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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

ScrupulousScribe (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:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019

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

1. 21 January 2021 Immediately after the ban, considering appeal because others are apparently gaming the system, user talk page will show several warnings that they should move on afterward
2. 22 January 2021 Participating to an ANI thread related to the topic they are banned from
3. Special:Permalink/1002154515 Another article creation that appears to violate the above topic ban.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 20 January 2021 COVID-19 subtopic ban (lab leak claims and conspiracy theories)

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:

  5 January 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I suggest that the topic ban was too narrow, but that despite that, the editor is playing with its scope and testing its limits, possibly voluntarily as a time sink.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1002173933

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.

Setting aside the substance of this request for the moment, my impression is that procedurally the request is filed in the wrong venue. The topic ban has been imposed pursuant to General Sanctions rather than to any Arbitration case. As such, I believe the proper enforcement venue for violations of this topic ban is WP:AN. In principle, COVID-19 related discretionary sanctions and topic bans can also be imposed under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. However, it appears that ScrupulousScribe never received a user talk page notification about WP:ACDS in that case, and until such notification happens, the Pseudoscience AE discretionary sanctions can't be considered here. On the substance, I think that the first diff[1] is still covered by the WP:BANEX exemption, as a discussion (albeit rather lengthy) of the topic ban itself. The third diff[2] does not appear to violate the topic ban, which was specifically limited to the Covid-19 lab leak theory and the Wuhan Institute of Virology. However, the second diff[3] does appear to be a topic ban violation as the ANI discussion in question specifically concerns the Covid-19 lab leak theory. Nsk92 (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong venue, and a bit premature. The t-ban was specific in that it was a Community t-ban that is restricted to Covid-19 lab leak theory, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and anyone directly associated with the Institute, so this is not only the wrong venue, there is some ambiguity that needs to be sorted out. Boing! said Zebedee, who is feeling under the weather right now, has already responded to the concern and asked for patience until he can thoroughly investigate the issue. My intention is not to condone or pass any judgment on ScrupulousScribe, a shiney new editor with a lot to learn; rather, my intention is to allow Boing some time to investigate and clear-up any ambiguity that may have created a cloud over the way forward. Having said that, I do hope ScrupulousScribe will voluntarily remove himself from editing anything related to the COVID investigation, or risk being subjected to a wider ranging t-ban that is "broadly construed". Atsme 💬 📧 09:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I placed the topic ban under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019. It was not placed under any sanction enacted by the Arbitration Committee, and so this venue is not applicable. If someone wishes to request a topic ban under any applicable sanctions enacted by the Arbitration Committee, they will have to request it (as a whole new sanction) under the applicable rules. I suggest that this request should be procedurally closed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Spudlace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Reinhearted (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/CASENAME#WP:A/I/PIA :

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

1. 15 january 2021 3rd revert
2. 15 january 2021 2nd revert
3. 15 january 2021 1st revert

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 27 December 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have never done this before so do be gentle if I've made mistakes in the filing.

@Reinhearted: first caught my eye with edit summaries that raised flags non-neutral editing on falafel. I reminded them of the article's 1RR restriction [4] but they continued to revert the same content.

Does this edit falls within Arab-Israeli conflict? [5][6][7][8] and these edits come after this [9]

I hope the editor is here to contribute productively but they have only 145 edits and there has been a lot of edit warring on falafel recently even with open and unresolved discussions still open about these changes.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[10]

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.

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

• Well, hopefully, User_talk:Reinhearted#Notice_about_prohibited_WP:ARBPIA_editing will do the trick here, that way we could just close this AE complaint as resolved, and that would be that. El_C 21:36, 15 January 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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Friendly Batman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions :

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

1. 11:58, 12 January 2021 changes Mughal emperor to Mughal invader
2. 10:04, 13 January 2021 changes he is regarded as an icon by many Indians to he is regarded as an icon by Indians with an edit misleading summary of Fixed grammatical errors
3. 12:03, 13 January 2021 removes referenced content with an edit summary of Removed vandalism to the article
4. 12:08, 13 January 2021 amends content with an edit summary of Removed vandalism to the article
5. 12:27, 13 January 2021 removes referenced content and replaces with massed of unreferenced content including WP:BLP violations with an edit summary of Removed vandalism to the article and added content.
6. 12:43, 13 January 2021 reverts to add "Decisive" back to the infobox (against the instructions at Template:Infobox military conflict) with an edit summary of Fixed vandalism
7. 13:32, 13 January 2021 replies to me saying I checked your timeline of edits. You have been vandalizing all the battle pages of Hindu as well as Indian victories. IMO you are some islamist who is vandalizing factual analysis based information/article accroding to your own ideological inclination
8. 15:11, 13 January 2021 refers to other editors saying Certain content moderators who are radicals ideologues and have Pro islamists views are not allowing academics/historians to fix the factual errors related Hindu history as well as Indian history. They have been vandalising and deleting factual information on several battles involving Hindu kings & India and pushing pro islamist narrative
9. 16:32, 13 January 2021 removes referenced content with an edit summary of Removed vandalism
10. 18:49, 17 January 2021 amends content in lead (that's supported by text in the body) with an edit summary of Removed vandalism
11. 15:19, 18 January 2021 removes referenced content with a misleading edit summary of Added content and removed revision (they appear to have begun using the term "revision" as a substitute for "vandalism"
12. 17:55, 19 January 2021 removes referenced content, including details about Muslims, with an edit summary of Removed political vandalism to the article
13. 15:13, 23 January 2021 drastically reduces to the lead to an unacceptable size by removing all mention of his Muslim wife and adding (apparently unreferenced) gushing about the subject
14. 15:32, 23 January 2021 removes referenced content about the subject's mother being Muslim with an edit summary of Removed political vandalism

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked from editing an article for two weeks due to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1055#Nationalist POV pushing, personal attacks and accusations of vandalism by Friendly Batman

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

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User was informed at User talk:Friendly Batman#Comment on vandalism. and User talk:Friendly Batman#January 2021 2 not to use the term "vandalism" in inappropriate contexts. User appears to be pushing a right-wing Indian POV, and objects to any mention of Muslims. The constant referral to any content they object to as "vandalism" isn't helpful.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

WanderingWanda (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/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions: "standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. ... [O]nce an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any ... appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning."

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

1. 06:14, 23 January 2021 (UTC) – Worst GRAVEDANCING ever (and more literally so than usual):
   1. Fantasized about continued battlegrounding with Flyer22 in afterlife. Grossly inappropriate "humor", obviously would bait Halo. Caused him considerable distress (e-mail evidence available to ArbCom).
   2. False, no-evidence claim that "some" (who?) editors accuse ArbCom, or case participants, of causing Flyer22's death. Typical distortion, smear-mongering. Grandstandingly vulgar about it. Pure BATTLEGROUND-stoking. [Reality: Several of us feel ArbCom allowed Workshop in this case to trainwreck; Flyer22's defamation stress during her final days illustrates why RfArb rules-enforcement matters.]
   3. Insinuation ("Flyer's reported death") that Flyer22 is alive and pulling snow job with Halo_Jerk1 (there is already consensus on Functionaries list this is not true). See JBW warning below; part of longterm pattern of socking aspersions.
      • Hypocritical: a central issue of the RfArb and previous DR is WW's upset that Flyer22 asked whether WW had previous account (lots of us did at ANI and SPI, but WW only hounded Flyer for it; intensely, weirdly personal).
   4. Insinuation that only WW and their FACTION "stepped forward with honest and good faith reports about some of [other party]'s behavior".
      • Case opened to examine WW as much as Flyer22; conclusion evenhanded and mutual, not finding fault on Flyer22's part but innocence on WW's.
   5. Claimed to "understand emotions are going to run high in a situation like this", yet apparent point (and clear result) was to inflame, at worst possible time.
   6. "Flyer's absence means there's some slack to pick up. I suppose it's time to get to work." Shameless baiting of Halo and dogwhistle to FACTION to resume PoV pushing where Flyer22 formerly patrolled.
2. 13:03, 23 January 2021 – SilkTork pinged WW to self-revert post, advised "following the intention of the case which is that you do not comment anywhere on Wikipedia about Flyer".
   • 14:22, 23 January 2021 – After waiting over an hour, that admin redacted WW's post.
3. 20:35, 23 January 2021 – Last straw: WW response just POINTy, selfcentered WIKILAWYERing; designed to generate more strife, had exactly that effect [11], until an Arb intervened [12].
   • 21:03, 23 January 2021 – Another Arb admonished.

     Also relevant:

1. 21 January 2021 – Proposed Decision in case, as of closure upon Flyer22's death. Two so-far unanimous WW remedies: "WanderingWanda, Flyer22, and Halo Jerk1 are subject to an indefinite mutual interaction ban, broadly construed"; and "Parties to the case are reminded to avoid enflaming discussions with flippant or dismissive commentary, and to focus on content, rather than contributors." Didn't pass as formal remedies (as WW was quick to wikilawyer), but do constitute multi-admin warnings based on much evidence/analysis. WW completely disregarded; inappropriately discussed Flyer22, directly baited Halo (and pretty much everyone). It's GAMING that shouldn't be tolerated; transgressed both DS in topic area and previous administrative warnings.
2. 15 July 2019 – Attempt to use death of a subject as smear weapon against editor for daring to challenge a trans subject's notability.
3. April 2019 – Self-declared GREATWRONGS / TRUTH agenda to lobby against years of solid GENDERID / DEADNAME consensus.
4. 2 August 2020 – WW's "Battleground Comment" screed about what Wikipedia needs to do with editors WW labels "transphobes" (a smear with no evidence, as usual); perfectly describes how Wikipedia should approach WW, if you replace WW's labels/targets with "PoV pushing in this topic".
   • Stark demonstration that activistic borderline SPAs of this sort who migrate here from social media don't/won't understand difference between "You won't let me push my PoV here" and "You're pushing an equal but opposite PoV against mine." Here's WW doing it again (with more "us vs. them" aspersions against unnamed whole class of editors who don't agree with WW, whom WW ridicules with absurd caricature [13]. WW just refuses to accept that "opposed to using WP for activism" != "opposed to trans activism in particular" (or WW's specific variant of it, at odds with others).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 23 August 2019 – El_C's ANI close: "I advise the respective parties ... to treat one another with an abundance of good faith and goodwill."
2. 14:03, 24 January 2020 – JBW warning for "deliberate policy of harassment", baiting, attacks, and socking-accusations toward Flyer, Halo, and other editors (e.g. Crossroads). "I have seen enough, and if I see you harassing or baiting her again I am likely to block you from editing."
   • 22:06, 24 January 2020 – JBW at ANI: 'The trouble with "WW be admonished" is simply that if that were going to work it would have worked long ago.'
3. 14:32, 24 January 2020 – Ivanvector warns of ARBGG I-ban, and "WanderingWanda, this is your opportunity to disengage. I would anticipate it being very unlikely you will get another."
4. 23:59, 24 January 2020 – JzG [then an admin] ANI close: If Flyer22 Reborn and WanderingWanda don't stop knocking six bells out of each other ... they will shortly begin to experience blocks and interaction bans.
   • 27 January 2020 – QEDK) reclose at same ANI, same diff: "Do not pester other editors while they are away." [There's no more "away" than deceased.] And: "drop the goddamn stick. ... the only outcome if it gets worse, will be some sort of disciplining ... WanderingWanda, you are hereby warned that further egregious behaviour (including hounding or casting aspersions on Flyer22 Reborn) may result in strict sanctions."

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

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 16 December 2020

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

These unseemly, WINNING-oriented attempts to exploit Flyer22's death to further a wiki-political and PoV ADVOCACY agenda are, under the DS of this topic area, block- and/or topic-ban-worthy, given all the previous warnings. How could WW possibly think it a good idea to post this stuff anywhere on WP much less right on an ArbCom page, immediately after narrowly escaping at least an I-ban?

The doubled-down, selfish heartlessness of today's WanderingWanda disruption is especially galling, given WW's attempt to paint Flyer22 as heartless for citing a source WW doesn't like [14] (even after Flyer22 tried to appease by changing the Wikipedia-voice summary – nothing's good enough if WW's decided you aren't within their specific fold in this schism between various left/progressive and LGBT+ doctrines). Diff also establishes WW knows all about dogwhistling.

• WW's is using their typical crafty, studied SANCTIONGAMING / CIVILPOV / FALSECIV technique, of sculpting their wording juuust carefully enough to maybe have CYA wiggle-room (and apparently hoping that reviewing admins will in the majority agree enough with WW's PoV to repeatedly excuse the aspersions and battlegrounding).
• See nearly every thread presented as case evidence; the pattern is very consistent.
• Sometimes it's much more direct, as against Halo here.

In summary, this editor has had many chances and an unusual amount of leeway to adjust to writing an encyclopedia among peers, versus writing a personal socio-political blog that attacks enemies. Their behavior's gotten much worse not better, so they need to be removed from the topic area. WanderingWanda's behavior triggers so many points of WP:NOT policy it isn't worth listing them out. I don't think this is a bad-faith problem, but a severe CIR / NOTHERE / SOAPBOX issue.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

11:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extension request

Requesting a limit extension (presently 23 diffs, some only because case pages are blanked, so regular links to sections don't work; and about 1100 words, much of it quotation). Pinged no one other than non-Arb admins whom I've diffed taking action about this editor before. Unless pinged back to answer questions (or verbally attacked :-), I don't plan to respond here further, but just let AE admins assess the evidence. If an admin wants to trim this to what AE most wants to see, I'm okay with that as long as it does not cripple/skew the report. I need some sleep, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:42, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I found WanderingWanda's comment sensitively written and genuine, so I cannot agree with the insinuations suggested. I was much more upset by some of the responses to somebody trying to express positive thoughts in a uniquely difficult position, which quite genuinely saddened me when I first read it this morning. Remember that there is a person behind each username and you do not know about that person's life experiences.

In my seven years on this site, words people have written about me have made me cry. They have rendered me unproductive with my real-life responsibilities for a full day due to anger or hurt. They have made me take actions I have regretted. Each of these are possible consequences that you will not see when writing something anything less than formal and polite towards somebody.

We must be very careful not to hold individuals involved in the suspended ArbCom case responsible for an event far beyond their control—it has a huge potential of real-world harm. From my own experiences in life I have seen a glimpse into what it can feel like to hold yourself to any degree responsible for another person's death and I do not wish that on anyone. If that sentence resonates with anybody then they are welcome to email me. From what I have seen, SMcCandlish has been very careful to spell out explicitly that such blame is not his intention wherever he even touches this topic, for which I commend him. I encourage others to be similarly careful and humane.

I would actually ask WanderingWanda to consider not making a statement about this enforcement request, to avoid inflaming tensions further, though doubtless a lack of response will enrage some, as will any response they could possibly make, and any possible outcome of this enforcement request. To others, I would say: if you've spent less than an hour writing your statement, and not stepped away from the screen before submitting, then you might wish to consider whether the rawness of emotion in your words is desirable. — Bilorv (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Bilorv's comment is excellent except for the first line. Some of Wanda's post Arb case editing has indeed been highly problematic. If they say one more objectionable thing about Flyer I'd agree they warrant at least a 6 month block. I'd also not have a great problem if admins want to give Wanda an immediate 1 month block on a "prevent disruption, not necessarily uphold justice" bases. But must strongly object to they way Wanda's been characterised by SMcCandlish

SMcCandlish has done a phenomenal job defending both Flyer & encyclopaedic values, saving the need for many others to put the days of time & energy needed to rebut some of the nonsense that was posted at the case. But at this point he has maybe lost a bit of perspective. To take one specific example this WW diff isn't Wanda implying anyone else is heartless – it's almost the reverse. I use that language (or similar like "you'd need a heart of stone…" ) quite often in RL as an oblique way to appeal to a decision makers emotion (which one obviously wouldn't do if talking to someone one considers heartless.)

Wanda themselves is quite the opposite of "selfish heartlessness" / "severe CIR" etc. Not a single of the neutral editors who looked carefully at Wanda's conduct in the Arb case said anything that supports Wanda being a negative editor outside of the feud. In fact several sitting & former Arbs said the opposite. E.g. "shows promise as an editor" (workshop) , "has the potential to be an excellent editor" (PD) etc.

Wanda's recent problematic edits are not due to lack of Competency, studied falseCiv etc. It was due to considerable stress over what happened. E.g. saying "reported death" indicates part of them can't fully believe whats happened. I've never had contact with Wanda before & am in no way even a faint wiki friend of theirs, but on seeing the ridiculous line about looking forward to an afterlife shouting match, I immediately emailed them to say 1) events must have severely effected them for them to say something so insensitive. 2) to suggest a short wikibreak. Without revealing their reply, it wasn't inconsistent with them being under significant stress. Flyer is a completely irreplaceable editor and their loss is among the worst possible imaginable tradegies. She was also someone who deeply cared about this project and Id submit the worst way to honour her memory is to have further divisive debate at this point in time.  SMcCandlish would be an excellent choice to lead lessons learnt / reform efforts type work on this, but only after a few weeks gap so the initial shock of Flyers loss can be better processed.

So I'd beg any admin reading this to speedy close the AE before this gets more hearted, ideally as No action, or maybe a short disruption preventing block for Wanda, but without endorsing any of the negative analyses against them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I too found Special:Diff/1002308582 to be troubling because after the previous removal it just felt relentless, but like Bilorv and Feyd I can imagine WW is under tremendous stress right now and perhaps isn't thinking their straightest. I think everyone involved needs a chance to get some distance from this. Is it possible to close without prejudice to refiling after a couple months? —valereee (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• [Moved from summary:] Closed with great prejudice (not toward the filer). I'll just use this closing summary to express how utterly shocked I am by WanderingWanda's gross insensitivity. I'll stop at that because I'm almost certain to regret saying anything further about that. In any case, this matter should not be decided by AE admins. The Committee itself needs to handle this directly. El_C 15:44, 24 January 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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Darren-M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

LotteryGeek (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

1. [15] - soliciting users in connection with Alex Jones
2. [16] - POVPUSHing around drug laws in the United States.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [17] - unblocked from a NOTHERE block by GeneralNotability (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and substituted with an AP2 topic ban.

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on [18] by GeneralNotability (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

N/A

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

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.

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Neutrality (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:38, 20 January 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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

Principles 4.1.6, 4.17

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

1. 10:09, January 20, 2021 - User makes edit to lead section of Donald Trump article (despite notice asking users to discuss before making controversial changes)
2. 11:14, January 20, 2021 - User restored same edit on with false edit summary "Revert vandalism," after bold edit is reverted with explanation ("rvt; cherry-picking from transcript, undue weight, misleading, etc.").
3. 11:25, January 20, 2021 - After being reverted by another user, restores same content with false edit summary ("User made no effort to explain any rational or use sources to remove information")
4. 11:27, January 20, 2021 - Restores content yet again with "Cutting out censorship without discussion"

After the user is politely warned about the DS in effect, including the 1RR in effect in this page, the user explicitly refuses to comply, calls the edit challenging his/her edit "vandalism" and suggests that those challenging the edit "should have taken it to the talk page" (which ignores that the lead section of this article has been extensively discussed already, and also ignores baseline ONUS/consensus/1RR principles). In a "no, you" moment, this user spammed two editors ([20] [21]) with the same warning that he himself was given.

This is not an isolated incident. This edit has engaged in disruptive edits at various articles on political figures and topics at least as far back as 2017, including at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (warned at 23:19, March 13, 2019), including edits so inappropriate they had to be Rev'deled); Presidency of Donald Trump; and Michael Flynn.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Partial indefinite block from editing the page Donald Trump (I do not think this obviates the need for a broad topic ban covering all of AE post-1932)

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

• Alerted on 09:35, November 6, 2020 by Bradv

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• This is a straightforward (and very obvious) refusal to follow arbitration remedies in effect, as well as a failure to observe the general ONUS principle.
• The false references to editors challenging the user's edits as "vandalism" and "censorship" is a classic battleground mentality/misdirection.
• The refusal to respond to polite requests and instead to "double down" and edit war are worse because this is to an article linked from the main page.
• We cannot, cannot have disruption on ultra-high-visibility articles like this. This user has been editing since January 2011 — ten years! — and there is no excuse of ignorance here.

Tagging SPECIFICO and Politicsfan4, who witnessed the conduct at issue. In sum, this is a slam-dunk case for an speedy, and indefinite topic ban against Spartan7W. Neutrality^talk

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified 11:40, January 20, 2021‎

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.

I would like to it be explained to me why I, a long-time editor, can add good-faith, sourced information to the lead of an article, with rationale, and then that that edit can be reverted, with no discussion in the talk page, nor rational given as to why it was objectionable, but should I find his edits objectionable, I am subject to "enforcement"?   Spartan7W §   16:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[To El_C:] Wouldn't it be nice if you address my statement?   Spartan7W §   17:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[To El_C:] Will you explain to me exactly what I did wrong? The undo to my edit was arbitrary, baseless, and not discussed. On the border of vandalism. Why is the editor responsible for that edit not also subject to penalty? What rules did I violate in my initial edit? None. That editor's desire to editorialize is superior to my ability to make factual, good-faith, and justified contributions?   Spartan7W §   22:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C Well you could first explain to me why I am to be subject to disciplinary action for editing an article, with sources, in good-faith, to add balance to its content? I don't understand why the arbitrary actions of another editor, without base, can therefore result in my permanent inability to make edits to an article.   Spartan7W §   04:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all the factors cited by Swarm below, it would seem that a block would be called for in addition to an AP2 topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Spartan7W, you are subject to enforcement because that page (probably above all other pages on the project) is covered by the terms of the WP:AP2 topic area and therefore subject to WP:ACDS. Note that I have applied an indefinite partial block to Spartan7W from the article. While I cited WP:DE in the block log and block summary, this is actually an AE action, so I will log it momentarily. Not sure if this is enough to close this complaint, or whether additional sanctions are also warranted. El_C 16:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Now having had a chance to look at Neutrality's evidence more closely, I think an indefinite broadly construed topic ban from the WP:AP2 topic area is all but inevitable here. El_C 17:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Spartan7W, I did. See the part above that starts with you are subject to enforcement because [...] El_C 17:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Spartan7W, I'm not sure what explanation you're expecting me to provide you with. As far as I'm concerned, the filer of this complaint has already provided an explanation. I agreed with it and proposed to remedy it with sanctions. Not sure what else there is to say as far as that is concerned. Also, I have already moved your comments twice from this section. Again, please restrict yourself to your own section. We don't really do threaded discussions on this noticeboard. El_C 22:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Awilley, revdeleted not suppressed (which is why we are able to view it), but indeed, holly editorializing BLP ghost! Anyway, unless Spartan7W can demonstrate some measure of cognizance regarding these problems, I actually don't see any other option. El_C 00:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Spartan7W, I don't know how else to reiterate this. Neutrality has filed a complaint detailing violations that he alleges you have committed, which I am tasked to evaluate. My evaluation is that Neutrality's complaint has proven its case. If you wish to refute that, you need to address their evidence and so on, not continue requesting me to repeat it in some form or another. I don't see how that would help anything. El_C 05:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything Swarm said. I'll highlight Neutrality's warning to Spartan7W (diff), which they then copied back to them, for some reason (diff) — what is going on here? Not to mention just general WP:CIR and being unresponsive during the course of this very complaint (I'm okayish with the former, but much less so with the latter). Anyway, I, for one, don't think we should leave this report open for much longer. El_C 16:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just about ready to impose the sanction (indef BROADLY AP2 TBAN) — Awilley (or anyone), any objections? El_C 21:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If anybody's curious, the suppressed edit to AOC [22] added 5 paragraphs of random criticism sourced mainly to Fox but also to Newsweek, CNBC, and Daily Mail. Stuff like green new deal criticism, a conservative foundation going after her for giving her boyfriend a house email address, and her living in a D.C. apartment with an infinity pool. It's obviously UNDUE and poorly sourced, and therefore a BLP violation, but it was also over a year ago, so I'm having a hard time seeing it as justification for a topic ban in addition to the (well-deserved) partial block. ~Awilley (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Despite being in 2019, it's also in Spartan7W's last 50 edits to Wikipedia, which of course also include the current issue, which doesn't bode well. Black Kite (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @El_C I can see the POV pushing but also some helpful infobox work. I don't have strong feelings either way. ~Awilley (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit warring over contentious content, calling the reversion "vandalism", falsely claiming that the reversion was unexplained, claiming they're being "censored", refusing to communicate about disputed changes, trolling responses to warnings, responses here show no degree of self-awareness, good faith, competence to understand what they're doing wrong and indeed competence to even communicate effectively, plus a history of POV-pushing in this topic area. Agree with the above, an AP2 TBAN is obviously needed here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: Not much feedback here, but I think we've given this sufficient time to go forward. We have an admin who submitted an ample report with an appropriate sanction requested, two admins and one uninvolved user who endorse the requested sanction, plus two admins who acknowledge the problematic behavior but did not articulate a position for a remedy, one of whom provided additional evidence of problematic behavior. There are also no objections to the proposed sanction, and no mitigating factors provided by the reported user, who seems to have disengaged completely after their initial inappropriate responses. I also note that even as this report was open, the user was POV-pushing in an AP article. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

WEBDuB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – WEBDuB (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the Balkans topic area

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

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

Firstly, I was warned for my rhetoric and WP:ASPERSIONS. Later, I started the discussion trying to explain the situation and solve the problem.

Did I really break the rules so badly that I got a topic ban?

I think that on Balkan topics, these are unfortunately common situations that often should to be endured and silenced. I was a victim myself, and rarely did any of the admins step on my side. Many times, I was labeled both as a neoliberal anti-Serbian editor and as a Serbian nationalist POV pusher and propagandist. Has any of the admins ever reacted?

I have been the target of similar (and worse) rhetoric that I am accused of. For example, I was even accused of “ultranationalist CONTENTforking”, of justifying and of relativizing and downplaying war crimes, while Mikola22 said (1, 2) that I am boring and alluded to WP:CANVASS using the terms “your editors”, “your friends”, Serbian POV pushers etc. He was also reported for promoting fringe and genocide-inspired theory, supporting far-right editors from hr.wiki, calling Yugoslav and Serbian historiography “a fairy tale based on nothing”... Several non-Balkan editors have expressed their concerns about his editing (1, 2, 3). How did that result? Have I even violated any of these rules? There were other false accusations and aspirations.

Ktrimi991 called me “silly”, “dumb” and said that I have the battleground mentality. At the same time, he violated the 3RR in the article that initiated this whole dispute (1, 2, 3) and deleted two warnings mocking me and another editor. He was also reported for many other similar conflicts and he was warned for disruptive editing, as well as he even threatened (1, 2, 3) other editors. How did that result? What about the WP:BOOMERANG now? Have I even violated any of these rules? Am I, after all, the one who deserves to be banned?

In every Balkan topic, several editors have been labeled as Serbian ultranationalists, are accused of canvassing, etc. Has any of the admins ever reacted? I have personally reported about five times for various forms of harassment, including long-term abuse, personal attacks, disclosure of personal information (some example: [23] [24] [25]), but without any response. To be honest, only the oversight team helped a few times. What is wrong with my comments? What in my case is bad rhetoric and false accusation without evidence?

When El_C informed me that I was subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction he cited this change which followed the warning.

However, that was really an accidental and stupid mistake. I wanted to delete it from the Genocides in history (before World War I) article because those courts were made later. . In the meantime, there was a problem with link redirection. Or I simply missed the article I was in. If I had noticed that I was on the wrong article, I would have corrected the mistake myself.

This change with the Genocides in history article was completely misinterpreted. It has nothing to do with Balkan topics. Regardless of the fact that the content related to Bosnia and Herzegovina was found there by chance. With numerous changes, I condemned the denial of the Srebrenica genocide and all nationalist moves by Serbian politicians (it can be seen in the articles about Aleksandar Vučić, Ana Brnabić, Tomislav Nikolić, Bosnian genocide denial, Overthrow of Slobodan Milošević...). I also created an article about the anti-war movement in Serbia and the protests against the Siege of Sarajevo, etc. No one can attribute nationalist label or POV-pushing or anything like that to me. Moreover, I added the most critical and negative content in the articles about politicians and politics in Serbia, authoritarian rules, and media freedom. Even the 2020 Serbian parliamentary election article I wrote to a large extent was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the WP:ITN section on 24 June 2020. If anyone was impartial in Serbian-related articles, then it was me. I wrote both good and extremely bad things.

Let's get back to the topic. After the warning, I apologized and did not enter into any conflicts or break any of the rules. I complied with everything from his warning, except for this stupid mistake.

To conclude, I did not break any rules after the warning. Once again I ask what did I do so much worse than the others? I have research experience, as well as access to many documents and books (which I often added as sources here). I really think I can contribute a lot to this topic in the future. I think the sanction is too strict. Please consider my appeal. I promise that such situations will not happen in the future. I hope you will understand. Thanks. --WEBDuB (talk) 18:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: 1. Though I also noted their perplexing removal of 30K-worth of text today, as well - I have already explained that it was a stupid mistake. It is easily corrected, no problem remains. Most importantly, it has nothing to do with the warning, nor with the Balkan topics.

2. Take for example them falsely conflating, in this very appeal, between having an action called "dumb" as opposed to them, themselves, being called that. - Ok, is it an example of good communication when someone calls another editor's action dumb?

3. Their largely WP:NOTTHEM approach to this appeal itself further affirms that notion, I think. - This is certainly not WP:NOTTHEM. First, I mentioned other editors to show that my accusations are not false, that I was really attacked and called by various names. You asked for evidence, I presented it. Fruthermore, I wanted to show how there are far more serious violations and worse examples of communication on Balkan topics. Did I threaten anyone that way? Have I ever been sanctioned for edit war? Other editors were forgiven for more serious violations, even though they were reported by dozens of other editors. Why am I an exception and immediately banned only because of one dispute? Is such a restriction justified and fair? Why no one protected me when I was the target of WP:ASPERSIONS? My so-called aspersions related to that. I didn’t start it first, I just responded to it.--WEBDuB (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My assessment has been that WEBDuB too often tends to cast aspersions with evidence-less claims. And that when they do actually provide evidence, it is often irrelevant to what is actually being discussed. Like when they kept conflating between fly-over IPs and regular editors (in good standing) of the topic area, despite having been warned to refrain from doing so — which was key to me deciding to impose the sanction, and which I made clear to them from the outset (diff). Though I also noted their perplexing removal of 30K-worth of text today, as well (diff).

Anyway, there's a problem here that has to do with proper communication, with due diligence and with the maxim of assuming good faith — all components that are necessary for editing such a fraught topic area. Attributes that, I believe, WEBDuB currently lacks. Take for example them falsely conflating, in this very appeal, between having an action called "dumb" as opposed to them, themselves, being called that. No, this editor is a liability to the topic area at the present time time. Their largely WP:NOTTHEM approach to this appeal itself further affirms that notion, I think. El_C 20:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Griboski, happy to defer to any admin who is familiar with the topic area. So, to that prospective admin I say: if you're out there, please step up! El_C 21:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WEBDuB, this noticeboard was always there for you to report other editors — that you didn't do that is on you. I was asked to examine you, not other editors. Anyway, again, it is you who is repeatedly making claims about WP:HOUND without proof (even now). How is that not an WP:ASPERSION? To reiterate, the evidence you provided wasn't relevant to anything of the sort. I understand and can appreciate that you suffered some abuse by an WP:LTA, but how does that connect to you taking these liberties in accusing established editors that they are out to get you, and so on? Also, I think you are now well over the word limit, so maybe you'll wanna trim, especially if you wish to continue responding. El_C 21:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peacemaker67, thanks for endorsing my action as well as for taking the time to comprehensively lay out all of this valuable information Tis much appreciated. El_C 00:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin familiar with the topic area, but should probably be considered involved because I have reverted WEBDuB on a number of occasions and taken contrary positions on contested issues. This report has been brought to my attention by several editors due to El C asking for input from admins with experience in the Balkans subject area. For an uninvolved admin, I suggest consulting EdJohnston, who has a good track record on dealing with problems in the area. Given the significant uptick on POV-pushing and battleground behaviour on Balkans articles over the last nine months which I have mentioned a number of times on various noticeboards, this action is welcome and overdue. I have been collating evidence and preparing to report WEBDuB and a number of other editors to this board for some months, focussed on their editing to minimise Chetnik war crimes during WWII in particular. Given their prompt appearance to support each other on diverse articles across many time periods of the Balkans, I have no doubt that there is some serious off-Wiki coordination going on betwen these editors. Putting together a successful case on long-term POV-pushing is difficult, so it is a positive that El C has acted decisively based on the evidence presented. El C rightly points out that WEBDuB has demonstrated that they lack important attributes necessary to edit in this fraught area, and I consider that they have demonstrated this consistently over a long period of time. I would like to highlight further evidence of POV-pushing and battleground behaviour on Balkans articles by WEBDuB, as follows:

1. To show that the deletion of the Srebrenica genocide (and other genocide) material on Genocides in history may be part of a pattern of minimising Serb involvement in genocide, see Chetnik war crimes in World War II [42], [43], [44] & [45] despite the fact that at the time of these edits, there had been considerable discussion on the talk page, and WEBDuB clearly did not have consensus for their edits downplaying the seriousness of Chetnik war crimes and the sources that say they constituted genocide.
2. accusations of other editors being "nationalist POV-pushers and sockpuppets" (indicating an inability to reflect critically on their own editing behaviour) on Talk:Chetnik war crimes in World War II [46], there are no doubt more comments of this nature to other editors that oppose their POV, but I don't have time to trawl through their prolific contributions to locate them
3. a series of problematic edits on Persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians including removal of justified tags on the Kosovo section they had added which included some highly biased and dubious sources [47] & [48], and removal of counter-balancing information in the same section [49]
4. their comments in defence of the extreme POVFORK Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demonization of the Serbs created by the indefinitely TBANed long-term POV-pushing Balkans editor Antidiskriminator, which was subsequently deleted

This is just a grab-bag of additional diffs and material I could quickly put my hands on, as I am going to be largely offline for 24 hours shortly, and felt that I should comment promptly having been asked to do so. Normally if I had the time I would categorise their behaviour into themes and list diffs against each one. I have no doubt that if I put in some effort I could file my own 20/diff AE report on POV-pushing and battleground behaviour by WEBDuB (and several others), and this action by El C encourages me to clear the decks of other stuff for a bit and get on with it, despite the time it takes to do so in a clear, concise and professional manner. WEBDuB not only edits prolifically in the Balkans area, but in the most contentious articles (involving the Chetniks, Kosovo, war crimes, religious persecution and genocide) of what is already a highly contentious area, and they do so in a way that is not in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, because they are consistently pushing a pro-Serb POV and battlegrounding. There should be less toleration of this sort of wikibehaviour in an area covered by a long-standing ArbCom case, and I therefore endorse ElC's TBAN. That is not to say that there are those that oppose WEBDuB are squeaky clean (many aren't), we should be more robust with misbehaviour in the subject area on all sides, and I acknowledge that as an admin creating content in parts of the subject area I perhaps have let too much of this slide. However, on the basis of the evidence provided (reinforced by my own, above), I think the action against WEBDuB on this occasion is appropriate. Let them show they can edit constructively and neutrally in other areas of Wikipedia for six months and we can look at reviewing the TBAN then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added that Griboski should be considered involved in any discussion of this type about WEBDuB's editing behaviour. They are often found promptly backing up WEBDuB on various pages. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When WEBDuB was warned here , his response here wasn't perfect but he also apologized and acknowledged his mistake. Meanwhile, the other diff which precipitated this ban (here) was a mistake on his part as he was trying to remove content that was out of scope with the article, except he mixed up the general Genocides in history article with the newly created Genocides in history (before World War I).

While some of WEBDuB's reactions are strong, he's not all wrong. For instance, there is a LTA dynamic IP here who has been following and harassing certain editors for some time, but in particular WEBDuB, so much that some of his edits were removed from public view. This is enough to perturb anyone editing in this area. It's also not a secret that there are POV blocks in the Balkans area and that much worse type of behavior has gone on there, which is incomparable to a recent slip-up from this editor who from his history has been an otherwise productive editor for over a decade.

In short, this is a drastic measure and an overreaction from an admin, who with due respect, is not that familiar with this editing area. --Griboski (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I recently consulted with El C about this kind of a restriction about user Sadko, and they struck me as someone who would not apply it lightly. Nothing I've read above comes close to convincing me that we should doubt their decision in this matter. It's apparent that there's been a lot of tit for tat, a battleground of sorts, with way too much claptrap that certainly caters to various grievances, but doesn't actually contribute much to the encyclopedia. The correct way forward is more restrictions to enforce the rules of decorum, not less. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The evidence seems to be that this is a reasonable restriction --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 15:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I would recommend declining this, per the above. The sanction is well justified and the appeal is not, like El C says, it's mostly a NOTTHEM appeal. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 09:25, 27 January 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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

CuriousGolden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 :

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

1. [50] All the diffs and discussions are provided in this report

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 24 January 2021 User was permanently one-way interaction banned from interacting with another user for WP:OUTING and their behaviour in WP:ANI#Proposing a ban: topic or site?

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 24 January 2021 by TonyBallioni (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 13 December 2020.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I made a report of the user at WP:ANI about 2 weeks ago and SebastianHelm handled the report and gave a very extensive report on both my and Armatura's actions and recommended consequences, but at the end, they realized that they had become too involved with the case, so they rescued themselves to leave the handling of the case to other admins. However, other admins recommended that the report be taken to AE, so here I am. I'd be happy if the report just picked up where it left off.

@El C: I'm reporting the overall behaviour and the specific actions have already been linked in the previous report. I felt like SebastianHelm did a ton of work going through all of the histories of both me and Armatura's behaviour and laid oud proposed consequences, so I didn't want the effort to be wasted because some time had passed from the original report. I made a new report because I don't see any improvement in behaviour since SebastianHelm's proposed behaviour changes and the IBAN was, at least for me, an evidence for it. If you think the report still should be closed, then I can withdraw my report. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 19:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[51]

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.

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

• CuriousGolden, again, what specific violation are you reporting here (above all else)? Only referencing the ANI complaint (which, full disclosure, I've closed earlier today), overall, is wholly insufficient. [For example, the first diff you cite in that ANI report actually predates the IBAN, and so on...] El_C 18:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• CuriousGolden, okay, I'll close it as having been withdrawn, then. There was a discretionary sanction imposed on Jan 24, so it's probably best to give it a chance to work before escalating again. El_C 19:05, 28 January 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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

1. 03:49, 27 January 2021 In response to an SPA (Kamadams) asking that the "smear" "conspiracy theorist" be removed from the lead of L. Lin Wood, IHTS replies "WP, like MSM, is entirely left-biased. Good luck."
2. 07:54, 27 January 2021 In reply to a question by EvergreenFir, IHTS makes a personal attack: "I don't try to reason w/ liberals."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 10 May 2017: Indefinite topic ban from post-1932 American politics
2. 22 January 2018: One-week block for topic ban violation (discussion)
3. 30 January 2018, 30 January 2018: Two-week block for topic ban violation, increased to indefinite (discussion). Later reduced to a total of one month.
4. 30 July 2018: Indefinitely blocked again for various reasons (discussion). Block remained in place until 30 December 2018
5. 16 October 2019: 6-month block for personal attacks or harassment; talk page access removed 7 November 2019

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

• Previously given a topic ban for conduct in the area of conflict on 10 May 2017 by GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

L. Lin Wood falls under the "closely related people" provision of the AP2 topic ban scope, as a person who has been heavily involved in the attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 US presidential election. Wood is not a UFOs or flat earth conspiracy theorist; the very descriptor of "conspiracy theorist" exists on the page solely due to his various beliefs about US politics. There is an American politics {{Ds/talk notice}} at the top of the talk page warning contributors about the AP2 discretionary sanctions, so there is no question it applies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: I agree that an indefinite block is harsh, but I don't think it's unwarranted. IHTS has twice before been indefinitely blocked for similar issues and successfully appealed, but the behavior has not changed. A six-month block a year ago also didn't dissuade them from making personal attacks again. What is the alternative? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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.

I read the post on El_C's talk page requesting reopening because of IHTS' positive contributions in the chess area. If there was a way to partial-block someone from an entire topic area, I'd suggest that as an alternative - but as we can't do so, and as IHTS has repeatedly violated every sanction imposed on them in the American politics area... I don't see as there's any good alternative here. They may be doing good work in one area, but if they're completely unable to restrain themselves from personal attacks, aspersions, and declarations like I don't try to reason w/ liberals which are completely at odds with constructive editing behavior... then that's that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: It's not a matter of whether anyone was "bothered" - IHTS is indefinitely topic-banned from post-1932 American politics. They are not permitted to edit articles or make posts on talk pages to articles in that topic area. I've been in those shoes before in a different topic area and you just have to accept it and learn to avoid that space. I know from experience that it can be hard, but it's doable. If they're not willing to do it, then... not sure what's left. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't honestly know what to do in these situations. AE seems kind of dysfunctional, but I'm not sure what I would change. Doing AE stuff as "normal admin action" seems somehow against its purpose, but certainly makes unblocking with conditions easier and more reasonable. An indef in this case seems harsh, but there have certainly been a lot of previous chances extended. If I thought a warning/reminder would work, I'd have suggested leaning in that direction, except I don't think there's evidence a warning/reminder would work. Yes, lots and lots of useful edits in a separate topic area are kind of being sacrificed because of two snotty comments in a topic-banned area. I just don't know. Ultimately, if someone is going to repeatedly, intentionally ignore a topic ban, I guess there aren't too many other options. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec. UFO doesn't always mean alien space ships & furthermore, what's wrong with believing in the existence of aliens, if folks believe in the existence of an invisible man living in the sky? Anyways, zapping IHTS into ban-land is rather harsh (IMHO) & perhaps too hasty, as politics in the USA is still somewhat volatile, during this pandemic. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@EI C: Perhaps we should wait to hear from @EvergreenFir:, as he/she may not even be bothered by IHTS' response. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: His goose is cooked, ain't it :( GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NorthBySouthBaranof: That's not good :( GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to see an editor getting banned, but it looks like not even Perry Mason could win this case. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would mentoring be an option for IHTS? GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since returning to activity in mid 2020 IHTS has contributed almost exclusively to chess topics, where he is an undoubtedly a positive for the encyclopedia, but I was very disappointed by the edits to the Lin Wood talk page and I accept that it is a clear violation. In September 2020 he made some minor copyedits to such articles as Barbara Lagoa and Amy Coney Barrett, which I suppose may be technical breaches of the ban as well. He was warned by User:MaxBrowne2 at the time that he was "dangerously close" but did not appreciate the advice. I believe an indef is too harsh when weighed against his overall record of positive contributions since his return, but short of partially blocking him from every article outside of chess, I am at somewhat of a loss as to how to proceed here.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: That's something that was done informally during one of IHTS's previous indefs. Indeed, when his talk page access was switched off it was restored after consensus at ANI. So I think he may be amenable.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to GoodDay's ping. I am not bothered, but had I known that IHTS was t-banned from the topic I would have reported to AE from the start. Unfortunate IHTS is unwilling/unable to adhere to that ban. I think indef or long-term block is appropriate. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been on the receiving end of this editor's vitriol before, so I am a bit involved, I suppose. I would like to point out that the block log shows that this editor has been disruptive in the chess topic area as well. I endorse the block. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MaxBrowne2, I thank you for your good work in the chess topic area and understand that you have a complex relationship with this editor. And I agree that, as far as I know, disruptive editing about chess has been greatly reduced in recent years. But the editor did not stick to chess (or butterflies or puppies or asteroids or the history of their home town) and instead freely chose to make snarky, contemptuous, trolling comments about other editors regarding the area of their topic ban. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MaxBrowne2, please do not try to create a false dichotomy between administrators and content creators. It is very difficult to become an administrator these days without a solid record of creating high quality content, and I for one stand on my record of creating content for almost twelve years and especially in this last horrible year. I list it all of it on my userpage. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad to see him go and wish there was some other possible outcome, but I understand that the indef is for an ongoing pattern, rather than a single fairly minor incident. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: His behaviour has improved in the last few years and he will be missed by WP:CHESS. Just wish he'd stop testing boundaries around his US politics TBAN. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion for what it's worth - it wasn't worth losing this editor over such a trivial incident. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I really don't like the paternalistic attitude and lack of concern for editor retention expressed by many admins. Incivility from admins is a frequent occurrence and is never punished. Admins, Wikipedia is not about you, it's about the people who create the content. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re: GoodDay - Mentoring for an editor with 10.5 years of service time and 67K edits seems a bit silly. If they haven't gotten it by now... Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I've indeffed as a normal admin action, but Pawnkingthree has requested that I re-open the request. Myself, I'm not sure there's another way to deal with these sort of provocations (diff), but am open to alternatives. El_C 16:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Floquenbeam, the really obvious nature of the provocations just don't seem nuanced enough to bother with AE action, just for the sakes of formality (unrelated-related note from yesterday). El_C 17:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• GoodDay, I think I don't try to reason w/ liberals always means I don't try to reason w/ liberals... El_C 17:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pawnkingthree, not sure Ihardlythinkso would be open to this, but I would be willing to exempt them from WP:PROXYING, if they were to restrict themselves to topics not encompassed by their AP2 ban (proposals with pings attached and so on). Just brainstorming here, because I am at a loss, too. Others may feel that this is a dumb idea, though. El_C 17:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• GoodDay, not to be disrespectful to EvergreenFir, but I simply don't think the manner in which that provocation impacted her personal sensibilities is actually that relevant here. El_C 17:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pawnkingthree, ah, I see. Well, there you go. At a loss it is, then, unfortunately... El_C 18:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC) Oh, sorry, Pawnkingthree, yet another reading comprehension failure on my part (seems to be today's theme!). Certainly, if you do think trying that again is worthwhile, I'm open to it. El_C 18:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• El C's actions seem reasonable to me --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 17:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I also endorse El C's block. Bishonen | tålk 17:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• An indef block would seem extreme for the one comment taken on its own, though the comment does show a worrying combativeness not compatible with Wikipedia's ideals of collaboration. But taken as a topic ban violation, and as the latest in a long line of similar infractions—and given IHTS's apparent unwillingness to abide by that topic ban—there seems little alternative. "Indefinite" does not necessarily mean "infinite". If IHTS can give satisfactory assurances that they will start abiding by the topic ban and maintaining proper interactions with other editors, it's not inconceivable that they could be unblocked after a few months. Whether IHTS is willing to give those assurances, and stick to them, is up to them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see an indef being remotely harsh given the history here. It looks like this user was actually CBANed in 2018 with an "overwhelming" consensus, and the closing admin incorrectly implemented it as a block that "anyone can overturn"; they were unblocked after four months "per talk page discussion". This user has been given far too many chances already and has shown an unwillingness to change their behavior over a period of many years. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:09, 28 January 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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Cambial Yellowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Philip Cross (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/BLP issues on British politics articles#Philip_Cross_topic_banned :

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

1. removal of information about a leak of a film whose subject is the serving head of state
2. addition of speculation about a "complaint"

These edits are the most egregious of several edits made by the user about a leak of a film about the serving head of state of the UK. This is clearly direct involvement in an article concerning British politics.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 13 August 2018 Block for previous activity

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 13 August 2018 by Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User is editing this page extensively, including those areas that discuss the recent leak of the documentary, whose subject is the current UK head of state.

[To El_C:] Thanks for pointing that out. Cambial foliage❧ 00:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: It's my understanding that the remedy is topic banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed. The BLP issues were the occasion for it, rather than part of the remedy itself. Perhaps I am missing something, I have not had cause to do this before. Cambial foliage❧ 00:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

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.

I could be shown to be wrong, but my understanding of the system in the UK is that the Queen, as head of state, has no personal say in political issues. Her speeches which touch on the subject are written for her by the party in power, and otherwise she is a figurehead, the ultimate constitutional monarch. I suppose some of the Royal Family get into messes when they express their personal opinions, but I can't recall these every being about UK politics. If this is correct, then even "broadly construed" wouldn't include the Queen and Royal Family. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm not sure it's a violation, but it's super-weird. The notion that, because the film is no longer online (positive?), mention of it having been leaked and published online in the past ought to be removed — that makes absolutely no sense. What a bizarre edit. BTW, Cambial Yellowing, you seem to have accidentally copied the same diff twice. El_C 00:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cambial Yellowing, thanks for adding the 2nd diff, but I'm not really seeing anything too noteworthy about it. Anyway, my read is that connecting those edits to WP:BLP seems tangential, at best. Philip Cross doesn't mention a living person directly, not the Queen, not anyone. The edits don't even appear to have any bearing on a living person (again, in this case, presumably the Queen), though again, I'll reiterate that whatever rhyme or reason is behind the edit cited in the first diff, I don't get it (and the edit summary simply further affirms its bewildering nature). El_C 00:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I guess "online" in this instance means YouTube — got it. Still doesn't explain why it makes sense to remove historical background by virtue of contemporaneous whatever. El_C 00:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Cambial Yellowing, ah, understood! Sorry about that. Kinda like Wikipedia:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics, for some reason... Anyway, although the movie's subjects (the Royal family, the Queen, especially) do have clear political connotations (added for clarity: constitutionally, in the Body politic), it actually seems to be mostly about their private lives rather than having anything to do with politics or public policy. Not sure there's a meaningful connection between the edits cited and British politics, per se. But I suppose that is what makes WP:BROADLY murky. It can be used to encompass a lot. In the final analysis, if another admin deems it a violation, I'm not sure I'd necessarily object, but I'm just not confident enough to do so myself. I would like an explanation for Philip Cross' removal in the first diff, though, for reasons which I already harped upon enough above (so, I'll leave it at that). El_C 01:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, having now just spent 5-minutes glancing at the Arbitration request as well as the ANI complaint that preceded it, the issue seems to have been British politicians in relation to WP:ARBPIA more than anything else. As far as I was able to discern, the Queen and the Royal family were never a factor. El_C 01:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) Beyond My Ken, the Queen's role is indeed very much apolitical (non-partisan to a fault). Although she plays a key role in the UK being a constitutional monarchy, she never engages in politics. I guess the question here may be about whether the Queen pressing the BBC to suppress the movie (due to privacy considerations) could be seen as playing politics. Should such Royal family politicking be viewed as "British politics"? Myself, I would say no. And now that I got to think about it some more from that angle, I would decline this request without prejudice. El_C 04:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with El_C that the edits at Royal Family (film) are not a problem regarding the topic ban. My January 2020 comments at permalink show I have opposed edits by Philip Cross but I don't see the edits in question as being a problem. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This concerns a film about Her Maj..? No, no. Decline. Bishonen | tålk 20:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Decline. It's not an unreasonable report but I just can't see this as a violation. It's an apolitical documentary about a politically-neutral royal family. The film predates the 1978 cutoff, and does not pertain to post-1978 politics in any way. Indeed it does not appear to pertain to the politics of the time in any way, and was apparently just a documentary about their personal lives as human beings. And on top of all that, their edit was simply adding an uncontentious, factual update to the article. Nothing that could possibly be construed as politically slanted in any way. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:41, 29 January 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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Walrus Ji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Raymond3023 (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
• User was indefinitely banned from all edits and pages related to conflict between India and Pakistan, broadly construed [52]

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

Raymond3023's recent talk page history had this comment of Arbitration ban [53]. This user along with another user:MBlaze Lightning has continued their disruptive edits (Edit warring) on an article "2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade" which is related to India Pakistan. (see [54])

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 16:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1003768701 by Walrus Ji (talk) don't use misleading edit summaries and address concerns on talk page"
2. 16:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "Revert recently added POV write up"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. 16:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring (stronger wording) (RW 16)"
2. 16:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "/* January 2021 */ Note"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. 16:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Godi Media */ Replying to Raymond3023 (using reply-link)"
2. 16:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Godi Media */ Replying to Raymond3023 (using reply-link)"
3. 16:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC) "/* Godi Media */ Replying to Raymond3023 (using reply-link)"

This user along with another [55] has been repeatedly removing sourced content and references from the article. He is only posting one liners claiming "problem exist" without specifying the specific problem, I have asked them 3 times now but it seems they are only interested in disrupting this page. Raymond3023's only contribution so far on this page is to edit war and remove sourced content without specifying the problem despite being asked. At the time of this writing Raymond3023 has still not explained what specific problems they have with the content. --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [56] Last Sanction discussion

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. [57]
• Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. [58]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Hi El C, I believe this article "2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade" which is a part of "2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest" comes under India Pakistan conflict and the same has been covered by multiple media sources and leaders who are naming and blaming Pakistan for this incident. Some links for your reference. [59] [60] [61] Walrus Ji (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had filed this report as I understand that the Indian Government and Indian Media are calling these protestors as Pakistani agents. The article in question elaborates the conflict between the Protestors (i.e. Pakistani Agents) with the Indian security forces. The edit diff that I linked as evidence as has phrases like "deployed 15 companies of para military forces" and " died after being shot in the head by the police". I felt that such an extension would come under the "broadly construed" language used in the sanction statement. Thanks for the clarification. --Walrus Ji (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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.

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

• Walrus Ji, those edits do not appear to relate to "the conflict between India and Pakistan [even when viewed as], broadly construed," at least in so far as has been defined by the original sanction — took me a while to find it, btw, but it has been recorded here. I also would advise you to respect and observe the spirit of WP:ONUS, especially for a page that is covered by the WP:ARBIPA WP:ACDS regime. Otherwise, I would decline this request. El_C 18:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Walrus Ji, yes, I realize that there's an Indo-Pakistani component to this subject (the article itself already makes that clear enough), but I don't think it's prominent for the ban to come into effect with respect to the page-level restriction aspect of it. As for the contested edits themselves, again, they appear wholly unrelated to said conflict. El_C 19:11, 30 January 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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Walrus Ji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

MBlaze Lightning (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 :

1. [62]

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

This user along with another user:Raymond has continued their disruptive edits (Edit warring) on an article "2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade" which is related to India Pakistan conflict. (see [63])

1. 30 January 2021 Disruptive edit warring

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 15 August 2018 Blocks

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. [64]
• Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. [65]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe this article "2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade" which is a part of "2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest" comes under India Pakistan conflict and the same has been covered by multiple media sources and leaders who are naming and blaming Pakistan for this incident. Some links for your reference. [66] [67] [68] Walrus Ji (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had filed this report as I understand that the Indian Government and Indian Media are calling these protestors as Pakistani agents. The article in question elaborates the conflict between the Protestors (i.e. Pakistani Agents) with the Indian security forces. The edit diff that I linked as evidence as has phrases like "deployed 15 companies of para military forces" and " died after being shot in the head by the police". I felt that such an extension would come under the "broadly construed" language used in the sanction statement. Thanks for the clarification. --Walrus Ji (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [69]

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.

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

• [refactored:] Walrus Ji, those edits, as well, do not appear to relate to "the conflict between India and Pakistan [even when viewed as], broadly construed," at least in so far as has been defined by the original sanction — took me a while to find it, btw, but it has been recorded here. I also would advise you to respect and observe the spirit of WP:ONUS, especially for a page that is covered by the WP:ARBIPA WP:ACDS regime. Otherwise, I would decline this request, too. El_C 18:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Currently, accusations that Pakistan are behind the protests are listed under "Conspiracy theories" at 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest. Unless these claims substantiated by reliable sources, I would not consider the protests to be within the purview of India-Pakistan sanctions based on the accusations alone. However, you're free to seek an Arbcom ruling at WP:ARCA to rectify this if you feel it is appropriate. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:54, 30 January 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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tartan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Guitarguy2323 (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

AP2 topic ban

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

1. 2 February 2021 Incendiary WP:NOTFORUM comment at Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 10 December 2020 2-week block for disruptive editing in AP2

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Guitarguy2323 has a history of talk-page trolling, WP:NOTFORUM political attacks and complaints of Wikipedia political bias, and disruptive editing in AP2, which resulted in a block and topic ban in December. They have violated their topic ban by making a trollish comment at Talk:Marjorie Taylor Greene alleging Wikipedia bias against conservatives because the article factually states that Greene is a conspiracy theorist. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[70]

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.

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

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Zvikorn (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/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions :

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

1. 31 January 2021 Reverted material and added material already in article without any edit summary.
2. 1 February 2021 Repeated above edit with an incomprehensible edit summary without prior discussion in talk as requested.
3. Date Explanation
4. Date Explanation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

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 1 February 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have had a discussion with this user about this sort of behavior previously. On that occasion, I did not report him because another editor fixed the problem. I see that this user has been warned and blocked for similar behavior in a different topic area. On this occasion, when I explained the problem here, the response was to falsely accuse me of lying (twice) and invited me to "Take it to neutral administrators if you have a problem."

@Shrike: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." WP:EW (this sentence is on editor Zvikorn's talk page).Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: If the revert definition above is not correct then I will happily withdraw this request. It is not at all helpful to revert a revert without any prior discussion when I had specifically requested that (BRD, I know it's not a policy). I also wish to note for the record that I do not appreciate being falsely accused of lying. It is 100% clear that that is not the case. The content, although it is an issue, is not the issue here and I am already dealing with that.Selfstudier (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

To whom it may concern I will work my reply line by line to what I have been falsely accused of: (1 The 31st of January Edit was indeed without an edit summary however it was explained in the edit summary of a future edit and on the talk page of the article (2 Reverted the edit and went to talk unlike what SelfStudier says. Edit summary was not unclear and I explained it better on the talk page.

All 4 off the difflinks give me unable to load messages so I am unable to reply to them at this time. The next thing I will address is the discretionary sanctions I received on the talk page from the user who is the other participating in this conflict. I did not edit any other articles after the notice. In my opinion, it should be noted that another user who participates in the conflit should not be able to give users who he is in a conflict with the notice. I have sent Self Studier the same notice now.

Next, I'll address the comments to user left. The usr falsely states that I falsely accused him of lying twice. However, that is nothing father from, the truth. I stated in the talk page of the contested article my reasoning for each edit twice and provided the explanation for my reasoning. Self Studier did in fact lie twice and anyone who reads the talk page can see that. I apologize if my explanations and edit summaries or even this response is a bit tangled as I still have not mastered the art of formating here on wikipedia. I suggest and even gave advice to the editor who falsely accuses me here today to take it to administrators so they can see how hard he is to deal with and that I am in the right.

Finally, I will address the false accusations the editor made on my talk page. (1 The editor falsely said that I have breached the one revert rule. I did not breach the rule as I only reverted once and don't plan on reverting again. The admins should watch the accuser to see if he intends to break such rule even just outside of the 24 hours as the rule states. (2 The editor falsely accuses me of pushing POV. As I said in my talk page and the talk page of the contested article, this once again, could not be farther than the truth. I explained my edits and gave reasoning behind them unlike the accuser who himself is pushing POV. In addition, I stated on the article that I did not remove information regarding the vaccines and only added an important legal document. The vaccine section is due for expansion as stated in the talk section on the page above ours. Lastly, I removed the settler line (without an edit summary and I apologize) however I later explained twice that I see it to fit better on the Israeli article and not the Palestinian one.

In conclusion, I state the full truth and I expect the admins to see that and decline this report. I am happy to answer and explain any more questions you have. In addition, I kindly ask to admins to format this answer correctly, if I haven't done so. Thank You

Edit 1: I tried giving SS the discretionary sanctions alert but he has already received one for this topic in the last twelve months.

Selfstudier to what version he was reverting in his first edit? --Shrike (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its shame that you can't answer a question.The first edit was not a revert but an edit.If was established already that removal of long standing material is not a revert but an edit (e.g [71] ) Shrike (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also the DS notification was given after the second edit so even if consider that there was a violation(and it was not) the user did not know that the area was under the DS sanctions regime --Shrike (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{{1}}}

On the technicality, I think a definitive clarification from admins would be helpful, since I have seen decisions all over the place on this. When I reported a similar violation recently (wholly unrelated), I noted that a user violated 1RR with reversions to content recently added in two separate sections of the article within 24 hours. Two reviewing admins refused to call that a violation. Here, at least one of the reversions was to recent content, while another was at an unrelated section of the article that had been untouched for some time. It'd be a good idea on these noticeboards to either decide on an expansive or narrow interpretation of what a revert and then be consistent about it. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit was a revert of this edit of 32 days earlier. I have no opinion on whether one month makes the initial edit stale enough.

In this case, Selfstudier added a sentence and a source for it, and Zvikorn removed that sentence and source. It was a revert for sure. Zvikorn knew it, too, see the edit summary "Reverted". Whether the edit was excusable for some other reason, I have no opinion, and I'm not going to comment on what the outcome of this case should be.

To editor El C: I really don't understand what you wrote about the meaning of "revert". As far as I know, the defining policy is WP:Edit warring. That policy does not say either that a previous page version must be recovered nor that a previous edit must be undone entirely (I don't understand "encompassed within"). Actually it says that partially undoing a previous edit counts as a revert and so does the text at the start of WP:AN3. Zero^talk 02:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor El C: I stand corrected on the edit summary and apologise for that misdirection. On the definition of a revert, I don't agree that a help page can overrule the plain text of a policy. The policy says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert" (my emphasis). It says the same again a few lines later. The instructions at the start of WP:AN3 have no weight as policy but anyway they also say "Undoing another editor's work whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." I assume you don't think an edit-warrior can escape sanction by being careful to only delete parts of previous edits.

Having said that, you are quite right that there should be some limit to which deletions count as reverts. If you want to judge that being in the article for a month is long enough for removal to not be called a revert, I'm fine with that. Personally I think there should be a legislated maximum time between the original edit and its (whole or partial) undoing before the latter is called a revert. That would be consistent with the intention of rules like 1RR to slow down disputes. Would you support that? Zero^talk 06:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Selfstudier, without addressing the content of the edits themselves, Shrike is indeed right: you gotta connect Zvikorn's first edit to an earlier edit which it is said to have purportedly reverted. That is, not just plain removal, but specific edit added→ specific edit undone (or encompassed therein). That is why we have the Previous version reverted to parameter at WP:AN3 — a parameter which, I note, is nearly always left blank, thereby often becoming a chore to parse and untangle. But that is a rant for another time and place! El_C 16:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Zero0000, that's explained with greater detail at WP:REVERT, which WP:EW links to, including partial reverts (i.e. "encompassed therein"). The point is to allow someone to remove a portion of an article, without having that always automatically count as revert — since anything on a page was added by someone at some point. El_C 03:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Zero0000, that is incorrect. Zvi's first edit, which had no edit summary, got reverted by Selfstudier (diff), a revert which then automatically tagged Zvi's aforementioned previous edit with the "reverted" tag (mw-reverted). El_C 04:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Zero0000, I didn't imply H:RV is overruling WP:EW, just that it clarifies it. Anyway, I wouldn't really put a clock on it, but the reason I would decline enforcement here is because the OP didn't say something like: 'a portion of an edit I added at time-and-date was reverted with that removal.' Had they made that clear to the user being reported (from the outset), yet with them still following that with a 2nd revert, then I would definitely apply enforcement action. Other admins' mileage may vary, though. El_C 07:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Zero0000 "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." As El C says, any edit that changes content on an article technically undoes something that was added previously. What admins have to determine in RR/EW disputes is whether the edit was specifically, and deliberately, made to negate another editor's previous edit. This is why you end up with grey areas (for example Editor A adds content, editor B doesn't delete it, but changes it, perhaps to read sgnificantly differently. Is that a revert?). You make a good point about elapsed time, however. 32 days is not long, but it's not yesterday either. Is there a time limit? Again, that's something which may differ from case to case. Black Kite (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]