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 Loveall.human[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Loveall.human (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:ARBIP

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

1. 05:39, 24 July 2021: Falsely claims on article about 13th-century commander that Sanjjanaa Galrani converted to Islam and cited this source which nowhere confirms conversion to Islam but ensures not to give weight to such unconfirmed claims. See WP:CIR.

   On this diff he is also throwing WP:NPA by falsely accusing other editor of vandalism: "Is this vandalism?".

2. 08:07, 24 July 2021 After being correctly told that "source say that these "speculations" are not verified and "remains to be seen when the truth will be revealed""[1] Loveall.human doubles down with his WP:CIR by saying "The "speculation" and "remains to be seen when the truth will be revealed" was clearly about her marriage, not on her conversion." And again falsely accusing the editor of "mass vandalizing" and of being a part of an "unhealthy mob bullying pattern that is being observed in pushing far right wing POV"

His overall unhelpful presence on this page started from 04:15, 24 July 2021, when he started to derail a conversation about a 13th-century commander by talking about "Muhammad Ali or Michael Jackson or Cat Stevens", "constitution", and more unrelated subjects. He then ignored a request by another editor to "stay on the topic"[2] and doubled down with derailing on every single message.

This all happened after he was already cautioned by multiple editors about WP:BLPCAT, WP:V and other relevant policies per his talk page after he had added names to an article by relying on unreliable sources and WP:CIRCULAR.[3]

But he still does not understand any of those policies.

During his unblock request, one admin had noted Loveall.human to be WP:NOTHERE and he would "end up blocked again for POV-pushing, edit-warring, or something along those lines".[4] I think it could be true, given the continued display of incompetence and battleground mentality. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 22:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddy1: I don't see any justification for the behaviour that is prevailing since September 2020 with this account. CIR, together with battleground mentality is the last thing we would want for any subject.

@Trangabellam: That edit was correct as it removed unreliable sources and improperly sourced entries. What Black Kite restored has nothing to do with earlier version per his own statement since he used new sources for the entries he restored.[5] 09:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)

[6]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:Loveall.human#Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Discussion concerning Loveall.human[edit]

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

Statement by Loveall.human[edit]

See my responses in italics. General layman comments, if anything violating some Wiki jargon (no intention), let me know. Rest assured, the statements below are with evidences to back.

"05:39, 24 July 2021: Falsely claims ..". - Sanjjana Galrani was not FALSELY claimed. It was in the context of that account doing mass reverts on many articles without any discussion in talk page/relevant article page.

"08:07, 24 July 2021 After being correctly.." - I have given evidences of the pattern where 'multiple' article reverts were made without communicating/discussing it which I presume is vandalizing. I stand by "unhealthy mob bullying pattern that is being observed in pushing far right wing POV" with enough evidences here. To be specific, the convert from Hinduism to XYZ article lists only are almost barred from growing for more than 4 years with consistent mob bullying patterns that is observed.

"His overall.." - How is 'unhelpful' presence decided? How is talking/discussion in the relevant page regarding criteria for conversion is 'derailing', especially with that account to understand why he was doing mass reverts without discussion?

"He then ignored.."- I did not ignore the request or derail on the 'topic', I remained on topic, evident from the link you have posted itself. The further discussions continued, precisely it was relevant.

"This all happened.."- Was cautioned only ONCE by ONE editor, even that editor who did not communicate back multiple times despite I gave him proper source who had done mass reverts without verifying. Before and after caution, I have not added any row without proper source or research. Context is I had added more than a dozen names, after careful research with proper sources being cited. WITHOUT any discussion or pointing out which row is having unreliable sources, the edits were removed en-masse. After the first mass reverting of my edits itself, I STOPPED doing any edits to those articles, and I was trying to have the folks who do mass reverting to communicate in article's talk or user talk page why and which specific entry of its source is inaccurate (instead of communicating, I was filed with reports to block me).

"But he still.." - Indeed, am still learning. Which specific policy and evidence to claim this statement. And which I was warned for not understanding and have violated?

"During his unblock request.."- That was his prediction/prophetic 'opinion' commenting on a sock report which turned out to be false (like another TWO sock reports on me). Why is that there is no discussion on topic/talk page due to relentless sock reports and blocking efforts on me with wiki jargons keeping wiki users busy with answering such reports instead of learning/collaborating/discussing/editing? And I am accused of "battleground mentality" for asking to discuss/communicate. If anything, I could also probably claim I am being wiki-bullied relentlessly abusing wiki admin processes, just to maintain far right wing POV only with overwhelming evidences from the reporting pattern on me and others. It's evident, how wiki process is abused, is I am spending now more time on relentless reports on me based on false accusations, than actually contributing to Wiki.

@Vanamonde93 - I was given unfair judgement mistakenly by the admins in the first sock report action on me, which took months to prove that crafted shared interest sock reports is not enough evidence to the admins. With or without warning, I have been careful to contribute only with proper sourcing. Admins to take note, not a single edit has been made by me WITHOUT citing any verifiable source. If so, the onus is on the one who is accusing and am concerned too of Wiki having any stain of inaccurate or false information. Careful reading of above with evidences provided by the one who raised himself shows the complaint had blatant FALSE accusations. All are equal here with different roles in Wiki. It is expected for admins with privileges entrusted to be role models to behave neutral/academic. For Aman Kumar Goel, he is observed with repeated and consistent bullying patterns of abusing wiki processes to maintain far right wing POV (Hindu Nationalism type) as discussed here. A different view is healthy, but enforcing only far right wing POV by choking others without even discussing by abusing processes is taking wiki processes and admins for granted. And the articles, I edited was with competence with careful research invested. I am even doubting with similar pattern observed in another user's page that if there is competence by the folks who are doing such mass reverts without being specific to help identify which one is inaccurate. Loveall.human (talk) 06:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde93:

  - The 'context' matters here, which is sheer lack of communication/discussion except mass undoings, untagging, block/threats etc. as detailed in ANI. And that talk discussion happened only 'after' raising ANI. I did not imply or stated if that specific source alone was sufficient (re-read the talk I said it is just 'one' of the sources), rather the 'context' was about 'lack of communication/discussion' that is unproductive for those lists stalled for YEARS.

  - There has been 'three' sock reports on me with desperately crafted reports turning out FALSE, now another report targeting me (another lengthy discussion on the crafted sound bites to explain the context instead of contributing to Wiki) and the ANI discussion on the systematic pattern of the one who is filing with far right-wing POV. The 'discriminatory' disruptive bullying for adding rows 'only' to the list of Converts to Christianity/Islam 'from Hinduism' alone here is also the context (millions of natives of India switching to Christianity/Islam is a fact and even dead personalities who changed faiths with citations were removed, why only 'from Hinduism' is stalled like this for so many years?).

  - Warning me is just feeding one more sound bite that will be used for another kind of report in future based on the chronic pattern observed who is desperately targeting me for POV push. Despite glaring evidence, this is grossly 'unfair' and is further encouraging misuse of wiki admin processes to push Hindutva far-right supremacist POV. I suggest, as admin, please re-read the 'context' to help discipline actual trolls and not contributing editors who are targeted with series of sock/block reports by POV pushers. Sad, that system allowed to be misused where now I am doing more edits answering these targeted crafted bogus reports than actual edits. Loveall.human (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde93: I have a day job, so can respond on mostly weekends. I have not ignored and have answered above for that question. If despite mentoring/informing an editor disrupts by 'misusing' a source, then it is understandable for not paying heed to discipline with warning. Here, however, the edits after researching with citations (contestable can be discussed, but there were no self-opinions out of thin air) were removed for specific kind of pages only without communication and there was a discussion in the 'talk' page (not actual article) with regard to that. Snipping sound bites in between a conversation alone is not sufficient, please see the context and the systematic pattern. Has there been any edit warring after the mass undoings and untags? No. Rather, I was asking users around to communicate why there had been massive undoings without explanation, and the 'discussion' started only after ANI. Wiki processes should help weed out actual trolls, here is an editor who just wants to contribute/learn is being bludgeoned with socks and reports with crafted soundbites and jargon which takes so much effort to explain. I, too, am concerned with inaccurate entries which 'stain' the Wikipedia articles. Ascribing dishonest intentions with the word 'misuse' of a source is incorrect and sounds opinionated. As, answered earlier, there were other sources too for improving the veracity. It's not the material loss of 'warning' from admins I detest, but the wiki admin processes being again allowed to be misused with relentless socks and reports by far right POV admin reportees causing hierarchical elite structure as beginners are not well versed/free to throw wiki jargons and targeted reports like these. With more privileges should come more responsibility and more grace to judge. Loveall.human (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toddy1[edit]

Regarding the first diff that Aman.kumar.goel complained about, Aman.kumar.goel wrote above: On this diff he is also throwing WP:NPA by falsely accusing other editor of vandalism: "Is this vandalism?". The inference that the diff is evidence of a personal attack by Loveall.human is not reasonable. If you accept that posting a message saying that an edit was vandalism is a personal attack then anybody who uses standard warning templates such as Template:Uw-vandalism3, Template:Uw-subtle3 and many others at Wikipedia:Template index/User talk namespace is guilty of making a personal attack.

In the diff Loveall.human is asking the basic question - what are the criteria for inclusion in religious categories and lists. The answer for living people is WP:BLPCAT - which was given in Talk:Malik Maqbul Tilangani#july in response to Loveall.human's question. It does not seem reasonable to bring Loveall.human to WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for asking the question on a relevant article talk page.

Both sides need to calm down. Aman.kumar.goel is one of a number of editors who are doing a good job trying to impose some discipline on these lists of religious conversions. I understand his/her frustration. But please try to understand, you too get it wrong sometimes.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aman.kumar.goel: As far as I can tell, Loveall.human has not engaged in battleground behaviour since his/her unblock in April 2021. -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:TrangaBellam[edit]

I request AKG to explain this edit. Some of the entries have been already restored by User:BlackKite. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XYZ[edit]

Result concerning Loveall.human[edit]

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

• I'm quite unimpressed by Loveall.human's conduct here. Distinguishing between a statement that a source is reporting, and one that it's making in its own voice, is critical to all parts of Wikipedia, and Loveall.human seems unable or unwilling to understand the distinction. They also seem to have a single interest here, which isn't the healthiest, a break from religious conversions might not be the worst thing.
  That said, this particular topic has gotten quite nasty, with a number of recent noticeboard complaints (1, 2), and I'm concerned the broader dispute around religious conversions may need admin evaluation; there seems to be a bit of a throwing-shit-at-the-wall approach here from multiple parties. Black Kite, you commented on the ANI discussion; any thoughts? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:42, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on Black Kite's comment, I am no longer comfortable with sanctioning Loveall.human, but a logged warning about source use is still, I believe, justified. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Loveall.human, Generic statements about your edits being supported by sources arent' very helpful. In the talk page discussion linked above you imply that this source was sufficient for the content it is used for in this revision. Are you still defending that claim? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  In the absence of any further input, I will close this with a warning in a day or so. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Loveall.human, the problematic conduct of other users has also been noted; see Black Kite's comment below; but you did misuse a source, as the diffs show, and when I questioned you directly about it you ignored my question, even though you're clearly watching this discussion. I think a warning is very much warranted. If you want further admin input, I'm happy to ask others familiar with the broader topic: @RegentsPark and Bishonen: any thoughts on this? Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Vanamonde93 I am unconvinced that Loveall.human's behaviour is and better or worse than numerous other actors in this area. I note that the filer of this AE has significant previous in trying to remove political opponents from their areas. Black Kite (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Loveall.human: Is there a clear answer to Vanamonde's "Are you still defending that claim?" question? Is your statement beginning "The 'context' matters here" your reply? If so, it is not a good idea to answer a specific question by starting with extraneous material—it looks evasive. You were not asked about what you said at the time—the question is what you think now. Please quote a few words of your answer if it is above (where I've missed it), or provide the answer now. Johnuniq (talk) 09:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Shakespeare143[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Shakespeare143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

Has expended considerable effort pushing fringe theories at Talk:Indo-Aryan_migrations and Talk:Indo-Aryan peoples; no diffs provided because virtually every post substantiates my point.

On Hinduism in Arab states:

1. 9 August 2021 Unsourced content, not based on anything in the body.

On List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll:

1. 8 August 2021 Addition of content sourced to an SPS (iUniverse is an outlet for self-publishing); adds the same content twice in different categories, presumably to inflate its importance. Incidentally, I haven't been able to verify whether the source even supports the content; no page number was provided, and searching the text doesn't give obvious results.
2. 5 August 2021 More contentious claims from a self-published source. Advances the fringe claim that 400,000,000 Hindus were killed in the Islamic conquest of the subcontinent (no, that's not a typo; 400 million is the claim).
3. 24 June 2021 Same page, same content; makes reference to WP:RS, indicating that he was quite aware of the concept even in June.

On Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh:

1. 1 August 2021 Addition of somewhat promotional claim without sources.
2. 3 August 2021 Readds the same content, this time sourced to a) an unreliable source, and b) a news article that is evidently based on a press release or equivalent statement.
3. 4 August 2021 Doubles down on previous edit, replacing dodgy website with yet another press-release-based article, despite my having pointed the problem out (see previous edit summary visible at the same link).

More fringe pov-pushing:

1. 16 May 2021
2. 9 August 2021 Adding large chunks of content from a blog-post by the subject of an article, to the point of violating WP:SOAP, since no secondary source has given that content credence.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions, but reams of warnings on talk page.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. For convenience; alerted by Chariotrider555 on 15 April 2021. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Shakespeare143's edits are replete with unsourced content, terrible sources, and a generally flippant attitude towards WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• SpacemanSpiff, I really don't know. Most of this user's edits have some relationship to Hindu nationalism or content that receives attention from Hindu nationalists, and there, as I've shown, there's serious problems. I have not been able to see if the problems extend to caste, which is the only topic they've edited that I haven't examined deeply. It wouldn't surprise me, though. I wouldn't oppose a block, nor would I advocate for one. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Shakespeare143, at no point have I called you a Hindu nationalist, and it's rather concerning that you think I have. I've said you've edited many topics that are related to Hindu nationalism and that receive attention from Hindu nationalists, which is quite different; that's not a comment on you, but on the nature of those topics. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Shakespeare143[edit]

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

Statement by Shakespeare143[edit]

Not every sentence on Wikipedia needs a citation (Wikipedia describes this in detail). Am I correct?

Regarding claims about Indo-Aryan Migrations and Indo-Aryan Peoples: I'm merely suggesting improvements to articles on the Talk page (I consider myself to be helping to reduce bias on Wikipedia, not promoting fringe. I provide evidence for suggestions).

Hinduism in Arab states claim: It's in the body and so is the source. I was just improving the intro.

List of wars etc claim 1: It belongs in multiple categories. I posted on the Talk page months ago and achieved consensus. It's a book so I thought it was relatively reliable, especially because I found the author on Google Scholar. Page 148: "The Persian historian Hasan Nizami, in his Taj-ul-Ma 'sir, records of Muhammad Ghauri’s conquest of Ajmer that ‘one hundred thousand groveling Hindus swiftly departed to the fire of hell and the invaders ... ‘". I didn't include the page number previously because I couldn't find it earlier.

claim 2: That Wikipedia page is asking for high and low estimates, and I don't think 400 million is a fringe claim. I got consensus before posting it.

claim 3: I don't understand his/her claim.

HSS claims: There are many sources backing up my edit. I didn't include the source in the first edit because I thought that it was a noncontentious edit and I see pretty much every Wikipedia page filled with unsourced material, so I thought although sourced is preferred, unsourced is not preferred but okay sometimes (only if there actually are RS sources to back it up of course). Furthermore, even governors and mayors of cities have made statements supporting my edit. I apologize if I made a mistake in not including an RS originally.

More fringe pov-pushing claim 1: Please explain how. This is the Talk page, and I thought it was not fringe.

claim 2: This is by Kak himself, so I thought it was okay to include. And I thought it was relevant because it discussed Wikipedia.

Summary: I don't think I have flippant attitudes toward WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. I've read about those policies and one of the reasons I edit on Wikipedia is to make Wikipedia less biased. To reiterate: I like the WP:RS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV policies, and I 100% welcome and like any and all criticisms and hope to improve based on those criticisms, because this makes me a better editor. Thank you Vanamonde93 for suggestions, and I sincerely apologize for any mistakes I've made. I'll be happy to explain any other edits I've made. Question: Is it ok if my statement is more than 500 words? It isn't now, but just asking.Shakespeare143 (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way I can not be topic banned/blocked? I will faithfully follow all the rules from now on, and I think I get the idea now. Even though I disagree that I am pushing a fringe theory, I will not "push" it any more on Wikipedia (I actually do not support the fringe theory. My position on the debate is actually on the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory side to be honest and not on the fringe theory side). I think I was just a bit confused on the rules, and after consulting with Vanamonde93, I think I understand the rules better to be able to faithfully follow them. What can I do to not be topic banned/blocked? I honestly want to improve more. I understand now about the citations: all sentences need to be cited. I disagree that I refuse to take in feedback, I can give evidence of accepting feedback. I just wanted to emphasize that I understand the rules now. I really do like the subjects of India, and I would like to continue editing in this area if possible. Also, I would estimate that around 90% of my sentences of all of my edits have a blue number with a citation next to them, just to let you know that I did cite the vast majority of the time in the past. I think it would be unfair to block me or topic ban me as I want to improve and not write in a biased manner; before I edit further (if I'm allowed to) I will clarify any questions I still have. Question: Can I ask other editors for statements supporting me in this Arbitration Page? If I am blocked, at which date will I be blocked and for how long? If I will be topic banned, is there any way I can only be topic banned from the Aryan Migration Theory pages only so I can continuing editing on other India articles and related areas? I can also provide evidence for how I have taken in feedback and have followed the feedback to show I am willing to improve. Another suggestion I have is instead of a block/ban, could I do an "Adopt-a-user" with Vanamonde93 or another editor (I think this would really help me)? I have much more evidence for why I think I should not be banned/blocked. I also wanted to add that I really enjoy editing Wikipedia, and I like the collaboration involved, the process of looking up research and learning new information in the process, and editing an encyclopedia; I really like the idea of Wikipedia and its mission. I do apologize for my mistakes that I see more clearly now. I also thought I would be warned here officially before being blocked/banned (I did not think that the Talk page warnings were "official", I thought they were individual editors' opinions). Thank you. Shakespeare143 (talk) 10:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my response to Vanamonde. I am not a Hindu Nationalist; Hindu Nationalism is considered by some scholars as fascist (I was reading about Hindutva and its connections to fascism in the 1930s especially); I also read about how Savarkar, a Hindu Nationalist, was inspired by Mussolini I think. As such I am opposed to Hindu Nationalism. I am just interested in many areas of Hinduism/India. Yes, I have also edited caste. How can I not be banned/blocked?Shakespeare143 (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you Vanamonde93. I thought it was implied, my bad. I also wanted to say that I will accept whichever decision is made. Bilorv, thank you for answering my question. Furthermore, I wanted to add that Wikipedia rules are often subject to interpretation, and I am a beginner (I don't know all of the Wikipedia-specific terms that Wikipedians use), which probably explains at least some of the problems with my editing. What evidence would allow me to not be banned/blocked? Shakespeare143 (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know you said you are not looking for an acknowledgement now, but now I see how important it is when to use Wikipedia's voice and when to use the source's voice.Shakespeare143 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bilorv[edit]

Just dropping in to answer Shakespeare143's question Not every sentence on Wikipedia needs a citation (Wikipedia describes this in detail). Am I correct? No, this is not correct. Wikipedia:Verifiability explains right at the top, Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. You may be thinking of the rules for inline citations (when a blue reference symbol is needed, rather than just a reference being present at the bottom of an article). WP:MINREF gives the "only" four situations when inline citations are needed, but in practice almost all content in the India–Pakistan topic area will fall into one of those situations. I see no good reason not to give an inline citation for every piece of information you add to an article. — Bilorv (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TrangaBellam[edit]

I agree with Vanamonde93 and support a TBan. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Shakespeare143[edit]

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

• I looked through the contributions and talk page and I don't know if a topic ban will do much help. The user is trying to push their narrative and refuses to take in any feedback and a topic ban may not do much other than shift this problem to another area. However, I'd be willing to consider a topic ban if others think it may be more appropriate than a block. —SpacemanSpiff 07:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• On the one hand, Shakespeare143 is a new user (created 4 April 2021) so latitude is allowed. On the other hand, a problematic new user should not be editing a contentious topic under discretionary sanctions. I don't think anything less than an indefinite topic ban would be reasonable. Their 06:38, 4 August 2021 edit at Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh replaced reports that parroted a press release with two that do the same. Hint: the businessinsider.com article finished with "SOURCE Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh USA ... Markets Insider and Business Insider Editorial Teams were not involved in the creation of this post." and the hindustantimes.com article finished with "This story has been published from a wire agency feed without modifications to the text." It might be defensible (although unwise) to claim that the press release was sufficient verification for the self-promoting text, but I see no acknowledgement from Shakespeare143 that such sources are not anything more than a statement issued by Hindu Swayamsevak Sangh. I'm not looking for an acknowledgement now—that is just one example of a fundamental problem. Johnuniq (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further review, I am implementing a topic ban. I don't see any contributions from Shakespeare143 in the week since this AE request started other responding to the request. Before that, discussions at Talk:David Frawley + Talk:Subhash Kak + Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations further confirm that a topic ban is required. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

Azuresky Voight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

You are topic banned from the topic of living people and recently deceased people broadly construed for a period of 1 year.[7][8]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

I am aware. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Azuresky Voight[edit]

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I find it absurd and unfair to be blocked from editing Wikipedia for six months due to a certain topic ban on Biography of Living Persons. The admin who imposed the ban is User:HighInBC. The first ban is the result of me getting in a dispute against another editor about the offensive content (specifically hateful anti-LGBT content) at the BLP article about RJ Nieto. I have created petitions to block the editor who added such hateful content from editing the article, but instead of investigating the content added, I was the one sanctioned for "my behavior". I have also unearthed the previous violations of that editor but it was considered "a personal attack". I was ultimately "topic banned for six months fom BLP articles" and have been blocked from Wikipedia 2 days ago. After which I went on editing non-BLP articles (specifically, Rappler and Fake News In the Philippines, Mocha Uson Blog) which are not BLP articles. So I was surprised that I was blocked again "based on an arbitration enforcement" about BLP, with the sanctioning admin citing the edits I made on the articles about certain companies and topics. How was that fair? BLP topic ban, in my understanding, is a ban against editing BLP articles. If it extends to not being allowed to editing articles that merely includes names of living people, like the founder of a company, isn't that abusive or misusing an admin tool? How am I supposed to edit an article whose details about its founder was already there, if that too is considered a BLP violation? It's absurd. It doesn't make sense. If I am to avoid editing all articles that involves even a single name of a living person, it should have been told clearly in the sanction notification. And in the first place, if such is the case, the imposition of the topic ban is oppressive and unjust. In another edit I made, I have added the name of a journalist who wrote the article I have used as a citation—this too has been considered "a violation of a topic ban on BLP", even if the article I have edited is not a biography. I am quite confused how a topic ban on BLP extends to merely editing articles names of living people, or adding content that contains names of living people on non-BLP articles, even when and especially when such edits do not cause harm to such people, or the purpose of the edit is not focused on their biography. In the first place, I am quite confused how I got blocked in the first place for raising an issue that BLP articles contain anti-LGBT materials simply because such materials have citations, when BLP policy on neutrality clearly states these are not allowed. To add insult to the injury, the editor who has added such content has not been sanctioned in any way. The editor has also tried to accuse me of using a sockpuppet with an account not on English Wikipedia, and this issue was raised on the Talk page of User:HighInBC, the admin who has imposed the sanction. I find it unjust and unfair for me, an LGBT editor, who is trying to protect biography of LGBT people from hateful content, to be the subject of this sanction. Based on the behavior of the editor I have been in dispute with, and on his conversation with the admin who imposed my sanction, I have reason to believe the two are friends and I have been the subject of an unfair decision, and that I have been the subject of discrimination. The content in question is this one I removed in this diff: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037294490 It was first added to the article by an IP account User:108.52.121.147 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/834416373

which has been the subject of several disputes regarding the article, has been removed several times for being properly identified as libelous and contentious, and violates BLP policy on neutrality, but the editor who I have been in dispute with insist on restoring the content, arguing that it has a WP:RS, and ignoring all protests that it was indeed contentious. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/845363063 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/931927159 I have also suspicion to believe that the anonymous user that initially added this and the editor who keeps restoring it are the same person, because the editor and the IP have the same writing voice. Additionally, the editor also insists on adding the adjective "pro-Duterte" to the lead of the article re RJ Nieto.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1038233612

In fact, before I revised the article to fix its contentious tone, all the problematic content were added by the editor. These include:

• Calling the subject fake news peddler
• Calling the subject a state-sponsored troll
• Accusing the subject of inciting violence against journalists

and so on in the guise that these are WP:RS. In fact, most these citations are merely opinion articles, and that despite having citation these should have long been removed for severe violation of NPOV. HighInBC completely ignored this and has been more focused on sanctioning me. Up to this point, the article about RJ Nito remains an attack page against the subject. This is also ignored by HighInBC. He is more focused on sanctioning me for editing non-BLP articles. The article about RJ Nieto has also been edited by a potential sockpuppet/meatpuppet of the editor, as indicated by these wikidiffs:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1038448712 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1038523392 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1038525120 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037871744 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037731466 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1039042688 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1037540674

These actions by the editor remains unsanctioned as well. I hereby appeal, in good faith, to overturn my sanction, and question the motives for the sanction altogether, why the sanctioning admin has focused more on blocking me while allowing the editor who has been maintaining an attack page against a living person, who is specifically an LGBT person, and the article discriminated him based on that, while also editing the attack article using at least two sockpuppets/meatpuppets. I am requesting explanation from the sanctioning administrator regarding this, as it has led me to believe that the BLP policy implementation is incongruent for different editors. It is ironic even that raising an issue about a BLP article results in sanctioning of the editor raising the issue, and ignoring the editor maintining the attack page altogether. I request the arbitration committee to reconsider my case, as I deem it both unfair and unjust, and also abusive, and also to reconsider the initial issue I have been raising, which is the problematic articles maintained by the editor, and also to investigate his sock/meatpuppets. Azuresky Voight (talk) 12:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HighInBC[edit]

Started when I saw page marked as an attack page: Dennis Jose Borbon.

While sourced it was in a negative tone and far from neutral. Containing no previous neutral versions I deleted it without prejudice against recreation in a neutral fashion. warned Azuresky about this, as did others: User talk:Azuresky Voight#August 2021.

Their response was to insist that the BLP policy did not apply to articles that had sources. I told them that was just part of the policy. I pointed out Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Summary deletion, creation prevention, and courtesy blanking.

I then realized that the article was deleted by another admin as an attack page earlier that day: Special:Undelete/Dennis Jose Borbon. They had just recreated it. I also noticed they had created the same article as a draft in the past: Draft:Dennis Jose Borbon.

Given their continued insistence that BLP only applied to unsourced content I gave them a BLP DS notice: [9].

Next I hear from the edit they had posted private information on my userpage, I don't know what as it was oversighted[10][11] and also to an article talk page[12] and the BLP noticeboard[13]. This was the first I noticed a pattern of harassment towards User:Object404 in the area of BLP.

I noticed that they were in an edit war at Mocha Uson. Their response to the edit warring warning was to accuse the other editor, Object404, of vandalism. I also noticed a post to Bbb23 attacking Object404 by bringing up a years old block and various accusations of bad faith[14]. A near identical post was made to the BLP noticeboard[15].

There are many misapplications of the BLP policy and examples of hostile behavior in the area of BLP but 500 word limit. The final straw was when they repeated their attack on Object404[16] and then applied the attack page template in response to a content dispute here[17].

Realizing that this user in incapable of working collaboratively in the area of BLP I issued a topic ban under the discretionary sanctions: [18]. They immediately violated this topic ban[19]. I responded with a 48 hour block, assuming good faith that they had not read it I made the block short. They proceeded to violated the topic ban on their talk page so I revoked talk page access and implored them to read and understand the topic ban policy. Explained ban applies to topic everwhere[20].

Checking in on them a few days later I found multiple violations: [21][22][23][24](there are more). I blocked for 6 months. They posted appeal shown here.

@Object404: @Bbb23: HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Materialscientist: HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:20, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Due to fresh outing incident on talk page after warning I have revoked talk page access and increased block to indefinite. New block is done as regular admin action. See their talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jackattack1597[edit]

Noting that Azuresky also attempted to create the Dennis Jose Borbon article on the Simple English Wikipedia. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/simple.wikipedia.org/Azuresky%20Voight/allJackattack1597 (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Object404[edit]

Just read the full appeal statement at Azuresky Voight's talk page as of this version. The attacks against me continue. He now accuses me of sock/meatpuppetry via Crisantom, a person I do not interact with nor know the identity of. I had an issue before, was appropriately sanctioned and served my time, so I'm careful about that now. For the suppressed information, AV outed my real name multiple times on different pages on Wikipedia, something I do not appreciate as I edit sensitive topics and can constitute a danger to my personal safety.

As for the BLPs, I don't believe I ever put "fake news peddler" nor "state sponsored troll" on the RJ Nieto page, so User:AV is making false accusations. As for the subject article RJ Nieto, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines itself calls him "a barefaced liar" and the NUJP says "That Nieto did all this under oath (during a Senate of the Philippines hearing on Fake News) should have earned him a perjury charge or a contempt citation at the very least,". Nieto's multiple false claims and spreading of misinformation are very well-documented by many major journalistic broadsheets and news programs in the Philippines as well as fact-checkers, so I don't think stating that Nieto "has posted fake news and misinformation multiple times on his blog and Facebook page" is a violation of BLP. It's merely stating a neutral fact, much like how Alex Jones's article states "Jones' website, InfoWars, promotes conspiracy theories and fake news, as do his other websites NewsWars and PrisonPlanet". I fail to see too how any of this is an LGBT-related attack as AV claims.

As for AV's claim that Nieto's inciting violence towards journalists are merely sourced from opinion articles, this is also false, as the NUJP itself castigated Nieto for urging the Presidential Spokesperson to hurl a cinder block at journalist Pia Ranada on the national political radio talk show Karambola (not a lampoon show as AV claims). The NUJP made the statement '"We support our colleague Pia and will support criminal and civil charges she may decide to file against Nieto.'

For the term "pro-Duterte", this is the term the largest journalistic news organizations in the Philippines use to decribe Nieto,123 and is not my term. Also, since when has the term "pro-__President_X__" been a negative term? Unless it is AV himself who thinks supporting the current Philippine president is a bad thing?

Anyway, I also find that Azuresky Voight been quite disruptive in his edits and embarked on a campaign of deleting entire swathes of content that he does not agree with multiple times on different pages (in one case, blanking an entire article), despite being sourced by WP:RS. This, I believe has been tantamount to whitewashing of facts he perceive to be negative of subjects, despite not being violative of BLP policies.

Regards,

-Object404 (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crisantom[edit]

Hi, I'm here because Azuresky Voight cites some of my edits as evidence of me being a "potential sockpuppet/meatpuppet" of Object404. I would like to put on record that I am not anyone's sockpuppet or meatpuppet. I have made my edits of my own accord. At least two of the edits in question involve the article RJ Nieto: (1) I removed a passage saying Mr. Drilon "became infamously known as the 'sleeping senator'" since the cited source did not say anything of the sort, as per BLP and wp:verify, and (2) I also removed a sentence that said "NUJP's reactions demonstrate how exaggerations by the media hurts the credibiity [sic] of media", since the sources do not mention the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines, much less characterize NUJP's statement as such (examples of exaggerations that hurt media's credibility). Azuresky Voight also notes a comment I left on the Talk:Fake news in the Philippines discussion where I expressed my opinion that the article should be kept, but I don't see how this can be construed as sockpuppetry. I hope this helps clear some things up. -Crisantom (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 4)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Azuresky Voight[edit]

Result of the appeal by Azuresky Voight[edit]

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

• I endorse both the topic ban and the 6-month block; the appeal should be denied. AV demonstrates zero insight into their own behavior. Indeed, a rather large chunk of their statement faults the conduct of others; we are not here to investigate other users' conduct. AV has a very flawed understanding of what constitutes an edit about a BLP. If it's a BLP article, it's easy, but if it isn't and the edit concerns a BLP, it's still a violation of the topic ban. Finally, AV's repeated attacks against Object404 are well-documented by HighInBC.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have requested on AV's talk page that they post an amended, shorter version. I will shorten it as an uninvolved administrator if they do not provide an amended version. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments by the user at User talk:Azuresky Voight (for example, an oversighted diff at 04:50, 17 August 2021 and diff) indicate that the appeal should be declined. Johnuniq (talk) 10:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Number 57[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Number 57 (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/Palestine-Israel articles

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

1. 20:32, 12 August 2021 Page move reverting to a previous title
2. 21:16, 12 August 2021 Same page move

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. User talk:Number 57/Archive 4#12 hour block blocked for edit warring in this topic area, a very long time ago

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

Number 57 is an experienced administrator, who has been involved in ARBPIA policy discussions since it was first begun

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Number 57 is an experienced (and excellent) editor. Per our discussion at User_talk:Number_57#1RR, he does not believe that a page move can be a revert. I gave him the opportunity to self-revert, but he does not wish to do so as explained at [25] I have not broken 1RR. I have made one edit to the article. A move is not a revert. By all means let's go back to the stable title and you can do an RM from there. and [26] Happy to go to AE, but if we do I'll be requesting a boomerang sanction for restoring an undiscussed move after it was reverted and then wasting everyone's time for Wikilawyering about it. I found this threat to be surprisingly aggressive, as well as unfounded.

Number 57 agrees below that If you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again (note the clear characterization of a page move as a "revert"), but gives no explanation for having done exactly that just 40 minutes after his first page move.

Separately, in quoting WP:RMUM Number 57 overlooked the caveat in the prior sentence "...and the new title has not been in place for a long time...". He might have noted that his first page move overrode a month of silent consensus on a page with 100 watchers and almost 3,000 views. If he chose not to subscribe to the concept of silent consensus, or interpret "a long time" to mean some much longer period, then he should not have repeatedly reverted to a title which itself had only silent consensus for a similar period of time.[27]. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For context on the most recent user comment: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hippeus/Archive. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:35, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all the admins for weighing in on this one. If we are going to clarify the rules, some work on the language at WP:RMUM and a rough consensus of what "a long time" means would be helpful. Although no-one has stated it explicitly, I assume from the comments that a number of admins don't believe one month on an article of this level of visibility is enough to constitute "a long time" as described at WP:RMUM. If so, what then would "a long time" be, and what is a good rule of thumb for figuring this out going forward?

I ask this because I find the post mortem a little confusing - I want to have a clear idea of what exactly should have happened here. Number 57 moved what I considered a stable and consensual title to a prior title; if you believe one month to be "a long time" as I did, then my undoing of Number 57's move was entirely correct per WP:RMUM. To add to the uncertainty, the prior title Number 57 chose was also undiscussed and had only silent consensus, albeit for a slightly longer period (2-3 months). If one month is not "a long time" but 2-3 months is, then I can understand Number 57's point of view. If neither period is "a long time", then presumably the most correct course of action would have been to undo Number 57's first move but instead to a much earlier version of the page title which had been there for a much longer time.

Any comments on this would be greatly appreciated. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5: thank you. Two quick points in response.

The policy footnote you referred to was only added a few weeks ago[28] and appears to be one editor's interpretation of their own RfC. There is also something wrong with the syntax of the sentence. It may represent the community’s views, but the RfC and its non-closure seem odd to me.

As to whether my move a month prior was likely to be controversial, well the article title was changed a few times by a number of editors and no-one seemed to be too bothered, other than one editor who didn’t like the word Nakba. In the context of Israel-Palestine editing, people who don’t like something you’ve written on a visible article will normally not wait 5 minutes to bash you over the head for it. So I waited a month to double check, before then changing all the wikilinks when I assumed all was ok. It’s worth noting that Number 57 appears to have withdrawn his original claim that the proposed title was non-neutral, as he has refrained from providing an explanation or otherwise repeating the claim after multiple requests. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User_talk:Number_57#1RR

Discussion concerning Number 57[edit]

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

Statement by Number 57[edit]

Hello and sorry everyone's time is being wasted with this. The ARBPIA4 1RR sanction is as follows: "One Revert Restriction (1RR): Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content..." (bolding mine for emphasis). The matter being disputed here is a page move, not an edit made to content.

The core issue here is the filer ignoring due process by reinstating an undiscussed and potentially controversial page move after the article had been moved back to the previous title. I asked several times for them to file an RM if they had an issue with the previous title, but instead they chose to bring the matter here. Cheers, Number 57 22:09, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I very much disagree with power~enwiki's comments. It is a fundamental of the move process that undiscussed moves, once undone, should not be made again and instead an RM discussion should be held (the only exception IMO is when the original title was clearly an error and the person moving it back was unaware of this for whatever reason). As WP:RMUM states, "If you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again". It would therefore be highly inappropriate to apply 1RR to moves, as it would allow editors to restore titles that do not have consensus. If there is any XRR rule for moves, it would be an 0RR one that applies to the original mover – once their move is undone, they cannot attempt to restore it. Number 57 23:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: While I can understand the 'spirit' argument, if we want to include moves in the ARBPIA restrictions, 1RR doesn't go far enough, as it is in conflict with WP:RMUM. The restriction should be tighter than 1RR as editors should not be allowed to make a second attempt at an undiscussed move (except in limited circumstances of titles being obviously in error). If you apply 1RR, they may feel entitled to do so, knowing the other editor can't undo the move. If there should be a formal RR restriction on moves, it should be 0RR applied to the original mover - i.e. preventing them from trying to force through an undiscussed move. This would be compliant with WP:RMUM.

There are also exemptions to the 1RR rule for edits, such as when the other editor has not met the 30/500 criteria). I would suggest that given the nature of the move process, if RR restrictions applied to moves, it would be sensible to have exemptions, and IMO one reasonable one would be for moving articles back to a previous title following an undiscussed move, because this is what should happen in the vast majority of circumstances (and you are saving everyone the hassle of a WP:RM#TR, which would almost always result in a move back).

If people think there should be restrictions on moves within the ARBPIA rules, I suggest that the outcome of this discussion is that the matter is referred to WP:ARCA to seek a formal clarification/amendment to the ARBPIA rules, which at the moment have a clear definition of the restriction applying to "edits made to content". I would also suggest that we go for a 0RR rule on editors making an initial page move (i.e. if you move a page and that move is reverted, you must not move it to the same title again and should instead use the RM process). I will of course abide by any amended rules. Cheers, Number 57 02:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by selfstudier[edit]

I assume from the commentary here and here that we are going to be on the receiving end of a lawyer's defense. Technicalities aside, this sort of thing strikes me as being less than helpful, particularly in view of the gracious attempt by filer to resolve the situation.Selfstudier (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC) Edit: Crossed in transit, said lawyerly defense now received.Selfstudier (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the narrow point, the big red box says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." and that's a policy page. Even if technically not an edit it is certainly undoing other editor's actions which is what most people would construe as a revert. WP:PMWAR, an essay.Selfstudier (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: Not an RFC, OK? Selfstudier (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

AFAIK, page moves aren't counted as edits. An RM to have the page moved, should've been the route. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 力[edit]

Somehow it's not entirely clear whether the 1RR rule applies to page moves, but it certainly should. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a violation did occur. As this is effectively a first offense for an editor primarily active in topic areas other than Israel-Palestine (no evidence of a pattern of behavior is presented, and I don't care what happened in 2010), a warning would be more than sufficient. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 09:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-serious proposed warning: Number 57 is warned that editors who invoke the letter of the law regarding Discretionary Sanctions are likely to have to waste time at WP:ARE. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 09:03, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also do agree with Number 57's argument that there ought to be a 0RR rule for page moves. If your page move on a controversial Discretionary Sanctions topic is reverted, you must not re-revert the article title without using the Requested Move process. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 09:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An ARBCOM case for wheel-warring is necessary here? Very funny. Very, very funny. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:25, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader[edit]

Seems to me the wikilawyering is over WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Personally I think barely surviving one month on a page with 20 active watchers is hardly "settled as status quo" and minimal evidence that the parties were in agreement. Especially when we're talking about claimed neutrality concerns in a contentious topic area. A consensus discussion (ie, an RM) should be held to resolve the dispute (as per WP:DR), and the article restored to the status quo title (which is the current). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra: I said it has 20 active watchers, which is visible if you link to the page info on Wikipedia rather than xtools... ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

I don't think Number57 would have done these things if s/he thought they were a 1RR violation, so I don't think that any sanction is appropriate. More to the point is the question of whether the page title is part of the page content. My opinion is that it would be really silly if editing a section heading could be a revert but editing the page heading could not be. The most sensible option is for changes to the title to fall under the revert rules. That is not 100% clear at the moment, so I propose that a good outcome of this case would be that the policy is tweaked to make it clear. Zero^talk 06:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hippeus[edit]

Number57 broke technically broke 1RR, but Onceinawhile's unclean hands scream bloody murder. In reversing the move back to the stable title, Onceinawhile broke WP:RMUM ("if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again.") which is policy that applies to all pages, not just ARBPIA. The arguably broke RMUM with their initial move on 10 July as "It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move" is not met, particularly given Onceinawhile's previous disruption on categories in this very issue (see: Category:Nakba discussion).

Onceinawhile was previously topic banned from ARBPIA, and in the beginning of the year was subject to a warning and final warning.

The gall to make this request with such unclean hands should lead to sanctions against Onceinawhile.--Hippeus (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And this comment now by Onceinawhile is misconduct on AE itself. Instead of replying to the merits, Onceinawhile is casting aspersions.--Hippeus (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra[edit]

• Facts:
• 10 July: Onceinawhile mvs List of towns and villages depopulated during the 1947–1949 Palestine war to Depopulated Palestinian locations in Israel: I noted it (I'm probably the editor who has edited these articles the most); I thought about it, and figured it was Ok. Nobody else reacted either, AFAIK (and it is a page with 103 "watchers" ...100 yesterday)
  • (ProcrastinatingReader says it has 20 watchers?? I have no idea as to where they got that number from. Its wrong.)
• 12 August: Onceinawhile updated the -48 articles to the new name
• 12 August: then ‎Number 57 reacts; and mv the article back, twice.
• Comments:
• when no-one (of the 100 watchers) had reacted to the new name in more than a month; I would say the new name was pretty uncontroversial.
• Also; ‎Number 57 rarely edits in the I/P area (that is: in the controversial parts of it), I guess that is why we see a far more WP:BOLD action from him, than from the "regulars" in the area. (WP:BOLD editors in the IP area don't tend to last long)
• I find it absurd if, say reverting 1 word twice in 24 hrs is breaking the 1 RR (It is)...while at the very same time moving the whole article twice in 24 hrs isn't breaking the 1 RR. Huldra (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for that link, ProcrastinatingReader, that gives "Number of page watchers who visited recent edits". Alas, I don't think you have to visit, in order to see that a page has been moved, Huldra (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Onceinawhile just beat me to it; I also want to know how long time must have passed before we can count a version as "stable". I suspect the period of time (where one regards a version as "stable") can vary with different editors, therefor I would be very grateful if the editors/admins would each tell us the time they think must have passed, Huldra (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I also think that there should be a reaction against User:Hippeus; using the language that they do on WP:AE is extremly unhelpful, Huldra (talk) 23:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL[edit]

@In actu, Guerillero, and Black Kite: See Wikipedia:Page mover#delete-redirect. Any user can delete a single-edit redirect in order to move a page that redirect currently targets. As far as I am aware, that has been the case for a while (before the (delete-redirect) user right was created). DannyS712 may be able to correct me if I am wrong. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Number 57[edit]

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

• 1RR is defined as "The one-revert rule is analogous to the three-revert rule as described above, with the words "more than three reverts" replaced by "more than one revert"".

3RR is defined as "more than three reverts on a single page...within a 24-hour period...A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors". The prelude to the edit warring policy says "To revert is to undo the action of another editor". The use of the word "action" seems to indicate that this was never meant to only apply to edits to the page content.

So if we go by the strict reading of the rules I would say that moving a page is a revert if it undoes the action of another editor. If we are going by the intended spirit of the rules then I would also say a page move is a revert if it undoes the action of another editor.

If #57 accepts this then I see no need for a sanction over this single incident. I do however feel it is important that they understand and accept that page moves are not exempt from our edit warring rules. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support Johnuniq's proposed closure. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have move-protected the page and am currently watching it. If someone wants the page to be moved to a different name, start an WP:RM. I am making no judgement or comment on whether individual sanctions against any editors are required, or as to whether page moves are "edits". Primefac (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It looks like a policy question, not a behavior question. The easiest is probably to close this request and to open a RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)--Ymblanter (talk) 06:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Since this revert was over a redirect (and therefore was a deletion), this was a use of Number 57's admin tools and I view it as a WHEELWAR. (Delete 1, Delete 2) I think this should be sent up to arbcom. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 19:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe deleting a redirect without edit history is not an admin tool, it is available to a broader class of users (confirmed? not sure at the moment).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Otherwise only admins could participate in move-warring--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. There needs to be an admin action that reverses another admin's action for wheel warring. It isn't possible for an admin to wheel war against non-admins, by definition. El_C 19:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  And, as mentioned, this isn't even an admin action anyway. Any confirmed editor can move a page over a no-history redirect and it will appear in the logs as a deletion - I picked a random non-admin's deletion log here and you can see it. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm, I thought you needed the page move permission enabled for that, which EEng does not currently have (btw, EEng, want?). I guess it's a mystery and always will be. El_C 19:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @El C: No thank you, I know a snare when I see one. EEng 20:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Foiled again! El_C 20:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) @Ymblanter: Page movers seem to also have the right (delete-redirect), but before 2016, it was something only admins could do. Still, if this was an unbundled tool user, they would have had the tool removed. We can't do that because they are an admin. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 19:38, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You don't even need page-mover [29]. Mmm - you're right that the list of permissions suggests it should be page-mover, but it clearly isn't. Black Kite (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite: Weird --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 22:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Huldra: ProcrastinatingReader said "20 active watchers" which is correct. The page information currently says "Number of page watchers 103; Number of page watchers who visited recent edits 23" and the 23 would have been 20 earlier. The "visited" number is known as the number of active watchers. I belive ProcrastinatingReader is also correct about the mechanics of a move war—no special permission above being confirmed is needed as can be seen by Onceinawhile's participation in the dispute. Regarding the issue: I suggest skipping sanctions if for no other reason than admiring the cheek of a claim that 1RR allows an edit war on the title, then move to tighten the 1RR wording. Adding more rules is not attractive but there should also be wording to discourage what Onceinawhile did. Move wars are disruptive—if someone reverts your move it is disputed and Wikipedia:Requested moves#Undiscussed moves applies. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Number 57 did breach 1RR, as 1RR relies on the definition of a "revert" in WP:3RR, which says A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors. However I don't think Onceinawhile's actions were appropriate either. When a fairly recent page move they made to a page with a (fairly) stable title in a very controversial topic area was reverted they opted to redo the move rather than opening an RM. Given that the article title has been debated quite a bit on the talk page in the past they should really have opened an RM before making the move in the first place per WP:RM#CM. I don't think it would be at all fair to sanction Number 57 but not Onceinawhile here. I suggest we warn the participants not to do this again and potentially try to change the relevant rules to make it clear this isn't OK. Hut 8.5 08:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I 2nd this analysis and its recommendations. Well said. El_C 15:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: I don't think we can really give an exact definition of "stable" here, however a footnote at WP:TITLECHANGES says that "if significant changes have been made after a move several months may be considered "stable" otherwise significantly longer is generally required", so for an article like this a title would generally need to be in place for more than several months to be considered "stable". If prior moves aren't being disputed by anyone then there isn't any reason to revert them. Please also note that WP:RMUM says that moves should only be made without discussion if "It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move". Looking at the history makes it very obvious that there were likely to be objections to this move, e.g. the number of times the page has been moved in the past, the fact your title was a more drastic change than the others, and the fact that this move you made in April was reverted days later. Hut 8.5 13:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I second Hut 8.5's analysis; really both participants ought to have taken more care here, but I don't see how we can fairly sanction Number 57 alone for a breach of 1RR. And as noted by Number 57 himself, if we clarify the rules around page moves with respect to 1RR, we really should be careful to avoid a first-mover advantage, which can have rather more dramatic consequences with respect to article titles than pieces of disputed content. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm thinking this should be closed without a logged warning but with a hat heading something like "No action taken. However [[User:Number 57]] is advised that [[WP:1RR]] was broken and a similar breach must not be repeated. Further, [[User:Onceinawhile]] is advised that a contested move [[Wikipedia:Requested moves#Undiscussed moves|must be discussed]], particularly at an article under discretionary sanctions. ~~~~" Any thoughts? I'll do that in 24 hours or so if no one has acted. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Happy with that. Hut 8.5 17:57, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks good--Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Plebian-scribe[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Plebian-scribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

1. 02:01, 20 August 2021 Edits Capitol Hill Occupied Protest, in violation of topic ban
2. 02:05, 20 August 2021 Further edit to Capitol Hill Occupied Protest
3. 10:31, 20 August 2021 Reinstates their edit, despite my edit summary saying WP:BANREVERT and despite being notified of this enforcement request

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18:29, 28 April 2021 Indefinitely topic-banned from American politics

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

Notified of topic ban on 28 April

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Plebian-scribe[edit]

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

Statement by Plebian-scribe[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Plebian-scribe[edit]

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

• Plebian-scribe has not commented despite having made six edits after receiving notification of this report. The violation is clear. Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Olden Creed[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

DanCherek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Olden Creed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

1. 18 August 2021 — reverted six and a half years of edits on the Brahmin article, restoring a version from 18 January 2015 that had most recently been edited by Tapasya Dev, who was later blocked as the sockpuppet of a serial POV-pusher in the IPA topic area.
2. 9 August 2021 — this was 17 minutes after the topic ban was imposed. Olden Creed was notified of the violation by Doug Weller on 10 August and asked to self-revert; the self-revert did not happen and someone else reverted it four days later, despite Olden Creed having edited in the intervening period.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 9 August 2021 — indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed, by Doug Weller following this ANI discussion.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Pretty clear-cut violation of a DS topic ban. Olden Creed did not acknowledge the ANI thread or topic ban and apparently has no intention of stopping their behavior in this topic area that led to the sanctions in the first place. DanCherek (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde93: I definitely think that's a possibility, especially since their two edits in the Talk namespace are (1) a page move and (2) an ECP edit request from last year. In this edit summary they told another user that they can't just delete material without first discussing it on the talk page, so there at least seems to be some understanding of the existence and purpose of talk pages. DanCherek (talk) 03:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification

Discussion concerning Olden Creed[edit]

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

Statement by Olden Creed[edit]

Statement by Vanamonde93[edit]

This is a pretty blatant violation, but I'm also wondering if there's a serious communication issue here; I see they have made exactly 2 talk page edits, and 0 user talk edits, thus far. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Olden Creed[edit]

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

• Olden Creed was created on 16 June 2019. The barnstar on their user page was added 14 July 2019 by a now-indeffed sock. They have 657 edits but have never engaged in a discussion. They were topic banned on 9 August 2021 and the tban violation was on 19 August 2021 at Brahmin when they used an edit summary of "‘it’s’ not ‘it’s’" in an edit which exactly reverted the article to its state at at 18 January 2015. They have not edited since the violation and have never been blocked. I suspect that something more permanent will be needed but am issuing a short block in the expectation that the existing topic ban will minimize future problems. Johnuniq (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

• Hugo.arg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• Kazimier Lachnovič (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

Dispute resolution noticeboard case Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 207#Pahonia which resulted in Talk:Pahonia#RFC: Pahonia (closing statement of the RFC by an administrator) and WP:CONS

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

1. 1: Wikipedia:Consensus decision of RFC reverted by Hugo.arg
2. 2: Wikipedia:Consensus decision of RFC reverted by Kazimier Lachnovič
3. 3: Wikipedia:Consensus decision of RFC reverted by Kazimier Lachnovič
4. 4: Wikipedia:Consensus decision of RFC reverted by Kazimier Lachnovič

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

User Kazimier Lachnovič is already well known for his national hatred against Lithuania and Lithuanians, so it is not surprising that he continues to perform disruptive edits in the Lithuanian topics. Here are his edits in which he called the Lithuanians as rubbish in a discussion concerning with Pahonia (1, 2, 3). He also recently performed an intensive edit warring before the Wikipedia:Consensus was reached (see edit history of article Pahonia from 3 April 2021).

Also, Kazimier Lachnovič previously was warned that he is a full-time edit warrior already in 2010, and was even blocked for edit warring in Lithuanian topics (blocking message by an administrator ; report).

Moreover, Kazimier Lachnovič was also blocked multiple times in the Lithuanian Wikipedia for his disruptive behavior (Kazimier's blocking history). Same with user Hugo.arg (see his blocking history).

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

1. For his disruptive behavior, Kazimier Lachnovič is already placed under the discretionary sanctions by two administrators: firstly by Barkeep49, then by Ymblanter, but he continues to perform edits which are incompatible with the Wikipedia:Assume good faith principle, thus constantly aggressively violates the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines.
2. Article Pahonia is under the discretionary sanctions since 23 April 2021 (statement by an administrator El_C).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I request to permanently lock article Pahonia in order to ensure the Wikipedia:Consensus reached by the Wikipedia community as nobody should be able to continue edit warring in the future in this disruptive article. WP:LISTEN.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. Hugo.arg
2. Kazimier Lachnovič

Discussion concerning Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič[edit]

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

Statement by Cukrakalnis[edit]

One of the two nominated users, Kazimier Lachnovič, is a notoriously problematic user, whose behaviour has not changed an inkling following the DS applied to him. Instead of learning from them, he continues pushing his POV and personally insults those disagreeing. Instances of this are this, this and this, among many others. Looking at the evidence, it is clear that Kazimier Lachnovič should be issued a global block. --Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]

I am deeply uninvolved with this dispute and just have some housekeeping comments. I believe that the "Sanction or remedy to be enforced" should be Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions. If that is the case at hand, then Kazimier Lachnovič is formally "aware", having been alerted in this April edit. I do not believe Hugo.arg is aware, because:

• There are no logged alerts in their user talk history
• They have never alerted others, as shown in their contributions
• They have not participated in any Arb cases/requests in this topic area, as shown in their Wikipedia: namespace contributions

I hope this has been helpful. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kazimier Lachnovič[edit]

First of all, as Belarusian I obviously have more important things to do now that to fight obvious absurd here. The deletion of the article about the national emblem of Belarusians is obvious vandalism and a clear manifestation of supporting the terroristic pro-Russian Lukashenko's regime by the English Wikipedia. So, many Belarusians are arrested and tortured by the regime for using Pahonia, that according to the English Wikipedia is just the emblem of the foreign state (Lietuva). Calling these people "traitors" is exactly what the regime does in its propaganda. So, thanks a lot for helping the Lukashenko's propaganda! Be sure, Belarusians will never forget such "help". --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

jc37[edit]

• Talk:Pahonia#RFC:_Pahonia

Besides merely closing the RfC, to my knowledge, I have no interaction with any of this.

As of coming my online just now, it doesn't appear that Kazimier Lachnovič has continued reverting. If they had, I would have issued an immediate preventative block.

As I don't regularly handle Arbitration enforcement requests, I am fine with leaving that with whomever addresses this here. For whatever it may be worth, please consider me notified and having given my "explicit prior affirmative consent", per the top of this page.

(Though of course if I see continued WP:DE, I may sanction (block/protect/etc) as any uninvolved admin might, to help prevent disruption, etc.) - jc37 04:53, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it matters, I support User:El C's protection of the page [30]. Extended confirmed editors may be able to bypass it, but hopefully the fact that it is potected even in this way, will act as a preventative measure. - jc37 04:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After reading User:Ymblanter's comments, I think this looks like a pretty straightforward case of WP:NOTHERE. - jc37 16:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazimier Lachnovič - case opened by User:Pofka - jc37 17:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter[edit]

I will only be making a statement concerning the behavior of Kazimier Lachnovič, since Hugo.arg apparently have not been notified of discretionary sanctions, and also did not demonstrate long-term disruptive behavior. Concerning Kazimier Lachnovič, most of their recent contribution on the English Wikipedia is changing names of the files they have renamed on Commons, work a bot usually does, and outside of this activity they do not have so many contributions, therefore I will sometimes provide diffs from Commons, where their behavior is equally problematic. First, their statement, just above mine, clearly demonstrated battleground mentality. They participated in the edit-warring, leaving this edit summary (Vandalism based on illegal RfC closure, clear national discrimination of Belarusians), whereas the RfC was closed by a perfectly neutral administrator, and reverts were legitimate; this was their message at the talk page of the administrator. Indeed, in my observations, Kazimier Lachnovič only knows two methods of dispute resolutions: reverting forever (see this as an additional example to what is being discussed in this AE request) and insulting their opponents. Note them calling me Nazi in this Commons thread. When challenged against these insults, they first double down (like with this Nazi accusation), and then typically say that they only would be discussing anything with "reasonable users" (thus implying their opponents are unreasonable) and disappear, You can find the examples in the threads presenting by Cukrakalnis above. In the same threads, there is evidence of off-wiki coordination they participated in (which resulted in coordinated reverts on en.wiki). I have no opinion whether Pahonia must be an article or a redirect, but I know that this attitude is not compatible with the technical ability to edit the English Wikipedia, which, in my opinion, should be revoked.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May be to clarify my personal position, before I get a new portion of accusations: I am no fan of Lukashenko, and I am all for support of Belarusian language. I am in fact an opponent of Lithuanian nationalism, and I really dislike the fact that they portray Nazi criminals as national heroes. However, here we have an example how a good cause is being pursued by completely inappropriate methods.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent automatic archivation--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pofka (Kazimier Lachnovič sock puppetry investigation case)[edit]

As already mentioned by jc37, following this report, Kazimier Lachnovič used sock puppetry to perform disruptive edits in the Lithuanian articles: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kazimier Lachnovič. -- Pofka (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Hugo.arg and Kazimier Lachnovič[edit]

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

• jc37, as I noted on my talk page (diff), I didn't realize that EC users were also circumventing the RFC's consensus by fiat when I imposed the indef ECP (by way of RfPP), but as mentioned, now that I do, I'd deem any further such reverts to be a cause for sanctions (including but not limited to revoking said EC rights). Sorry, I have not reviewed this report otherwise to comment further on it at this time, one way or the other. El_C 05:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it appears no one wants. El_C 10:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Notified: [31] HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TillermanJimW[edit]

For being unfair and overly draconian (a week?) if not punitive – particularly for a new user, and not taking into account a number of extenuating circumstances.

While I will freely admit to having transgressed 3RR – mea culpa, shoot me at dawn – and will promise not to do so again (cross my heart and hope to die), I also think there are a number of extenuating circumstances that the blocking administrator neglected to consider.

And first and foremost is that in the “notice of edit warring” posted by Crosstalk, he said “the editors removing his comment from the talk page were themselves in the wrong by removing a comment about content without justification”. While, as WP:GAB notes, two wrongs don’t make a right, those removals required me to use up two of my own reverts which seems rather unfair right out of the chute.

But more importantly, the crux of the discussion – which was removed by those other editors including the blocking administrator – is that I had posted, as per WP:NPOVD, the requisite tag [POV] on the main page – which was reverted within 3 or 4 minutes before I’d even had time to complete the posting of the required explanatory section in the talk page called for in that NPOVD document.

Which raises the question, regardless of my 3RR transgression, to what extent any of the editors who reverted my posts addressing the issue, including the blocking administrator himself, are justified in removing that NPOV tag. At least without some evidence of addressing the points presented – which did not happen at all. And particularly where Crosstalk himself acknowledged that “His comment above is about a particular phrase in the article and does make an argument against it, so misguided though it be, it is not a violation of BLPTALK, GENDERID, or NOTFORUM."

Had kinda thought – on some evidence (Five Pillars) – that the NPOV policy was more or less trump and that it would have been sufficient to at least temper the application of that sanction – as I had said. But I hadn’t even realized a sanction was in force as Crosstalk’s post only talked about “a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring” – not that a sanction had been applied. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and all that, but it should count for something.

In any case, when or if you rescind my block – sooner would be better as there are other edits I have in mind on less controversial issues – I’ll look into the possibility of taking that NPOV dispute re the Hubbard article to the NPOV noticeboard.

However, as the putative POV transgression took place in the Hubbard article that seems to be where the discussion should take place. To that end, it might expedite things if you were to revert that POV tag and my justifications for it - if that is at all possible. Maybe even add a page block or protections or whatever else you might think is appropriate in the circumstances.

But I think that issue has to be addressed in one place or another. So would appreciate the earliest rescinding of my block so I can proceed as soon as possible accordingly.

Thanks for addressing these points.

--TillermanJimW (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gadfium[edit]

I blocked under the WP:ARBGENDER discretionary sanctions because TillermanJimW is tendentiously arguing about the difference between sex and gender at an article about an individual. The issue here that TillermanJimW takes issue with is that the article Laurel Hubbard says "she transitioned to female". This is the accepted way to express a gender transition. If they want to persuade the community to change the usual terminology, they need to do so on an appropriate WikiProject or policy talk page.

My involvement here is as an editor on New Zealand topics, and Hubbard is a moderately prominent New Zealander especially because of the recent Summer Olympics. I'm not involved in transgender issues as such, so I'm not sure which would be the best place for TillermanJimW to express their views; perhaps one of the talk pages of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, WikiProject LGBT studies, or WikiProject Gender studies. I'm sure a brief and polite question on any of those talk pages would get a response advising of the most appropriate venue. The appeal does not give me any confidence that they understand the reason why they were blocked or that they intend to change their behaviour.-gadfium 08:23, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial[edit]

I am involved in some sense, yes, but not in the reverts that led to Tillerman's 3RR. And I'm not weighing in here, either, except to offer convenient links for this editor's WP:IDONTHEARTHAT comments on their user Talk page after requesting this appeal: [32], [33], [34]. This doesn't seem promising. Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by TillermanJimW[edit]

Result of the appeal by TillermanJimW[edit]

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

• I have posted this at the request of TillermanJimW. I will give my opinion on the matter later. I believe they are a little over the 500 word limit. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeing very a forceful attitude from this editor at Talk:Laurel Hubbard. This includes edit warring, but also justifying it by saying "NPOV is trump". This seems to show that they think they are neutral and that as such they can edit war. Their unblock request uses the language "those removals required me to use up two of my own reverts" which gives the impression that they think 3RR is an allowance of reverts that can be used up.

This combination of having ideas that are fairly different from the existing consensus, and the attitude that they are right and that justifies a forceful attitude is problematic.

I feel that this appeal should be declined as accepting it would send a very bad message. I also think that if there is more disruption from this user in this area that a topic ban may be required. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a decline is required. Trying to force a tag onto an article in a contested area is a favorite battle tactic but it's very disruptive in a topic under discretionary sanctions. The text of the appeal suggests a longer break from the topic might be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This isn't an appeal, it's a rant. Decline. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I also don't like the "used up two of my reverts" bit. I want to make clear here that the distinction is "If you go over 3RR, you will get in trouble", but is not "If you don't go over 3RR, you won't get in trouble." If it becomes clear other editors disagree, take it to talk and lay off the revert button. I don't see any reason in the appeal to believe that the block is not still necessary, and if this continues a topic ban might become so as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. The edits in question were disruptive anyway and they violated 3RR. It definitely looks like TillermanJimW believes that 3RR is an entitlement [35] which is not the case at all - edit warring is always disruptive, 3RR just exists as a bright line which unambigously means that a block is needed. It's still edit warring if you believe that you're right or if you believe your have the neutrality policy on your side. Hut 8.5 18:02, 26 August 2021 (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 Solavirum[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Solavirum (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

Armenia Azerbaijan 2

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

1. 25 July 2021 Breaching their tban on Armenia / Azerbaijan articles, broadly construed

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Solavirum has violated their topic ban for the 3rd of 4th time now.[1] The tban was from pages relating to Armenia and Azerbaijan, broadly construed. A historic ruler of an Azerbaijani province falls under the ban area. Previously, in one of their tban violation blocks, the enforcing admin Drmies blocked them for 2 weeks saying that “many will consider that relatively mild”.[2]

Arb enforcement log of their blocks.[3] Previous ANI cases involving Solavirum’s tban violations.[4], [5]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Abbās-qoli Khan, known for his wealth and opulence, had served as beglarbeg of Ganja" diff

Reminder that Solavirum was told not to test the boundaries of WP:BROADLY multiple times by El_C, one of the tban and subsequent violations enforcing admins. [1] [2] [3] [4]

And they edited the ruler of Ganja, Azerbaijan. It is even wikilinked in the article itself Abbas Qoli-Khan. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Solavirum the mentioned Ganja, Azerbaijan in Abbas Qoli-Khan as per its wiki article, is Azerbaijan's third largest city. After the dissolution of the Russian Empire and the Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic, it became part of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, the Azerbaijan SSR of the Soviet Union and since 1991, the Republic of Azerbaijan. With the realities of Azerbaijan emerging as a country only in 20th century but Azerbaijani nationalist historiography extending its history to the depths of Iran, Armenia and Caucasian Albania, your edit is apparently violating the rule you’ve been kindly asked to adhere: not editing anything related to Azerbaijan, so the community could see that you are able to stay away from topics you have conflict of interest with for some time. But you keep editing tangentially around Azerbaijan, apparently thinking that if you don’t touch the modern republic of Azerbaijan then that’s ok… ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:27, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Until then, don't edit anything related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc. if you aren't 100% confident it can't be construed as directly related to Azerbaijan or Armenia." - MJL

Solavirum, user MJL actually suggested for you to make sure if said articles can't be construed to be related to Azerbaijan. The if part seems to be very hard for you, some might even say impossible. And I think it wouldn't be entirely unfair for the community to see a certain problematic pattern here, especially given your previous violations. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, "Until then, don't edit anything related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc." That actually seems reasonable. I will take the advice and act upon it. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 10:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear MJL, this was Solavirum's response to you, which didn't include your followup about broadly in that quote. Hence the clarification and full quote shown to them in my reply. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Solavirum[edit]

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

Statement by Solavirum[edit]

ZaniGiovanni, I don't understand, why is this violation of the topic ban exactly? The article's topic is about an Iranian statesman. I don't have a topic ban on Iran related articles. There was no "Azerbaijani province" back in the 1600s. The Turkic Azerbaijan in the north of Aras only emerged in the early 20th century, before that the only "Azerbaijan" was in north of Iran (see Iranica). The topic is also about a non-Azerbaijani. The article itself isn't even in Wikiproject Azerbaijan, and to prove the contrary, please provide some WP:RS, because what you're doing is WP:OR. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 17:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt, most RS agree that Republic of Azerbaijan is called Azerbaijan since 1918. Before that, especially the 17th-century developments, nothing lies within the history of Turkic Azerbaijan. The topic itself lies within Iran and Georgia (country) topics, not Azerbaijan. There is well-established consensus over this in Wikipedia. A broad example would be this --► Sincerely: Solavirum 21:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, in all honesty, I'm well aware of this. The reality is I should've be more careful here. What I did was just to remove macrons (like in here; see title). I've been far away from Armenia and Azerbaijan related articles if you take a look at my contributions and GA nominations. I was just doing some cleanup routine, and that was one of the articles that I stomped upon. With that in mind, I really don't think that this violates the topic ban as there is a well-established consensus in Wikipedia on pre-20th century developments on the territory of the modern-day Republic of Azerbaijan not being related to it. Though I will ask about it to the more experienced editors working in this topic. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 09:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, "Until then, don't edit anything related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc." That actually seems reasonable. I will take the advice and act upon it. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 10:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, yeah sadly whenever I work on non-Armenia/Azerbaijan related topics I seem to be getting stomped upon it. Like when promoting Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan to GA I technically violated the topic ban for mentioning a local Armenian ruler in Cappadocia in a single sentence. Taking MJL's advice, I will step off of Turkey, Iran, Caucasus (and so on) related articles until the topic ban is off just to be sure to not violate it again. --► Sincerely: Solavirum 14:52, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL[edit]

@Solavirum: Abbas Qoli-Khan was a beglerbeg of Ganǰa according to [36]. He's listed under Category:Safavid governors of Ganja. I agree that it is a bit silly that figures like Abbas Qoli-Khan (who's connection to the topic of the modern nation of Azerbaijan is rather incidental), but you really should've learned by now to be really careful regarding this kind of stuff.
If you ever hope to have a chance of appealing this topic ban, then stay as far away from Azerbaijan and Armenia as possible while on enwiki. Contribute here positively for a while, and then your topic ban could eventually be revisited. Until then, don't edit anything related to the Ottomans, Iranians, Turks, Persians, Georgians, Caucuses, Caspian Sea, etc. if you aren't 100% confident it can't be construed as directly related to Azerbaijan or Armenia.
Does that make sense? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:42, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I think if Abbas Qoli-Khan had not been a leader of Ganja, Azerbaijan, then this edit would have been fine. Beyond that, let's keep in mind that the violation occurred more than a month ago. It isn't like that Solavirum isn't capable of contributing positively to Wikipedia (see these edits to Castle Wolfenstein for example), but this user quite hasn't figured out a good method for interacting with his topic ban (I don't think they have those on azwiki). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni: Yes, but then Solavirum took it one step further by saying he "..will step off of Turkey, Iran, Caucasus (and so on) related articles until the topic ban is off just to be sure to not violate it again."
That is more than I asked for, but it certainly is welcomed. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Solavirum[edit]

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

• Solavirum, I'm concerned that you keep finding a way to skirt the boundaries of WP:BROADLY (as I expressly phrased it at the time). You were warned for it, you were blocked for it. How is this time going to be any different? El_C 14:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Solavirum, that works for me. Which is to say, whatever works for you so as to not violate the topic ban yet again. Please be aware that the next topic ban violation is almost certain to lead to a block of considerable length (months rather than weeks). Also note that I rarely warn someone for such violations after I've already warned and blocked them for these, so this warning is quite a boon. El_C 14:39, 27 August 2021 (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 GoodDay[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tartan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

GoodDay (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/Article_titles_and_capitalisation#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. 26 August 2021
2. 26 August 2021
3. 26 August 2021
4. 26 August 2021
5. 26 August 2021
6. 26 August 2021
7. 26 August 2021

GoodDay has left notices at seven talk pages of articles that use Template:Infobox officeholder, asking editors to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#MoS_RfC_closure_challenge:_job_title_capitalization_in_infoboxes, a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE that I opened. GoodDay has made clear they strongly object to the challenge ([37], [38], [39], [40]). Given that this template is transcluded on over 183,000 pages, I'm suspicious of how these articles were selected. WP:CLOSECHALLENGE says: Users who try to subvert consensus by appealing to other venues than WP:AN should be aware of WP:FORUMSHOP, so it is clear extra care is expected of users participating in these discussions. I believe these messages constitute WP:CANVASSING.

GoodDay says in the discussion that they know of a lot of articles where local editors will fight against lowercasing in the infoboxes' of their respective country's political offices. I suspect that those are the articles they targeted with these messages.

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

[41]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I reached out to GoodDay on their talk page to inform them of my concern and ask them to revert. They have refused to do so. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: Thanks for this. GoodDay has said they expect editors at Australian and American bios to object to lowercasing. That covers most of the articles they left these messages on: Gavin Newsom, Joe Biden, Scott Morrison, Kathy Hochul. WP:CANVASS doesn't require that the editors canvassed actually take the position the canvasser expects, only that the canvasser expects them to take a certain position. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[42]

Discussion concerning GoodDay[edit]

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

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

I've left neutral notices on seven highly profile bio article talkpages, concerning an WP:AN discussion which may affect them. There's absolutely 'no way', I can know which side of the argument, editors who frequent those bios, will chose. I'm not a mind reader. TBH, I find by filing this report, Tartan357 is over-reacting & breaching WP:AGF. PS - Why am I being reported here anyway? I'm not under any sanctions. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I must confess. I don't appreciate Tartan357's hostile attitude, towards me. GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I remove the notices (which don't breach WP:CANVASS), would Tartan357 withdraw this report? GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed @Shibbolethink:, those supposed pro-capitalize editors can easily turn out to be pro-lower case editors. Tartan357, might be killing a chance that he'll get support from editors at those seven bios. He's the one who's apparently assuming that they'll all chose 'capitalization'. Not me. GoodDay (talk) 00:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: Tartan357 has 'mis-linked' my so-called refusal at my talkpage. My response was "Doubt it, as I have absolutely no way of knowing 'which' side those editors will take. I left a 'neutral' message on those 'seven' bios". If one's going to link to comments, they should do so correctly. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Tartan357 gets it wrong. He's suggesting that I'm a mind-reader. If I were to say that "Donald Duck is going to get fired by Walt Disney Studios". How would I know that? GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW @Tartan357:, you're suppose to respond to other editors in your own statement section. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shibbolethink[edit]

I have no involvement in this dispute, and haven't interacted much with either of these editors, and have not participated in the RfC. However, I would like to lay out a concern I have after reading this discussion casually...

The filing editor (Tartan357) states the following:

• GoodDay is opposed to the RfC question (reading the RfC, this is true). Y

• GoodDay has posted on several (7) talk pages with the discussed infobox (true) Y

• [There are] a lot of articles where local editors will fight against lowercasing in the infoboxes (a statement that GoodDay indeed made, but that has not been actually verified as true). N

• GoodDay has posted on those articles, and only those articles, which have local editors who fight against lowercasing. (unverified) N

Tartan357, your argument has a hole in it. It would serve you well, in my humble opinion, to provide evidence of discussions on at least several of these 7 talk pages demonstrating such users who are en masse against lowercased professions in infoboxes, and thereby showing that this was actually CANVASSING.

The proof of the pudding is in the tasting, not the packaging.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:10, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99[edit]

I'm not involved in this incident but am generally dismayed that these disputes are still with us all these years on. There are unsurprisingly a heck of a lot of US and Australian biographies in the English Wikipedia. If there is a systematic preference among the editors of those articles to capitalize office names one way while the MOS says to capitalize another way, then it cannot be said that the MOS documents sitewide consensus on the matter. The "local consensus" being whined about is in fact local to the MOS, while the observable approaches of 1000s of articles all over the site are what is actually sitewide.

Therefore, if the bias that Good Day supposedly imputes to the contributors of those biographies really exists, then he has found an error or misrepresentation in the MOS that should be fixed, with our thanks. If the bias doesn't exist then he hasn't canvassed. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning GoodDay[edit]

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

• First, this seems like a novel interpretation of the canvassing guideline. But beyond that, Tartan357: GoodDay is right in saying that they didn't refuse to discuss this with you. They just disagreed with your premise (allowed), and from that, you went straight to AE. There isn't even the pretense of engaging in some sort of dialogue. If I were more cynical, I'd say that this rather looks more like: once they'll disagree, I'll go to AE. My immediate sense is that this complaint isn't actionable and was likely submitted prematurely. El_C 11:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I also am not seeing anything actionable here. It is a stretch to consider this canvasing. One would have to assume GoodDay had some sort of special knowledge about what people at these articles think and is being very sneaky. I see no reason to assume this. I also find a lack of attempt to work this out before coming here to AE. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:15, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a little more sympathetic to the report than my colleagues above. GoodDay, you're surely aware that a close review is not meant to relitigate a discussion, but to assess whether consensus was judged correctly; and as such, it doesn't require more input from disputants as much as it does from people who know how to judge consensus? In this circumstance, it doesn't look very good to ask for input at the talk pages of a list of political figures, regardless of whether that list was random or carefully chosen. That said, I don't see an actual violation, and I don't think a sanction is warranted or justifiable. And this didn't need to come to AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:33, 27 August 2021 (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 Vanlister[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Vanlister (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:A/I/PIA

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

1. 18:00, 19 August 2021 Rm the fact that Israel Defense Forces was behind the group Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners from the lead
2. 22:23, 19 August 2021 The same

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 6 April 2021 blocked for his editing of Kenneth Roth#Israel.

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

• Given IP alert 19:38, 2 December 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I asked them to undo their last edit here, or they would be reported. Alas, they seem not to want to undo it, Huldra (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the fact that you clearly broke the 1RR, you also misrepresent the underlying issue; there is no controversy over that fact that it was people inside the Israeli military who set up and ran the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners. Even now, you write "According to Ronen Bergman" in order to weaken the undisputed fact. It is not only "according to Ronen Bergman"; it is according to everyone else, too. You ought too be topicbanned for misrepresenting sources. Huldra (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vanlister claims that what Bergman writes about the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners is "controversial".

It isn't. At least I haven't seen anyone stating that it is (apart from some anon Wikipedia-editors.) When you claim that Bergmans' writing here is "controversial", then you should at least manage to point to one WP:RS that says so? But you have not done that. Q.E.D. Huldra (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified

• Note; Vanlister's first removal was not undoing an IP; (then the edit-line would have been [43]); instead Vanlister simply rm the stuff offending to them. (I somehow doubt that Vanlister knew who added the stuff that they removed.) Huldra (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Vanlister[edit]

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

Statement by Vanlister[edit]

I did revert one time, the first time was not reverting anyone prior. Huldra use of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement requests is done instead of collaboration and in practice to bypass dialogue which is highly prejudicial, and a provocation (sending a message without letting the time to answer, etc). My modification was essentially to remove a highly controversial statement from the lead that wasn't presented as such ( but was presented as such in the text), Huldra should therefore justify his agressive revert instead of reverting other's without expressing motivations. (Also my past block was linked to a dispute concerning Chomsky views and antisemitism in UK not about Kenneth Roth) --Vanlister (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't leave me time to answer guys.--Vanlister (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question does not support your point of view in this comment. You didn't provide a source proving that there is a consensus as well. I solely moved a paragraph from the lead to where it was already in the article in a "controversy" section. Mouse and cat play. --Vanlister (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to receive messages from you. You made your point. I disagree. Done. I am not interested in your dispute, it was written as a controversy period. And it is obviously a controversial statement, and apparently you didn't manage to find other materials than what Bergman, a journalist, says. I am done with this. Not interested in your campaign. --Vanlister (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier[edit]

• I have just recently come across this editor in a different context.Diff which was followed by a message on my talk page which message was repeated verbatim at the pages of two other editors whose pages are on my watchlist. Ordinarily I would hesitate to be unduly critical of a newish editor but looking at the editor's talk page and recent contributions makes one wonder if it is only a question of when the hammer falls rather than if. I think it needs to be made clear that productive editing is the right way to go not the current unproductive back and forth.Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hippeus[edit]

@HighInBC:, Vanlister's first edit removed something that was added three years prior on 5 March 2018. Even if removal of a three year old edit is a revert, then it is still not a revert for 1RR purposes because it was added by an IP editor 174.89.44.169.

This complaint is vexatious and without merit, Huldra should know that reverting IP editors (from three years ago!) does not fall under the 1RR restriction that says: "Reverts made to enforce the 500/30 Rule are exempt from the provisions of this motion".

As Huldra should know better, Huldra should be facing sanctions here.--Hippeus (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: the 500/30 restriction was in place from 2015 or 2016. It was just streamlined in the Palestine-Israel-4 page, but it existed from the Palestine-Israel-3 page. Huldra is all over the Palestine-Israel-3 page, Huldra presented evidence that led the committee to state that "The one revert rule that was added via a motion on March 10 2012 has been gamed. (Huldra's Evidence)". So Huldra should know that IP edits after 2015-6 are exempt from the 1RR rule.--Hippeus (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The diffs by ZScarpia show some attribution being added and removed between 2018 and 2021 in front of the sentence. However, as far as I can tell, when Vanlister made their edit the sentence stood without attribution phrased almost identically to the blurb the IP added ([44] vs. [45]). I did not find any removal of this blurb prior to Vanlister's removal, so if this was a revert (of ages old material), it was a revert of the IP and no one else.--Hippeus (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]

Hippeus's point would be more persuasive if Vanlister had used an edit summary noting that his revert was exempt on this basis. As things stand, it just looks like a removal of sourced material. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZScarpia[edit]

Hippeus: "Even if removal of a three year old edit is a revert, then it is still not a revert for 1RR purposes because it was added by an IP editor 174.89.44.169."

Between being added by an IP editor and removed by Vanlister, the text in question has been edited by registered users (for example: [46][47][48]).

Like Selfstudier, I don't want to seem to be seeking the sanctioning of a relatively new editor. However, I think it would be best to ensure that Vanlister understands that the first edit does count as a revert.

Hippeus: "This complaint is vexatious and without merit. ... As Huldra should know better, Huldra should be facing sanctions here." Incorrect and hyper-exagerrated.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shike[edit]

Its frivolous filing.Its long time practice that we don't count removal of long standing material as revert but an edit[49] --Shrike (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Vanlister[edit]

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

• @Vanlister: I have moved your comments to your section—see "Statements must be made in separate sections". Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Vanlister, any edit that reverses the action of another editor is considered a revert. Removing part of the article is a revert because it is reversing the addition of that content to the article. I understand that this may not be intuitive. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Hippeus. Given that the edit being reverted took place prior to the arbcom ruling, and that the arbcom ruling exempts the edits in violating of the 500/30 rule I think it is reasonable to say that he did not violated the spirit of the 1RR ruling. A stickler would point out that the IP edit was not in violation of the 500/30 rule because it was made before the the arcom ruling went into effect, but I don't think such an interpretation would be in the spirit of the rules. I support closing this case without action. I have no opinion on the motives of the user filing this case. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:18, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with your assessment HighInBC. The spirit of 1RR wasn't broken and there's no need to take action in this case. While I recognise that editors have suggested that this report was baseless there is an argument (the strength of which I won't go into) that the spirit of the rule was broken. There's also an argument that explaining the issue to a relatively new editor would have been a better approach. In summary though, I don't see a pressing need to take any action so I'm closing this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:24, 31 August 2021 (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 Davidbena[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:A/I/PIA

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

1. Canvas 1
2. Ping to Admin
3. Canvas 2
4. Canvas 3
5. Canvas 4
6. Canvas 5
7. Canvas 6
8. Canvas 7
9. Canvas 8

The canvassing occurred between 15:49 and 19:40 on the 27 August to "like-minded editors"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• August 2018 – First TBAN imposed at ANI: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Davidbena
• February 2019 – Successful appeal of first TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive306#Request to lift my topic ban issued against me in August 2018
• April 2019 – Second TBAN imposed: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive308#Hounding and Deliberate Disruptive Editing
• November 2019 – Appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Request to lift topic ban – closed as unsuccessful
• May 2020 – Second appeal of second TBAN: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Kindly requesting admins to rescind my ARBPIA topic ban – archived without formal close
• June 2020 – Appeal of second TBAN at AE: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive267#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Davidbena – declined as out of jurisdiction, and DB advised to reopen a request at WP:AN.
• August 2020 - Appeal of second TBAN at ANI :TBAN narrowed in scope

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

At Davidbena talk page refers.

Regardless of the outcome here, it would be desirable to amend the tban so as to clarify that the tban applies in the case of articles where it is clear and obvious that "...pre-modern Levantine history and modern Levantine politics are inextricably linked" or "geopolitical features such as borders, landmarks, or territories under dispute" applies, discussions formal and informal at City of David, Silwan /King's Garden refer.

• I agree that the community ban needs to be addressed at the relevant board. I have no expectation that the ban will be written again only under an AE umbrella. However, one reason we are here now is that Davidbena is apparently interpreting the tban to mean that he may edit any conflict related (Arbpia) article as long as there is some biblical/historic aspect to it, when in practice, as is clear at the City of David article (and similarly, although less so, at the somewhat related Silwan/ King's Garden articles), the biblical/historical is completely bound up in the present.Selfstudier (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As indicated, also filed at ANI and cross linked to this discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Davidbena[edit]

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

Statement by Davidbena[edit]

Yes, it is true that, while in a discussion on whether or not to merge the article King's Garden (Jerusalem) with Silwan, I sought a wider feedback from other editors, and which violated the policy of canvassing, for which I am sorry, but which have since rescinded each message, and have promised not to do this again. In fact, what I did was clearly a misunderstanding on my part, as I wrote asking for an opinion, without telling them how they should vote, but giving them the option to accept the merge or decline the merge, thinking that this was permissible, so long as I didn't tell them which way they are to vote. When I was informed of my mistake, I immediately rescinded each message and stated that I would voluntarily put myself under a month restriction from editing any Wikipedia page on main space, as a punitive measure (see here), so that this action will never be repeated by me again. If I might add, too, while the proscription of canvassing was explained to me back in 2014, as you can see here, what may have misled me was the editor's words: "While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view." (In this case, I think that I actually kept everything quite neutral). Background: I am an editor who has been active on promoting accurate coverage of biblical sites on Wikipedia, among other subjects of universal interest, and seeing that the article King's Garden (Jerusalem) is one of those important biblical sites, with a viable and notable history of its own, I strongly felt opposed to any merger with Silwan, for the reasons given in the Merge Request (see here). My mistake was to seek a broader feedback from other editors about either the necessity of a merge, or else its redundancy and inessentiality, which I have since rescinded. It is important to recognize one's mistakes, which I do, and ask the community's understanding that mistakes on this venue are sometimes unavoidable, being that we are human. And, in case anyone here is wondering, I whole-heartedly respect all peoples who live in this country and I have no wish whatsoever to bring politics into my edits (which I think my accuser here may have been worried about). My view is and will always be that all peoples, nations and ethnicities (whether Jew, Muslim or Christian) have their special place and role in Israel/Palestine. This has been my personal guideline and it will always be. I see no reason to be put under any topic ban, as I have not breached any imposed topic ban. In my humble opinion, it would be disproportionate to punish an editor found guilty of canvassing with a ban on editing all scientific articles or a ban on editing articles of Biographies of Living Persons (BLP). I will remind my fellow editors here that, occasionally, editors will disagree with one another, but even so, there is a place for handling content dispute. So far, my accuser and I have not resorted to that venue, and, hopefully, we will never have to do so.Davidbena (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Black Kite:, while I respect your standing as an administrator, I still find it strange that you would seek to punish me because of the exchange that I had here in this edit. First, I am permitted to edit pages in the I/P area, but only prohibited to engage in matters relating to specific areas of conflict between Israel and the Palestinians (such as border conflicts and disputes, wars, political ideologies, etc., etc.). I have fully guarded myself from doing just that. Besides, what I was hoping that he would do was give his opinion about a BIBLICAL SITE. No more and no less. Secondly, if I canvassed the above person, it was only after I had been misled to think that "limited friendly notices were allowed, and that they should reflect a neutral point of view," which I was keen to do, based on this message that I received years back, which you can access here. I have since been of the mindset, perhaps even unconsciously, that this was permitted, if a person were broached about such issues in a neutral way. Again my mistake, and I'm sorry for that. Every man or woman here works in the subject matters with which he or she are most familiar. My work entails historical places in Palestine/Israel, some of which bear the I/P tag. To prevent me from making improvements on those articles, I think, would be a disservice to Wikipedia, especially when I have NOT breached any topic ban. Asking with all due respect and human cordiality as is humanly possible to permit me to continue editing in this field.Davidbena (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Bishonen:, I appreciate your comment, but something must be said which I have been loathe to say before, and that is that under Wikipedia:Canvassing, the policy states explicitly: "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus" (END QUOTE). So, where do we draw the line? I have endeavored to keep things as neutral as possible. Perhaps admins should further clarify the rules governing canvassing. As for the word "non-partisan", it, too, is subject to interpretation. I have often disagreed with Arminden, for example, whom I notified about the Merge Request. Does this still make us "partisans"? Are we requested to send off notifications to random people whom we have never communicated with? Please explain. With others whom I contacted, such as User:Newmila, I have had no contact at all, to the best of my knowledge. Yet, the only reason why I contacted her was that I felt that she might have some basic understanding about historical/biblical sites needed to render a judicious decision. Shouldn't we endeavor to contact people who have a basic understanding about the subject matter in question?Davidbena (talk) 11:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Davidbena[edit]

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

• Davidbena has 44,000 edits and believes that admins won't notice that an obvious act of canvassing (simply look at the editors he pinged - no disrespect to any of them, especially the one that said "I'm not getting involved in that", but they're all on one side of the I/P divide) will not go un-noticed. Either they assume that everyone else is stupid or there's a serious WP:CIR issue going on here. I'd suggest putting the original TBAN back and making it permanent, frankly. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• No comment on the merits of this request at this stage. However, as an process note. The TBAN can't be amended or, really clarified at AE as it is a community imposed TBAN. If this request determines that additional (amended) sanctions are appropriate they would need to be imposed as a separate sanction. In the case of an additional DS TBAN being imposed , Davidbena would be subject to the community ban which can only be appealed to the community at AN/ANI/etc and a separate DS TBAN which can be appealed to the normal AE venues (including AN/ANI). Given all of that, Selfstudier, you might want to consider taking this to AN or ANI and ask that the community TBAN be amended? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I was a little dubious about Selfstudier linking DB to advice received in 2014 as evidence that David is aware of the rules against canvassing. That was a long time ago. But above, I see David himself referring to Neil's advice in two places, saying he was "misled" by it, with some hair-raisingly selective quoting — as selective as his choice of editors to contact. Neil had sent him Template:uw-canvass, which says It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. David is now saying to Black Kite above that "if I canvassed the above person, it was only after I had been misled to think that 'limited friendly notices were allowed, and that they should reflect a neutral point of view,' [not a real quote, despite the quote marks] which I was keen to do, based on this message that I received years back". Misled, really? By a message that spoke of "a biased choice of users' talk pages", "nonpartisan in distribution" [bold in the original], and "selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you"? I've been here a long time, but I can apparently still be shocked. I cannot take this in good faith. Nor, for that matter, David's evasiveness in this exchange, where Selfstudier repeatedly asks if David's T-ban is still in force.

I agree with Callanecc that Selfstudier has taken this request for enforcement of a community ban to the wrong board. David himself made the same mistake in June 2020, appealing his community ban at AE, and was told it was out of scope for AE. Logically, Selfstudier should go to AN for the T-ban violations. Nevertheless, we can discuss and deal with the canvassing issue alone, can't we, now that we're here, and save everybody some time? That's not part of a topic ban, it's just an egregious violation in itself. And I would deal with it quite severely, and factor in the lawyerly way David defends it. A one-month site block? Three months? Bishonen | tålk 09:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Reply to Davidbena: I can understand that you have been loath to quote the WP:Canvassing guideline before, since there's always the risk that people will read it and see the things your cherrypicked quote leaves out, such as the VOTESTACKING section. I'm afraid I'm not personally up for further clarifying the rules governing canvassing. IMO both the guideline and the warning Neil sent you are perfectly clear to anybody who reads them in good faith. Bishonen | tålk 12:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Based on the canvassing alone and not considering potential violations with the topic ban, I agree that a one-month block would be appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Selfstudier has taken the T-ban violations to ANI, and the other disruption by Davidbena (the canvassing, which is not part of the T-ban vios), which we seem to have agreed to deal with here, is languishing a bit. If no uninvolved admin objects within the next 24 hours, I will place the 1-month block for canvassing with aggravated circumstances (wikilawyering) that Callannec and I favour. Black Kite, do you have an opinion? In any case, in honour of the red tape surrounding AE, I had probably better place it as a regular single admin block and without logging it at WP:DSLOG. Bishonen | tålk 20:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  Hi Bishonen, I've left a message on Davidbena's talk page about a possible separate ban violation. You can hold off on blocking if you want and I can do both together after David's had a chance to respond to my query or you can block now and I'll extend if Davidbena's response doesn't assuage my concern. Up to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, he impugned motives like there's no tomorrow, didn't he? You'd better do the whole thing, Callanecc. Bishonen | tålk 08:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  @Callanecc: coming in late, but after reading what he wrote at ANI, I agree with Bishonen, do the whole thing. Doug Weller talk 14:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]