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

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

Appealing user

Ypatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ypatch (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite Topic-ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed [1]

Administrator imposing the sanction

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

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

Statement by Ypatch[edit]

I am requesting my topic-ban to be lifted or modified.

I was given a topic ban for my involvement on the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page, where I’m currently taking part in 3 different content disputes:

• In the first content dispute, I’m primarily at a disagreement with User:Iskandar323, where some editors are supporting the inclusion of other names to the article and other editors are supporting the exclusion of those names. Since this seems to be a content dispute, I have proposed a RFC to solve this.

• In the second content dispute, I’m at a disagreement with User:Vice regent about how a section in that article should be organized. Since we are at a disagreement, I have proposed that we get others to vote about which version should remain in the article.

• In the third content dispute, I am in agreement with all the other editors there.

My topic ban concerns “stalling out the consensus-building process”, but I have proposed alternative solutions that have at times been met with violations of the article's Consensus Required Restriction. Nevertheless I have tried to steer arguments towards WP:DR (what I thought we were supposed to be doing in such cases).

• Vanamonde, I believe a bigger picture is being overlooked, but I don't want to fill this appeal request with whataboutery. I will instead open a separate case in an attempt to explain further. Thanks. Ypatch (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have now read BANEX. To confirm, am I allowed to make a separate report here about someone else's conduct? It’s difficult to explain my approach in these disputes as an isolated event (takes two to tango). Ypatch (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, I didn't come to that conclusion, that is why I was asking. Ypatch (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Iskandar, since the ArbCom case, you have made twice as many edits to the article than I have, which would make you involved. My objections with your edits have been that you have tried to add things like "Holy Warriors" as the MEK's other official names, which it isn’t. In other edits you give a deceptive edit summary saying that "Relocating more Amnesty reporting on government treatment of the PMOI to the appropriate section", but instead you removed sourced material from the article. You removed that the U.S. "designated members of the MEK to be ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Convention" from the lead, even though this is backed by numerous reliable sources. You also removed that the reasons behind the MEK-Iranian regime conflict from the lead, even though this is backed by numerous reliable sources. You also removed that Khomeini prevented the MEK from running for elections, even though this is backed by reliable sources. Despite warnings, you again violated the article's "Consensus Required" restrictions [2][3]. Ypatch (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• RegentsPark, without diving deep into the subject, User:Vice regent's edits have involved WP:ARBIRP violations like wikivoicing that the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran is the confirmed culprit behind the assassinations of Paul R. Shaffer, John H. Turner and Louis Lee Hawkins [4][5] (the article already made clear that there are different suspected culprits surrounding those assassinations). I did not report them to avoid a battleground mentality. Instead, I have been advocating the use of RFCs. Vice regent, on the other hand, was recently warned against civil edit warring, yet recently violated the article's Consensus Required restrictions again [6][7]. Ypatch (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• A clear reason for my topic-ban has not been given. Mainly for this reason, it is difficult to address it. Ypatch (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93[edit]

I believe that Ypatch's recent contributions to People's Mujahedin of Iran and its talk page are aimed at preventing content they dislike from being included by any means necessary, rather than at discussing disagreement in good faith. This isn't based on any single diff, but on the totality of their recent behavior. I am happy to answer questions from uninvolved admins, but I doubt I will change my mind about this. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ypatch, please read WP:BANEX before you spend a lot of effort on a report about someone else's conduct. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ypatch, how did you read that page and come to the conclusion that you are permitted to make a behavioral report against someone else in the area of your TBAN? It's pretty explicit. You may discuss the topic only in the context of appealing your ban, or clarifying its scope. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ypatch, for the last time, you may not discuss the behavior of other editors if it relates to Iranian politics. Seriously, are you not hearing me, or are you trying to provoke a reaction? I'm giving you some leeway because we're discussing your ban at AE, but it will be a block without further warning, next time. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323[edit]

I am far from a regular in "post-1978 Iranian politics", and my principle interaction with this page has been to effect a name change in a move request with unanimous support, but, based on my limited experience I would have to agree with Vanamonde93's assessment that the editor in question would benefit from some time away from the subject (as I have in other areas). Ypatch seems to tread a particularly fine line between neutral and tendentious editing with regards to the PMOI, and appears very much overly invested in the subject. In the diffs cited above by Ypatch, which they are presumably upholding as an example of good editing, we see them boiling down existing material on the funding of either terroristic/militaristic activities into a bland statement about funding. You also have them deleting substantial reliable, secondary sources such as Guardian long reads that make use of detrimental terminology about the group, while adding less ironclad/no consensus sources such as Daily Beast material to reinforce sympathetic viewpoints. In the active discussion on names, Ypatch is pushing back against the mentioning of a term that reliable sources say was a standard name for the group prior to the 1990s, at which point the PMOI made an active public relations (PR) push to change its image. Content aside, Ypatch, based on no particular Wikipedia policy or guideline (but heavy reference to the discretionary sanctions, and the need for consensus/an RFC to undo anything that they have reverted), takes a position that aligns with that PR. Meanwhile, on Commons, Ypatch has also been trying to bring about the deletion of public domain images that I suppose might arguably be construed as portraying the PMOI in a negative light - here the group's leader meeting with Saddam Hussain. Make of all this what you will. I'll leave it at that, but, as I began, I believe Vanamonde93 is well merited in having concerns over this editor's current ability to edit neutrally in this subject-matter area. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ypatch: Yes, I did edit the lead. The page is currently tagged as 'lead too long', and likely still requires further shortening. About half of those edits removed material that was inexplicably in the lead despite not being in the body copy, in clear violation of MOS:LEAD, as was clearly stated in my itemised edit summaries. Others were just edits weighing what is likely to be more or less due. Just basic editing really. As no one has reverted any of these diffs, I can only assume that none were objectionable (present company excluded). There has also been no indication from any editors that any of this has violated consensus, so I would request that you desist from this insinuation. In response to your specific personal attack that I made a 'deceptive' edit summary, you are wrong. If you scroll down the diff in question, you will find exactly where the material was relocated to. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ypatch[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 (uninvolved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]

Result of the appeal by Ypatch[edit]

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

• This sort of a t-ban is very hard to judge because that would involve a deep dive into the article edits and the article talk page. But I did take a look at two threads on the offending talk page (this and this and there is some evidence of what could be disruptive behavior (particularly in the second thread with the not responding and then reverting after someone added/changed the summary). I think it better to defer to accepting Vanamonde93's topic ban, ceteris paribus.--RegentsPark (comment) 00:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline WP:NOTTHEM appeal. I can personally attest to the appellant's reoccurring problems in the topic area. See also the log in the former WP:GS/IRANPOL. El_C 14:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline appeal - There seems to be good reason to have put the tban in place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Proletarian Banner[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mhawk10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Proletarian Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

The user has broadly and disruptively been engaging in a widespread change of the descriptor used for the Marxist-Leninist states (often the Soviet Union and the Albania) from "communist" to "socialist" across a grand number of articles without seeking consensus. At the time of writing, the user has made 46 edits to the article space, of which 21 have removed mentions of the term "communist" or "communism". This disruptive behavior, which began before they were aware of the sanction, continues after they were made aware.

Albania:

1. 29 December 2021 Removing Communist government and replacing it with Socialist Government
2. 29 December 2021 Removing Communist and replacing it with Socialist
3. 30 January 2022 Removing communist and replacing it with socialist
4. 16 February 2022 Removing Communist regime and replacing it with socialist nation
5. 16 February 2022 Removing communist and replacing it with socialist
6. 16 February 2022 Removing Communist and replacing it with socialist
7. 1 March 2022 Removing Communism and replacing it with Socialism
8. 3 March 2022 Removing Communism and replacing it with Socialism

USSR:

1. 17 February 2022 Removing communist regime and replacing it with socialist state
2. 18 February 2022 Removing communist regime and replacing it with socialist government
3. 3 March 2022 Removing comunist and replacing it with socialist

Hungary:

1. 10 February 2022 Removing communist and inserting socialist

Multiple countries, including at least one Eastern European or and/or Balkan state:

1. 30 December 2021 Removing communist in four places and inserting socialist
2. 30 December 2021 Removing communist and inserting Socialist
3. 30 December 2021 Removing communist countries and inserting Socialist states
4. 20 January 2022 Removing communist and inserting socialist
5. 21 January 2022 Removing communist in three places and inserting socialist
6. 6 February 2022 Removing communist regimes and inserting Socialist States
7. 14 February 2022 changing displayed text from fall of Communism to dissolution of most socialist nations
8. 15 February 2022 again changing displayed text from fall of Communism to dissolution of most socialist nations (though they later self rv)
9. 2 March 2022 deleting totalitarian communist

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia in a consensus-based manner and is being rather disruptive across the Eastern European and Balkans topic area. The editor is engaging in clear POV-pushing and repeatedly insists upon using their own definition of communism when writing articles and rejects basically all sources they personally disagree with as being biased right-wingers or by claiming that mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP is all right-wing propaganda. As can be seen in the edit summaries of many of the diffs listed in the diffs section, the user is a WP:POVPUSHer who has been making changes en masse that have by and large shown the editor's inability to engage productively in these areas. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the user is also somewhat uncivil, referring to me as an ignoramus and claiming that I write for the Newspaper of Mentally Disabled Persons. I think that sharp discretionary sanctions are warranted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC) See also: this vandal edit to my userpage. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Proletarian Banner[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 Proletarian Banner[edit]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish[edit]

Just block now and save the time and drama. [8][9] [10] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lee Vilenski[edit]

Just as a note, due to the recent contributions, I've handed a block to the user to avoid further harasment. Feel free to extend. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Proletarian Banner[edit]

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

• He was blocked for 31 hours by Lee Vilenski, but the real problem is that they were just given an Arb alert today. That doesn't prevent normal admin actions (which Lee did), but it does limit what we can do as AE actions (topic bans, etc). Thems the rules. Needs a closer look and a bit of creativity with standard admin actions, I think. It would help if Lee participated here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Duh, just notice Lee did com here (thank you, been a rough day...) and is giving us freedom to modify without consultation, which helps. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict)I think looking at the recent contributions, I'd be happy to endorse an indef block, and talk page privileges being removed. My block was more preventative while this gets looked at, as it was clear there was some proper harasment going on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Hob Gadling[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions

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

1. 5 March 2022 Questioned if ScottishFinnishRadish is WP:HERE, which I see as a gross personal attack;
2. 6 March 2022 Implied the ARBCOM case was started to punish the user and his family and friends and all who supposedly think like them;
3. 6 March 2022 Accused me and SFR of being out to get the skeptics no matter what and doing something he calls "donalding" (i.e. dodging and/or attacking when someone caught you making a mistake).

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 3 February 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

His continued battleground behaviour and gross incivility even as SFR and I try to discuss the matter as civilly as possible is grossly disruptive to the discussion on SI, and is impeding the resolution of the Skepticism and coordinated editing case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown, I fail to see how Hob was "pushed" and would appreciate some clarification there. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I see your point. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, my intention is not to take out an opponent from a topic, nor did I expect that to be the result of this request. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, seeing how editors like Roxy did not receive a topic ban and his conduct was much worse than Hob, I expected a formal warning or reminder along the lines Roxy and I received. Of course, I personally believe both Roxy and Hob to be engaging in a level of personal attacks that should not have and should not be permitted to continue in the way it had or has. However, I understand that arbitration is particularly careful about enforcing sanctions unless necessary, so I did not nor do I expect any serious sanction to come out of this request. Nonetheless, I still believe it should be considered and addressed so that editors don't think they have a free pass to just question others' motives for editing without justification just because the Arbcom case has ended. By "impeding the resolution", I meant that I see the RSN thread as the last step in the whole resolution process (an epilogue, if you will) and by igniting tensions through uncivil comments he is making it more difficult for the issues raised in that thread to be properly discussed. I hope it wasn't understood as me accusing him of disrupting arbcom itself. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning Hob Gadling[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 Hob Gadling[edit]

There is nothing wrong with bringing forth valid arguments for downgrading the SI source, but as soon as bad reasoning is used for that purpose and the refutation of that reasoning sidestepped, the encyclopedia is not being improved. Not retracting bad reasoning is bad behaviour, and I will continue to stand up against it. Criticizing user behaviour is not a personal attack, and neither is pointing out that a certain user behaviour is not helping the encyclopedia. That is what I did.

<angry comment withdrawn> --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrOllie[edit]

Since you brought this discussion up for wider comment: When discussing things 'as civilly as possible' in the future maybe don't help escalate or use phrases like 'petty piss-fighting.' MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shibbolethink[edit]

@A. C. Santacruz, my sincerest advice is to withdraw this case proposal. You seem a very well-reasoned editor with a calm demeanor. Someone who occasionally holds opinions contrary to the tide of the editor base, but who does it with aplomb and kindness. I would say this ARBE proposal is uncharacteristically reactionary.

1) It appears some of these complaints of behavior arise from @Hob Gadling's essay. It's good to keep in mind that wide latitude is given in user essays, especially in preliminary ones. It's entirely appropriate for HG to collect their thoughts, understand disagreements, and set down what they think. Nothing untoward there.

2) With regards to comments HG made towards @ScottishFinnishRadish, I see these as benign and part of the normal back and forth of disagreements. The #1 thing I tell users who are transitioning from "new" to "seasoned" (as many of us do, present company included): develop thick skin! When someone is rude (on any side), you don't always have to escalate. In fact, it makes wikipedia worse if you do. Most things can be handled without Admin, without ArbE or Arbcom. They have better things to do than to review this case.

3) It makes sense if you want to make rights right, wrongs wrong, we all have that inclination. But this is likely not the place. Even if HG was rude (and I'm not sure from the diffs that they were), a certain low level of rudeness is permitted on all sides of any debate, as participants become frustrated. I think it would be an excellent thing if you stuck around here for many moons, and I think not letting such things bother you will help. For your own sanity! When one brings a case here, it should probably be a slam dunk. Otherwise very little is likely to happen. The more fruitless ArbE cases are made against an editor, the less likely each subsequent case is to succeed, in my experience. And even when you do bring what you think is a slam dunk, don't be surprised if nothing happens or little happens. ArbE is still a high bar, even if a lower burden than the drama board.

4) I think the Skepticism case got a lot of feathers a little ruffled, on the side of proposers wishing/hoping for more drastic measures, and on the side of skeptics/adjacent, who see TBANning of Rp2006 as excessive. It would do us all good to let things lie and resist inherent urges to play out these frustrations on other boards. The debate over SI is not the place to air grievances, nor is it the place to start looking for any and all reasons to score more "points." Not saying you are, not saying anyone is, but noting instead this tendency is perennial on wikipedia. It happens any time a user is TBANned (e.g. I have seen this play out multiple times in COVID origins). It also happens any time a well-crafted and intricately written ArbCom case doesn't go precisely the way one hopes. We must resist this tit for tat tendency, for the sake of the project.

5) This ArbE proposal has very little merit on the WP:PAGs and should be retracted or dismissed.

Shibbolethink dismounts ungracefully from the high horse he has no business riding.--— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JoJo Anthrax[edit]

The OP's wholly hyperbolic statement here ("His continued battleground behaviour and gross incivility even as SFR and I try to discuss the matter as civilly as possible is grossly disruptive to the discussion on SI, and is impeding the resolution of the Skepticism and coordinated editing case."), and their posts here and here, provide ample justification for quickly declining this case. A. C. Santacruz, please follow the excellent advice of Shibbolethink above and withdraw this case now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee[edit]

Hob Galding's civility is an issue. Is it serious enough to require a block? Probably not but their behavior, over the long haul is an issue and they should be warned for their general battle ground like behavior.

• [11] "So, fuck off, liar"
• [12] "From your difficulties in understanding what normal people write, I think Wikipedia is not the right place for you."
• [13] "Since you are the only one who really did something wrong, you should behave less like an aggressive, pushy loudmouth and more like someone who is sorry for making a mistake."
• [14] "you already said that, ans we answered it. Go away" (edit note)
• [15] generally antagonistic comment directed at another editor.

This is needless hostility towards other editors (who very well may be wrong in the bigger picture). Per CIVIL, "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."

If nothing else this should close with a simple, clear statement that comments like these are not compliant with CIVIL and need to stop. Note: I'm not involved in the RSN discussion in question and I don't have an opinion on the outcome. I have had unpleasant interactions with HG in the past hence my CIVIL concerns here. Springee (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Hob Gadling[edit]

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

• The diffs you provided don't really show anything sanctionable. Saying "Geez, people, are you really here to improve the encyclopedia?" is benign and I can't see it as a personal attack. I will have to dig and look at the entire discussion to get a fuller picture, later on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link to discussion [16] for my fellow admins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, after reading the entire discussion, I still see no problems. Hob can be a little abrasive when pushed (so can I) but that is hardly unique. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and that means sometimes there is some friction and heat. The worst of it is the above quote, which I see as a question, not a personal attack. In short, I see no merit in this report, and as such, I recommend taking no action in this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A. C. Santacruz"Pushed" should be self-explanatory. It's a heated debate, everyone is pushed. That's why we don't sweat minor things, as the goal isn't perfect etiquette, but solutions. None of this is relevant, however, as you've filed a report, and the key is demonstrating policy violations within an Arb sanctioned area, and you haven't. You've linked to some mild words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A. C. Santacruz, could you please provide actual diffs, rather than whole page versions where it's difficult to find the material you wish to refer to? I've dug it out now, but it's a bit of a bother to have to do that. Please see Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide for how to create diffs. As for your request, "gross incivility" and "grossly disruptive" are gross exaggerations. Taking out an opponent from a topic isn't what discretionary sanctions are for. Bishonen | tålk 13:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

• A. C. Santacruz, thanks for the diffs, that was very prompt. But I'm surprised you say your intention with this request is not to take out an opponent from a topic, nor did you expect such a result.[17] May I ask what you did intend and expect, then? You accused Hob Gadling of being "grossly disruptive to the discussion on SI" and even of "impeding the resolution of the Skepticism and coordinated editing case"? That's strong sauce. If the AE admins had agreed with you that HC was doing that kind of harm (which they don't seem to be doing so far, but you never know) — impeding an arb case! — how could you not have intended/expected a topic ban at the least? I'm baffled. Are you perhaps back-pedalling? Do you wish to withdraw this request? Just asking. Bishonen | tålk 14:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

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

Request concerning CapnJackSp[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

• 16:33, 3 March 2022 Removes the lines "The users of the app utilized the database of citizens categorized using multiple attributes and sent automated hate messages as replies on social media. The phrases in these automated messages were decided in a centralized document to harass prominent persons." from Tek Fog#Automated messaging with the edit summary "rm material covered in detail in the sections above", when the material isn't covered anywhere else in the article.
• 16:47, 4 March 2022 Removes the same lines with the edit summary, "Added information back that had been removed in my previous edit. Removed the rest of the redundant material. WP:ONUS, W:BRD should be followed by editors wishing to introduce material. Kindly ping me if making a talk section." The edit also introduces the word "centralised" in the section on "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment". Note that the word had never existed there unlike what they claim in the edit summary.
• 17:13, 4 March 2022 They insist that "the exact same stuff is covered in much more detail in the same section, in the sub sections above it" The sub-section at the time of their second removal contained the lines, "Tek Fog had an extensive centralised database of private citizens with information about their "occupation, religion, language, age, gender, political inclination and even physical attributes like skin tone and breast size." The Wire had received screenshots that showed these parameters. The Wire verified the existence of database by monitoring harassment messages that were sent with extreme granularity to "female journalists", who were among the targeted groups."

Following this, Venkat TL tells them its not the same and Toddy1 restores the first part (on the link between the automated messages and the database) and removes the unverifiable "centralised" from the section on database of private citizens leaving explanations for both on the talk page (see Talk:Tek Fog § Removal of content from section on Automated messaging).

• 21:15, 4 March 2022 They demand explanation on how it isn't the same despite one being already provided and it being apparent. I leave a warning on their talk page (User talk:CapnJackSp § March 2022) after seeing all this, where they deny any fault and continue to insist that the material was the same. I eventually restore the second part of it (on the central document of phrases being used for the messages).
• 16:11, 6 March 2022 They immediately revert and re-introduce the unverifiable "centralised database of citizens" while on their talk page, they make a retaliatory accusation (Special:Diff/1075546791) of "disruptive editing" and state that "The third editor [Toddy] seems to have removed it, which I have added back for your benefit".
• 17:50, 6 March 2022 Apparently I want to introduce something else altogether, according to them on the article's 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 on 03:25, 18 January 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'd think this is just trolling and WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Note that the account became active on 10 January, commented on the article's AfD pushing for deletion on the same day, and has since been persistent in trying to skim off content, introduce expressions of doubt and badger people on the talk page. The Tek Fog article isn't the only one, there is similar behavior on every article they have significant involvement in; for instance see the retaliatory accusation in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092 § BLP violation by Venkat TL after receiving a copyvio warning in User talk:CapnJackSp § February 2022. The date and time in the above diffs are in IST. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggested to elaborate a bit more on my report (here) but I'll try to keep it as short as possible since this is starting to get a bit bloated.

I'll point out the primary issue in the above series of edits and conversations. If one goes through it, you'll see CapnJackSp is trying to confuse the material related to the database with those related to automated messages. For instance, they repeatedly remove "a central document of phrases used for the automated messages" which is verifiable from the given citation, replace it by adding "centralised" to the "database of citizens who were targeted" which is unverifiable and then justify the former's removal by pointing at the latter. This is essentially dishonest trolling, or if you want wiki-lingo tendentious editing.

In addition, to give some examples of their conduct beyond this on the page, I'll present a couple diffs. For their behavior on talk pages though, individual diffs aren't going to be very useful and one would have to go through the conversations they have participated in, at length.

• Special:Diff/1066320740 Introduction of expressions of doubt with a edit summary claiming that they had reached a consensus. The talk page at that point only contained a discussion on merging a section.
• Special:Diff/1067628839 More sneaky attempt at the same, no edit summary. It's coupled with re-arranging some sections and wiki-link removals while adding phrases like "claimed" and "said to have", pushing a couple sub-sections further down and removing some in-line citations. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1075580590

Discussion concerning CapnJackSp[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 CapnJackSp[edit]

An apology to the admins - This has gotten elongated to 600 words, and I feel I would be removing relevant material if I cropped out more. Kindly bear with me.

This seems to me to be a content dispute being brought to DE, but I will nevertheless answer the points raised by Tayi below.

(As a sort of "background" for points 1-3, this issue cropped up after Venkat TL made an edit to the article, Tek Fog. I saw that the material introduced had been repeated earlier in the article, and removed the sections that had been repeated. Venkat, without discussion, reverted my edit and his edit summary suggested that the onus lay with me for the material - I removed it and reminded him of the current standard procedures at Wikipedia.)

(1) The points about the database and the automated messages being sent were covered in the section "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment" and the first sentence of "Automated messaging". Here, I had also mistakenly removed the point about "centralised document", which I subsequently, in my later edits added back to the article (see point 2).

(2)Here, I reverted Venkat's edit (which had reinstated the material, without any attempt at following BRD) while addingthe part about the centralised document to the section for the database. The same is reflected in my edit summary, which Tayi seems to have misunderstood. The "centralised document" is explained in the original report by The Wire to be a Google Sheet, and that it was only accessible through the database. The information has now been included in the article with much more clarity.

(3) The section quoted covers two of the three points - The third being covered by the first sentence of "Automated messaging". No idea what the issue is here.

(4-6)

After this, editor Toddy1 pointed out that while the material had been individually covered, the Wikipedia article had not linked these two as the cited source had. Toddy and I settled on a version with minor changes after his edit, here.

A day later, Tayi put a warning on my talk page at User_talk:CapnJackSp#March_2022. I responded politely, and again in more detail when asked. Following this, Tayi, without making any attempt to take up his issues with either Toddy, Venkat or me, reinstated the material. I reverted, pointing out that he needed to discuss before reinstating material removed with consensus. ^[a] The comment on the talk page refers to the "centralised document" being a google sheet per The Wire - Here I am forced to speculate as Tayi did not engage on the talk page at all despite my ping.

As both Tayi and Venkat have talked about my ANI report on Venkat, I think I need to clarify. The report was about Venkat repeatedly calling a murder victim a "terrorist" after being asked to stop doing so, a few days after he was reported on ADE [18] by Abhishek0831996 (where he was asked to tone down his rhetoric) and more recently on ANI by Kautilya3. It was pointed out to him (by Kyohi and Chess) there that my report was indeed correct and Venkat was wrong to use such language.

The report can hardly be misunderstood to be as a "retaliation" when it happened two weeks after the warning, with Venkat and I having multiple constructive discussions in the meantime, ending with both of us reaching a consensus. Venkat's claim that I revolve around his articles, seems to be unfounded - Many spaces I edit are untouched by him, and I haven't edited in many areas he frequents. Our "intersection" lies around topics that are featured prominently in Indian media, where sometimes I edit an article first, and sometimes he does.

If the admins do want any further clarification, I would be open to them. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not want to elongate this even further, but the diffs by Tayi need to be clarified here. Diff 1 is my edit after the editor with whom I has an edit conflict told me to "go ahead and edit it", when they had previously not allowed me to edit it. The changes reverted by tayi, were reinstated with minor changes, and extended to the rest of the lead by editors more experienced than me [19]. The edit summary could have been more clear, I accept that much. It was fairly early in my editing, and I have gotten much better since. Diff 2 is not the same as Tayi claims - It was merging an awkward section to another to reach a more readable form. This was done after the discussion on the talk page - See Talk:Tek_Fog#Merging_the_section_"Military_grade_psychological_operations_weapon"_to_Reactions.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: Regarding the diffs of supposed closed paraphrasing provided by Venkat TL, which are more than 1 month ago, came after the warning he made to me on 10 February. I am not sure why he is bringing up these old and outdated violations to derail the report which concerns nothing more than content dispute as accurately described by Kautilya3. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally not going to reply to Venkat's allegations as my answer was getting too long, but since he left me a ping on Talk:The Next Civil War: Dispatches from the American Future, I have replied to him there. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat has in his edits introduced even more off topic material against admin advice, thus forcing me to respond. I had refrained from responding to his edits due to size constraint and excessive off topic bloating of this report, but I would like to ask admins for a size extension here since it seems he is trying to force as many trivial points in to try and make his statement sound more credible. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Venkat TL[edit]

Apologies as entire Statement approx 600 words. (excluding quotes)

I am an involved user as CapnJackSp has multiple disputes with me and has targeted me on admin boards.[20]

I agree with the observation by the admin User:Black Kite on ANI case that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build. But the case for Boomerang action on CapnJackSp did not get enough traction there.

I have tried my best to assume good faith with CapnJackSp but now I have become tired by the incessant sealioning and tendentious editing by this user. Some of which are borderline trolling. Tendentious editing of whitewashing and censoring reliably sourced information. CapnJackSp's edits on Wikipedia mostly revolve around the articles that I have created/edited, associated talk pages, and admin boards where he comments only to target me. I can add individual diffs, but they are all available on this Xtools page.

Based on the talk page interactions, I cannot decide if this is competency related issue or deliberate refusal to follow the policies like Copyright violations, close paraphrasing and edit warring. He argues ad nauseam and is a total time sink for the wikipedia contributors. I will welcome some action. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown CapnJackSp edits with a bias (POV) that is anti-liberal and anti-Muslim and pro-far-right, pro-Hindutva, pro-BJP government. (Diff C1 = Diff number 1 of edit by CapnJackSp)

Violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:Original research, Source misrepresentation

Diff C1 made up stuff not supported in the article. Please provide quote from source if you disagree.

Diff C2The author does not say anything about the ideology, yet CapnJackSp adds stuff he made up.

Diff C3 misrepresents current decade as "next decade"

WP:COPYVIO and WP:Close paraphrasing

Diff C4

Source Quote=

"Wherever there is a uniform at schools, there should not be a place for any other dress other than that."

Line added by Capjackspr (without quote)

Aaditya Thackeray, state minister of Maharashtra, told journalists that if there was a uniform at schools, there should not be a place for any other dress other than that,

Diff C5

Source Quote=

Two people have been arrested in Kundapur in Karnataka's Udupi district for allegedly carrying lethal weapons during a protest at a government college over students' right to wear a hijab in classrooms... According to police officers, out of five men carrying weapons, three managed to flee from the spot.

Line added by Capjackspr =

Two men were arrested when they were found carrying lethal weapons during a protest about this issue. Three others managed to flee.

Apart from WP:CLOP, CapnJackSp Inappropriately dropped 'allegedly' to confirm the alleged crime in Wikipedia voice. Attribution was also dropped.

Diff C6

Source Quote=

Ten Pakistani soldiers were killed when terrorists attacked a security forces’ checkpost in Kech district of the restive southwestern Balochistan province,

Line added by Capjackspr =

10 Pakistani soldiers were killed when terrorists attacked a security forces’ checkpost in Kech district of the restive southwestern Balochistan province.

Source Quote=

" The hijab row follows a string of online attacks against Muslim women in India."

Diff C7.1

Line added by Capjackspr =

The hijab row follows a string of online attacks against Muslim women in India

Diff C7.2

This hijab row followed a string of online attacks targeted towards Muslim women in India.

Diff C7.3

This hijab row followed a string of online attacks targeted towards Muslim women in India.

CapnJackSp did not just violate copyright here but also edit warred three times to restore the same copyright violation. It was explained to him at 3 places 1 2 3 Moreover Kautilya3 then used diffs of my reverts of removal of copyright violation ( WP:NOT3RR) to file a false Edit warring case against me for sniping me)

Violating internal copyright without providing attribution.

Diff C8 The content added, was copied by CapnJackSp as it is from India–United States relations without giving attribution as required by copyrights.

Diff C9 The content added was copied by CapnJackSp as it is from India–United States relations without giving attribution as required by copyrights.

User:Kautilya3 failed to mention below that he is not an uninvolved bystander, he is deeply involved in these disputes. Kautilya3 is acting alongside problematic user CapnJackSp. Kautilya3 has attempted to target and snipe me at Admin board. (false edit warring and false ARE case). So, I am not at all surprised that Kautilya3 is attempting to sweep this case under the carpet. Venkat TL (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, I apologize. I stand corrected about the ARE case diff. I have struck it down. I had in mind this ARE case started by Kautilya, which was about Hemantha and not me, yet CapnJackSp had used that ARE case to target me.

I have noted CapnJackSp's bias that I have assessed based on reviewing CapnJackSp's Wikipedia edits, and provided diffs. I believe this is WP:Tendentious editing and the admins should take note of this behavior as it violates neutrality of Wikipedia. Venkat TL (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CapnJackSp has answered about Diffs C1-3 on Article talk page due to word limit here. I invite the admins to look at it . His answers will give you a good idea of what we are dealing with here. You have to see it to believe it. Now I believe more strongly that WP:CIR applies.

1. C1 = CapnJackSp did not answer the question and added yet another massive copyright violation Diff C10.
2. C2 = Claims that he is not responsible for the source misrepresentation he had added,
3. C3 = CapnJackSp doubles down and says "This decade = next decade." Venkat TL (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite had said on ANi "Looking at their contribs, they are practically all either in contentious areas or contentious themselves. There are ten notices on their userpage about concerns with their editing, and they've only been contributing since 10 January." Another editor STSC had suspected this user to be a sock. Though CapnJackSp denied. Venkat TL (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TrangaBellam[edit]

This is subtle trolling, at best. Suggest a TBan. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kautilya3[edit]

This seems like a storm in a teacup. CapnJackSp's first deletion was technically correct. The sentence he deleted was already covered in the earlier section titled "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment" (as the section title itself makes clear). But his later claim that somebody else should follow "BRD" while he was reinstating his deletion is not correct. (If your edit was already reverted then you are in the "D" stage.)

Likewise, when Venkat TL demands on the talk page, "please explain your undue removal of valid sourced content here", (i) "undue" is not something that applies to removals, and (ii) the sourcing of the content was not stated as an issue. (Never mind that that paragraph never cited a source to start with!)

There are newish users on both sides, who have only hazy understanding of procedures and are not being very cooperative with each other. I would recommend closing with warning to both sides to collaborate more sincerely.

I also think that page is in a mess and quite disorganised and incomprehensible. The content should be junked and rewritten fro scratch. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Venkat TL is trying to enlarge the case by bringing in a big laundry list of edits (C1, C2, C3) which have nothing to do with the present case. But the main thrust of his argument is the allegation of "a bias (POV) that is anti-liberal and anti-Muslim and pro-far-right, pro-Hindutva, pro-BJP government". If he start with that kind ideological profiling of editors, what kind of collaboration can we expect from him? And, what if CapnJackSp has pro-BJP leanings? There is nothing in Wikipedia policies that says pro-BJP people cannot edit Wikipedia. As far as I can see, CapnJackSp is quite aware of his own biases and is cautious in pushing for them. See this comment for a recent example.

That is more than I can say about Venkat TL. Even though I probably agree with him 90% of the time, he needs to attack me for the remaining 10% disagreement. (By the way, the lead of the Tek Fog article was almost entirely rewritten by me, by bringing in better WP:SECONDARY sources. Is there anything there that Venkat TL found disagreeable?) He claims that I brought "two falses cases" against him. For the first, a straightorward 3RR violation, we have only his own claim that it was "false". And for the second, the so-called "false ARE", I neither brought it here nor participated in it! So, it seems that Venkat TL is imagining enemies everywhere and waging ideological battles with them demanding 100% agreement with his own views. Not a good recipe for being a decent Wikipedian. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning CapnJackSp[edit]

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

• Looking at one or two comments, I don't see much, but if you put the puzzle together, starting with CapnJackSp being the only person to vote Delete at an AFD that closed as a Snow Keep, then the types of arguments being bandied about on the article talk page, it looks like a death by 1000 paper cuts. Bogging down the discussion. That's the vibe I'm getting anyway. Passive-aggressive obstructionism. One last thing, I noticed in his deleted contribs four AFDs that he started (plus the other he voted in), which isn't related but highly unusual for someone that literally just started a couple of weeks ago. Curious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Venkat TL, you mentioned copyright violations; do you have any diffs or links that could shed some light on this particular issue? It isn't in the initial report, but that is a bigger issue if it is a continuing problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You guys are meandering here, out of scope, and using way over your limit of words (do not delete, just don't add unless there is a VERY good reason). I'm not sure what to make of all this mess. Yet. Much of this looks like poor editing, not specific to India/Pakistan topics. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]