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 Clean Copy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

Clean Copy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPS

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14:44, 3 February 2022 — topic banned

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

Not applicable.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning Clean Copy

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 Clean Copy

Statement by Shibbolethink

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Clean Copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request concerning Tombah

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [5] Indef for not responding on talk page to concerns about copyvio and ARBPIA violations, appeal to blocking editor accepted.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Warned editor about making false statement.

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Tombah

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 Tombah

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Shrike

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

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

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

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

Statement by Nableezy

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

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

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

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

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

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

Statement by IP

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

Statement by Zero0000

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

Statement by Foreverevermore

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tombah

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

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

Request concerning JustinSmith

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

JustinSmith (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/COVID-19

• Suggest indefinite TBAN from COVID-19, broadly construed.

Violation

John Campbell (YouTuber) is an article about a retired nurse who has made a number of controversial COVID-19 videos, sometimes containing misinformation as documented by RS, and the Wikipedia article accordingly.

JustinSmith arrived at the article and immediately started bombing the lede with a factoid about how Campbell is apparently vaccinated. Despite pushback from multiple editors and on the Talk page this has now become full-on edit warring, per the diffs below:

1. [6]
2. [7]
3. [8]
4. [9]
5. [10]

Warned about DS and the risk of sanctions, JustinSmith said "... Banning me, after 16 years editing Wikipedia, might be doing me a favour anyway, it takes up so much time. I will only accept an edit that acknowledges that Campbell cannot be "anti vax" because he is triple vaccinated".[11]

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

• [12]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor seems productive in unrelated areas, hence a TBAN seems appropriate.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [13]

Discussion concerning JustinSmith

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 JustinSmith

I think that Dr John Campbell page is just about the most biased, and frankly inaccurate page, on Wikipedia. It is implying Campbell is anti-vax, yet he himself is triple vaccinated ! I put a link on to one of his Videos where he states that and was told that was not acceptable as it's original source and what I need is another source saying Campbell said it. Quite bizarre and an obvious attempt to push a censorship agenda. As it happens there are other sources quoting Campbell :

Pollard also said he was hopeful that a new vaccine, if needed, could be developed "very rapidly." Pollard's comments come after UK-based health analyst Dr. John Campbell told DW that omicron is "not likely to completely invalidate the vaccines." "It might reduce the efficacy but it's looking like the vaccines will continue to prevent severe illness, hospitalization and death in the vast majority of cases.'" https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-oxford-chief-says-omicron-unlikely-to-reboot-pandemic/a-59954236

and

Dr John Campbell says Oxford AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is safe https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/19165658.dr-john-campbell-says-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-safe/

Quite obviously not the comments of an anti-vaxxer.

The additions I made are provably factually correct. Furthermore I think a sentence in the opener needs to confirm that Campbell is not anti vax as not to do so is misleading. Campbell repeatedly states that vaccination of anyone at significant risk from Covid is very advisable, but he is against mandating vaccines and advises caution regarding vaccinating younger people who are at lower risk. I cannot see anything controversial about this.

Can you please explain why I add provably correct cited content, then some biased editor repeatedly removes it, yet, when I try to replace it it's me who is accused of a reversion war. How does that work exactly ? JustinSmith (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC) moved from Firefangledfeathers' section Firefangledfeathers (talk [reply]

• • • TBH I am not sure I follow all this esoteric Wikipedia speak, but what I do know is this edit has been reversed for no reason I can possibly think of :

      defined by numbers of deaths of people whose death certificate mentioned COVID-19 as one of the causes ^[1]

      This is a direct quote from the gov.uk website, so can anyone explain to me the justification for this ?

      It is absolutely obvious to me that certain editors are pushing a biased narrative here.

      How do we try and get a more balanced article and protect edits from their reversion war ? JustinSmith (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

      I have replaced the cited official gov.uk definition of a Covid death as used in the 175,000 stat. There is no reason for it not to be there at all, other than for editors who do not want anyone to know that a Covid death has to be closely defined if it to mean anything. Might I suggest that any editor removing this is the subject of restraining measures ? JustinSmith (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from the admin section. You need to keep your comments exclusively in this box with your name. This is a formal admin board, and that's how we do it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)

Was going to launch this myself comments like this [[14]] and this [[15]] worry me, after 16 years they seem to think OR and RS are "obscure policies" [[16]] is also troubling. It is clear that (on this issue at least) they have a serious POV problem which means they have a battleground mentality. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a POV problem ? What about yourself !

You are deleting cited information because it does not agree with your agenda, that's censorship and you should be ashamed of yourself. JustinSmith (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I deleted it because we do not say he is anti-Vax, so it does not address anything we say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also note his doctorate is in education, not medicine, he is not an MD. Hell he does not even have a scientific doctorate (as I said it is in education). Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That whole page is totally biased and does not reflect Campbell's views or many of his videos. The attitude of those reverting factual provable additions are obvious. JustinSmith (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the point about why there are so few sources, as far as I can tell he was not really notable until RS picked up on his Covid comments. Prior to that he was (in effect) just another Youtuber. So there may be an argument for him not really being notable, except as a Covid denier of some shade. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the only sources we are getting are with third party sources calling out his Covid comments or primary sources about what he saying (or sources that do not even mention him but seem to be being used to give support to his claims (which RS have debunked). What none of his "supporters" have really produced is that much in the way of positive third-party coverage of him. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And with this [[17]] they are still edit warring. Note that despite starting a talk page thread up, no one who has inserted this has actually bothered to explain exactly what it has to do with what RS has said about the subject. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this [[18]] strongly implies it is an attempt to imply the official figures are wrong, how else are we to read "other than for editors who do not want anyone to know that a Covid death has to be closely defined if it to mean anything.". Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are not a Newbie, they have used their 16 years of editing experience as an excuse to tell us we are in the wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers (re:JustinSmith)

@Dennis Brown: I'm glad to have your thoughts on the article overall. I urge you to reevaluate the conduct issues at hand here. JustinSmith did not make only "a couple of reverts", and they definitely edit warred. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, I am ok with a little rope here. If there are further issues, would you be open to a ping, or are you watching the article and talk page closely? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me and I will look, keep a link to this if its been a while. Yes, I get to break the rules, but simpler this way ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JustinSmith, please keep your replies in your own section. You asked me about what constitutes edit warring. Please carefully read the edit warring policy. I am sympathetic to misunderstanding of the policy, and I'd be happy to answer questions at my user talk page. In this case, I felt comfortable describing your actions as edit warring because you broke the 3RR rule, a bright-line violation. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FDW777

Let's see. JustinSmith has...

1. Added "though he emphasised this depends on how you define a Covid death" to the factual statement that Campbell wrongly claimed that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted. See COVID-19 misinformation#Misreporting of morbidity and mortality numbers and Campbell's attempt to present his alternative figure of 17,000 (compared to the correct figure of 175,000+) prompted the ONS to refute it saying "to suggest that [the 17,000] figure represents the real extent of deaths from the virus is both factually incorrect and highly misleading". There are zero references that agree with Campell's claim that the true figure is 17,000.

2. Added "allegedly" prior to the factual statement that Campbell spread misleading commentary about vaccine safety and "though Dr Campbell is triple vaccinated and recommends vaccination to all those at significant risk from Covid" after it. See COVID-19 misinformation#Vaccines, December 2021 fact check and March 2022 fact check. At Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)#Wikipedia is being bought into disrepute there is universal rejection of the addition of Campbell's vaccine status to that sentence as synthesis. In addition the text from point 1 is added back with even worse POV pushing, stating It is claimed Campbell wrongly asserted that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted though this does depend on the definition of a Covid death. They also edit warred to add back their disputed changes

However the elephant in the room seems intent on making itself noticed even more, with this comment in the last hour. evaluate the risk benefit, if not all of what you say. There is almost no benefit to jabbing kids, and not much in vaccinating healthy people under 40, so any risk, however small, from the vaccine becomes relatively speaking, more significant shows clearly this is not someone innocently trying to remove claimed bias from a page, but to push a misinformation agenda. The idea that healthy (whatever that's supposed to mean) people under 40 aren't at risk from COVID is one that's as anti-science as it gets. FDW777 (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JustinSmith

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

• Need to dig into this deeper. I will say this, the lede on this article is extraordinarily negative, enough that it kind of shocked me. NPOV and DUE are considerations, and I need to dig around a lot deeper here. After all, our goal is to provide a balanced summary of the individual, not discredit them wholesale. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, I've gone through some of JustinSmith's additions, and the content seems to be consistent with the sources. That doesn't mean they automatically should be included, but what I've checked is consistent with the claims he is making. To get an idea of what Campbell thinks, I went and watched a video by him. This doesn't exactly match what the article is saying about him. And yes, Primary sources can be used (if you don't go WP:SYNTH) to state some's positions on a topic. Even if sources conflict and you need to qualify the statements. This makes me a little empathetic to JustinSmith. This doesn't mean I approve of his methods.

• Let me make one thing clear: While this article is under COVID-19 protection, first and foremost it is a WP:BLP, and that takes precedence. Are we being fair to the subject? Are we showing only the most negative things in an WP:UNDUE manner? Where the sources are conflicting, and are we stating they are in the body of the article? In short, I'm more worried about how we treat Dr. Campbell than how we treat COVID. And I would assume most editors and admins feel the same, as that is what our policies dictate.

• I'm not here to determine content, but I am here to recognize and solve problems. Frankly, the article (and lede) doesn't strike me as balanced. I don't get the feeling it was written dispassionately by objective eyes. I don't question the sources used, but I can't help but wonder what sources are missing. This is why it's important to have differing points of view on the talk page. I would not take action here and certainly wouldn't support a topic ban. I would recommend that everyone go back to the article talk page, remembering first and foremost that this is a BLP: This is a real human, so we need to be careful in how we represent them. JustinSmith needs to be careful how they edit and try to get consensus first, although a couple of reverts isn't exactly an edit war. Use the talk page first, and learn to start an WP:RFC to get outside opinions if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• JustinSmith, I think, understands they have been given a little WP:ROPE by me this one time. If I didn't make it clear, I will in that if they continue to edit war, they will be blocked. I think they have good motivations, but like I said, I don't approve of their methods. I prefer to not sanction in cases like this if I think there is a chance to move them to the talk page, and frankly, that article needs some balance. It that one respect, I am being too generous, but my concern is with the BLP aspects, so if he will use the TALK page instead, I can overlook one spat of edit warring. Of course, another admin can come in and do something completely different, that is within their rights. Instead, I'm hoping we leave this open long enough to see JustinSmith actually go to the talk page and discuss in good faith. Otherwise, yes, and I tend to block hard when I've extended a lifeline to someone and they take advantage of it. Again, my goal is to find solutions, not just dole out sanctions. Sanctions are easy, solutions take a bit more effort by all concerned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slatersteven I can believe that, that his stance on Covid is what made him notable. Looking back at previous edits, I saw where some organizations misrepresented what he said, and we said so here, but we still need to balance this out. Regardless of what made him notable, BLP applies and we need to be very careful in how we present the information. Again, this is a real person, and we want facts, but we want to be sure we aren't playing judge and jury as editors. I don't think it would require that much effort to stay neutral, as he is very public, but it does require a bit of diligence in how we present that info. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing wrong with using Primary sources, as long as we are not talking in Wikipedia voice. That is what we have to be careful with when there is conflicting info, and... it can lead some folks into overreacting when trying to "correct the record". I'm saying if the article was a bit more balanced, you would have less problem with that. It doesn't excuse edit warring, but I can at least "get it" when the article seems lopsided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• JustinSmith BINGO! You just answered your own question and didn't know it. You don't know all this Wikispeak, and frankly, I feel your pain. It is difficult and takes time. Here's the deal; when you are editing a "normal" article (not under Arb protection, like Dog, Car etc) it can be intimidating, but in Arb protected areas, it can be dangerous. Let me explain it as short as I can. Some areas, like the Palestinian conflict, COVID, BLP (biographies of living persons) have special protections that are enforced.....here. If you are new and not up on Wikispeak and rules, you are risking getting blocked, banned, slapped, whatever, when editing those articles. It's easy to not even understand WHY. You will learn why, and how to edit in protected areas in time, but for now, how do you keep out of trouble? Don't edit the article. It's that simple. Use the talk page, talk about what changes you want, start an WP:RFC (formal discussion that gets advertised around the place, so fresh people come in and give opinions). Use the talk page until you get up to speed. There are a lot of rules, so I empathize with your confusing. I've been here close to 16 years and I still don't know them all. So, in keeping with my original thought, to find a SOLUTION, I'm recommending you simply don't edit directly and use the talk page and work with people and moderating the tone of the article some. Don't dig in, stay humble, and you will learn. Otherwise, if you go back to edit warring, I will simply block you, which prevents you from editing anything. I would rather not do that, I think you might have something worthwhile to add to the discussion on the talk page, but I will. I'm being extra lenient today (at least half of admin would have already just blocked you), but to keep me smiley and all nice, you need to listen and follow my guidance. Be patient with the other editors, and they will be patient with you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I accept you are trying to be helpful Dennis, but you appear to be saying is let those aggressive and obviously biased editors have their way. You yourself implied, or even said, that page is totally biased, they are discussing whether or not including the definition of a Covid death make Campbell look better or worse ! Which is totally irrelevant. The editor who deleted the official definition of a Covid death said it was "Ignorant and irrelevant". that's all you need to know. If it their bias is not obvious to these particular editors it is because they are so blinkered they cannot see properly, and therefore it is pointless debating with them

  Having a knowledge of Wikipedia's esoteric editing practising should have no place it this, something is either right or wrong. And it is obvious to any unbiased person what is going on here.

  Why should these self appointed "owners of the page" get to dictate what's on it anyway ?

  TBH I'm a bit sick of all this and considering getting rid of my Wikipedia account, it can be so time consuming anyway. JustinSmith (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to agree with Dennis here that the article absent Justin's changes is written in a heavy handed POV way to shame the BLP, though the solution to fix is definitely not through the edit warring processes used by Justin here. The material is poorly written but not in a way that meets 3RRNO, so how to improve should be done on the talk page. That a long time editor like Justin does not claim to know this basic practice is a bit disconserting, and I would agree that a topic ban or general block is in order should this behavior continue. But again, Justin should take it this in confidence that their assessment that the page is poorly written with a POV sent is absolutely spit on, and should work with the other editors to resolve that.--Masem (t) 13:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you had read some of the stuff those so called editors write you would realise there is no way anyone will persuade them that they are biased. They are only interested in propounding their blinkered narrative. I suspect they think they are performing some kind of public service as regards Covid and how they think it should be handled. I cannot remember the original author, but you cannot argue with certainty, because certainty knows....

  You only have to read the debate on Dr John Campbell's Talk page, there is no chance whatsoever of a consensus emerging, it has to be imposed, and, despite the fact it seems generally agreed that page is biased, as far as I can see nobody is going to do this. JustinSmith (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Onceinawhile (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

One week block, imposed at here

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

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

Statement by Onceinawhile

I made a mistake. And the block was a mistake too.

My mistake was to use a phrase which was too strong, and too easily misunderstood. My choice of wording was poor. I was trying to summarize in half a sentence something that happened four years ago, and I used unnecessarily elaborate words which I had not fully thought through. I certainly did not mean to make an allegation (and actually I do not believe) that there was any unusual coordination between the three editors back in 2018. Two links to support this: (1) an explanation of why I did not anticipate the word "concerted" being read literally,[19] and (2) proof that in almost 40,000 edits here I have never used the word "concerted" before and so had never really thought through its implications.[20]

The block was a mistake because:

• It was made extremely quickly without me being given a chance to provide my own view or remedy the three words I had written. The notifying editor and / or the blocking admin could have saved a lot of time by asking me to clarify my words. I believe over many years of building high quality articles in a difficult topic area, I should have earned the right to have administrators hear me out before making these kind of judgements.
• All parties involved appear to have incorrectly thought that I was operating under a final TBAN warning, which as kindly acknowledged here,[21] was not the case. I was given an ABAN warning over a year ago on a very different article and topic, in a very different situation.
• The original post at ANI included a number of false characterizations about editing at the page in question. Since those were not given as reasons for the block, I will not distract from this by addressing them. But they served to create an overall misleading sentiment, which will have affected the decision to block. Exactly the same thing happened at the AE which got me the unrelated “ABAN warning” a year ago – it was submitted with multiple falsehoods (by an editor who turned out to be a sock). Perhaps a case of Brandolini's law, an article that I wrote.
• It serves no purpose, other than stopping me in the middle a discussion about maps of the Golan,[22] and stopping me from thanking the two other people who came to my talk page today, one to thank me for what he called my “amazing article” about some bowls,[23], and the other to inform me that my DYK about obelisks was one of the most viewed of the month.[24] The last time I was blocked was eight years ago,[25] and that block was quickly rescinded. Perhaps I have an overall “mistake rate” of one a year. I am trying my best guys; I am not perfect, but I am trying to be.

Since the spectre of a TBAN warning was raised, I should also point out that such a warning would be equally inappropriate:

• A TBAN warning should be a last resort, for editors who are being disruptive, not handed out in response to a first mistake in a year.
• Judging exactly how our words are to be interpreted by other people is incredibly hard, and we can only ever hope for 99%. With the 1% of mistakes that as humans we will make, we simply need a chance to immediately remedy them. I have made this same point to El C a year ago, and again today, and he has stated a belief that in doing so I am WP:NOTTHEM bludgeoning. So I apologize, but I do feel very strongly about this.
• It would mean that if I ever again misjudge how my words are going to be understood, by any person who chooses to read them, then I must be kicked out of this part of the project. I could not write anything under those circumstances, and certainly could not risk engaging with any editors who would like to see me topic banned. I pride myself on being a thoughtful and collegiate partner to other editors in a difficult topic area, and as I have always said I prefer working with those who have a different perspective to me because we build more impactful articles together. As I wrote many years ago at WP:IPCOLL, "our encyclopedia has the opportunity to become the subject's most balanced reference point, with a truly bilateral narrative"; we cannot make that happen whilst living in fear.

El C was kind enough to write "But you know what? Maybe I'm the one who has gotten it wrong here. We can see what others have to say."[26], and I appreciate his open-mindedness. For the avoidance of doubt, rescinding the block would not change the fact that I made a mistake, which I fully accept and apologize for. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El C

Before I respond, I want to make sure that the appellant wishes to have the appeal, here, at WP:AE rather than at WP:AN, because it looks like Shrike made that decision for them. Onceinawhile, the appeal could still be moved to AN (though I doubt the format would be accepted at WP:ARCA), if you prefer, so ping me to let me know your preference. Thanks. El_C 14:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drsmoo

I just don't see how one can claim that "I remember finding the concerted attack frightening", is anything other than an intense statement of us-vs-them and tendentious editing. Regarding alternate definitions of concerted, the word was applied to the cumulative actions of three different editors, so it can't be claimed that it was meant in the singular sense. The usage fits the standard definition perfectly. And even, for the sake of argument, if a conspiracy wasn't being alleged, it's still being referred to as an "attack" and "frightening". How is one supposed to edit constructively with someone who views standard edits that reflect another viewpoint as "frightening" and an "attack"?

I also resent and reject the claim that there were "false characterizations" in my post, there weren't.

It may be worth pointing out that hostility and personal attacks are absolutely nothing new from this editor, I have personally, (along with others) been the recipient of a large amount of vitriol from this editor over a long period, some of which has been recorded in noticeboard posts, some of which remains strewn across talk pages.

Edit: I've removed the previous examples, as to not detract from the direct issue under discussion. The point was to counter the claim that this is a novel or rare infraction. To respond to Selfstudier and Zero, this has not been a two-way thing, I have never reciprocated. Drsmoo (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero

(I was not involved in any of the disputes mentioned here, but I'm writing in this section because I edit in many of the same articles that Onceinawhile edits in.)

I'm not sure of the propriety of basing a case mostly on things 6 years old or previous cases that were already closed. I also suggest that admins not assume that all the points being made tell the full story. For example, Drsmoo's example "I worry about..." was a sarcastic response to a direct personal attack "frivolous requests by tendentious editors such as yourself" from NMMNG, shortly after Drsmoo accused another editor of "proceding with a list of fake quotes pulled from hate sites". It was a bust-up of the sort we would be better off without, but putting it all on Onceinawhile's shoulders is just wrong. Zero^talk 13:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

I don't really know much about or even understand the current dispute but over time I have observed that there is no love lost, regardless of the issue, between the two editors involved, a situation unlikely to be rectified by banning one of them for a week. It might be better if they would just stay out of each others way.Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Onceinawhile

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Onceinawhile

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