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. [1] 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".

Now that I have fully read WP:NPOV and WP:RS, I understand my mistake. My comment here was indeed improper, and I apologize for it; I have now struck that out. Commenting on the ethnicity of the writers was wrong. I truly believe that I could be a valuable editor for Wikipedia, and in many topics, including the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. As I'm still new here, I know I still have lots to learn about how to deal with content disputes; I was looking for some guidance before but couldn't get it anywhere. For example, I think that if I was familiar with WP:UNDUE, things would have looked differently. I learnt about WP:UNDUE only after I had written the comment mentioned above, as it was mentioned by Shrike here. And today was in fact the first time I ever stumbled upon the teahouse. I think this is not a question of time passed, but of guidance; a mentor, who has a deep knowledge of Wikipedia's policies, would be really helpful in showing me the right way to handle content disputes. Tombah (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93, Yes. I think that there is much to improve in our articles in terms of neutrality, but it's more important to be respectful to other editors and assume good faith. My past comments shouldn't be directed at anyone (as stated in "avoid you"), but at the substance. I believe that disputes should be solved in a more cooperative, respectful and constructive way. Tombah (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@Vanamonde93@Dougweller I agree that his comment was unacceptable but he seems stricken it so I think he understand that it was wrong [2] and unacceptable Shrike (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy I didn't noticed this diff Now that I did I see it problematic nature and yes some of our articles are biased Shrike (talk) 15:52, 17 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]

I agree Tombah could be a valuable editor, and personally think this can be closed with a warning to be mindful of ones own biases and rein in the bad faith accusations. I think Shrike's going from "Seems to me like content dispute. The user have valid concerns that some of our articles are biased" to "I agree that his comment was unacceptable" to be just the latest in the list of deflections and diversions abandoned once penitence seems to be more likely to achieve the desired effect. But I dont really think a topic ban is all that necessary, I actually think Tombah could be a fantastic editor if he abandons the Im right and thats that style of editing that has at times characterized his efforts. nableezy - 15:38, 17 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 Huldra

About the Al-Khader article; Tombah states above that "with some editor claiming that "Solomon's Pools" should not be described in this article, in a move that essentially seems like Temple denial."

My 2 cents: no-one has ever said that Solomon's Pools should not be linked from Al-Khader; indeed, they have AFAIK been linked for as long as I have edited the article. What I object to, is repeating stuff from the Solomon's Pools in the Al-Khader-article (especially controversial stuff). Firstly; Doing so is a recipe for endless edit-wars, in my experience. Secondly: I usually remove any superflous/duplitate info, iff there is an article about the subject/issue. Eg., I have changed countless "French explorer Victor Guérin" to just "Victor Guérin". That does not mean I have anything against "French explorers".

I therefor really do not appriciate (when I remove duplicate info) questions like "What do you have against ancient Jewish history?" Huldra (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• The original complaint does not concern me terribly; yes, it was a 1RR violation, but the user did ultimately self-revert, and recognizes they were in error. I'm more concerned by their general approach to contentious material, though. This diff is unacceptable, and their explanation here is a textbook case of false balance. Coupled with the lengthy string of warnings on their talk page, I feel Tombah may need a break from this topic. I would apply a six-month TBAN, appealable in three; and I would expect to see evidence that they have grasped the fundamentals of NPOV better than they do at present. I'd like to hear from other admins, including Doug Weller, who applied the first block. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Shrike:, if Tombah has thought the better of that comment, I would like to see them explain that, not you. I see no elaboration anywhere of his decision to strike that. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tombah: aside from mentioning the writers' ethnicities, do you see nothing wrong with your struck comment or its defense here? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been open too long, and has unfortunately not attracted much admin attention. I remain unconvinced that Tombah is able to edit the ARBPIA area in a neutral manner, but absent stronger consensus, I will not levy a sanction, and am instead closing this with a warning. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I definitely see the need for a topic ban. I'm not convinced that it will make much difference in the long run and would probably apply a longer tb, but I guess we can try 6 months appealable in three, but if he breaks it or after it expires/he succeeds in an appeal he carries out the way he has, I'd probably go for an indef block. Doug Weller talk 11:42, 17 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 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. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]
4. [6]
5. [7]

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".[8]

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

• [9]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

• I have to say I'm a little bit disappointed with the response to this request. While I can appreciate the desire to encourage erring editors onto a better path this hasn't happened here and instead there's been further article disruption and the addition of antivax talking points to article Talk.[10] In particular, Masem, AE should not be an opportunity for you once again to get on your familiar hobby horse and press your idiosyncratic views about biographical content which are at odds with Wikipedia's requirement to carry neutral articles, while you fail to address the underlying behavioural issues here. There seems to be some assumption in the air that the many good and experienced editors working on this article are a bunch of bumpkins who don't know that BLP is important, or how to search diligently for all appropriate sources. It is all rather discouraging. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [11]

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]

[To Dennis Brown:] 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 ? JustinSmith (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[To Masem:] 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]

Statement by (slatersteven)

Was going to launch this myself comments like this [[12]] and this [[13]] worry me, after 16 years they seem to think OR and RS are "obscure policies" [[14]] 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 [[15]] 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 [[16]] 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]

With the latest comment they seem determined to get a ban to make a point. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC) [To Alexbrn:] The issue (I think) is till now they have been a useful contributor, with no history of disruptive acts. So I think people tried to give them room to take on board what they were being told. The fact (as their threat to retire indicates) that they seem to have morphed into a wp:spa is something outside normal experience, we do not see this to happen except in hacked accounts on the whole. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we now close it one way or the other, rather than just leave it hanging? Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 20 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 KoA

Not involved in this article, but I'm rather surprised by the lack of DS enforcement for such a straight cut case like this. DS are supposed to deal with issues like this in a more expedited fashion rather than let them languish like an ANI. Part of that is to keep the burden off the rest of the community having to deal with the disruptive editing. JustinSmith has already established they are WP:NOTHERE, at least for this topic of fringe stuff in COVID, so make the topic ban formal and let everyone move on. If someone disagrees with content itself, that needs to be handled at the talk page, not on a DS discussion board.

Looking over the evidence here though, there's no reason not to have taken care of this right away when a 10+year editor is engaging in this degree of battleground tone even after being brought to AE. KoA (talk) 01:50, 18 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]

• 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]

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 tried. As is often the case, my critics were correct and my expectations are too optimistic. From reading your previous comment (which you deleted) it is obvious my "solution" isn't a solution after all, requiring so little from you but obviously it was asking more than you have to give. I withdraw and will leave this to others to consider. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:20, 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]
• Someone who has been here for this long should know better. Their behavior in this article, no matter the article quality, is disruptive, and a topic ban is more than warranted. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Drmies, and recommend an indefinite topic ban from COVID-19. And @JustinSmith: please take on board that you're supposed to comment only in your own section. After being told repeatedly, you're still all over the place. Bishonen | tålk 09:14, 18 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,[17] 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.[18]

The block was a mistake because:

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."[24], 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]

(copying the following from Onceinawhile talk page at his request and executing the requested strike to his prior statement Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC))[reply]

I have been trying hard to understand El C’s advice. Some key snippets which I think I now understand are: "WP:NOTTHEM and bludgeoning problems [in discussions with admins]… adoption of novel ideas that concern warnings, sanctions… just a bit [of]… self-restraint [in discussions with admins]".

I simply did not understand that this was prohibited and sanctionable behavior. I was wrong. In both interactions with El C, a year ago and now, I let my desperation to retain my dozen years of clean sanctions record get the better of me. Because of this mistake I am now risking losing access to the area which I have poured my heart and soul into over 12 years - this is my fault and noone else’s.

Please could my AE statement of 15 March be struck, all except for the second paragraph (starting “My mistake was…”) and the last eleven words of the final sentence (starting “I made a mistake”).

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]

I'll wait the day for Onceinawhile to clarify their choice of venue. If I don't hear from them by then, I'll give my statement here. El_C 16:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned at ANI and on the appellant's talk page (here), an indef ARBPIA TBAN is in fact called for, in my view. In that sense, the one week block can be seen as a (temporary) boon. But, like with prior warnings/sanctions, stark WP:NOTTHEM and bludgeoning problems persist, regardless. For example, telling me that: [I] have not explained anywhere what the block is for (italics is my emphasis), when obviously it was the very first thing I did upon issuing the block (i.e. the block notice is not blank).

Another serious problem is the appellant's adoption of novel ideas that concern warnings, sanctions, and the manner in which, in their mind, they are supposed to perfectly align. But that is not how WP:ACDS works (the d stands for discretionary). Anyway, according to this novel interpretation, it seems like it shouldn't really be possible to sanction them for policy violations at all, because they'd always get a pre-sanction warning. And whether a warning or a sanction, expect these to be argued and re-argued to the point of bludgeoning and repetition. Consider, then, them having said: Personally I think it would have been appropriate to first assume good faith and ask me what I meant by my words. Again, to me, this illustrates that recurring theme.

Further, on their talk page, I noted to the appellant that truly living up to the spirit of NOTHEM would have been to take a more flowingly introspective approach overall, rather than getting bogged down in the weeds of a particular dispute from a year ago. Because the impression people might get is you trying to navigate procedure rather than getting to the heart of the matter (underline is my emphasis). Judging from their responses (including in their appeal statement above), I don't think they took that advise to heart. Of course, they can say whatever they like here (within reason), but to me, it inspires little confidence that the block ought to be rescinded. Again, as mentioned, if anything a full TBAN is probably due. Likely, we'll find ourselves back here again over the same problems. We can't allow ARBPIA editing to deteriorate and devolve. We can't allow it to become an even more hostile corner of the project than it already is. On that I am unwavering. El_C 10:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lines are drawn, but it's taboo to mention that they exist. I didn't expect Selfstudier, Zero0000, or Nishidani to take issue when I indef TBAN'd one of the appellant principal opponents at the time, Wikieditor19920. It makes sense that they wouldn't. And this isn't unique to ARBPIA, it's all the same at AP2, EE/APL/BALKANS, ARBIPA, AA2/KURDS/IRANPOL, et cetera, etc.

But what I find odd, Nishidani, is when I'm asked to play pretend with the emperor's attire. That doesn't work for me. I think I'm able to be blunt and direct while also being respectful. Sorry to learn that some/you disagree on that account. But, let's be fair, criticism, or praise, of an arbitration enforcement action usually follows how each side (I said the s-word again!) is positioned in relation to whatever the specific case might be. Because partisanship in this highly-contested area is what it is, at least at this stage of human development. El_C 13:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking for "groveling," Zero0000, just a bit self-awareness and self-restraint. Obviously, "sides" is simplistic. I thought it was obvious that that was a generalization; i.e. views that usually favour the Palestinian position versus those which usually favour the Israeli one. Trying to make it seems as if my perspective is that it's all black and white and absolutes, it's odd to me that the three of you (you, Nishidani and the appellant) would still fixate on that argument, because I think it's a weak one. Now the appellant even says (on their talk page) that I'm being WP:PUNITIVE for some reason. Okay. I'm done with the split discussion there, in any case.

I do, however, see day-to-day collaboration that doesn't lead to conflict or where conflicts get quickly resolved. I well know that these instances represent the vast majority of encounters, again, not just in ARBPIA. But that does not discount or diminish from when conflicts do become acute (in the conduct sense), and everything that follows from there.

I'd say, then, that it is perhaps you, all of you, who see me when things get seriously derailed. Not so much the other way around. And I can't account for everything under the sun, always. Qualify everything, to the uttermost. Again, sometimes, to get a limited point across, one has to cut to the chase, even when it involves simplifying at the cost of nuance. It is what it is. I don't know what else to say. Also, Zero, please sign and timestamp your comments during this appeal. It's confusing to tell what you've written when. El_C 18:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: One example that particularly disturbed me: Once linked to an attempt to make peace with his opponent and El_C called it a WP:NOTTHEM violation, or something — when someone says something to the effect of: I tried making peace with them but it was not reciprocated, that reads like NOTTHEM to me. El_C 18:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: treat everyone like naughty schoolkids who have to go on detention for saying "fuck" in the playground — I probably say fuck more than all of you combined. It isn't about just being rude or impolite, and it isn't about tone-policing, which I'm very much not into. No, the incident here was about the appellant having grouped a globally-banned user with editors in good standing, without distinction, in their 'frightening, concerted attack' comment (see block notice). Which neither resembles a playground scenario nor a fuck moment. El_C 18:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, they did not make that distinction wrt the 'concerted, frightening attack' comment (diff). Concerted as in more than one person, as in coordinated. Also, while I can appreciate your passion, maybe take it down a notch? When you speak to me in this dismissive and adversarial way, you are not only doing yourself a disservice, but also (more so) the appellant. It's a distraction and, frankly, it's beneath you, or at least it ought to be. El_C 02:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323, I look at the context. And I look at the disparate components: at "frightening" (which you omitted), at "concerted," and at "attack." I neither adopt the worse possible interpretation, nor the most sanitized one. I call 'em like I see 'em. That's it. El_C 03:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Iskandar323, others, I think I've probably said all I wanted to, especially concerning this latest incident, which I've expanded and expounded on at some length. Three uninvolved admins support a TBAN at this time, so maybe it isn't actually about me "inventing new rules" and so on. El_C 04:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The self-awareness is also partly to do with the filing of this very appeal, so I'll emperor's attire -it. While obviously it's the appellant's right to appeal, I just don't think it was in their best interests to do so. Because this was a relatively mild sanction. And as I note above, I think that many of those supporting the appeal actually did them a disservice with their comments and overall approach.

The fact is that had the appeal not been filed, it's likely that after a week they'd be back to editing ARBPIA (hopefully, more cautiously) with no TBAN. Whereas now it may happen, not least due to how this appeal has been handled (also the preliminaries/split discussions on the appellant's talk page). Finally, I've been discouraged and disheartened by the comments that the appellant and some of their supporters have made concerning myself. So I doubt I'd comment further, unless misquoted again. El_C 18:08, 18 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: To respond to Zero, I’m a bit baffled by his example. When Onceinawhile posted that link, it was as an example of how I had in some way “not reciprocated” his attempts to “resolve our relationship”. But that is not what that example was. He was thanking me because after he baselessly accused me of racism, amongst other personal attacks and incivility, I chose, in that instance, to not advocate for a topic ban, for which he thanked me. I’m honestly baffled as to how that example could be used for how I’m somehow the one at fault. Drsmoo (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: To respond to Zero again, there is a false narrative being presented. This was the image Onceinawhile originally uploaded to the third holiest site in Judaism. The focus on that image isn't even on the tomb, it is on the barbed wire and broken cinderblocks on the ground. There is no way that is an appropriate image for the third holiest site in Judaism, and there was not a single editor who supported it aside from Onceinawhile. Onceinawhile then cropped the image, and reverted two other editors, one after another, who attempted to replace it, all before I commented. Drsmoo (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: To respond to Huldra, I do not see any edits from NoCal100 on that talk page. No one goaded Onceinawhile into calling edits "a concerted attack", or calling me a racist, or posting "girl you know it's true" on my talk page regarding Onceinawhile's incorrect views on Jewish history, or repeatedly calling other editor's posts "bullshit". On the contrary, Onceinawhile has been aggressive and tendentious for as long as I have interacted with them, and I have always made sure to not respond in kind. The notion that Onceinawhile was just being "goaded" the whole time is ludicrous. Drsmoo (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: To respond to Huldra, I implore other editors to look at the links you posted. Onceinawhile calls me "pathetic", says my statements are "vacuous", says "you made a stupid revert about something totally irrelevant, and noone can be bothered to deal with it", says "Continually claiming POV without explanation makes it look like there's another reason you don't like it but you're not willing to tell everyone" etc. I am working hard to maintain civility. No one is "goading" Onceinawhile, this is how they carry themselves on Wikipedia. These talk page archives are from 2016(!) Drsmoo (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero

Of the words "frightening concerted attack" only the word "attack" is problematic. "Frightening" is an overly melodramatic expression of Once's personal reaction, not a statement about the other editors. By all the dictionaries I consulted, "concerted" can mean three things: (1) "determined" (which could be true, I don't know, but determination isn't a sin), (2) "carried out jointly" (which is certainly true), (3) "coordinated". Editors are permitted to coordinate their editing; we call it "cooperative editing" and encourage it. In summary, "attack" is it.

So El_C blocked Once for a week, ok. Now El_C thinks that Once should get an indef topic ban. I knew in advance that El_C would become exasperated by Once's style of debating, but something more objective should be provided before such an extremely productive editor is removed for a long time. I don't believe that has been provided.

One example that particularly disturbed me: Once linked to an attempt to make peace with his opponent and El_C called it a WP:NOTTHEM violation, or something. On the contrary, evidence of intention to edit collegially is exactly the sort of thing that an appeal against a personal attack block should contain. NOTTHEM is not the sole content of WP:GAB, nor does NOTTHEM read "nothing except grovelling on the belly is acceptable".

El_C, your "sides" discussion is simplistic. You might look in the Tombah case above where I took pains to write "Tombah has a good knowledge of the subject and could be a valuable editor" even though we would both assign Tombah to the "pro-Israel side". My hope is that he comes back soon and helps to improve articles in a collegial fashion. I saw no cause for such hope in the Wikieditor19920 case. In my opinion, we too often forget that our one and only mission is to write an excellent encyclopedia and instead of judging editors by their value to the project we treat everyone like naughty schoolkids who have to go on detention for saying "fuck" in the playground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: You wrote "the incident here was about the appellant having grouped a globally-banned user with editors in good standing, without distinction, in their 'frightening, concerted attack'", so we can look. "Edit warring the image out of the article without consensus by Icewhiz, NMMNG and Drsmoo, against the wishes of other editors. This is a long time ago, but I remember finding the concerted attack frightening." So Once listed the three editors in the same sentence and the sin was that one of them was a banned editor. Is that it? Really? Thanks for inventing a new rule; from now on let's block anyone who mentions a banned editor in the same sentence as one who's not banned. But it's worse than that. In his previous edit 70 minutes earlier, Once wrote "The image was edit warred out by a user now banned for sockpuppet abuse. That user, together with two other users (Drsmoo and No More Mr Nice Guy) objected to the image." So in fact you are wrong and Once did make the distinction. Zero^talk 02:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At the time being referred to, all three editors were in good standing. Zero^talk 03:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The back story. Onceinawhile visited Rachel's Tomb and took a lot of photos, one of which he sought to include in the article head. NMMNG and Icewhiz objected. The conversation started here and continued for several days. It was quite polite until Drsmoo joined in with "Obviously having a disgusting and amateur user photo is not appropriate." Overall, Icewhiz was characteristically polite, NMMNG was uncharacteristically polite until he started calling Huldra "childish" a bit later, and Drsmoo's first input was an attack on Once's work. I don't agree with Once's description of the exchange as a whole and wouldn't describe it that way, but I'm not surprised if Once remembers being offended by Drsmoo's words. Zero^talk 07:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Dennis Brown: You are proposing to remove one of our most valuable editors for a long time but what you have written so far is so general it could appear on any appeal by anyone. You really should justify yourself in specific terms. Zero^talk 02:15, 18 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]

I would like to say here that I have the impression that since Once was given a stern ear bashing by El_C a ways back, a concerted effort was made to back away from too much direct involvement in the area and producing instead a slew of DYKs and alternative editing, it's easy to see in the edit history, open a 500 edit view and it's quite plain to see, these are significant contributions to WP. Its not an excuse, I still think this recent incident was rather unfortunate and I maintain my view that Once would do better to avoid interacting with editors where a prior unproductive history exists.Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike

Per Drsmoo comments I think one sided interaction ban is warranted as tban will be lifted in the end --Shrike (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

There seems to be this escalation for dissent mentality on display at times. An indef topic ban for something already apologized for? And the thing that merits that is saying "frightening concerted attack"? That merits an indef topic ban? Or is it for daring to appeal? Boggles the mind a bit. But if "frightening concerted attack" is topic ban worthy, there a whole lot of AE reports coming your way. nableezy - 21:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, do you think it is fair to propose an indef ban and then say the evidence exists on some talk page the end? What exactly is the basis for that proposal. What diffs demonstrate any such need? How is "The discussions are all there on the talk page, not buried in an archive, so it isn't difficult to see the problem." at all useful in identifying any diff that substantiates "a serious problem that needs to be stopped with an indef topic ban"? nableezy - 00:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I agree with your last sentence. But all of us need to understand what exactly it is that merits a topic ban here. Is it seriously the "frightening concerted attack" line that has already been apologized for? Once needs to know, and just as importantly, all of us need to know what it is that is triggering what I personally find to be a gross overreaction here. Because we all understand the rules of the road here, but this is not following that trajectory at all. So please, can you let us know what it is that you find to be so egregious here? nableezy - 15:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

While the originating comment was misjudged and pressing the boundaries of WP:AGF, this all seems to have escalated rather quickly, and looks to be escalating further with the suggestions of a TBAN. It this all just based on one comment? Was @Onceinawhile even asked, politely, to reconsider their choice of words anywhere before all of this originally went ANI nuclear? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C: The comment where Once disambiguates between Icewhiz and the other two editors is just two comments earlier in the same discussion thread, so it is very plain to see. I would also suggest that while arguments appealing to etymological ambiguity are never the best, 'concerted' certainly is a word with a range of meanings, with only the worst and most 'personal attack-y' interpretation here being the sense of 'co-ordinated', and the mildest being the sense of a 'concerted effort', where simply means determined or serious, carrying much less sense of collaborative agency. While I appreciate all of these meanings and would definitely avoid a similar wording on Wikipedia, outside of Wikipedia, I would say I more frequently encounter the word in the sense of the latter. This is before we even consider what different language ability everybody has here, and if everyone is the same level of native English fluency. I see a lot of weight being given here in a linguistically grey area. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Once produces laborious encyclopedic work like Phoenician metal bowls, the block seems counterproductive, while the suggestions of a TBAN here do seem a little overweighted relative to the misstep. If a slap on the wrist was deemed necessary, despite Once's largely innocuous conduct, surely a limited ABAN or IBAN might have been more appropriate? Iskandar323 (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C: Sure, you see what you see. I see 'frightening' as melodrama. But the context here is also that Once did make a distinction between the editors in their immediately preceding comment, which, as Zero noted, does seem pertinent to the 'without distinction' note. The other context is that Once is generally speaking an upstanding member of the Wikipedia community. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

The block history reveals that the user has been blocked only once before this incident - for one day (blocked and unblocked [25]). There is also a warning [26] logged in the user's name as an outcome of the complaint filed by a sock-puppet. Circumstance that needs to be taken into account. User:Dennis Brown, in my humble opinion, an indefinite topic ban might be a little too severe right now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

First: To El C: I have at various times voted against bans/for recinding bans of pro-Israeli editors (editors like Bolter21, Davidbena), and I have also seen Zero0000, Nableezy & Nishidani doing the same.

Second: (and to adress "the elephant in the room"): Onceinawhile has indeed been, and still is, the object of (more than one) off-wiki harrassment site (I will not link to them; last time I did so it was (correctly) oversighted, (see here)) (if admins needs links: pls notify me)

Third: to impose a topic-ban for the three words against an editor with countless good and helpful edits seems ...draconian to me, especially when Onceinawhile has agreed that he made a mistake (in using those words).

Fourth: It is really strange to see accustions that Onceinawhile cannot edit "friendly" with editors he disagree with, when I see him bending over backwards in, say Talk:Balfour Declaration

Fifth: There have been several notorious socks active on Talk:Rachel's Tomb (like Nocal100 and Icewhiz); they are absolute experts in goading their opponents. And yes: Onceinawhile have been guilty at times falling for that goading. (So has I, unfortunately :/) Huldra (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Drsmoo: See User:Epson Salts, in Talk:Rachel's Tomb/Archive 4 and Talk:Rachel's Tomb/Archive 3, Huldra (talk) 20:49, 19 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.

• I'm going to out on a limb and take Onceinawhile at his word, and strike my call for a topic ban at this time. I do think the one week block was well within admin discretion and appropriate given the issues at hand. So for that, I would change my opinion to Endorse Block, and Onceinawhile will just need to ride it out, hopefully learning something along the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 19 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 Hob Gadling

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MarshallKe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hob Gadling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. 16:11, 17 March 2022 last sentence is a direct personal attack

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 17:12, 6 March 2022 warned for civility

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13:54, 6 March 2022 .

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Normally I would let things like this go, but considering that Hob was informally warned about civility on A/R/E mere days ago, I consider it prudent to file this request. Had a discussion with Hob regarding the status of Alexander Gorodnitsky as a climate change denier. I am primarily concerned with the very last sentence in the provided diff, You will not succeed in turning this article into fringe propaganda. This is a direct attack on me, and a particularly offensive one, as I take WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS very seriously.

If this was not an obvious personal attack, I don't know what is. If I was mistaken in making this report, I ask for some guidance to understand what a personal attack is and is not so I can avoid wasting people's time in the future. MarshallKe (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel the need to address the accusations against me from other users commenting here, as the actual diffs they provide to supposedly back up their false interpretations of my editing behavior betray them, and I think that any reasonable admin who reads them in context will understand what is really going on here. I consider my debates on Wikipedia to be solidly grounded in policy and devoid of personal bias, except that I have an interest in editing in certain subjects. With the possible exception of civility and AGF sometimes (everybody messes those up), I consider my debate style to be not just policy-abiding, but exemplary of a Wikipedian. I am unlikely to change my editing philosophy. MarshallKe (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

17:23, 17 March 2022‎

Discussion concerning Hob Gadling

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 Hob Gadling

Statement by XOR'easter

One moderately testy sentence at the end of a well-founded WP:FRINGEBLP argument seems like a waste of AE time. If the linked edit is a "personal attack", then so are This is just pure POV editing [27] and To remove this claim from the article because it didn't come with criticism is disruptive editing [28]. After all, who wants to be called a disruptive editor, with the connotations of malice and/or incompetence that come with it? XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Generalrelative

@MarshallKe: Let me get this straight: 1) You said to Hob This is just pure POV editing. You are saying that we should delete a well-sourced, neutrally worded, factual claim in order to further your point of view. 2) Hob then replied You are simply wrong. Can we stop this? You will not succeed in turning this article into fringe propaganda. 3) And now you're bringing Hob up for sanctions on the basis that the final sentence constitutes a personal attack? Am I missing something here? Are you under the impression that, because you haven't been formally warned, you are free to make the same sort of "attack" for which you hope to get Hob sanctioned? Generalrelative (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KoA

I'll third the above comments. This goes beyond a frivolous report and into a prime example of WP:BOOMERANG when a report ends up highlighting the filers behavior more than anything. The edit was fringe propaganda by any plain meaning of the phrase. Unqualified statements like that never belong in an article and always need some statement of what the science actually says. Denialism is frequently snuck into discourse with terminology like that, which is why we're so careful about adhering to WP:FRINGE. Trying to stir things up in this manner about that is just plain disruptive in fringe articles.

I am concerned that it looks like MarshallKe is staking out a battleground behavior in fringe articles though. In the AE case just above we have another fringe article subject, and MarshallKe has jumped in there too[29] accusing those of dealing with basic fringe issues of POV pushing now. That kind of stuff doesn't belong in fringe articles. I'm not familiar enough with their background to check other areas, but this at least looks like a trend. Maybe not pseudoscience topic ban territory yet in my mind (though a bit more than just WP:TROUT territory ), but that could change if others have other examples of similar issues. KoA (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn has some good additional examples of WP:TEND behavior, the hallmark being that in isolation tendentious editing isn't always clear in single edits, but shows when looking at their history. It really does come across now as Marshall marching in with battleground behavior and antagonizing other editors while trying to pick off people getting annoyed with them in administrative boards. That or at the least, stirring up enough dust to make it look like a "both sides" situation. Either way, patent disruption that the DS are supposed to keep out. KoA (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alexbrn

I agree with KoA that it seems MarshallKe is "staking out a battleground behavior in fringe articles". MarshallKe seems to have become obsessed with a notion about editors in the fringe/medical topic space and it looks to me like this AE is an attempt to take one out. I believe the origin of this was at Shiatsu last July where MarshallKe took exception to Wikipedia saying that qi (a mythical form of vital energy) did not exist.[30] The ensuing edit-war, page protection, and consensus against MarshallKe's position seems to have led to a screed at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy), "Fringe, Anti-fringe, and Turning Wikipedia's Values Upside-down ".[31] In this, MarkshalKe details their concerns about "certain editors" and "articles that have fallen under their purview". The complaint ends with a little note of self-praise, as MarshallKe is surely by their own account is "here to uphold is WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV".

Needless to say, the village pump posting went nowhere, although (uninvolved) editor Schazjmd astutely twigged its purpose was "getting back at specific editors that you feel are Doing Wikipedia Wrong".[32]

Within this context, a pattern is apparent, with a particular focus on fringe health:

1. As noted, in the incident here he accused Hob Gadling "just pure POV editing".[33]
2. A few minutes later at Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber) they accuse me of "pure POV pushing"[34] (This is arfter they arrived at the article taking the side of an antivax editor who was beyond 3RR and reverting their bad edits for them[35] to downplay COVID deaths). As a bonus they say removing the bad edit was "disruptive".
3. On 10 March at Talk:Calcium supplement#Cardiovascular impact section poor sourcing MarshallKe made a series of posts about content, mixed up with (false) accusations about "editors", what they would and would not do, and how "personal belief on the part of the editor is a corrupting factor".[36]
4. MarshallKe seems to have taken exception to Wikipedia recording any hazards about lavender oil (another substance in the world of altmed). Here they are removing a MEDRS review article (PMID:33109161), falsely saying it is a primary source.[37]
5. At Vitamin C recently (altmed/supplements again) more posting about how "if I were to interpret this study in the way that the anti-fringe zealots want me to."[38]

Overall, it looks like MarshallKe's editing has become an elaborate WP:BATTLE in an attempt to prove some kind of WP:POINT that exists in their head about "certain editors". If there's to be a TBAN I think its scope would need to be pseudoscience and WP:Biomedical information. Alexbrn (talk) 07:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @PaleoNeonate: Yikes! How could I forget that FT/N post from MarshallKe, which has WP:POINT written all over it. A formal warning is something, but I suspect that this pattern, combined with their blind confidence in their own rectitude will lead to a ban later. Alexbrn (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

This is not a violation by Hob Gadling. While the statement was terse in a way that was not productive it doesn't cross any lines as it sticks to commentary on the edit/article, not the editor. MarshallKe when trying to decide if this sort of comment is a CIVIL violation consider the following. Does it speak about an editor or the edit/what the edit does to the article? In general if it speaks to the editor or the editor's motives in a negative way then it can be seen as an attack on editor. The quotes in question basically speak to what HG feels your edits will do to the article in question. Consider a hypothetical, you want to add [claim] to an article. I say, "that's a stupid claim and it will make the article a clear POV propaganda page". THe use of "stupid" and "POV propaganda page" aren't value add to the quality of my arguments but they don't attack you as a person nor are they profane or unsafe for work type comments. You would likely feel insulted by such a summary of something you have proposed but it isn't going to cross the CIVIL line. Alternatively consider, "that's a stupid claim and you are trying to make the article a propaganda page." In this case I assigned a negative motive to your intent. I said your intent is to make the article a propaganda page. In short, you intend to do something that is negative. Now that would be an attack on your character and a CIVIL violation. The same would be true if I said "A person would have to be stupid to add that claim." Since now I am making it clear that I think "stupid" applies to you the editor vs the [claim]. Note that none of my example replies would be good. It would be better to say something like, "the problem with that [claim] is [reason]. It will make the article read like propaganda [because]." By avoiding the emotive words in my rejection of your hypothetical edit I hopefully communicate the issue without making it feel personal. Springee (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoJo Anthrax

I am going to quote the complainant from above, because I couldn't agree more: I think that any reasonable admin who reads [...] will understand what is really going on here. I ask that an admin please close this reckless, disruptive "case" now, if not sooner. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

This made me revisit some old threads I had in my notes and then look at the filer's recent editing. Alexbrn has already provided some relevant links. There was no reply to a previous concern of mine, but this may be further evidence of WP:TE and perhaps even trolling. That specific clueful regular editors appear targetted also suggests harassment. I support a formal warning for MarshallKe. —PaleoNeonate – 06:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hob Gadling

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

• Nope. Not going to sanction over what seems to be good faith discussion. XOR'easter labels it well above, moderately testy at the end. This is what we call a "frivolous report". Everyone gets one, and you just used yours up, so please don't file again unless it is obviously a personal attack or at least incivil. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Dennis, there's nothing to do here. Hut 8.5 08:59, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, a frivolous report. I'm not sure I agree with Dennis that "everyone gets one"; it depends how it's done, and on the background. I recommend at least a logged warning to the filer, especially considering Alexbrn's interesting diffs. Bishonen | tålk 09:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm ok with that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy with a warning to the filer, some of Alexbrn's material is concerning. Hut 8.5 11:15, 19 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 Bhaskarbhagawati

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 17 March 2022 Way outside reasonable bounds of discourse in a controversial topic.
2. 18 March 2022 Aspersions without diffs.
3. 16 March 2022 Rank NPOV addition in lead.
4. 17 March 2022 More cluelessness about how NPOV works - a film producer claim's about the film's accuracy cannot be regurgitated in wiki-voice esp. when dozens of critics have taken issue with the historical accuracy.

1. Another example from the same day.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 09 Aug 2021 Threatened to be indeffed; responds two days later by deleting the t/p post.
2. 26 January 2021 AE-block for violating TBan.
3. 27 January 2020 TBan from Assamese languages under ARBIPA.

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.
• 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

• BB's first comment borrows from the rhetoric of Narendra Modi—as our article notes, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has attacked critics in response to negative reviews, claiming that there is a conspiracy to discredit the film, which according to him "reveals the truth"—to imply that Wikipedia editors are in a concerted campaign to discredit the film. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Dennis, I am not bothered about convincing you and my above "explanation" (or any "expertise in Hindi cinema") was not needed either. Not the first time that you admit to unfamiliarity with Indian sociopolity yet proceed to comment at relevant AEs.

  As any of the usual admins in ARBIPA (Vanamonde93 or RegentsPark or Bishonen or Abecedare or Newslinger or ...) can attest to, my diffs (for example, the one about NPOV violation) are not edge-cases covered under the purview of editorial discretion. And whether BB has unpopular views is irrelevant because I am proposing sanctions not for his views but for his edits and proposed edits.

  The previous problems, over a year ago, are indeed interesting because after being issued a warning by EdJohnston's about the imminent risk of an indefinite block, BB promised to reply (11 August 2021) but stopped all editing and returned this month (16 March 2022) to edit the article of The Kashmir Files. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

20 March 2022

Discussion concerning Bhaskarbhagawati

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 Bhaskarbhagawati

Statement by Vanamonde

I must admit, when I saw the posts TrangaBellam links to above, I was expecting them to be from a newbie, not from an editor with 5000 edits and 14 years tenure. The aggressive response to DS notifications [39] is concerning; the use of "genocide" in Wikipedia's voice [40] is likewise concerning. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3

The talk page (Talk:The Kashmir Files) is seeing upwards of 100 posts a day, and the regular editors who are trying to write content as well as field questions (most of which are repetitive, partisan, and peddle the establishment POV in clever ways, like "why is X review ignored", "why is BJP mentioned", "not allowed by MOS:FILM" etc.), are fatigued. It shows here as TrangaBellam describes Diff 3 as "rank NPOV addition" whereas he meant "rank POV addition".

The editor concerned is an experienced user with a first-hand experience of ARBIPA regimen. It is inexplicable how they could do the mainspace edit in Diff 3, that too in the lead, without any source or any explanation of what they are doing. Their talk page comments are mundane and WP:BATTLEGROUND. They are a net negative here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I was pinged by User:Abecedare, whom I sort of thank for mentioning some unpleasant episodes. My first and main encounter with this editor was, as noted below, in one of the most difficult DRN disputes that I have mediated, in which more than once I had to warn the subject editor that I would fail the mediation if they persisted in being uncooperative. It was this editor whose behavior made it necessary to me to write the rule Be Specific at DRN, because they would repeatedly say, "All viewpoints must be presented", rather than saying what viewpoint needed to be included in the article, and this was one of the reasons why the DRN took two months.

In 2019, I said that a topic-ban might be necessary, and in 2020, I said that I thought that a topic-ban was necessary. In 2022, the question should not be whether to impose a topic-ban, but a choice between a topic-ban and a site ban. A site-ban would be too harsh for an editor who has apparently managed to avoid a topic-ban until now. I haven't read the recent report, but this editor has been a repeat offender. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:RegentsPark, User:Abecedare - Thank you for letting me know that the editor is already under a topic-ban from languages. Then the question is whether to expand the topic-ban to India and Pakistan, or to expand the topic-ban to a site-ban (or indefinite block). Since the editor edits primarily in the area of South Asia, there isn't much difference. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bhaskarbhagawati

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

• I'm feeling a bit lost. For starters, the report isn't clear. For example, your first (and I would assume strongest) claim against Bhaskarbhagawati is Way outside reasonable bounds of discourse in a controversial topic.[41] In the diff, I see one sentence and links to WP:RS. Is he misrepresenting sources? False sources? You have to remember, the vast majority of admin aren't experts in Hindi cinema. Actually, the vast majority have never seen any Hindi cinema. Because of this, the "problem" is not self-evident, you have to spell it out a bit and steer us in the right direction. I did look around and read all his contributions on the talk page. I saw his get voted down once (he didn't argue back), and he was otherwise just discussing in a matter, to me, that looked somewhat normal. So I checked the article history, looking for warring, etc. I did see that everything he's added seems to get reverted out, but I can't draw a conclusion based solely on that, and there didn't seem to be warring. The previous problems over a year ago aren't that interesting. I will ping EdJohnston since Ed did warn him well under a year ago, and Ed may have some light to shine on this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, that's a good start, but having unpopular views, or even being a little rude once isn't enough to sanction someone, so I need further explanation, like you just did. ie: I shouldn't have to read all the article, or any, to understand the problem. You filed the report, the burden is on you to explain it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dennis, not sure if it necessary but in case you or other admins are curious, this BBC article provides a quick overview of the underlying topic. Abecedare (talk) 23:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great source, great article. Thank you. I feel a bit more up to speed. And no, I wouldn't think you are involved just because of prior experience. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I had noticed at least some of Bhaskarbhagawati 's edits as I kept an eye on the (very active) The Kashmir Files talkpage over the past few days. While finding them sometimes oddly phrased and POV-y (notice the substitution of the word 'genocide' in wikipedia voice), I hadn't thought they had risen to level of being sanction-able yet. But I'll await Bhaskar's/other's input and take a more comprehensive look, (perhaps tomorrow) before saying anything definitive. PS: I have previously interacted with, in an admin-capacity, with Bhaskarbhagawati (see here or here) over the issues that later led Ed to topic-ban them. Just as an FYI; I don't regard myself as WP:INVOLVED wrt to the user or the article. Abecedare (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, I went and reviewed Bhaskarbhagawati's contributions since they restarted editing on March 16, all of which are related to The Kashmir Files. At best I would characterize the edits as hard to decipher, unhelpful and wasting the time of fellow-editors (see for example [42], [43], or this bizarre exchange). While several of their posts cite sources, actually looking through them one finds that they are often only tangentially connected to the claim being made, as in this edit where none of the three cited sources shed light on the 'Kashmiri Hindus' vs 'Kashmiri Pandits' issue that was being discussed. Based on this, I would have supported a page + takpage block.

But going back further I see a similar 'exhaust the interlocutors' approach by the editor over the years. As a sampling, see this DRN which was a culmination of a 7+ year long dispute, this 2019 ANI report, this 3RR report that led to Bhaskarbhawati, the filer, being topic-banned (related discussion at talkpage of Robert McClenon who had mediated the DRN), this 2021 ANI report, this 2020 topic-ban review request at AN (read, in particular, Ed Johnston's comment), and this discussion at Ed's talkpage, in which Bhaskarbhagawati left a "Replying soon, thanks." message before disappearing for ~7 months only to make a problematic return at the Kashmir Files page. Given this long history I think we need to bite the bullet and impost a topic-ban from all India-related topics. Abecedare (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The number of editors who have either just registered or come out of the woodwork just to comment on the film is definitely concerning. Bhaskarbhagawati falls into the latter (emerged from the woodwork) category. In isolation, each of Bhaskarbhagwati's edits doesn't look too bad but, collectively, their contribution appears to be nothing more than a set of pointy remarks. At a minimum, I'd suggest a block from both the article as well as the talk page. An indefinite ipa topic ban is also on the cards but I'm RL busy and don't have the time to research the earlier topic ban and exchanges with Ed. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. After reading Abecedare and Robert McClenon's comments, I'm leaning toward an indef block of this user. The DRN is a giant time waste, as are their comments on the film and I don't see anything useful emerging from this editor. (@Robert McClenon:, the user is already under a topic ban re the subject matter of the DRN you point to. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I support that as long as DS rules allow us to do so (haven't kept up with all the fine print and customs). Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I support an indef block, being somewhat familiar with this user's previous record. His behavior tended to exhaust other editors and admins. An indef block is legal but would be recorded as being under normal admin authority not WP:AC/DS authority. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the input and clarification, Ed. Barring any objections or alternate suggestion I'll implement the indef in a few hours. As Robert points out, practically there is not much difference between an indef and an IPA topic-ban, and IMO we should not leave the door open for another set of editors to have to face such tendentious editing. Thoughts, Dennis Brown? Abecedare (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Honestly, I backed out of the discussion as that seemed the obvious choice of the filing party, so I can't say I have an opinion either way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:25, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Abecedare (talk) 22:48, 22 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 ValarianB

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mr Ernie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

ValarianB (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:1RR, WP:ARBAPDS

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

1. 08:46 March 21 First revert
2. 08:42 March 22 Second revert, less than 24 hours after the first.

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)

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on December 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is under 1RR, which is explained in the edit window as "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." I approached ValarianB to point this out, but they reverted my message with the edit summary "1 day apart, friend." The restriction is related to a 24 hour period, and 23 hours and 56 minutes fall within that time period. There is an ongoing discussion at ANI regarding another editor in this topic space, and after I brought some diffs there of other editor issues I was instructed to bring those diffs separately into their own complaint, so here we are. Normally I am loathe to report anyone, but the response of reverting my attempt to discuss at user talk in lieu of a trip to a noticeboard does not give me confidence that ValarianB will not ignore this restriction again. I believe a warning at least is appropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding concerns this may be retaliatory, I had brought up concerns about other editors in the 24rhhtr7 ANI and was instructed to bring them as a separate issue. I had attempted to resolve this with discussion but was rebuffed. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning ValarianB

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 ValarianB

23:56. For 2 entirely different edits and editors, I was under the impression that 1RR applied to the same reversion, but who knows, maybe I am wrong there. But that is really besides the point --- Four minutes. I still have a smidgen of faith that the Wikipedia is not so bound by technical minutiae that this is a big deal. Two-hundred and forty-one seconds more, and this wouldn't even be a thing.

Also note that Mr. Ernie quite explicitly says this is a retaliatory filing ("but given that you reported 24rhhtr7 to ANI"), because I brought an filing on extremely abusive user (User:24rhhtr7, who shares Mr. Ernie's "side" in the article debates) which resulted in a 60-hour block. ValarianB (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EvergreenFir, noted, will be mindful of that in the future. Again, I find four minutes to be extraordinarily ticky-tacky, and despite the OPs pleas to the contrary, this was quite plainly retaliatory. Again, their words in the link provided by me above. ValarianB (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NewYorkBrad, yep, I acknowledge that it was a misinterpretation on my part. ValarianB (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ValarianB

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

• For a 4 minute window, I would think a warning would be the maximum sanction here. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And ValarianB, the WP:3RR (and 1RR) very clearly says it applies to any revert. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• What User:EvergreenFir said. Both times. On a side note, I was over on that talk page earlier, after seeing the ANI report, and that talk page is a cesspool. Much of the discussion is so way off topic, WP:FORUM, debating ancillary conspiracies and insufficient discussion about the actual article and changes. I want those 30 minutes back. Or someone to full protect the talk page. I didn't join in on the discussion at ANI, didn't want to get involved in that mess. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• This is obviously a de minimis infraction if any, so I don't think any enforcement action is warranted. For future reference, though, I join in advising ValarianB that EvergreenFir is correct about the rules. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]