "two minds" who "say with their mouths what is not in their hearts" and "in their hearts is a disease"."

"The regime claimed that the MEK were "unbelievers masquerading as Muslims", and used the Qur'anic term "monafeqin" (hypocrites) to describe them. This label was also later used by the Islamic Republic to discredit the MEK. According to Ervand Abrahamian, the Iranian regime "did everything it could" to tarnish the MEK "through a relentless campaign by labeling them as Marxist hypocrites and Western-contaminated ‘electics’, and as ‘counter-revolutionary terrorists’ collaborating with the Iraqi Ba’thists and the imperialists""

Fad Ariff (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: You don't consider using a reference to a group of Muslim people being "unbelievers masquerading as Muslims" a personal attack on their religious identity? Fad Ariff (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ghazaalch[edit]

Concerning the first quoted expression above, I did not want to say that Fad Ariff is a "hypocrite", but wanted to say that saying one thing and doing another thing is an act of hypocrisy, and that "hypocrites" is a name used for People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, as you could see in the section Other names.

As for the second expression, I explained it in the above request, concerning Fad Ariff. Ghazaalch (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Ghazaalch[edit]

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

• I don't see the two expressions of irritation that Fad Ariff links to in this report as worthy of sanctions. Indeed, I see this report as an obvious attempt to take out an opponent. Note also that this is the second report against an opponent that Fad Ariff has posted within five minutes [sic]. Inspired, I suppose, by Iskandar's report against himself which can be seen higher up. Fad Ariff, this board is for serious, intractable problems. Please don't waste admins' time. Bishonen | tålk 08:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]
• Yeah I don't see anything actionable. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rp2006[edit]

The consensus is that the addition of a reference was not a violation. The second edit likely was, but is a very technical and clearly not malicious violation. Rp2006 is advised to use more caution in regards to following the topic ban when editing in areas where it may apply; no other action taken. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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. Request concerning Rp2006[edit] User who is submitting this request for enforcement Geogene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] User against whom enforcement is requested Rp2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Rp2006_topic_ban_(2) Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 16:22, 14 May 2022 Citing a book by Robert Bartholomew, who is a living person associated with the skeptical movement. 00:41, 14 May 2022 Rosemary Crossley is a living person of interest to the skeptical movement If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Topic banned by ArbCom from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Also see this relevant discussion on talk page [53] Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [54] Discussion concerning Rp2006[edit] 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. Statement by Rp2006[edit] Statement by Geogene (filer)[edit] Pinging @Firefangledfeathers: and @ScottishFinnishRadish: since they participated in that user talkpage thread I linked to. Geogene (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Regarding Diff 1, Robert Bartholomew is a Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry [55], Rp2006 has an ArbCom-confirmed COI related to that organization (see finding of facts). Geogene (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Regarding Johnuniq's comments here, he has always doubted that GSoW's were involved in promoting themselves (COI). Here he expresses that doubt while coaching Sgerbic on how to conduct herself in the case. reasonable people would see problems with undue negativity in BLPs, and might think that at least some of the group are "here" to promote Skeptical Inquirer. I don't share that view, and I think even it were true it is a correctable problem. [56]. He is WP:Involved here, based on his extensive and partisan participation related to the GSoW case. Geogene (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Here is a diff of Johnuniq taking sides in the relevant ArbCom case [57]. Geogene (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] I don't think I'm "dragging Johnuniq into this". I think Johnuniq is good enough at finding GSoW-related dispute resolution threads on his own without my help. This thread is his first commen on this page in more than a month [58], and the GSoW COIN thread he participated in was his only visit to that board over an interval of more than a year [59]. What sort of posts was he making there? Defending GSoW [60], [61], [62]. Geogene (talk) 16:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish[edit] Oh good. I noticed this back when it happened, and reached out to a couple editors that would be more likely to be seen as neutral to see if they would bring it up to Rp2006, and failing that, I ignored it and hoped it would go away, which apparently it didn't. To address a couple of the points here: As I dimly recall, the problem was adding negativity to BLP articles concerning, umm, open-minded people. These edits appear unrelated to that... "Rp2006 has an ArbCom-confirmed COI related to that organization" is not relevant since there is no remedy relating to that. The finding states "Rp2006 has edited biographies of living people without appropriately observing neutral point of view, both negatively for individuals associated as fringe topics and positively for individuals associated as skeptics." It's both negative information against fringey people, and boosting skeptics. Adding an Amazon link as a cite to a skeptics book isn't great, instead of citing the book itself. Per WP:AMAZON, some users consider it advertising to add such links. I assume it was a wider topic ban since there were issues with both positive and negative editing. Yeah I definitely am getting WP:BATTLEGROUND vibes from the filing and am frankly more concerned about the filing than the edits. and Frankly, I would be a lot more impressed if the filer had pointed out the possibility of it being an error to Rp2006 first so they could possibly revert it and learn from the error, rather than coming right here seeking a sanction. There are three warnings/clarifications linked to in the report, about two specific edits. This included advice to reach out to admins for clarification on any confusion. Is a fourth warning/clarification on their talk page necessary before going to AE without it being seen as WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct? They've made fewer than 100 mainspace edits since the topic ban, and at least three of those edits have been topic ban violations. A warning here that they should probably put a bit more care into not violating their topic ban, and clarifying the ban itself would probably be helpful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Statement by (username)[edit] Result concerning Rp2006[edit] This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Would someone please clarify what the problem is. The linked ArbCom remedy says "topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed". Where is there an implication that edits to Nocebo and Facilitated communication are not permitted? As I dimly recall, the problem was adding negativity to BLP articles concerning, umm, open-minded people. These edits appear unrelated to that. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] The second diff shows Rp2006 adding Anne McDonald and Rosemary Crossley to "See also" at Facilitated communication. That might be regarded as redundant since the two people are very briefly mentioned in the article but the edit is totally different from what ArbCom was trying to address. See the Rp2006 findings of fact which discussed WP:BLP edits without due WP:NPOV. I agree that this area has to apply a letter-of-the-law approach so maybe the edit is a topic ban violation but a clarification request might be in order. At any rate the above "Rp2006 has an ArbCom-confirmed COI related to that organization" is not relevant since there is no remedy relating to that. Johnuniq (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] The first diff is definitely not a violation. Construing the topic ban in this way would essentially ban adding any reference to any article in the scientific skepticism space; definitely not what the topic ban is meant to be. The second diff does seem a violation since adding a living person to the see also is definitely an edit about them. But it's quite a minor violation so I don't think anything needs to be done beyond clarifying that the restriction applies here. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Yeah I definitely am getting WP:BATTLEGROUND vibes from the filing and am frankly more concerned about the filing than the edits. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] Both instances are minor and do not appear to be intentional tban violations. De minimis non curat lex. Bishonen | tålk 12:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC).[reply] I agree the first diff should not be considered a violation - the editor was obviously topic banned for issues relating to being able to handle BLP issues - I don't think we've ever held that adding a reference written by a BLP was a violation of a topic ban on editing about BLPs - which, if we did, would be ridiculous in the extreme. The second diff is, as others have pointed out, a technical violation, but it's edge-case enough that I can't work up a lot of energy to block someone over it. Frankly, I would be a lot more impressed if the filer had pointed out the possibility of it being an error to Rp2006 first so they could possibly revert it and learn from the error, rather than coming right here seeking a sanction. And combining it was the reference edit just makes it look like waiting to pounce on anything in an effort to get rid of an opponent. And the dragging of Johnuniq into this is just ... more concerning about the filer. I suggest that they dial back the WP:BATTLEGROUND feel here... Ealdgyth (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply] The cited diffs are three weeks old so unless these are part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour (that no evidence has been presented to show) any sanction now would be punitive - and that is especially true given how trivial the single breach is. All that needs to happen is for Rp2006 to be made aware that the second diff was technically a violation of their topic ban so they know not to do it again; and for Geogene to be formally reminded of the purpose of AE. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3Kingdoms[edit]

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.

Request concerning 3Kingdoms[edit]

Appealing user

3Kingdoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban on Arab-Israeli conflict [63]

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Newslinger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Newslinger (talk)

Notification of that editor

[64]

Statement by 3Kingdoms[edit]

Yeah I was too hot-headed and edit-warred a lot. I've cooled off and have a firmer understanding of the revert rules. Plus I am under a 0rrr for about another 2 months and than a 1rrr for another three, so I will not be engaging in any wars. I have not had any issues since coming back regarding edit-warring or clashing with other editors. I have no intention of starting any fight over this sensitive topic, just plan to patch up pages and make the odd addition. Since Newslinger has not responded to my request on his page, which is understandable given the circumstances, I am asking for it to occur here. Hope this clears things up. Thanks. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Galobtter I get that kind of reasoning. Is there a way to make a compromise where select pages (current news) I do not edit, but others are allowed? If not I get it. 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Just to be clear the ban only applies to the topics that have the "Arab Israeli" note? So a page like Peasants' revolt in Palestine that does not have it I can edit no problem? 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling that was the case. Just wanted to clear up so there was no misunderstanding. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by the idea that I somehow broke the my 0rr. Regarding the first abortion edit I explained that I looked through most of the books in question and found them to not say what they were used to say so I removed. I engaged on the talk page here [65] and changes were made. There was no issue and no fighting. Regarding the one on Latin America it was full of editorial language and lacked numerous citations. If one wants to readd go for it. Regarding the removal of the block quote regarding TX V. PA one of the links is to editing from January 2021. So nearly a year and a half ago. Finally I was not aware of any edit-warring regarding these issues. If I did not look hard enough I am sorry. When these were reverted I made no objections and just talked it out. Three different editors have restored my removal here are some pages where that occurred. Mike Bost, Jeff Fortenberry, Cathy McMorris Rodgers. Again I made no argument on the pages themselves. Finally regarding having "disdain" for opposing views I would say that both of us were too argumentative and combative. I believe in letting bygones be bygones. Have a nice day to everyone. 3Kingdoms (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went through all the members of congress and on none of their talk pages was there any discussion about the two quotes removed. Aswell I saw no previous debate in the edit history. So I really do not see how any of the removals were edit-warring. Finally regarding the claim of "nonexistent Consensus" As I have said before, after my edits were reverted (which I did not reverse and instead had a productive talk with the person who did it) a day later my edits were readded by at least three different editors. Since they were not taken down, I felt that this warranted me taking down the quotes on other pages that I had no edited. I understand that people make mistakes so no hard feelings. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newslinger[edit]

Comments by others about the appeal by 3Kingdoms[edit]

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

Looking over their history, I think 3Kingdoms may have breached their 0RR restriction recently; very shortly after being unblocked with a 0RR restriction, they went through a large number of articles to partially or completely remove this text ([66], many others.) That text had been the subject of a revert war (often with IPs) on at least some of those articles; see eg. [67]. The full list of articles would be a massive number of diffs but can easily be seen in 3Kingdoms' edit history. And 3Kingdoms knows this was a past dispute, in a way that makes it hard to imagine they were unaware that they were reverting someone - when challenged about the rationale for removing the text, they cited a (nonexistent) consensus to omit it, which by definition requires that it was added and removed previously. I feel that this is enough to at least seriously consider revoking 3Kingdoms' appeal and re-instating their ban; but it's certainly enough of a reason to not further remove their restrictions given what they did immediately after getting the previous one removed, ie. instantly diving into controversial topic areas and removing massive swaths of text.

See also eg. [68][69] - there are several others; some of 3Kingdoms' first actions after being unblocked with a 0RR restriction and a promise to be less hot-headed were to go down a list of articles (largely related to abortion, Catholicism, and right-wing politics) and remove large swaths of text. I am sympathetic to the fact that for a 0RR in particular we have to be cautious about the "every removal is technically a revert" logic, and I do accept the need to fix similar problems on multiple articles, but someone who just got back from a ban by promising to be less hot-headed and who is now asking for another sanction to be relaxed needs to be on their best behavior. To make these sweeping removals of clearly-controversial content that they could reasonably know had been previously contested, often with no explanation, immediately after being let back in, and then to come to AE and to ask for sanctions to be relaxed further, seems like a bit much. And saying that they were too hot-headed in the past but are calmer now doesn't seem particularly compatible with this.

I will also point out that 3Kingdoms' previous appeal for this restriction looked very similar to this one (they were blocked for revert-warring elsewhere after that), and in the appeal for their first indefinite block, before that, they said essentially the same thing. --Aquillion (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

The probblem isnt understanding the revert rules, thats the bare minimum of being able to count to 1 or 3. The problem is understanding what edit-warring is, that reverting once a day is still edti-warring, that attempting to enforce your view through reversions is edit-warring. The problem was the total disdain for anybody else's view in any editing conflict. Thats what needs to be shown to have changed, not that he is now willing to count to 1. nableezy - 14:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result of the appeal by 3Kingdoms[edit]

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

• You only got unblocked from an indefinite block for edit warring a month ago. I think it's best to wait until the restrictions expire in 5 months and there's no issues with that before you come and edit such a sensitive topic - it's hard to avoid conflicts in this area and I'd like to see you have more practice being cool-headed before removing the tban. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict is already a pretty narrow topic ban - there's definitely lots of other articles you can edit. Pretty much by definition anything in that topic area is controversial so I don't see a reason to narrow it beyond that. Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @3Kingdoms, see WP:TBAN for an explanation of how topic bans work. An edit can still be related without the page having the "note". Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not believe this is the time to remove the topic ban. Especially while they're under revert restrictions as a condition of coming back from an indef, I think I would first want to see 3Kingdoms do a substantial amount of good quality editing in less difficult and fraught areas prior to consideration of lifting the TBAN. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}

Seggallion[edit]

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.

Request concerning Seggallion[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

1. This edit undoes
2. this edit of 14:52, 7 June 2022 and
3. this edit of 16:50, 7 June 2022.
4. by two different editors.

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.

Here, the response also indicates awareness about reverts

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor when initially requested to self revert expressed confusion about how one edit was a breach of 1RR. When eventually explained here the response was to blank the page. When given a final chance to self revert here the response was again to blank with edit summary "Did not breach anything. Why threaten like this?".

This pattern may by now be familiar, an editor reaches 500 edits and immediately jumps into the middle of an ongoing content dispute.

Re single revert, my understanding is that a revert undoes the actions of an editor and that if a single edit undoes the actions of two editors/edits then that is two reverts. Admittedly, Wikipedia:Reverting is an essay but it does say "A single edit may reverse multiple prior edits, in which case the edit constitutes multiple reversions." If that could be confirmed as wrong, please.

Shrike, I did not make a frivolous filing, I made a mistake in my interpretation of Wikipedia:Reverting, nothing more. I even linked and quoted it to Seggallion before I filed. I now stand corrected on that point and Segallion has my apologies for making an incorrect 1R allegation.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning Seggallion[edit]

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.

Statement by Seggallion[edit]

Why was my name wrong in some sections here?

I made one edit to the article and one edit is just one revert.

I was told by Selfstudier on April 9th to wait until I had 500 edits before more Arab-Israel edits. I had around 400 edits then. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1081780290&oldid=1081732694

I followed instructions and waited. At the end of May I saw a requested move advertised on the al-Aqsa article and I voted on it, just like I voted on other advertised moves. I checked before voting that I met the rule.

The changes to the naming have been opposed by other users too, I have been watching this pair of articles since the requested move.

---

I didn't wait until 500 to edit the topic. I was told to wait by Selfstudier after I edited a church in April that he thought was in the topic.

I also made a request in January to edit an article in topic I was blocked from. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ramla&diff=prev&oldid=1065377343

In this month I saw the Aqsa move advertised.

---

Also fixing errors like

novellist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marie_Linde&diff=prev&oldid=1065211857

scheluded https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedro_Antonio_S%C3%A1nchez&diff=prev&oldid=1065794748

Borwn https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_in_Mississippi&diff=prev&oldid=1072564164

Mississipi, not p but pp, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nate_Dogg&diff=prev&oldid=1072762154

Is not a game.

---

Can someone scrutinize Selfstudier's reverts and threat on my talk page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1092010968&oldid=1092010433

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Seggallion&diff=1092012794&oldid=1092012058

I felt under the gun with last one.

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

That's a single revert, it does not matter how many edits were reverted if it happened in a single revert. However there is blatant extended confirmed permissions gaming, with the overwhelming majority of their first 500 edits being single byte additions and removals. Then their 501st edit is to a restricted topic's requested move here. Curiously, the single byte changes started to pick up steam right around when this happened. nableezy - 18:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier your understanding is wrong. A single edit, or a single set of contiguous edits, is by definition no more than one revert. A single revert can undo multiple edits by multiple contributors. nableezy - 19:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323[edit]

It is a single reversion, but by undoing the work of two other editors, it is also in essence a restoration of a prior version. The basic requirement with any revert, not least a restoration effectively rollbacking edits by multiple other editors, is a fairly fulsome explanation of the reasons why it is being done, and "not neutral" does not really cut it. Reversions of non-vandalistic edits need decent comments. And yes, an editor barely off their 500/30 training wheels wading into this particular domain and immediately boldly reverting with laconic edit comments is of course somewhat eyebrow raising. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: Hypothetically speaking, imagining a scenario if you were a WP gamer, would it not make total sense, and in fact be gaming 101, to continue to edit in the areas in which you have built up your first 500 edits, to provide precisely that cause for the pretense of your own innocence? Gaming doesn't stop at 500 edits; on the contrary; that is when the 'game' truly begins. The behaviour is not typified by what it does not include, but as Nableezy noted, what it does include, such as mass single or zero character edits up to 500 and then a launch straight into conflict area disputes. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Onceinawhile[edit]

I would also like to discuss what can be done about 500/30 gaming. Coming up to 500 edits through mass automated / semi-automated / very minor edits is not consistent with the spirit of the rule. This editor made >350 edits in Jan/Feb this year, by finding and replacing common typos. A useful job of course, but the interest in clean-up edits disappears at 500. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike[edit]

First of all the premise of this filing is frivolous the filer is experienced enough to understand what revert is. Regrading the gaming it seems that users has continued to do minor edits in other topics contrary to what claimed here so it doesn't seem like gaming to me --Shrike (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]

Seggallion, could you explain why you didn't sign your comments above and you formatted the links so poorly? You displayed a deep knowlege of the links formating (note "here" added) back in February [70] and you also nicely signed your comment. What happened? - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Seggallion[edit]

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

Zusty001[edit]

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.

Request concerning Zusty001[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Zusty001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM

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

1. [71] Violates WP:PSCI through removing all or most WP:RS which discuss Steiner's pseudoscience.

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)

• Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. [72]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

From the edit summary at [73] they knew they are fighting against WP:CONSENSUS, nevertheless chose to put consensus and experts between scare quotes and chose to claim that the experts have a particular philosophy (So-called). I cannot read the rest of their reasoning since it has been omitted from public record. Anyway, speaking of their summaries from other articles, those are hard to parse and to make sense of. And I have read Western esotericism books in English, I have read parts of Heidegger's Being and Time in English, so it cannot be said that I don't understand obscurantist prose. E.g. I fail to understand what sort of action or message 'pseudoscience' (A term whose meaning remains oblique and occulted, yet treated as monolithic here) is supposed to convey. Seems to be a deepity. Or a Gish gallop.

What does it mean that the meaning of pseudoscience is oblique? What does it mean that it is occulted? Who treated pseudoscience as monolithic and what's the evidence that they did so?

The talk page of the article is crammed with explanations about WP:PSCI, so I felt no need of adding extra explanations. The problem with Steiner's fans is that they have a thoroughly in-universe view and no longer know how mainstream science views Steiner. But I once met an important Anthroposophist who was fully aware that the Institute for Beautiful Sciences (Schöne Wissenschaften) sounds completely ridiculous to outsiders. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[74]

Discussion concerning Zusty001[edit]

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.

Statement by Zusty001[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Zusty001[edit]

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

LearnIndology[edit]

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.

Request concerning LearnIndology[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

Search DS 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. Talk:2022_BJP_Muhammad_remarks_controversy#Opinion_of_Dutch_politician - 11 June 2022

   Edit-warring in violation of WP:ONUS.

2. Talk:Nupur_Sharma_(politician)#Notability - 7 June 2022

   Edit-wars to remove certain content despite opposition by multiple editors (and only one in favor); at last, a longstanding admin had to aware LI, LearnIndology, blanking a relevant and cited section from this article isn't acceptable and Kautilya was entitled to restore them.

3. Redirecting a longstanding article - 28 March 2022

   I have no qualms against editors unilaterally redirecting articles, as permitted by policy. However I am opposed to misrepresentations in the process; contrary to the edit summary, the article had a news article from Reuters. A cursory search in GBooks or GScholar evidence that the topic has attracted substantial scholarship. The redirect fits to pro-Hindutva POV which deems Cow-belt to be a slang - indeed LI had once sought for speedy deletion on the same grounds.

4. User_talk:LearnIndology/Archive_4#Serious_warning - 14 January 2022

   Misquotes an author to push POV. Shifts the blame to GSnippets etc.

5. Talk:Exodus_of_Kashmiri_Hindus#The_Pandit_population - 11 January 2022

   Uses some fringe journal to challenge multiple famed scholars who have been published by Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press etc. When there ain't any wiggle-room left, comes a strange reply. His shenanigans continue till March '22; see the t/p.

6. Talk:Raksha_Bandhan#Reason - 25 August 2021

   Uses ridiculously poor sources — an astrologer and a school-level text-book — to edit-war against two editors including me. Their strange replies only compound the issue.

7. Talk:Religion_of_the_Indus_Valley_Civilization#Attribution - 8 August 2021

   Copy content from different articles to start a new article. Nothing objectionable in such acts except that their copying had selectively omitted all critical remarks which did not pander to a pro-Hindutva POV. My accusations were (later) supported by Joshua Jonathan, a longstanding editor, at Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilisation#Merger_proposal.

8. Talk:Religion_of_the_Indus_Valley_Civilization#Particular_issues - 9 August 2021

   Claim Jonathan Mark Kenoyer (an expert in the field) to support a particular POV about IVC Swastika being linkable with the Hindu Swastika. I inquire about how exactly Kenoyer supports that claim but they do not expand upon it. As the particular section shows (redrafted by me), Kenoyer states something very different - frankly, the precise opposite.

9. Diff1 - 8 August 2021

   Choose to insert a POV factoid which is rejected by almost all scholars (see this section). Summarily reverted by Johnbod for failing WP:BALANCE.

10. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive437#User:LearnIndology_reported_by_User:Joshua_Jonathan_(Result:_) - 18 July 2021

    Aggressive behavior, dubious usage of sources, and violation of BLP including breaching 3RR. Links provided in the complaint. Upon being brought to the noticeboard, they claimed of a serious misunderstanding! Once again, pushing of a pro-Hindutva POV.

11. Diff2 - 16 July 2021

    Create a fresh article filled with pro-author (pro-Hindutva) POV. Claims of the book being widely praised are uncritically reproduced from the author himself. More space is allotted for the author's response to various reviewers than for what the reviewers said in the first place!

    See the current version of the article to understand the extent of POV that was pushed in.

12. Talk:Romila_Thapar#Marxist - 1 February 2021

    WP:POINT, misrepresentation of sources, using poor sources - you name it and you will find it being called out by multiple editors.

13. Talk:Rigvedic_deities#Vedic_period - 7 December 2020

    Pro-Hindutva POV pushing.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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

LearnIndology (LI) is not a prolific editor: they are often inactive for weeks and engages in routine anti-vandalism, maintenance tasks etc. This necessitates a scrutiny into their activities across a long span of time, which might be unnecessary otherwise.

The evidence presented above supports that the losses accrued by letting LI edit in this area — reduction in content accuracy as well as waste of editorial resources in combating his POV-laden activities — outweighs the positives. I wish to emphasize that LI is cautious enough to not run afoul of any bright-line rule but nonetheless, tests the boundaries as evident from the 3RRN example. Multiple established editors — me, Kautilya3, Fowler&Fowler, RegentsPark, Joshua Jonathan, and maybe others — have warned him about NPOV violations but they show little effect.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning LearnIndology[edit]

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.

Statement by LearnIndology[edit]

Nearly all of the diffs are dating back to 2020 and 2021 and concern some usual content disputes and some include misleading claims such that I created this article. I find this reporting to be lacking any sense. Though I would still comment on the recent diffs.

2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy was created[75] over 28 hours after Nupur Sharma (politician) was created.[76] It was being redirected to Nupur Sharma because it was a complete POVFORK created in violation of copyrights per WP:CWW. Just compare these two versions: [77],[78]. Only difference was the creation of more sub-sections and some quotefarming, but that was also insignificant.

The discussion on Talk:2022 BJP Muhammad remarks controversy#Opinion of Dutch politician and Talk:Nupur Sharma (politician)#Notability shows that I am regularly responsive and abiding by the consensus. My edits aren't even violating WP:SYNTH like your recent edits on this page, let alone justifying them like you are doing.

ARE shouldn't be misused just because you disagree with some of my edits. LearnIndology (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't consider any of my edit to be a 'substantial' only when it is made anywhere in your topics. Anyway, I was not engaging in misrepresentation of sources in January as I described here but only interpreted a snippet without having access but I got the access later and no misrepresentation was found. I haven't used snippets since. My last edit to this subject was in March 2022 where I was only providing information that could be backed with other reliable sources. There was no policy violation there.

As for your objection to my attempts to redirect a content fork two times, I think you will understand my position better now because you have also attempted to redirect Gyanvapi Mosque controversy[79] two times in a row. I don't disagree with you reverting but the point is that sometimes there are editors who ignore policies on article creation and only care about retaining the article. But I usually let it go and wait for the consensus when others don't agree. LearnIndology (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-filing statements and responses by TrangaBellam[edit]

• LI, I see that you have not chosen to discuss your mis-representation of sources about the Kashmir Exodus etc., which happened as late as March '22.
  You stake in about one substantial edit per month, excluding vandalism and routine maintenance; that invokes the necessity to examine your edits from a year ago. Every time you get a warning — Kautilya3 noted in March that he will take you to AE, shall such misrepresentation of source reoccur — you take a break from volatile areas for a couple of months and then start a new mess. Once that becomes too hot to manage, you remain low for another couple of months. This is an obvious gaming of the system because by the time, someone can get substantial evidence of disruption against you, they have become too old.
  You reverted Onel's redirect of the article and added content. Technically, not a creation but practically it is.
  My invocation of the content-deletion from 2022 Muhammad controversy concerns your edit-warring under what appears to be quite-spurious grounds, as rightfully held by a completely uninvolved admin. Even if you are right on the specifics, that does not excuse your edit-warring etc.
  This thread is not about me; if you have issues with my editing, please raise them at an appropriate venue (ANI/AE/..). Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning LearnIndology[edit]

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

73.158.47.129[edit]

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.

Request concerning 73.158.47.129[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mhawk10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole

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

1. 12 June 2022 This IP claimed to be HazelBasil and to be aware of their being blocked, but participated in an AfD about Ashley Gjøvik.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 11 February 2022 for comments and conduct made both on- and off-wiki, HazelBasil is indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia (see also: block log)

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

• Mentioned by name and sanctioned in the Arbitration Committee's motion linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The IP editor claims to be the article subject, but the article subject is blocked from using Wikipedia. This appears to be a case of block evasion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:15, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Thank you for your note. While I did not include this on my initial report, I think there's evidence that we can rule out this being an imposter. Her disclosed Twitter account has tweeted (archive link) about the incident in a way that confirms that the IP's claim to be the ArbCom-blocked Wikipedia user is authentic. I don't know that this is actionable in any way, but I'm noting this here for posterity sake as it's basically confirmed sockpuppetry at this point. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

19:17, 12 June 2022

Discussion concerning 73.158.47.129[edit]

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.

Statement by 73.158.47.129[edit]

Hello, I posted on a discussion page that was directly about me, and immediately identified myself and the ban. As for the ban, I was never told why I was banned other than "offline & online conduct." I was never even told I was even being investigated. I had no notice negative action would be taken against me. In fact i had reported misconduct against me, and the investigation apparently pivoted to *me* at some point. I was given no warnings, ever. My account was in use for over a decade with no prior warnings & only praise. There was no specific ban/block before a wider ban/block, there was no temporary ban before an indefinite ban. was never provided an explanation of why I was banned or how to appeal, or if I could appeal. I was told I was banned from editing, but it was unclear if that meant only editing articles or if that also applied to administrative matters, like an article deletion discussion. The order was vague and overbroad, and I've struggled to interpret it. It does seem quite unfair to prevent me from weighing in on a deletion discussion about the article about me, without explicitly telling me the ban applies to administration discussions as well as articles. In fact, I was given notice and this text box to edit as part of this enforcement notice, which is confusing if I'm supposed to be banned. Why would I get notice or an opportunity to provide input, if i was prohibited from providing input? I worry that I'm violating the ban again by even responding now here. 73.158.47.129 (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning 73.158.47.129[edit]

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

• IP blocked 1 week for either block evasion or impersonation. Can be reblocked for longer if it proves static. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mhawk10: Yeah, the "or impersonation" was mostly to save myself the time of investigating when it was blockable either way. I agree that that off-wiki statement is dispositive here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 21:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Спидвагона[edit]

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.

Request concerning Спидвагона[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:A/I/PIA

Extended confirmed restriction

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

1. 00:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC) ""
2. 21:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC) ""
3. 18:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC) ""
4. 17:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Shut up"
5. 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC) "Unrelated. Sources don't mention Kook even once. This is not an article on Kahane. Also bad grammar in caption and unexplained removal of picture. Daveout already took responsibility for edit but Nableezy reverted him with some incoherent edit summary that appears to agree with him anyway. Stop disrupting."

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)

N/A as a general sanction, but informed here. pretty obviously a sock account, but no matter, should be blocked as an account whose single purpose is to violate an arbitration restriction.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Every single edit by this user since registering has been a violation of the extended-confirmed restriction.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Спидвагона[edit]

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.

Statement by Спидвагона[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Спидвагона[edit]

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

• Blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/יניב הורון (Yaniv Horon). Both IPs blocked 3mo as proxies. Page ECP'd indef and logged at WP:DSLOG/2022. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]