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 Nableezy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Free1Soul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4, COI editing of subject they are in ARBPIA feud with, threats of harrassment, Wikipedia:Fait accompli

I noticed Nableezy yesterday when I was going over AFDs related to Israel. I noticed they nominated Yoav Sarig in a disruptive manner (obvious notability) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoav Sarig. This nomination isn't normal disruption because I discovered from searching that Nableezy has a COI, a long feud, with the subject. Google: Nableezy Yoav Sarig, and you will see the COI yourself. Because of the disruption at Sarig, I looked at Nableezy's contributions and saw that he was engaging in mass-changes to long standing, stable, maps in several articles in or near the Golan.

Nableezy was continuing these changes even after he was challenged by a user (17:07) at Caesarea Philippi and a discussion was started (17:10) making similar changes to more articles to 8 additional articles ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) This continuation is a Wikipedia:Fait accompli problem.

In one case in these mass changes Nableezy introduced a hoax, as Hippos was not controlled by Syria before 1967, it was in Israeli territory (the Syrian army briefly controlled it after their invasion in 1948, but they were pushed back on the night between 17-18 July 1948).

I then reverted Nableezy's mass change to 17 articles. Nableezy immediately threatened me and instead of taking the threat back said: "Is it a threat? No, it is a promise".

I later discovered Nableezy posted nearly identical threats on other users pages:

1. 13 October at Geshem Bracha
2. 28 August at Inf-in MD.

Nableezy then reverted all of my reverts of their new map. I asked Nableezy to self-revert their 17 changes because I felt they broke 1RR. After some discussion Nableezy said they would self revert but then changed course saying they Have not found a single article where a map was added within the last year, making all of those edits. If any admin says those are reverts I will gladly self-revert.

This statement is false, while many of these maps are very long standing, a decade even, there are at least two articles in which the content was added within the last year:

1. Ed-Dikke synagogue: added 16 October 2020, Nableezy replaced map 17:12, 15 October 2021 and then made another revert on 17:32, 15 October 2021.
2. Lake Ram: added 3 November 2020, Nableezy replaced map on 17:05, 15 October 2021 and made another revert at 17:35, 15 October 2021

From their talk page, Nableezy recently broke 1RR also on Israel. On 14:59, 12 October 2021 they restored text similar to this reverted edit to a different location. They then reverted again on 17:53, 12 October 2021

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2021 warned twice in DS log in 2021, including last week
2. Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2012 topic banned in 2012
3. long block log related to ARBPIA

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

logged arbitration enforcement warning from 12 October

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[9]

Discussion concerning Nableezy[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 Nableezy[edit]

There should be a WP:BOOMERANG here. The above user followed me to an AFD and then to some 18 other pages to edit in opposition to me. See the timeline here. I was not threatening anybody, I simply reminded them of the golden rule, and it takes a level of self-confidence that astounds me to complain about a "threat" to hound after having already hounding me. Please note that the user edited the AFD prior to it being listed in the Israel related discussions (user edit 15:29, 15 October 2021, added to Israel list 15:56). The claim that the user was going through Israel-related deletions is as bogus as the rest of the report. He or she got there through hounding my contributions. And then continued to hound me across a range of other articles.

ProcrastinatingReader, I would characterize your editing at Sheikh Jarrah dispute in much the same manner, though since we still have rules on making accusations without evidence Ill just invite you to my talk page if youd like to discuss that further. If somebody would like me to answer some diffs of mine from there, sure.

As far as the report here, and the laughable claim of a "hoax", it seems somewhat dishonest not to note this edit less than an hour later. I replaced a non-NPOV map with a NPOV map. When checking through them later I saw that neither map fit. And I myself corrected it. And as I told the user earlier, if any admin says that my initial edits changing the maps were reverts and not edits I will gladly self-revert. But a user tendentiously hounding me across a range of articles with edit summaries that quite literally were simply WP:JDLI (prev better was all the discussion provided for the reverts) was not something I intended to give much attention to.

As far as the claim that I have some COI with Yoav Sarig, having written that the author of the article has a COI some 10 years ago is not a "grudge" or a COI, and that claim is as specious as the rest of the report and many of the comments below. And for the record, I have never once made any serious claim about Yoav Sarig anywhere. Saying that the person who wrote an article about you has a COI is not an attack on you. It may be a serious claim against the editor who created the article, but certainly not against the subject. As far as shows contempt to BRD, I am unaware of any requirement to demonstrate obeisance to WP:BRD. Which is not a requirement on Wikipedia or this topic area. And if people would just click the links they seem so confident in posting, they will see that it is indeed not a requirement on Wikipedia. As far as my language in that discussion, I don't think a general discussion about editing philosophies, even if touching on editing in the topic area, is really within the topic area, and we've generally been accepting of users speaking frankly with each other on their own user talk pages.

I dont believe I broke the 1RR at Israel. Selfstudier's edit was removed due to it not belonging in the lead. I added material to the body. And when that was reverted with a claim that ONUS had not been met for the lead I reverted. Once. nableezy - 00:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, I promise going forward that if a user hounds me that my warning to them will be that if they continue to do so I will be reporting it and asking for a block or ban. And not a do unto others as you would have them do unto you reminder. nableezy - 00:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I don't think the 17 reverts are hounding, I think the going to the AFD and then the Talk:Caesarea Philippi, and then starting that series was hounding. You can oppose all my edits if you see one in a pattern, thats fair. But just getting there to begin with, in this instance, was hounding. nableezy - 04:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ProcrastinatingReader, I agree that people can have legitimate reasons for opposing my edits. I dont think that users that maintain a series of no consensus decisions requires one to drop the stick in correcting NPOV issues (note that position was not adopted in the RFC, the opposite in fact), or editors maintaining that what several sources flat out say is biased as "neutral" is one of them (such as your repeated assertions in the face of RS against it). There are indeed many valid reasons to oppose my edits. Ones such as "but there haven't been any evictions" in an article that covers several past evictions is however not one of them. But the sources are wrong (which Id charecterize your argument in the section on Palestinian v Jewish claims, including by distorting my argument) and raising hypotheticals that the sources say dont exist to try to negate their description of the laws, or making their vote conditional on ultimatums. Im bumping up on the word limit here, but if I need to respond to any diffs there in detail somebody lmk. nableezy - 10:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal[edit]

I was going to post a slightly different version of this on one of your user pages, having noticed the dispute after the discussion on El C's page, but it appears I was too slow.

First, in regards to Free1Soul: I would agree with Nableezy that there may be an issue of WP:HOUNDING here. Free1Soul justifies their activity by explaining that it was in response to what they saw as a disruptive filing, but I would consider searching through a users contribution log searching for general issues to be an overreaction in such a case, particularly where the two editors have interacted in the past and even more so when the two editors have a general difference of opinion in regards to a contentious area; I can see no good coming from such a search. My original suggestion was going to be that that Free1Soul avoids looking at Nableezy's contribution page, but given we are here, and how quick they were to declare an apparently good faith edit to be a "hoax", perhaps a one way interaction block would be in order, at least for a short time?

Second, in regards to Nableezy. The threat to hound Free1Soul, despite the extenuating circumstances, is in my opinion problematic; there are ways to deal with problematic behaviour, and resorting to problematic behaviour is not one of them. I would suggest to Nableezy that they withdraw that comment, and commit to using the proper channels to resolve these issues. I would also note that I would agree with Free1Soul that 1RR may have been breached here; Nableezy's initial edits to change the map removed the map that was previously there, making it, in my opinion, a reversion - though some of these initial reverts are 1RR exempt as the map was added by editors not permitted to edit the area under 30/500. With all that said, I can see how the question of whether they are reverts or not would be a little ambiguous in this case, so perhaps the appropriate remedy would be to self-revert now?

Apologies to all if I have done this incorrectly; I am unsure of the proper protocol here. BilledMammal (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion; I would agree in principle; if an editor has a specific idea of what they might find, then that is an acceptable reason to review another's contribution page but I don't believe that applied here. It could have, if they had spotted the edit on one of the article pages and thought it to be an edit that could have been applied broadly, but that was not the cited cause, which was general "disruption" where they had little idea of what they might find.

In general I would not consider this sufficient, and even more so in a contentious and highly charged area like this one. At the very least, I would suggest that Free1Soul be very careful when going on fishing trips on such a basis in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]

Nableezy's intital edits, changing the maps, definitely do not count as reverts. I get the need for extra caution in this topic area, but considering any bold change to be a revert would inhibit productive editing. 19:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Eggishorn[edit]

This appears to be a vexatious filing. The AfD nomination was very defensible in that the state of the article at the time of the nomination was one in which the sourcing was almost entirely to primary sources or passing mentions and the importance of the one academic prize mentioned was not clear. When the original author appeared to clarify the status, Nableezy withdrew their nomination and closed the AfD themselves, which can hardly be evidence of long-term enmity. The second diff also shows entirely reasonable behavior by Nableezy, in that the challenge to their edit was an appeal to personal expertise instead of actual sourcing. The series of edit edits next mentioned are not evidence of anything other than the OP hunting down edits to revert. There are no edit summaries that give any reason why the edits are incorrect. Calling the addition to a map of a pushpin a "Hoax" is truly mind-boggling. Even the "threat" is little more than what I'd expect many frustrated users to post. It is clear from the above that this is a poor attempt by an inexperienced editor with a particular POV to weaponize AE against a perceived opponent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 11Fox11[edit]

The report above is badly formatted, however it raises three serious problems:

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yoav Sarig (COI), Nableezy has made very serious allegations against this person in a post outside of Wikipedia, he should not be editing the article or nominating it for deletion.
2. The Golan maps (Fait accompli / BRD / 1RR). I think it was reasonable for Free1Soul to revert this mass change across many articles, it is not hounding to examine an editor's contributions after they made a very problematic edit, as in the Yoav Sarig nomination. Nableezy probably broke 1RR, definitely did not follow BRD and flagrantly broke Wikipedia:Fait accompli. Nableezy was challenged on Caesarea Philippi by User:Arminden yet he continued repeating the same change to several other articles after the challenge (like [10] and [11]) and then also reverted Free1Soul (like [12] and [13]). The Hippos article is perhaps not a hoax, but is a very sloppy edit with a serious error. All these identical changes to other articles were made by Nableezy concurrent to the discussion at Talk:Caesarea Philippi#map which he was aware of.
3. The threats against multiple users. This is harassment and battleground, against: Inf-in MD, Geshem Bracha, Free1Soul. The language in their reply to Free1Soul: "Is it a threat? No, it is a promise. If you continue to follow me around I will either report it or return the favor" is what you'd expect at 3rd grade playground, not on Wikipedia.

This Nableezy post from two days ago shows contempt to BRD and is attacking another editor ("somebody who continues to make shit up").

In my opinion Nableezy engaging in similar threats against three separate users he disagrees with in the last couple of months is the most serious aspect here. 11Fox11 (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader[edit]

Lacking the time to read this complaint in detail, several of the diffs do show nableezy increasing tension in the topic area, e.g. [14]. Anecdotally I recall nableezy's approch at Talk:Sheikh Jarrah controversy, which I'd categorise as rather disruptive (and some other editors felt the same). Earlier this year, the editor received a logged warning to significantly moderate their tone, noting that failure to do so is likely to result in imminent sanctions, followed by a logged caution[] to keep to their above promise.

The problems in this topic area aren't limited to nableezy, but their current approach to dispute resolution is imho a contributing factor to the toxicity in it. I think ArbCom should revisit this topic area and some of its most active participants (on both ideological sides) in a full case. But failing that, at some point resolving these AE reports is going to require action rather than warnings. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nableezy, this is ultimately part of the problem. You don't really try to understand that other people could have valid reasons for objecting to something you're promoting, you label any such opposition as disruptive/stonewalling/POV-pushing with a dash of AE threats, and you barely respect the existence of a consensus (or consensus against) you don't like - such as by threatening to repropose rejected proposals endlessly (again, we had 7 RMs in 3 months on that talk), or (not sure if intentionally) misrepresenting opponents' arguments to attack them. I think [15][16][17][18][19][20] + [21][22] stand by themselves as a summary. In this particular case, very few people said they would oppose a change to any title, they just didn't agree with the options you wanted to move to, and for rather valid reasons I'd say (and uninvolved editors who found the original RM through the WP:RM process felt so too). This exact same pattern is apparent in this request and in several other areas of Wikipedia I've seen you. It's rather toxic. It would be nice if you tried to show a bit more restraint and collaboration. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

Unless the situation is very obvious, the initial place to raise COI isssues is WP:COIN, not WP:AE; and I definitely don't think that a single forum post seven years ago would qualify as sufficient to rush straight to AE (nor is it likely to be enough to convince WP:COIN, but that's at least the place to start.) I'm also skeptical about labeling the AFD nomination as disruptive - I think it was obviously a mistake, but there's a huge gap between a nomination being a bad call and being disruptive enough to require sanctions; sanctioning people simply for being wrong risks having a chilling effect that would discourage people from raising potentially-controversial issues that do need to be considered. Maybe if it was part of a pattern of obviously-unjustified nominations, but just one is silly. The same goes for some of the other issues - making a single mistake regarding an area with an extremely complicated history is obviously not sanctionable.

Likewise, 1RR issues are better handled at WP:3RRN since they are generally straightforward; if you think it's part of a bigger pattern, but there's a debate over whether it's actually a 1RR violation, it saves time for everyone if you take it to 3RRN first, settle that, then come to AE with that conclusion in hand. That said, I don't think it's reasonable to call what they did an 1RR violation (I have pointed out before that we need to settle the "any edit to existing material could be interpreted as a revert of someone or something" problem; with the 3RR it is not a big deal, but it is a serious problem on articles with 1RR restrictions.) That said just because they were allowed to do that doesn't mean they should have; revert-warring across 17 articles is not ideal, and ideally mass-edits should be discussed in advance if they're likely to be controversial. But it's not a "rush straight to AE" issue, either, and while you were likewise allowed to mass-revert a mass-edit across multiple articles for WP:BRD / WP:FAIT reasons, it would still have been better to discuss and settle it first to avoid situations like this.

Though I should point out (since nableezy has brought it up) that while I don't think they should have rushed to do it, I do not think free1Soul can reasonably be accused of WP:HOUNDing. As that policy says, correct use of an editor's history includes ... correcting related problems on multiple articles. You could argue over whether this is a problem, and extreme caution is required for that clause in ideologically-terse areas (because some people would consider another editor's entire contribution to a topic area a problem) but to avoid WP:FAIT, it is necessary that, when an editor makes essentially identical edits across a large number of articles, another editor is at least notionally permitted revert them across all those articles. --Aquillion (talk) 00:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]

• Quote from Free1Soul filing above - I then reverted Nableezy's mass change to 17 articles

Singling out of one editor and follow them to 17 articles to revert their contribution is a key component of WP:HOUNDING. Are you aware of that Free1Soul?

• Another quote from Free1Soul - In one case in these mass changes Nableezy introduced a hoax.

Hoax is a planned introduction of something made up to trick others into believing is true. How do you know that was Nablezny's intention Free1Soul?

I could go on with more problematic features written by the filer but don't have time for it right now. Nevertheless, I'll be surprised if this report goes anywhere since it seems to be an attempt to weaponize AE. However WP:BOOMERANG on the filer would not surprise me at all. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Geshem Bracha[edit]

@Euryalus and Bishonen:, after I reverted Nableezy on Chorazin they place this warning/threat on my talk page. They immediately, 1 minute later, demonstrated that they would carry out their threat by reverting me at Capernaum which they never edited before. This religious/archaeological site is located within Israel since its founding. Their statement on my page was not just words, it was followed by immediate action on their part on an article they never touched, it is impossible to see how they reached Capernaum without following me.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Nableezy placing Hippos in Syria as pointed out by OP is very wrong. He also removed Israel at Capernaum - and the country in which a site is located is important. This is a pattern of removing Israel from Israeli locations. I don't know how to describe this? Repeated errors? A hoax like OP? Denial? Whatever it is, it is wrong.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus:, I am not quick to use the hounding term, don't think I used this before today. But what am I to make of Nableezy writing "And also that WP:HOUNDING is prohibited. Though I am happy to return the favor if you like." at 13:10, followed by Nableezy reverting me at 13:11 on an article they never edited?--Geshem Bracha (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier[edit]

Arriving late when all has been said. Still, I will say it's poor form that a filing at this board is seen as an opportunity to rake up anything at all from time past that could conceivably be cast as misfeasance, Sheikh Jarrah for instance, if there was a case to answer, doubtful at best, why bring it here and now and not at the time? Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

If the OP has anything to say about the location of Hippos, surely the article talk page would be the place to say it. Actually the place is located in the Israel-Syria DMZ exactly as the article says. The Capernaum issue is of whether an ancient village should be called in Israel if it ceased to exist long before Israel was founded. Nableezy thinks it would be anachronistic, which is not the only position that could be taken but it is reasonable to take it. Nableezy's flexibility is demonstrated by his recent compromise "in what is now the territory of modern Israel" in a parallel situation a few days ago [23]. Portraying this as a sanctionable offence is risible. Zero^talk 11:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay[edit]

FWIW, I repaired the 'messed up' birth/death dates intro to the said-article that passed its AFD. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nableezy[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 the OP's opposition research. To google "Nableezy Yoav Sarig" suggests an agenda, to put it mildly, and the description of Nableezy as having "a long feud with the subject" is absurd, as it implies that Nableezy has some real-life conflict with the subject. Is this based on a 2012 post at Wikipedia Review, which is the only thing that comes up when I myself google the suggested phrase? Nableezy's "long block log", which the OP mentions, is indeed quite long, but what goes unmentioned is that is has no entry later than 2011. (And the topic ban mentioned is from 2012.) The "threats" mentioned, on the other hand, are recent and are indeed not phrased in the best way — I agree with BilledMammal there — but neither are they exactly designed to frighten. AE is not a tool for taking out your opponents. My suggestion is a warning to the OP and no action against Nableezy. Thanks to Eggishorn, with whom I largely agree. Bishonen | tålk 20:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Agree with Bishonen and Eggishorn. OP, your argument is substantially weakened by the need to include ten year old off-wiki factoids and silly "hoax" claims. The "threat" claim isn't ideal but isn't blockable in context. If you have further relevant and current material then present it: otherwise I doubt this request will go far. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:39, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Geshem Bracha: and thanks for the ping. Can I recommend to you (and others) this wording from WP:HOUNDING: Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) ... correcting related problems on multiple articles. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, @Geshem Bracha:. The "hounding threat" wording was raised by the OP, and is responded to above. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm also unimpressed, but in this case by the OPs editing history. Apart from the revert-hounding, it's yet another account with a load of gnoming to reach EC status and then straight (the same day, no less) into ARBPIA matters. There's nothing more likely to put me off actually looking at a case than that ... though I did, and I agree with the above admins, especially Bishonen as to the purpose of AE. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 17 October 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 Spartan7W[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Spartan7W (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

Indefinite topic ban from post-1992 American politics (broadly construed)

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

1. 16:11, 19 October 2021 to Rachel Levine. Levine is the the United States assistant secretary for health, a Senate-confirmed seat in the Biden administration.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [24] User is indefinitely partial-blocked from Donald Trump as well.

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

• n/a

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Spartan7W has emerged from relative inactivity to make an edit to the article of a Biden administration official. The edit in question also happens to violate MOS:DEADNAME (and past consensus at the page on the same). I've left them a gender discretionary sanctions notice as well, so they are aware going forward. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [25]

Discussion concerning Spartan7W[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 Spartan7W[edit]

• @GorillaWarfare: I apologize for including the birth name of an individual on their biographical entry on an encyclopedia. In the future, I will be sure to leave out facts, truth, or any other piece of relevant information. Furthermore, I regret that I have chosen to be sparingly active on Wikipedia as an editor; I have never had a periodic inactivity in my time on this website, and I apologize for investing my time in other things. Surely my pursuit of life outside of a website is indicative of my terribly malicious and destructive desires. I graciously thank you for your demagoguery and reminder to me that I should not engage in basic practices of the documentation of factual information. This oversight on my part cannot be fathomed. We ought to celebrate that readers of Wikipedia, many of them U.S. citizens, arriving to the site to find out about a high-level government official, will remain protected from basic information about the backgrounds of those who serve them. I ask for your mercy in whatever penalty is afforded to me. The inclusion of information regarding the background of government officials has no place on a free, open, public encyclopedia. Words cannot capture the guilt I feel for disseminating facts.   Spartan7W §   22:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain to me why making an edit on an article with a piece of factual information, cited, is requisite an indefinite ban?   Spartan7W §   22:56, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (reply to clpo13)Well there is no fair reason for the topic ban, so I addressed the general topic.   Spartan7W §   22:35, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (reply to Deepfriedokra)So replying directly to a ping in the section in which I was pinged is evidence I need a ban?   Spartan7W §   22:53, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (reply to HighInBC)How exactly am I supposed to know what articles I can and cannot edit?   Spartan7W §   23:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  (reply to HighInBC) How am I supposed to know this was done via the honor system? I literally cannot edit the Donald Trump article. I've avoided editing because one of my preferred areas is modern politics. When the ban was issued, it made sense I would actually be banned from editing. Turns out I wasn't. I had no clue this was the honor system. If you look through my edit history, I go through long periods without editing. I also made contributions to aviation articles several months back. If my inactivity is a grounds for being banned, I'm sorry you can't see the world beyond this website.   Spartan7W §   23:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sideswipe9th: I don't see what your political opinions have to do with this discussion? Please leave them out. Thanks.   Spartan7W §   23:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that the software literally prevents me from pressing the edit button on the Donald Trump article, which is the one where your ridiculous ban in question came from, it would be a reasonable expectation of mine to assume that the ban would prevent editing of other politics articles under the same definition.   Spartan7W §   14:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial[edit]

The article already contained Levine was not notable under her prior name, so MOS:DEADNAME recommends excluding her former name, right after the spot Spartan edited. This may be a WP:CIR issue. Newimpartial (talk) 22:42, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th[edit]

Given that in the diff in question, Spartan7W deadnamed a trans woman, is this not also a violation of WP:ARBGSDS? If the resolution is not for a permanent ban, would a TBAN for Gender and Sexuality also be warranted? Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: ah OK. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't overlooked, and wasn't sure of the exact procedure. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Spartan7W[edit]

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

• @Spartan7W: Amazing. All those words and you didn't even get close to addressing the topic ban. clpo13_(talk) 22:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Finding by Deepfriedokra. @Spartan7W: Please move your reply to your own section. Ironically, you have proven the need for the topic ban. At Rachel Levine and in your discourse here. I guess there is a general inability to follow instructions, as you have posted in this section. (sigh). Looks like we need an indefinite block as the user refuses to learn or to abide by their TBAN or follow any rule but their own. They evidently are WP:NOTHERE, choosing to use Wikipedia to fight . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Agree with WP:CIR issues. User does not understand how an article about a member of the current American president's cabinet violates a topic ban on post-1992 American politics. @Spartan7W:, it is not the edit per se, which is bad enough in that it violates MOS:DEADNAME. It is that you violated a topic ban, and give no indication of accepting it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: Yes, but had not been DS alert warned for that before hand. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I concur on the indef block. Clearly, even if we ignore the over the top sarcasm, they've returned only to make a point. It is doubtful if they want to edit in other areas anyway and, in that sense, an indef block is pareto optimal. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear violation. Response gives no indication that they regret the violation and every indication that they do not respect the topic ban. I recommend a minimum of a multi-month block. Given the lack of other contributions I also support the indefinite block suggested by the other admins here. I believe and indefinite block from the project is the best result here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are unable to read "post-1992 American politics (broadly construed)" and not understand that this includes modern American politicians then you are incapable of following the ban, your extended sarcasm makes me think that you do understand and just don't respect the ban. Either way it is a problem. Topic bans are a last resort used instead of removing a user outright, and alternative to taking a user off the project. But it only works if the user understands, accepts and follows the ban. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• You were told about the ban: [26]. The notice clearly said you were banned from the topic. Do you think we employ artificial intelligence that can look at the context of your edits and determine if it meets the criteria for the ban? I am having trouble taking your explanation at face value. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In the topic ban notice from American politics,[27] Spartan7W was informed that they were "indefinitely banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the post-1992 American politics topic area (WP:AP2), broadly construed", and was urged to "please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means". Now they say, above, "How exactly am I supposed to know what articles I can and cannot edit?" and "How am I supposed to know this was done via the honor system? ... I had no clue this was the honor system". I guess they didn't look at the banning policy. This is not somebody else's fault. They violated the topic ban, and their comment on that above, here, is pure trolling. Per general agreement in this discussion, I have blocked them indefinitely for one year as an AE action, followed by an indefinite block as a normal admin action. Bishonen | tålk 06:48, 21 October 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 Hodgdon's secret garden[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sangdeboeuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC) edited 02:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hodgdon's secret garden (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

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

Unnecessarily personalizing debates (including personal attacks) at Talk:Woke:

1. 16:13, 7 September 2021 Orwell ... Whose trenchant observations, under Sangdeboeuf's non-ideal editing regime, would need be discarded in favor of "objective" reportings that, by lucky circumstance, (by way of this inherent & systemic bias in favor of ersatz "progressive" trajectory to history) inherently align with the If-your-not-with-the-struggle,-you're-against-it conceit.
2. 23:16, 13 September 2021 It seems you may be blinded by your own belief system.
3. 20:53, 17 October 2021 Whatever animus generated by your editorial philosophy's against activist activities self-branded/commented on in news reports as "Stay Woke" ...
4. 18:01, 19 October 2021 I'm surprised you hadn't removed it (in that I believe that if those with an editing regime similar to the one applied on this page were editing the Cancel culture page much, it wouldn't be able to be found there).
5. 23:32, 19 October 2021 Whereas I grant that this discussion's voters' ... ad hoc rationales seem arrived at sincerely, I also self-speculate that these same hint at such editors' mistrust that others in general -- if including those not passing some kind of subtle, ideological litmus test -- could "responsibly" handle the ersatz complexity of giving neutral coverage to both left and centrist discourse regarding woke ...

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Firefangledfeathers politely asked HSG on their user talk page to stop accusing people of enforcing some Orwellian "editing regime", but HSG has been unable to let it go. They have kept casting aspersions, accusing others of hidden biases (somehow simultaneously in favor of and against "progressive"/"woke" ideas), ad hoc (read: unprincipled) reasoning, and an "ideological litmus test" when the discussion doesn't go their way. Since HSG "disinvited" me from editing their user talk page, I don't see another option for addressing this kind of disruption but to file an AE request. (See earlier discussion here.) I'm leaving aside for now HSG's apparent inability to write clearly or concisely in discussions (seen above), and their habit of filling talk pages with many quotations from copyrighted sources in lieu of proposals for improvement (example diff).

Informality isn't the problem. The problem is insinuating that other users, including me, are maintaining a non-neutral "editing regime". This is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA (Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, and Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence).

The "Orwell" comments ("The fatal attraction that totalitarian power has for contemporary intellectuals" ...), which I removed, also imply a comparison to Communist dictators, which is specifically forbidden by WP:NPA.

Regarding HSG's being, in their words, "on the spectrum": Wikipedia doesn't discriminate based on intellectual ability, but some ability to read, follow, and respond appropriately to discussions is generally required to contribute effectively. Having a disability doesn't justify personal attacks when one is in the minority in a content dispute, as in the case of #4 and #5 above. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The example diff contains about 720 words quoted from various copyrighted sources, not 150. Since HSG seems to have stopped doing this, it's not my main complaint. But saying there was no non-involved input is untrue. Firefangledfeathers had already asked HSG on 13 September to stop posting so much material to the talk page because of its bludgeon-like effect. I collapsed the discussion after HSG basically admitted that the material had nothing to do with improving the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 00:10, 20 October 2021

Discussion concerning Hodgdon's secret garden[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 Hodgdon's secret garden[edit]

One quick correction to the filing, however: Something I wrote on the article's Talkpage today I believe is mischaracterized. I actually try very hard to consider things with nuance and I certainly didn't intend for my words -- where I said opposing arguments seemed ad hoc to me -- to imply that I believed them to be lacking, bl*ck-and-wh*te, in principles [sic]; rather, what I meant to convey was that something proposed's gets turned down for complaint X yet after that's successfully addressed, previously-unmentioned complaint Y appears. Something of this nature, while improvisational, doesn't imply for me lack of principles so much as admirably searching for an applicable editorial principle bit by bit rather than having a fully-formed one at the ready.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit I've make to the article recently has been quite promptly deleted (eg mention of MLK's "Remaining Awake During a Great Revolution" wasn't courteously tagged as needing more sourcing, as suggested @ the basic wp:Edit pg, but abruptly removed, my talkpage marshalling of sourcing for a period remaining uncommented upon). I apologize for reacting such via my addressing the deleting editor informally with "you" and can see how this might have impeded reaching possible compromises.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. In the complainant's linked edit, I'd quoted merely about 150 words from Zak Cheney-Rice; yet, the complainant uses this same as an impetus to template my talk page within an attempt to impose the complainant's own, unreasonable restriction on copyrighted material on the talk page on me: a move I perceived as gaslighting me by overshadowing the complainant's refusal to respond to the documentation by improperly alleging it should not be posted; and, thereafter, rather than explaining his disagreement with the material, the complainant collapsed the entire discussion and informed me on my talk page, as though the complainant were an uninvolved party, not to engage in allegedly off-topic discussions on the article's talk page. In an effort to forestall continued inappropriate editing of my talk page in this manner (by means of the complainant's failure to obtain non-involved input and perhaps oversight regarding our respective editing POVs), I requested of the complainant to forego further such editing of my talk page.

1. In the edit that complainant links, the extensive content removed regarding activists' and Twitter's use of the hashtag #StayWoke to publicize their activism (and, in the case of Twitter, of Twitter). I supply amply documentation that these activists used the hashtag in this manner and that the individuals and events involved are prominent (the primary party, the memoirist DeRay Mckesson's, even instructing upon the topic of racial-equality social activism at the U. of Chicago's Institute of Politics; and, the second and third sentences in one source I provided [28] reads, "Woke[ ]gained more popularity amongst non-Black people following the increased visibility[ ]after the Ferguson protests when DeRay McKesson–who often included a 'stay woke' within his tweets–launched a platform literally called Stay Woke").

1. As another very recent example (one of truly many), the complainant deleted a mass of longstanding content covering woke's influence in the UK, France, and elsewhere in Europe, falsely alleging - albeit in pithy fashion - on the article's talk page that the conception that the term woke's has such geographical reach is POV. Although I very often fail, I sincerely try to be clear in what I write. (Note: I believe I'm undiagnosed "on the spectrum.") By cause of such an intellectual handicap, I find others' applications of editing philosophies confusing and am too quick to see them as mercurial.
   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers re HSG[edit]

I'll be able to elaborate more another day, but I want to say now that I corroborate the main points of Sangdeboeuf's report. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's emblematic of the problem that HSG just blew through the 500-word limit. His comments at Talk:Woke have length, copyright, clarity, and civility problems. Sangdebouef has linked some examples of incivility.

For length and copyright, consider this archived section from April. No one else but HSG ever edited the section, but it added about 23,000 bytes and 3,000 words to the talk page. Most of it is quotes from sources, some copyrighted. Particularly egregious is this edit, in which he adds a 700+ word quote from a 2012 book. The word 'woke' is not mentioned anywhere in the section.

HSG claims in his statement that he sincerely tries to be clear. I have no reason not to believe him. That said, some of his comments are needlessly unclear. I might be 60% of the way toward understanding this comment after multiple re-readings. This comment begins with:

Awaiting glosses for a neologism from ostensibly-neutral corporate media/the academy/writers of texts saves from the definitional free-for-all proffered among the commentariat (to wit: professionals' descriptions through multifarious journalistic/academic/political/et al lenses, of the mass ventings of/listening to voices of subjugation currently amplified through ubiquitous, interactive media; and of the distinct-yet-amorphous spirit comprising these voices' genesis (such that individual approaches to definition/applications/when-acceptable-ends-met ad infinitum can end up mutually contradictory

It continues for 300 words. All this after a third opinion from Seraphimblade beginning with "It is difficult to understand what is being proposed. An effort to state it more plainly and comprehensibly might be very helpful toward resolution here."

Requests to change this behavior have not been successful. My ideal remedy here would be a temporary or indefinite page ban from Woke and Talk:Woke. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate[edit]

Although not a new editor, I was unfamiliar with them (as far as I know the editor has edited in the past with a previous long-abandoned account and some IP addresses and I don't think they were banned, the current account is ~11 years old). I looked at two recent talk pages, Talk:Woke and its latest archive, Talk:Woke/Archive 5. I am somewhat surprised for this apparently experienced editor to regularly ascribe policies to the opinions of particular editors. NorthBySouthBaranof and Sangdeboeuf have to explain the basis of the policy about independent reliable sources and original research to aspersions like:

• It's quite natural for any of us editors trying to operate mostly from a secular standpoint (eg of the Academy) to undervalue certain works published within whatever devotional framework
• I'm stunned about the sensitivity to insult here. Being able to use the term "Woke" both admiringly and not-admiringly is ESSENTIAL, both at large and within Wikipedia. It's established that the grassroots movement within Western intelligentsia ...
• This 'Wikipedia as Wiktionary-lite' ploy works great
• So since some crew think some /X/ is important so assert /Y/ and so my observation /Z/ must be thrown out? Of course, you are free to believe what but I won't be thus gaslighted.

I note that the effort on Woke has been going on for months, it seems (and all other talk archives have requests). I think that there's also some good faith and effort involved, but a failure to acknowledge when the number of requests or attempts to twist sources and arguments with synthesis to present a particular point of view becomes unreasonable. This may be when impatience shows with statements that question the motives of other editors, rather than moving-on... —PaleoNeonate – 19:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 力[edit]

My sense is that HSG is trying to be helpful at Woke, but has lost the plot in continually suggesting that every mention of the term be added to the article, and now the content disputes have turned into personalized disputes. I endorse Bishonen's page ban. I'm not familiar with this editor otherwise (and most of their edits in the past 6 months are at Woke or Talk:Woke), I don't see cause for a full AP2 block here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Hodgdon's secret garden[edit]

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

• This is sort of alarming. I don't know if HSG needs a topic ban from American politics or not; I don't have time to research that issue in any depth; but I have taken the time to study Talk:Woke and the history of Woke, with special attention to the examples offered here by Sangdeboeuf and Firefangledfeathers, and, as simple first aid, I have blocked HSG indefinitely from those two pages. Perhaps they can be unblocked pretty soon if they make some undertakings to not waste so much of other people's time. Bishonen | tålk 13:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• My previous (and I think only) involvement with HSG was an equivalent waste of many editor's time trying to get Tara Reade into mainspace - see Draft:Tara Reade, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tara Reade and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2020_May_19#Tara_Reade. The issues here seem quite similar, behaviourally. Black Kite (talk) 14:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Topic ban, Amercan politics, indefinite HSG seems able to contribute constructively in other areas of the encyclopedia. Noting (perhaps a little pedantically, cause I keep writing this) there are ~6,000,000 articles on Wikipedia that would benefit from the amount of effort wasted in this area because of this editor. It couldn't be any fun. This is certainly not an easy area to edit in-- except for creating a few state legislature bio's ages ago, I avoid it. Life's too short to find oneself in conflict editing what is supposed to be a collaborative work. If it ain't fun, don't do it. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting power~enwiki's apt statement. However, I do not see the page ban as sufficient. (I keep thinking they are an admin.) And I think Dennis Brown's hit the nail squarely. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• To put it blunty, HSG lacks the competence to edit in this contentious area and should be indef topic banned from AP2 areas. Reading the talk page of Woke is enough to demonstrate this. I would expect this would be true for any contentious topic, but AP2 is what is before us. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Dennis here. A topic ban makes sense --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:19, 22 October 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 Amanda A. Brant[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Amanda A. Brant (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/Gender and sexuality

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

1. 15/10/2021 This talk-page edit demonstrates bias against ostensible ideological opponents, and against the subject of the BLP ("an exceedingly obscure philosopher")
2. 15/10/2021 This talk-page contribution attempts to claim authority for her perspective over other perspectives, a stance that then strongly colours her article edits as well (see below)
3. 16/10/2021 This talk-page contribution demonstrates the editor's penchant for imposing her own ideological views into the discussion: when asked (in connection with a previous post) "where did it declare itself a TERF group", the editor responds with her own deductions and analysis and attempts to delegitemise views and groups she evidently despises.
4. 15/10/2021 This article edit removes material supported by a conventional RS source, on the basis of original research and WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
5. 13/10/2021 Edit that seems intended to get "transphobic fear mongering" into the article lead, highlighting a tendentious description.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The diffs above are a selection from a much broader range of talk-page contributions that demonstrate animus against the BLP subject and article edits that seem intended to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, at the expense of balance and encyclopedic tone. Given the toxicity of current discourse and the harassment experienced by the BLP subject (the police have advised her to install cctv at her home: [29]), we need a much more careful approach to contributions/editing on this particular article. In my view a logged warning is in order.

I'm surprised to see certain comments in the "Result" section. They strike me as cavalier in regard to BLP. Yes, talk-page discussions can sometimes show contention, especially about controversial people. But in the end we're meant to insist on getting BLPs right. The diffs (especially those added by Crossroads) indicate that Amanda A. Brant is not doing that, and the talk-page comments show that her ideological commitments are the reason she is not doing that. (Crossroads has done a much better job than I did in presenting diffs that indicate the broad range of contributions demonstrating that point.) Some of those talk-page comments show that the editor thinks the BLP subject is truly despicable, and it then seems that it doesn't matter if the article isn't entirely accurate: if the sources don't support the idea that she isn't quite as bad as that, well who really cares because after all she's really bad. I brought this enforcement request in an effort to get a BLP done right, and from concern that the editor doesn't understand the requirements and/or isn't motivated to adhere to them. I'm genuinely surprised that the request isn't more persuasive in those terms; maybe I've simply done it poorly. @Bishonen: @HighInBC: Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[30]

Discussion concerning Amanda A. Brant[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 Amanda A. Brant[edit]

Statement by Sideswipe9th[edit]

With respect to diffs 4 and 5, I believe they are an accurate representation of the sources used. The lead has been subject to much discussion over the last few days. Diffs 1-3 represent a difference of opinion between Nomoskedasticity and Amanda A. Brant, especially when it comes to choice of language but that is not unusual in this topic area.

I would like to point out that Nomoskedasticity seems to have taken umbrage with Amanda in this reply over choice of language, and is currently being antagonistic against Newimpartial both over in this discussion and on Nomoskedasticity's talk page where they seem to be trying to bait an ANI report against them.

Although I'm a relatively new editor, having reviewed the Gender and Sexuality remedy, I can't immediately see any behaviour from Amanda that strikes me as a breach. I would not recommend any action be taken against Amanda.

I agree with the comments made by Newimpartial, PaleoNeonate, XOR'easter, GoodDay, Firefangledfeathers, and RolandR. I also like the suggestion from HighInBC about a 1RR restriction.

SMcCandlish I have to disagree with you here. There is definitely TERF-advocacy in this content area.

Crossroads I don't have enough words left to do a full deconstruction of the diffs you provided, though overall I'd describe these as editorial disagreements and not WP:TE. WRT death threats, I disputed that claim here, and almost a week later there is still no confirmation as to the truth of it. WRT one sided summary in the lead, both of those are a fair representation of what the source said, and prior to the recent protest is what Stock was most notable for. I don't think any of this meeds the criteria for WP:TE, and if it does then a few more editors need requests opened about them.

Tewdar the open letter describes Stock as a prominent critic of trans-inclusive stances and policies. That is by definition transphobic, in the same way that being critical of homosexual-inclusive or race inclusive stances and policies would be homophobic or racist respectively. There are multiple ways to describe a concept without explicitly saying the obvious word. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads that is one form of TERF-advocacy but it is not the only form. Another is minimising sources critical of transphobic people [31], objecting to properly attributed words used by sources to describe the individual [32], or objecting to a source critical of a BLP because it was published in SAGE Open despite that being a reliable source. [33]

Tewdar that was in response to an email I sent Newimpartial because of concerns I had about contributions of another editor in this area possibly being disruptive. I'm relatively new here and wasn't sure how to go about addressing those concerns. Reading policy can only get you so far, and I felt that asking another editor familiar with the process directly would help. I didn't want to ask it publicly because I did not want to start or encourage a witch hunt against that user. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC), edited for clarity Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate[edit]

I look at the diffs but don't interpret them the way they are presented. For instance a removal claimed to be for IDONTLIKEIT reasons was only an editorial. Another argument above is that people or groups should be described as what they claim (outside of gender or religious affiliation), when WP relies on descriptions by reliable independent sources... —PaleoNeonate – 21:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XOR'easter[edit]

To echo PaleoNeonate's comment above, I find the diffs presented to be much less problematic than they were made out to be. Describing a philosopher as "exceedingly obscure" based on their citation count is no worse than what we do at the Academics and educators AfD's every day, for example. One might dispute the evaluation, but it's a fair position to hold. Diffs 2 and 3 are sensible objections to splitting terminological hairs. Likewise, the edit to the lede seems broadly in compliance with MOS:LEDE, giving key points from the text that follows. Doubtlessly it could have been written in a different way, but it's not beyond the pale by any means. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Crossroads[edit]

The edits above, and on the page in general, show a clear pattern of WP:Tendentious editing, WP:SOAPBOXing about the topic, and editing based on her own opinions; and I will present more diffs a little later today. For the record, this removal was not just an editorial; it also removed a letter from trans people who had supported Stock and which had been discussed in a normal article in that newspaper. It has since been restored with a reference to another newspaper that mentioned it. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more diffs documenting this editor's problems with this article. Note that the editor has received the BLP DS notice as well. These are all at the same article in just the past few days.

Article:

• [34] Puts "transphobic fear mongering" description in lead
• [35] Uses wikilink to claim BLP supports the anti-gender movement, a false/OR claim not found in any of the sources
• [36][37] Adds and re-adds statement from labor union about "transphobia" to lead - clearly tendentious cherry-picking
• [38][39] Twice falsifies words of another BLP - claiming she called "criticism" disgraceful even though the source said "attacks"
• [40] Tendentiously removes RS info about the death threats Stock faced
• [41] Without consensus, re-inserts biased text in lead that is a one-sided summary of the article (this diff was mentioned by OP); later re-inserts a shortened version, again without consensus
• [42] Tendentiously rewrites RS material to not mention number or status of signatories
• [43] Waters down source based on own opinion

Talk page:

• [44] BLP violation, asserts she (Stock) is "primarily known for anti-trans activism", without sources
• [45] WP:ASPERSIONS on another editor ("many others") and attempts to discredit that editor
• [46][47] Repeatedly and baselessly says Stock is an activist in the anti-gender movement, a claim not found in any RS
• [48] Calls another BLP, trans woman Debbie Hayton, a "fringe figure" and "the world's only trans anti-trans activist", a clear BLP violation. Hayton also was definitely not the only trans person to support Stock, so that's a falsehood.
• [49][50] Tendentiously and baselessly asserts that British mainstream media, generally reliable by Wikipedia consensus, are equivalent to the press in Orban's Hungary; also asserts reports in The Times are from an "anti-LGBT newspaper"

All the OP was asking for was a logged warning. Based on how much disruption there has been in such a short time, I'd be more inclined to favor a topic ban from Kathleen Stock, or from BLPs involved in transgender-related controversies. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC) added talk page diffs Crossroads ^-talk- 05:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm aware that people will try to nitpick some of the diffs shown. However, the point is to show a pattern, which is what WP:Tendentious editing is. And quite a few diffs can't be explained away. BLP does apply even when some editors don't like the person, and it is strict and applies to talk pages. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding claims that there is "TERF-advocacy" going in this area, if that were so, then we would be seeing editors clamoring to add labels of praise to the lead of Stock's bio, disparaging her critics personally, claiming that the mainstream media were "anti-woman" (as they'd put it) for being insufficiently deferential to their POV, and advocating for the superiority of their equivalent of PinkNews. None of that is happening. Resisting POV pushing is not pushing an opposite POV. It is the duty of every editor. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial[edit]

I agree with the Admin suggestion that 1RR on Kathleen Stock would be more appropriate than any sanctions directed at Amanda A. Brant. Newimpartial (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish If you don't recognize what you call TERF-advocacy editing on this and other related articles, that isn't because it isn't happening. It is. Your conclusions become less plausible, if you misunderstand both the actors and the subject matter itself. For example, the Kathleen Stock article currently refers largely to The Times and The Telegraph who are sympathetic to the subject's POV, rather than adhering to more critical sources. Newimpartial (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what neutral editors, SMcCandlish? You are not a "neutral editor" on this topic; neither is Crossroads and neither is Nomoskedasticity. If any of you sees yourself as a neutral editor, and does not recognize the biases involved, e.g., in your own choices of language - as is clearly demonstrated in Nomo's and Crosroads's interpretation of the diffs they present, and in your accusations of transactivism, which you don't even seem to recognize as a value-laden LABEL wielded by the "gender critical" side of the controversy - then that misconception that you are editing "neutrally", when you are in fact taking a side, is a huge part of the problems in "gender and sexuality" discussions on WP. That is, if you can't see your own positioning objectively, you are part of the problem.

Before anyone says anything unnecessary, I recognize my own positioning: I represent the mainstream Canadian view on these issues, which is why I frequently cite Statistics Canada or the CBC when I want to document a typical practice. Newimpartial (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads let's not CRYBLP, shall we? You describe your first Talk page bullet as a BLP violation, but what you quote the editor as saying, that Stock is "primarily known for anti-trans activism", is quite similar to the statement in the letter signed by many of the UK's philosophers. Agreeing - on a Talk page - with a public statement by hundreds of the UK's practicing philosophers is unlikely to be a "BLP violation". And as far as your next bullet on ASPERSIONS goes, the pot really ought not be calling the kettle. Your final point, about baseless criticism of The Times and The Telegraph, ignores all the evidence presented on the Kathleen Stock talk page about both factual and editorial concerns with The Times and The Telegraph. Newimpartial (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, BLP in general applies to Talk pages, but the BLP sourcing requirements do not apply to Talk pages, nor does MOS:LABEL. Newimpartial (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this area, TERF advocacy consists largely in pushing the language preferred by Stock and her allies over the language used by her critics. This is what The Times and The Telegraph are doing, and this is what several editors to Kathleen Stock have been doing, present company included. Newimpartial (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tewdar: since you have cited a comment I made at my Talk page, I should clarify that I was not talking about editors who disagree but rather editors who are disruptive. And while I personally have never succeeded in having a disruptive editor topic-banned, I have witnessed some disruptive editors remove themselves from WP through their own actions. Newimpartial (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish[edit]

Generally concur with Crossroads, other than diffs 4 and 5 might not be so problematic. This editor is clearly failing WP:NOT#ADVOCACY and WP:NPOV policies.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC The nature of the problem at this and several other articles is that they are subject to waves of PoV-laden "trans-activism" editing, but very rarely any "TERF-advocacy" PoV from the other direction. Rather, neutrality-minded editors are stuck in the middle trying to produce proper encyclopedia material and taking it from both sides in theory, but pretty much only trans activism in practice. This is not a typical "one side wants X and the other side wants Y" situation, but "Wikipedia needs X, but one organized faction with off-site concerns to advance wants Y, while a less-organized faction with opposite off-site views to push here wants Z". No blanket 1RR should be put into place if it hampers the ability to get at and maintain a neutral X text. At any article like this presently dominated by one viewpoint, a 1RR just produces a WP:TAGTEAM that can always WP:WIN through attrition.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC, I generally have a very dim view of "consensus required" page-sanctions, since they're a prior restraint that directly conflict with WP:EDITING policy (no one needs to gain permission before editing here). However, things are consistently bad enough across this entire topic area that I'm willing to see an experiment in "consensus required" if we're really certain that the benefits have been better than the costs in topics like modern American politics. If Sideswipe9th and Newimpartial (deep in one side of this socio-political debate) were actually correct that there's a bunch of pro-TERF activism on Wikipedia, there would be a thick sheaf of evidence for it, but there is not. (Rather, trans-activists misidentify any push-back against their agenda, from neutral editors, as pro-TERF activism; we've been over this many times before, including at RFARB.) However, even if they were right, it would simply lend further strength to my concerns. Presently, we have neutral-minded editors having to fight a near-constant fire all coming from a single direction. If it actually starts coming from both polar opposites on this debate, then the topic area is going to be even more of a scorched-earth wreck than it already is and has been for several years now.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay[edit]

Looks more like a content dispute, rather then an editorial behaviour problem. Recommend not enforcing. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be careful, on how this case is handled, as it may create precedent for any future WP:AE reports, around this general topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers[edit]

I haven't reviewed all of Crossroads' diffs, but many seem like edits they don't like with the word "tendentious" tacked on. Taking the first diff as an example: the edit didn't just pull "transphobic fear mongering" out of nowhere. It's a direct quote from an open letter signed by about 600 philosophers. It's fair to debate whether that belongs in the lead; taking either position in that content dispute is not sanction-worthy. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:31, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution by Tewdar[edit]

This diff added a claim that "Stock received broad media attention in January 2021 when she was criticised for transphobia in a letter signed by 600 philosophers and other academics, who objected to her receiving an OBE." - as far as I can tell from both the open letter and the PinkNews article, the claim that "she was criticised for transphobia" is not supported by either source, unless I am missing something here. Perhaps we should all take more care to report what the cited sources actually say, especially since so many editors in this topic area usually pay so much attention to small details such as this. Tewdar (talk) 12:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• RolandR - neither Stock nor her work nor her views, are explicitly described as "transphobic fearmongering" in that letter as far as I can see. If it is essential to describe her as "transphobic" in the lede, perhaps a different source can be found, but I don't see how you can use the existing one without a substantial pinch o' SYNTH. Tewdar (talk) 12:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm sure that a Disagreement of Philosophers are quite capable of formulating an explicit statement like "Kathleen Stock/'s work/'s views are transphobic". So why didn't they? Even PinkNews don't claim the letter says this, so why should Wikipedia? Tewdar (talk) 13:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bishonen: - this topic area is utterly toxic - contributing editors get taken to AN/I or AE for the most trivial disagreements or supposed infractions. Every week or so, an editor on one side or the other comes up with some pathetic complaint for ANI/E, followed by a chorus of meatpuppets cheering on their comrade, in a pathetic attempt to defeat the other team. I suggest that every editor who ever edited in this topic area should be permanently TBANed, including myself. Tewdar (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @RolandR: Like I said, why didn't PinkNews (which is the cited source, not the letter itself) say that the letter criticised her for "transphobia"? They do not say this. Why? Because the letter does not explicitly state this, probably. Is "trans-exclusionary" the same as transphobic? Perhaps. But why don't the authors say "transphobic" if that's what they mean? Feel free to revert my edits to the article and discuss further on the relevant talk page if you really think "transphobic" is appropriate here. Tewdar (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If only there was a policy-compliant way to remove editors who disagree with us from a subject matter area, eh? Why, then Wikipedia would be such a better place... Tewdar (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution by RolandR[edit]

Oh come on, Tewdar! The open letter from hundreds of philosophers is actually headed "Philosophy Transphobia Letter". They write "Stock is best-known in recent years for her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse on sex and gender, especially for opposition to [amendments to*] the UK Gender Recognition Act and the importance of self-identification to establish gender identity, and for advocating that trans women should be excluded from places like women’s locker rooms or shelters", and later "our concern is that some — apparently including the British government — have a tendency to mistake transphobic fearmongering for valuable scholarship". This is quite clearly describing Stock's arguments as "transphobic fearmongering". RolandR (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tewdar, the letter explicitly discusses and criticises Stock's views and writings. It explicitly refers to "her trans-exclusionary public and academic discourse". It concludes by making an explicit distinction between "transphobic fearmongering" and "valuable scholarship". No other academic is mentioned by name or referred to indirectly in the letter. It is by no means SYNTH to state that this is a criticism of Stock for transphobia. RolandR (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

I will point out that SMcCandlish's statement that the nature of the problem at this and several other articles is that they are subject to waves of PoV-laden "trans-activism" editing, but very rarely any "TERF-advocacy" PoV from the other direction, in addition to being patently and shockingly inaccurate (as, I think, any uninvolved editor can tell just by looking at the intensity, tone, and nature of the disputes at hand), shows an obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to the topic area. The core issue here is that the underlying real-world disputes are so acrimonious and fundamental, without even the slender middle ground we have for most other political topics - they split drastically in terms of what qualifies as appropriate language, what sources ought to be trusted, how much weight to give different sides of an extremely complex controversy, often with virtually no overlap at all. As a result, many of the more stridently opinionated editors on the topic are unable to see past their own views to the point where any edits by people who disagree with them seem tendentious (or "TERFs" or "trans-activists" or some other snarlword) simply by virtue of using language or assuming basic points that they consider categorically invalid. The resulting deep-set battleground mindset is not something that is going to be resolved by calling individual editors out at AE, especially since people with such strident opinions on the topic are (as we see here) really really bad at accurately identifying bad-faith editing.

These sorts of things are only likely to be resolved either a willingness to broadly assume good faith for everyone in the topic area, or, more likely, by a more comprehensive ArbCom case to examine the long-term behavior of everyone involved. If multiple editors believe that the entire topic area is swarming with one-sided POV-pushing, and are consistently editing from that perspective, then reaching compromises on even simple content disputes like these is going to be very difficult. We need a venue where anyone who thinks that can either make their case once and for all or be forced to drop it (or leave the topic area themselves, if they seem unable to). In my view, though, these constant vague and sweeping accusations of bad faith, more than anything else, are what makes this particular topic area so wrought, since it not only disrupts the consensus-building process but encourages others who see it to take the same strident battleground stance in a way that makes collaborative editing extremely difficult. --Aquillion (talk) 05:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Amanda A. Brant[edit]

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

• This seems to be a topic where the sources themselves are highly divided on opinion. This also appears to be a content dispute about which sources should have how much representation. I am open to more evidence but I am currently leaning towards this being a normal editorial process and not a violation of discretionary sanctions. I do however think the article may benefit from a 1RR restriction to reduce attempts to implement consensus prematurely. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding concerns that a 1RR restriction may result in tag teaming overriding consensus we could also add the "Consensus required" restriction more often used in American Politics. "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit." along with 1RR.

This can really slow down creation of an article, but can be helpful in developed articles where most major changes are controversial. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:24, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This case is starting to become stale. Unless another further evidence is presented, or another admin weighs in with an alterative opinion, I am going to close this tomorrow as no violation. I will also place editing restrictions on the article in question. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm miles from being an expert in this area, but unless there are subtexts which I'm missing from my ignorance, I'm surprised Nomoskedasticity and Crossroads offer those talkpage diffs as 'violating the sanction or remedy'. They look like normal discussion of a contentious subject to me, and the article diffs look like pretty normal editing on an article where there's much disagreement. If we sanctioned for the occasional sharpness of tone or controversial comparison[51] on talkpages, not many editors would be left standing in the field of American politics, for example. Robust discussion is the norm on Wikipedia, and it seems pretty common on the topic of gender and sexuality also. I'm against a warning, too. Bishonen | tålk 14:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Concur with 1RR As my colleague notes, 1RR and the requirement for consensus before reinstating a reverted edit, while slowing things down, also encourages consensus building via discussion. This is not a subject where "be bold" is always the best course of action. The goal is to build an encyclopedia, and the method used when there is disagreement about how to do so is discussion. I will also note that might first impulse was to impose sanctions that would have been much less to the liking of the disputants. HnBC's remedy is a good first intervention-- a better first intervention. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:56, 23 October 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 Nableezy[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4

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

1. 24 October 2021 Insinuation of sockpuppetry
2. 24 October 2021 Rejection of declining to make such insinuations in the futur
3. 12 May 2021 Insinuation of sockpuppetry, objected to as an accusation by User:NonReproBlue
4. 4 January 2019 Insinuation of sockpuppetry, objected to as WP:ASPERSIONS by User:The Kingfisher

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 12 October 2021 Cautioned to keep to promise to moderate tone
2. 19 March 2021 Warned to "significantly" moderate their tone.

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

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 22 March 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe this is the appropriate location for this, being personal attacks in the ARBPIA area, as well as the fact that the nature and timing of the discussion is likely to dissolve into a mess at ANI, but apologies if I am incorrect.

Nableezy is a prolific sockpuppet hunter, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is something wrong with how they do it. Rather than carefully gathering evidence to present at SPI, their initial steps are to throw out accusations or pointed insinuations, contributing to an WP:UNCIVIL environment in an already contentious area.

I won't cover them throwing out accusations, as that has been recently discussed in the ZScarpia Case, but I will cover their insinuations. In particular, this was prompted by their recent post on my talk page of Have you used any other account on Wikipedia? - diff #1.

This is a very pointed question, particularly if one is even vaguely aware of their history, one that there will only ever be one answer to, and one that casts aspersions on the editor it is aimed at, particularly as it is presented without evidence. This interpretation is not a fringe one; many editors consider it an accusation and violation of WP:ASPERSIONS, with diff #3 and diff #4 serving as examples of this.

Attempts to voluntarily correct this behaviour has failed; in diff #2 they show that they consider there to be nothing wrong with their approach and if it is appropriate to request remedies I would ask that when it comes to directly or indirectly accusing editors of sockpuppetry in the ARBPIA area that Nableezy is required to do so only at SPI.

User:Seraphimblade it is insinuations of sockpuppetry in the area covered by ARBPIA; this isn't explicitly stated, but it is clear from context, particularly this post made immediately afterwards. If this connection is too tenuous, or if AE requires the issues in question to not be in user space then I apologize; please don't hesitate to close. BilledMammal (talk) 10:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a strong consensus that I am wrong and the question did not cast WP:ASPERSIONS, and that it is not especially related to ARBPIA. User:Euryalus, I don't know how to withdraw this but if I am allowed to please consider this withdrawn. User:Nableezy, apologies for taking you here, though I would ask that you consider how you might rephrase the question in the future so that the editors it is addressed to take less issue with it. BilledMammal (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[52]

Discussion concerning Nableezy[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 Nableezy[edit]

There is in fact more than one answer to the question, a question I think reasonable when this is somebody's first edit. Among the possible answers is yes I used to edit under account X, or I used to edit as an IP and became familiar with the processes and templates, or "no". Asking somebody, one time, a question that allows them to give a reasonable explanation so that I might stop spending my time on something that has some other reasonable explanation is not an "aspersion", it is not an "accusation", and it is not prohibited by any rule or policy. Also not entirely sure how a user with 2436 edits knows so much about my history with socks, but I suppose that is another curiosity I can spend time trying to figure out. nableezy - 13:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shrike[edit]

@Seraphimblade: Because all those users are operate mainly in the area and all the aspirations were made regarding the edits in the area --Shrike (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier[edit]

It all started at Talk:Wehda Street airstrikes/Archives/2021/December#Recent reverts and then "spread" to Talk:2006 Qana airstrike#NPOV and massacre as well as one or two other articles and is essentially an arcane discussion about whether article altnames (massacres in these cases) should be categorized in addition to main article titles. Then one thing has led to another but this issue shouldn't be here at all, really.Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

Asking a question is not casting aspersions. That's just silly. In fact, WP:Sockpuppetry/Notes for the accuser recommends it: "Keep in mind that users may sometimes make mistakes, so in cases where an alternate account is largely used for legitimate activities, it may be appropriate to ask the user before making accusations." Zero^talk 12:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay[edit]

If one believes that an editor is a sock of another editor. Then he/she should open up an SPI. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

Waitaminute, does anyone here sincerely believe that this BilledMammal (do platypus quack?) is not a sock? Volunteer Marek 18:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Nableezy[edit]

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

• It looks like these conversations were on user talk pages, and I do not see that any of the comments mentioned anything regarding the ARBPIA2 area. Could BilledMammal, or anyone, explain how this is in scope for an arbitration case covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I am finding the presented evidence lacking in that it does not a) show significantly disruptive behavior and b) does not establish how it falls under the scope of the listed arbitration sanction. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:13, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to User:Johnuniq, I am agreeing that an examination of BilledMammal's use of AE is relevant and more likely to yield an actionable outcome that the case as presented. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the filer's desire to withdraw the case I suggest we close this as withdrawn. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The history of User talk:BilledMammal shows that Nableezy has made four edits to that page, each dated 24 October 2021 and each reasonably expressed and policy-compliant. It is time for a more robust pushback against the use of this page to knock-out opponents. It appears the issue concerns 2006 Qana airstrike and whether it was a "massacre". If an editor wants to say that an airstrike which killed 28 civilians was not a massacre, they need to be prepared to give a straightforward answer if asked whether they have edited with a previous account. There may be no logical connection between that article and the question, but give an answer even if it's to remove the question, and move on. Johnuniq (talk) 10:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• What Johnuniq said. The comments you raise as evidence are policy-compliant. They are also not especially related to ARBPIA. If you don't have any AE-relevant material to present, suggest you withdraw your complaint. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:43, 24 October 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 Dhawangupta[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

• 23:32, 6 July 2020 They were provided with a final warning for assuming bad faith, advocacy of poor sourcing and tendentious editing at Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 15#Suggestion to Shed Biases. Their conduct since then seems to have barely changed. They are an occasional editor (50 edits since 11 Februrary 2021) and the following diffs are that of the most recent example of similar conduct.

1. 23:07, 17 October 2021 They state that "[t]hose who are attempting to show it as historical fact are clearly engaging in WP:DE" at Talk:Breast Tax in response to a comment providing sources (Special:Diff/1050103405), note the first one of the two is from a peer reviewed journal.
2. 21:00, 18 October 2021 Claims there is a consensus for calling Breast Tax a hoax by linking to Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?, a discussion about whether to include Breast Tax as a cause for the revolt or not. This gets rejected on 21:06, 18 October 2021 by an uninvolved sysop for their demand of changes to the article.
3. 19:46, 19 October 2021 Repeats the above by linking Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax? to state that "[i]t has been agreed by most of the editors", in addition naming 2 uninvolved editors from there while claiming to have support from them. Also canvasses 3 different editors to the page in the same comment. The comment overall is in support of a twitter post and two newspaper editorials (Special:Diff/1050656985) and is in response to being provided with two more peer reviewed scholarly publications (Special:Diff/1050508080) which they claim are "shoddy sources", rejecting them with statements like "[i]t simply does not become true even if "multiple sources are available" to claim that Earth is square."

• On a sidenote, nothing against those who were canvassed. I know a couple of them, they are constructive editors from what I've seen but that doesn't excuse Dhawangupta's canvassing itself.

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

They are certainly not the only editor with similar conduct at Talk:Breast Tax (the entire talk page is filled with persistent demands to declare it a hoax) but this seems to be a long established pattern with them. The date and time in the above diffs are in IST. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, this is about conduct, even if we disregard the sourcing issue (although I'd argue calling every source which includes books published by peer reviewed academic presses but contradicts their stance to be "shoddy sources" is tendentious conduct), there is still accusation of disruptive editing without any evidence against those they disagree with, persistent misrepresention of a discussion on another talk page as a consensus for their desired changes (they are still doing it over here) and canvassing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 23:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1050762121

Discussion concerning Dhawangupta[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 Dhawangupta[edit]

These edits of mine are just supporting facts held by nearly a dozen editors like Sitush, Winged Blades of Godric, Azuredivay, and others as per Talk:Channar revolt#Scholarly sources for tax?, Talk:Breast tax#Deleting article, Talk:Breast tax#Redirect. While OP is standing with only 2 other editors in supporting blatant revisionism by presenting a folk story as history. Dhawangupta (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Dhawangupta[edit]

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

• This looks to me to be a content dispute; Dhawangupta is not the only editor who has questioned the reliability of the sources in this area. If specific sources are in question it might help to ask for an evaluation at the reliable sources noticeboard. If more generally over what the article should say, a request for comment may be helpful. Ultimately, it is not up to AE to determine whether sources are reliable or not, nor what articles should or should not contain. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not seeing further appetite to take any action here, so unless any other uninvolved admins have weighed in by tomorrow or so, I will close this as content dispute/no action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]