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

Butterscotch Beluga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

1. 14 December 2024

• Adds "depiste being an ex-Muslim" to dismiss accusations of Islamophobia MOS:EDITORIAL.
• Adds MOS:SCAREQUOTES around ‘promoted Islamophobia’ & ‘Islamophobia’ while removing the supporting context.
• Changed "interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred" MOS:CLAIM & MOS:EDITORIAL

1. 14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST

• Changes "Israeli settlers" to "Israeli soldiers" despite the source only explicitly stating them "throwing stones on settlers."

1. 14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST
2. 14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST

• Unnecessarily specific additions that may constitute WP:POVPUSH such as adding "against civilians" & changing "prevent the assassinations of many Israelis" to "prevent the assassinations of many Israeli civilians and soldiers"

1. 14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 24 June 2024 Warned to abide by the one-revert rule when making edits within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
2. 22 October 2024 Blocked from editing for 1 week for violating consensus required on the page Zionism

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 22 October 2024 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 24 January 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

All edits were made at Mosab Hassan Yousef. After I partially reverted their edits with an explanation, I brought the issue to their attention on the talk page, asking for their rationale. They replied that they were "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" & asked if I "perhaps have a deeper bias that’s influencing [my] decisions in this respect?"

They then undid my partial revert

Ealdgyth - While I can't find any comments where they were explicitly "warned for casting aspersions", they were asked back in June to WP:AGF in the topic area.

Also, apologies for my "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" section, this is the first time I've filed a request here & I thought it'd be best to explain the preamble to my revert, but I understand now that I misunderstood the purpose of that section & will remember such for the future. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 I was able to find a copy of the opinion article being cited 'They Need to Be Liberated From Their God'. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

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 is a complete waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.

1. That Yousef was born and raised a Muslim is important and neutral context for readers to be aware of when the article refers to claims of ‘Islamophobia’.

2. The scarequotes indicate that the claim comes from the sources provided, rather than being an objective ‘fact’ determined by a few Wikipedia Editors with an axe to grind.

3. This was already addressed on the Talk page and I updated the sentence to say settlers/soldiers with a further label that it needed further clarification because the source does not in fact unambiguously say what Butterscotch Beluga claims.

A few lines above what Butterscotch Beluga quotes is the following lines: “AMANPOUR: How did you take part in that? Were you one of the small children who threw rocks at Israeli soldiers?

YOUSEF: The model for every Palestinian child is a mujahid (ph) or a fidahi (ph) or a fighter. So, of course, I wanted to be one at that point of my life. It wasn't -- it's not my only dream. It's every child's dream in that territory.”

The updated Wiki page noted both settlers/soldiers and included a note that this requires further clarification, perhaps based on other sources, because it isn’t clear (contra Butterscotch Beluga) whether he is referring to soldiers or settlers.

4. It is not controversial to accurately describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. It is simply a fact. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing.

5. This is not POVPUSH; ‘assassinations’ against civilians during peacetime are usually called ‘murders’.

I in fact didn’t even remove the word ‘assassinations’, I merely broadened the description from ‘Israelis’ to ‘Israeli civilians and soldiers’ (as Butterscotch accepted) to indicate the breadth of the individuals in question included both civilians and combatants. This is not POVPUSH, it is simply additional information and context verified in the source itself.

All in all, a vexatious claim and a waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.

Regarding "I was correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors", it would be helpful if KronosAlight would explicitly identify the antisemitic editors and the edits they corrected so that they can be blocked for being antisemitic editors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been here since 2012. It is reasonable to assume that they know the rules regarding aspersions. It is reasonable to assume they are intentionally violating them, presumably because they genuinely believe they are dealing with antisemitic editors. So, this report is somehow simultaneously a vexatious complete waste of time and the result of the someone interfering with their valiant efforts to correct errors made by antisemitic editors. Why do they have this belief? This is probably a clue, a comment they had the good sense to revert. For me, this is an example of someone attempting to use propaganda that resembles antisemitic conspiracy theories about media control to undermine Wikipedia's processes and then changing their mind. But the very fact that they thought of it is disturbing. Their revert suggests that they are probably aware that there are things you can say about an editor and things you cannot say about an editor. From my perspective, what we have here is part of an emerging pattern in the topic area, a growing number of attacks on Wikipedia and editors with accusations of antisemitism, cabals etc. stemming in part from external partisan sources/influence operations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersions:

• I made that comment to highlight the obvious problem of antisemitism among Wikipedia editors.
• It seems less like a merger and more like a deliberate burying of the original information.
• Given some of the users involved there, I don’t have very high hopes given the Pirate Wires allegations.
• Is there no limits you will not cross in order to seek to justify your Jew-hatred?

Zero^talk 10:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KronosAlight, you changed on 14 Dec 2024: "An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred".

Can you show where either of the sources state "though no threats or violence in fact occurred"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to add some pertinent evidence:

Talk:Zionism:

• "Interesting question, you should look it up and find an answer"
• I’ll leave it to others to consider what that says about Wikipedia’s community.
• If your claim is that the sinking of SS Patria is morally comparable then I simply don’t think you should be allowed to contribute to any of these articles
• You think WW2 and the Holocaust are too low-level to include in the lede?

Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon:

• This article gave me a very hearty laugh. It's hilarious. Nothing else to add, but congrats to the Editors for a very amusing article.

Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world:

• I want to make it clear that large parts of the Arab world agreed with Hitler’s goal of exterminating the Jewish people.

Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks:

• No evidence or reason to believe the attack targetted civilians, every reason to believe it targetted Hezbollah members. Also it's a bit of an overstatement to describe Lebanon as a "sovereign country".

Talk:Anti-Zionism:

• There's no difference between opposing the Jewish people's right to self-determination and calling for the destruction of the State of Israel. It's just two different sets of words to describe the same thing.
• "The route to this implication is via the identification of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Anti-Semites want to rid the world of Jews: Israel is a Jewish State: Anti-Zionists oppose Israel as a Jewish state, ergo anti-Zionists are anti-Semitic, and as such, seek the destruction of Israel." All of this is correct.

Talk:Gaza genocide:

• Even if we assume that Hamas' own numbers are broadly correct (which we shouldn't, because it don't distinguish between civilian and combatant casualties, and have been repeatedly proven be largely just invented), that doesn’t seem to even come close to genocide. Why are we even indulging this ludicrous nonsense?
• When this war ends and the vast, vast, vast majority of Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank are still alive and negotiating begin about the future of their region and political administration etc., will this article be deleted, or will this remain as yet another blood libel against the Jewish people?

Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre:

• It’s not how Wikipedia should work, and it badly distorts articles which should be neutral but are unfortunately pushes into pro-Hamas territory.

Talk:Al-Sardi school attack:

• Yes, we’re familiar with your propaganda campaign masquerading as some sort of neutral position.

Talk:Eden Golan:

• Can we stop acting like we aren’t creating double standards for Jews? Like there isn’t a profound problem of antisemitism among Wikipedia editors and moderators? It’s disgusting and shameful.

Other sanctions:

• March 2024: indefinitely topic banned from the subject of flood myths for sealioning, WP:ASPERSIONS, etc
• June 2024: warned to abide by 1RR
• October 2024: blocked for a week

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

• Much of the "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" fail to explain "how these edits violate" the sanction - to me, much of these diffs look like a content dispute. However, the "additional comments" section DOES have a diff that is concerning and violates the CT by casting an aspersion that is not backed up by a diff - the "antisemitic editors" diff. Has KA been previously warned for casting aspersions? If they have, I'm inclined to issue a topic ban, but many other editors get a warning for this if they lack a previous warning. The diffs brought up by Zero (not all of which I necessarily see as aspersions, but the "Jew-hatred" one is definitely over the line - but it's from September so a bit late to sanction for just that) - did anyone point out that aspersions/incivility in this topic area is sanctionable? I see the warnings for 1RR and consensus required... Ealdgyth (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KronosAlight: - can you address the fact that saying "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" and "Is there no limits you will not cross in order to seek to justify your Jew-hatred"? Neither of these are statements that should ever be made - and the fact that you seem to not to understand this is making me lean towards a topic ban. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• KronosAlight, can you please provide quotes from the references you cited for - for instance - "for his terrorist activities" in this addition, showing that the sources explicitly supported the content you added? Calling a person or an organization is perfectly acceptable if you support that with reliable sources; if it is original research, or source misrepresentation, it isn't acceptable. I cannot access some of the sources in question. You may provide quotes inside a collapsed section if you wish to save space. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I missed Zero's comments earlier. A lot of those comments, while concerning, are generic, not directed at a specific editor. this, however, is beyond the pale. I would need some convincing that this user is able to edit this area constructively. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @KronosAlight, can you please respond to this? I too am concerned...the quote you're objecting to wasn't from DrSmarty. It was a direct quote, scare quotes and all, from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. You seem to have reacted to it as if it were DrSmarty. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't like to sanction in absentia, and I'm not yet suggesting we do so, but I want to note that not choosing not to respond here, or going inactive to avoid responding, will not improve the outcome as far as I am concerned. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They're a pretty sporadic editor...many edits over a period of a few days, then nothing for two weeks. Maybe we pin this until they edit again? Valereee (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Valereee that this editors contribution history shows a pattern of editing for a day or two at a time followed by several weeks of inactivity. So I don't think it's fair to say they went inactive here but also holding this open for multiple weeks waiting for a response places some burden on the other other interested editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Welp, it's been nearly ten days since they first posted here, calling this a waste of time and vexatious. They're fully aware it's happening, and it's not even like they haven't been to AE before.

  I've gone through the diffs here, and it seems to me the basis of KA's problematic editing is that they're on a mission to WP:right great wrongs, specifically w/re what they see as antisemitic bias on WP. The exchange at Talk:Algeria a few weeks ago makes that pretty clear: they come into Algeria and open a section to post a content complaint about the article not covering changing Jewish demographics in the country, saying "Many people have edited it, but apparently not one has seen fit to explain" this. Another editor suggests KA fix whatever problem they're seeing, and KA responds: I made that comment to highlight the obvious problem of antisemitism among Wikipedia editors. The question was rhetorical. And many of their other talk contributions are focussed on these accusations of systemic bias.

  And @KronosAlight, in case you're paying attention: of course WP has systemic bias. It's usually unintentional, but in most CTOPs there are editors who consciously try to push a POV. The solution for that isn't to go 'round making accusations. It's to go 'round fixing the problem either by adding missing content or by discussing biased content in nonproblematic ways. It's the "nonproblematic ways" part you're missing, here. And if you are paying attention: You cannot make an AE case go away by ignoring it. I very strongly recommend you come in here and respond to the questions. Valereee (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I propose closing this with an indefinite topic ban in a day or two, unless KA decides to respond. I think KA needs to be aware that they have fallen short of the required standards of behavior no matter the topic, and similar incivility elsewhere will quite likely result in an indefinite block. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. Valereee (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Been watching this thread from afar, but it looks like a civil POV-pushing case to me and I support as well. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't know about that. I haven't determined if their edits were supported by sources or not - so I don't know if this is POV-pushing - but it looks pretty uncivil to me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, that's fair on the civility :) I was mostly looking at the mainspace edits. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial 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

Nicoljaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring, and intent to game 1rr, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The circumstances of my blocking were:

• I was looking for a Wikipedia account for Hiba Abu Nada to add it to Wikidata. I couldn't find it, so I did a little research. The reference in the article indicated that she participated in some WikiWrites(?) project. I didn’t find such a project, but I found the WikiRights project: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ويكيبيديا:ويكي_رايتس. It was organized by a certain Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. I read the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor article and didn't see any outside perspective, "controversy" or anything like that, just self-representation. I surfed the Internet and instantly found information that must be in the article to comply with the NPOV. I started adding [2], everything went well for two days. Then:
• 12:53, 23 April 2024 - Zero0000 made a complete cancellation of all additions [3]
  
• 13:14, 23 April 2024 - (20 minutes later!) Selfstudier wrote on my TP [4]
  
• 14:20 - 14:22, 23 April 2024 -‎ With two edits (first, second) I partially took into account the comment of Zero0000 about "ethnic marking", but returned the last [5].
  
• 14:27, 23 April 2024 (7 minutes later!!) Selfstudier makes a second complete cancellation of all my edits, blaming POV editing [6]
  
• 14:45, 23 April 2024‎ - I’m returning the version where I partially took into account Zero0000’s comments (removed "ethnic marking")[7]
  
• 15:10, 23 April 2024 - Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit User talk:Nicoljaus#1RR_breach
  
• 15:41, 23 April 2024 Selfstudier writes on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement [8]
  
• 16:10, 23 April 2024 (30 minutes later!) ScottishFinnishRadish issues an indefinite block [9]. No opportunity to write my “statement”, as well as an extremely bad faith interpretation of my remark as "an intent to game 1rr".
  

Given that the both Selfstudier and Zero0000 are currently being discussed in Arbcom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence), I humbly ask you to take a fresh look at my indefinite block and soften the restrictions in some way". Nicoljaus (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: - You mean, I need to discuss my previous edit war blocks? Well, the last one was almost four years ago and that time I simply forgot that I was under 1RR (there was a big break in editing) and tried to get sources for a newly added map, and the opponent refused to do so [10]. As it turned out later, the true source was a book by a fringe author, which the RSN called "Usual nationalistic bullshit, no sign of reliability"[11]. Yes, it was a stupid forgetfulness on my part. Nicoljaus (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them) -- That's why I wrote that my "so problematic edits" attracted attention only after two days, but two users appeared within 20 minutes. However, after months, a lot of data about the cooperation of these users appeared (and this is not my imagination): "While a single editor, Shane (a newbie), advocated for its inclusion, a trio of veterans including Zero0000, Nishidani and Selfstudier fought back. After Selfstudier accused Shane of being a troll for arguing for the photo’s inclusion, Zero0000, days later, “objected” to its inclusion, citing issues of provenance. Nishidani stepped in to back up Zero0000, prompting a response by Shane. The following day, Zero0000 pushed back against Shane, who responded. The day after, Nishidani returned with his own pushback. The tag-team effort proved too much for Shane, who simply gave up, and the effort succeeded: the photo remains absent" [12]. I'll add that after Selfstudier accused Shane of trolling, Zero0000 appeared on Shane's page and said: "Kindly keep your insults to yourself [...] I won't hesitate to propose you for blocking if you keep it up" [13]. According to the table at the link [14], these two users cooperated like this 720 times. Probably hundreds of people were embittered, forced out of the project, or led to blocking like me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Hello, thank you very much for transferring my remarks, now I understand how it works. I would like to clarify the issue of meatpuppetry. You directly accused me of such intentions in justifying the block, and now this accusation has been repeated [15]. Let's figure out whether my hint that Selfstudier and Zero0000 are working too closely was so absurd? Was it really and remains so absurd that it could not be perceived as anything other than my self-exposure? I don't think so.

As for the "edit war" - I understand that edit wars are evil. In the spirit of cooperation, I tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule - I will of course avoid it in the future.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Hello, I understand your point that edit wars can be disruptive, particularly in a CTOP context. However, I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting. Furthermore, I acknowledge your reference to the 1RR/3RR rule and my history of blocks for edit-warring. However, given the amount of time that has passed, I believe I have gained valuable insights and learned a great deal. Moreover, given this topic, I think I actually learned something unlike the other side, whose history of blocks for edit-warring remains clean.--Nicoljaus (talk) 4:24 am, Today (UTC−5)

@Valereee: In response to this, I can say that I already know very well how carelessly admins impose blocks. If any further statements are needed from me, just ping me. With best regards.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absent from the appeal is discussion of the five prior edit warring blocks and any indication that they will not resume edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said They have a long history of edit warring, so I'd like to see that addressed rather than blaming others above, twelve days ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoljaus, you should be focusing on convincing people that you won't edit war in the future rather than more WP:NOTTHEM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (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.

This edit looks like a bright-line WP:BLP violation via WP:ATTACK and WP:WEASEL - and removing BLP violations are generally somewhere where there is some latitude on WP:1RR which makes the actions of Zero0000 and Selfstudier more justified, not less. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit - I feel like this is obvious enough that I probably don't have to point it out, but "counter edit" is not a WP:3RR / WP:1RR exception. Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them), it still would not justify your revert. The fact that they're parties to an ArbCom case (which hasn't even yet found any fault with them!) doesn't change any of this. You should probably read WP:NOTTHEM. --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination"...yet another conspiracy-minded evidence-free accusation against editors in the PIA topic area, the third one at AE in just a few days. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I do not see any indication that Nicoljaus actually realizes the problem. The edit warring blocks were indeed some time ago, but one might think they would remember it after being blocked for it repeatedly, not to mention that being issued a CTOP notice might call a CTOP restriction to mind. And the remark in question sure looks to me like a threat to game 1RR via meatpuppetry, too. Given all that, I would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I see nothing in this appeal that makes me think they've taken on board the changes that they'd need to do to be a productive editor. It reads to me like "my block was bad, here's why", and that's not working as a reason for me to support unblocking. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Nicoljaus, what we need to see is you demonstrating you understand edit-warring at a CTOP, which is what you were blocked for, and convincing us you won't do it again. Arguing the block should be lifted because other editors did something you thought looked suspicious isn't going to convince us. Just FWIW, Nicoljaus, the source doesn't actually say these two users cooperated like this 720 times. It says they edited the same articles 720 times, and that's not unusual. Most editors see the same other editors over and over again in articles about their primary interest. And edit by editor 1>2 days>revert by editor 2>revert by editor 1>20 minutes>revert by editor 3 is also not at all unusual anywhere on the encyclopedia and isn't evidence of tag-teaming. People read their watch lists. Any editor with that article on their watchlist, which is nearly fifty editors, might have investigated the large revert of an edit by an experienced editor at a contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nicoljaus, it's not that edit wars are evil. It's that they're disruptive, and particularly in a CTOP we really really don't need additional disruption and drama. A revert is a revert, even if you tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. Re: If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule: a revert is a revert and is covered in the policy around reversions. And you have a history of blocks for edit-warring, including at other CTOPs.

  It's been seven months since the block. I'm trying to come around to a way to at least allow this editor a chance to show us they've taken this stuff on board...maybe a 0RR at all CTOPs? Valereee (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nicoljaus, re I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting. Some editors at talk pages will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just take you to ANEW. Some admins at ANEW will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just reblock you.

  No one anywhere is promising that your intentions will be taken into account -- or even that they'll try to figure out what your intentions are -- and therefore it's completely your responsibility to read the situation you're in correctly. If you read it wrong, you're likely to be blocked again, and honestly another block for edit-warring at a CTOP is likely to be another indef, and it would absolutely not surprise me for the blocking admin to require 12 months to appeal. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No need to reply, but I'll tell you plainly I've been trying to give you opportunities to convince other admins here, and you keep wanting to dig the hole deeper. I'd support an unblock with an editing restriction of 0RR at any article with a CTOPs designation on the talk page. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would also decline this per Seraphimblade, even if there were to be an unblock I would expect a PIA topic-ban (at the least) to be included. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I see a rough consensus, so I am closing the thread --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:56, 1 January 2025 (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

Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

LaylaCares (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/ARBPIA

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

1. 13:54, December 17, 2024 EC gaming

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Pretty obvious case of EC gaming. Account created on Nov 17, 2024, then about 500 mostly minor edits followed by the first substantial edit ever was the creation of this article on Dec 17 (subsequently moved to draftspace).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[16]

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.

Question: Assuming it's determined that they gamed the extended-confirmed restriction, would the page they created be WP:G5-able? I've asked the relevant question in more detail on the CSD talk page, since it is likely to come up again as long as we have such a broad restriction on effect, but I figured it was worth mentioning the issue here as well. --Aquillion (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, written by the account under discussion. It's a hit job, originally placed in mainspace by this account. Anyone who wrote that shouldn't be allowed with 1 million miles of the topic.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, so Dan Murphy's link is inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion. For the version of Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations with content only written by LaylaCares, click this link. starship.paint (talk / cont) 10:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I agree that this looks like EC-gaming. Absent evidence that the edits themselves were problematic, I would either TBAN from ARBPIA or pull the EC flag until the user has made 500 edits that aren't rapidfire possibly LLM-assisted gnomish edits. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree on the gaming piece and would suggest mainspace edits+time for restoration of EC. I will throw out 3 months + 500 (substantive) main space edits. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Barkeep but I'd up it to 4 months. I don't believe that a TBAN is necessary at this point. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Aquillion: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the wording of WP:ECR allows for deletion of a page that was created by an EC user. (ECR also seems to forget that anything other than articles and talkpages exists, but I think the most reasonable reading of provision A still allows for G5ing drafts at admins' discretion if the criteria are met.) That said, a consensus at AE can delete a page as a "reasonable measure[ ] that [is] necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". Deleting under that provision is not something to be done lightly, but I think for a case where a page's existence violates the spirit of an ArbCom restriction but not the letter, it'd be a fair time to do it. And/or this could make for a good ARCA question, probably after PIA5 wraps. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 03:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I would just pull EC and require the editor to apply via AE appeal for its restoration. They should be very clearly aware that receiving such restoration will require both substantial time and making real, substantive edits outside the area, as well as an understanding of what is expected of editors working in a CTOP area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I see a clear consensus here to remove the EC flag. For clarity, when I proposed a TBAN above it was because removing this flag is an ARBPIA TBAN as long as the ECR remedy remains in place; it's simply a question of whether the editor get the other privileges of EC or not. I don't see a consensus on what to do with the draft, but given that other editors have now made substantive contributions to it, I don't believe it's a good use of AE time to discuss the hypothetical further. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (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

Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

AstroGuy0 (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:Contentious topics/Race and intelligence

(Even though this isn't the usual R&I fare, I consider the intersection of "Race/ethnicity and sex offending", to come under "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour")

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

1. 03:19, 4 January 2025 Asserts that "A majority of the perpetrators were Pakistani men" despite the cited source (freely accessible at [17]) does not mention the word "Pakistani" or any variant once.
2. 01:40, 4 January 2025 Describes the sex offender ring as "Pakistani" in the opening sentence when the cited source in the body [18] says that they were only "mainly Pakistani"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Made aware of contentious topics criterion: 01:52, 4 January 2025

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint:

This new user seems intent on POVPUSHING regarding "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" and making contentious claims that are not backed up by sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2025 (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.

This rather dated "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" malarkey from the UK has recently been pushed on social media by a certain US tech billionaire and is now recirculating in right-wing social media and the blogosphere, partly in connection with UK politics, so this trend could flare before it dims. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The second diff was before AG0 received a CTOP alert. I've alerted AG0 to other CTOPs that they've edited in, and I am going to warn them for their conduct in diff #1 without prejudice to other admins determining that further action is warranted. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked at the source, and it indeed does not in any way support the claim made; it does not mention "Pakistani" even once. This is a fairly new editor, but I think we need to make it very clear to them that misrepresentation of sources is not something we will tolerate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that AstroGuy0 has already been issued a warning, I don't think anything further is necessary, and will close as such unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:23, 6 January 2025 (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

NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. 17:57, 18 December 2024 - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of Hindutva (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
2. 17:59, 18 December 2024 - tag bombed the highly vetted Hindutva article without any discussion or reason
3. 10:15, 18 December 2024 - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
4. 12:11, 18 December 2024 - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting reverted
5. 17:09, 18 December 2024 - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
6. 18:29, 18 December 2024 - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation
7. 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring.[20]

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[21][22]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I do not see any positive signs that this editor will ever improve. So far he has only regressed. Nxcrypto Message 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While going through this report, PerspicazHistorian has made another highly problematic edit here by edit warring and misrepresenting the sources to label the organisation as "terrorist". This primary source only provides a list of organisations termed by the Indian government as "terrorist" contrary to MOS:TERRORIST. Nxcrypto Message 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• PerspicazHistorian is still using unreliable Raj era sources (see WP:RAJ) and wishing to move Shivaji to Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj[23] which is a blatant POV. Nxcrypto Message 04:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[24]

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.

• By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu Page.

I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before User: Ratnahastin told me about this: User_talk:PerspicazHistorian. Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.

• In the below statement by LukeEmily, As a reply I just want to say that I was just making obvious edit on Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu by adding a list of notable people with proper references. And according to Edit_warring#What_edit_warring_is it is clearly said: "Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." It was a good faith edit but others reverted it. I accept my mistake of not raising it on talk page as a part of Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle.
  
• As a clarification to my edit on Students' Islamic Movement of India, it can be clearly seen that I provided enough reference to prove its a terrorist organisation as seen in this edit. I don't know why is there a discussion to this obvious edit? Admins please correct me if I am wrong.

@Valereee, Yes I read about 1RR and 0RR revert rules in Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is#Other revert rules. I now understand the importance of raising the topic on talk page whenever a consensus is needed. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will commit to that. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

At that time I was new to how AFD discussions worked. Later on when Satish R. Devane was marked for deletion, I respected the consensus by not interfering in it. The article was later deleted. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Doug Weller , I just checked your user page. You have 16 years (I am 19) of experience on wiki, you must be right about me. I agree that my start on Wikipedia has been horrible, but I am learning a lot from you all. I promise that I will do better, get more neutral here and contribute to the platform to my best. Please don't block me.

P.S.- I don't know If I will be blocked or what , according to this enforcement rules, I just want to personally wish good luck to you for your ongoing cancer treatments, You will surely win this battle of Life. Regards. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section.Valereee (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) I just asked an user @Fylindfotberserk if the page move is possible. What's wrong with it? I still have not considered putting a move request on talk page of article.

2) Many of other sources are not raj era. Moreover I myself have deleted the content way before you pointing this out. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

even @NXcrypto is seen engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics. see1see2 PerspicazHistorian (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as mentioned by @Valereee before, _{Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here}. You can discuss content related topics on talk pages of articles rather than personally targeting a user here in enforcement. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee I once filed a complaint to find it @NXcrypto is a sock (out of a misunderstanding, as all were teamed up similarly on various pages). I think he felt it as a personal attack by me and filed this request for enforcement. Please interfere. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC) moving to correct section Valereee (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi @Toddy1 @Valereee, In my defense I just want to say that

1)Yes I usually edit on RSS related topics, but to ensure a democratic view is maintained as many socks try to disrupt such articles. Even on Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh page, I just edited on request of talk page and added a graph. I don't think its a POV push.

2) My main interest in editing is Hinduism and Indian History topics.

3)There have been certain cases in past where I was blocked but if studied carefully they were result of me edit warring with socks(although, through guidance of various experienced editors and admins I learnt a SPI should be filed first). I have learnt a lot in my journey and there have been nearly zero case of me of edit warring this month.

Please do not block me. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Valereee I beg apologies for the inconvenience caused, thanks for correcting me. I will now reply in my own statement section. @Bishonen I am a quick learner and professionally competent to edit in this encyclopedic space. Please consider reviewing this enforcement if its an counter-attack on me as mentioned in my previous replies. You all are experienced editors and I have good faith in your decision-making capability.PerspicazHistorian (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Vanamonde93@Bishonen I have edited content marked as "original research" and "mess" by you, I am ready to help removing any content that might be considered "poorly sourced" by the community. Please don't block me.PerspicazHistorian (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Valereee This enforcement started for edit-warring and now I feel its more concerned to my edited content(which I agree to cooperate and change wherever needed). After learning about edit wars, there has been no instance of me edit-warring, Please consider my request.--PerspicazHistorian (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee I am not a slow learner, I understand the concerns of all admins here. I will try my best to add only reliable sources, and discuss content in all talk pages, as I already mentioned here. PPicazHist (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee@UtherSRG I think admins should focus more on encouraging editors when they do good and correct when mistaken. I have made many edits, added many citations and created much articles which use fine citations. The enforcement started out of retaliation by nxcrypto, now moving towards banning me anyways. I started editing out of passion, and doing it here on wiki unlike those who come here just for pov pushes and disrupt article space(talking about socks and vandalizers on contentious Indian topics).

  The article prasada doesn't only has issue on citations, but the whole article is copypasted from the citations I added. I just wanted to point that out. Remaining about Wikipedia:CIR, I am currently pursuing Btech in cs from IIT delhi, idt I am a slow learner by any means. Still, happy new year to all ! PPicazHist (talk) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @UtherSRG You mean to say, "_{The prasada is to be consumed by attendees as a holy offering. The offerings may include cooked food, fruits and confectionery sweets. Vegetarian food is usually offered and later distributed to the devotees who are present in the temple. Sometimes this vegetarian offering will exclude prohibited items such as garlic, onion, mushroom, etc. "} is not copy pasted by this website? Is this also a wiki mirror website? How would you feel if I doubt your competence now? PPicazHist (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ UtherSRG I just asked others to share their opinion in the enforcement. With all due respect, I don't think its wrong in any sense. PPicazHist (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To all the admins involved here,

  • I agree to keep learning and apologize if my previous edits/replies have annoyed the admins.
  • I have not edit warred since a month and please see it as my willingness to keep learning and getting better.
  • Please give me a chance, I understand concern of you all and respect your opinion in the matter. But please don't block me from editing from main article space. I promise that I will abide by all the rules and will learn from other editors.

  PPicazHist (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PerspicazHistorian also violated WP:BRD by engaging in an edit war with Ratnahastin who reverted his edits and restored an article to a stable version by admin. Also, I want to assume good faith but it is surprising that PerspicazHistorian claims that he did not know the three revert rule given that he has more than 800 edits.LukeEmily (talk)

I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and User:Deb's comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving Draft:Satish R. Devane to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. Deb (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... Doug Weller talk 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is another editor who appears to have pro-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and pro-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) views. I dislike those views, but find it rather alarming that Wikipedia should seek to censor those views, but not the views of the political opponents. Imagine the outrage if we sought to topic-ban anyone who expressed pro-Republican views, but allowed Democrat-activists to say whatever they liked.

A lot of pro-RSS/BJP editors turn out to be sock-puppets, so please can we do a checkuser on this account. And to be even-handed, why not checkuser NXcrypto too.

If we want to talk about WP:CIR when editors make mistakes, look at the diff given by NXcrypto for "Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested" - it is the wrong diff. He/she did notify PerspicazHistorian - but the correct diff is [25].

A topic ban from Indian topics would be unhelpful, unless given to both parties. Wikipedia is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India. Loading the dice against BJP and RSS editors will turn Wikipedia into a fringe encyclopaedia on Indian topics.

I can see a good case for restricting PerspicazHistorian to draft articles and talk pages for a month, and suggesting that he/she seeks advice from more experienced editors. Another solution would be a one-revert rule to last six months.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find the comment from Toddy1 to be entirely outrageous. What are you trying to tell by saying "Wikipedia is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India"? If you want us to entertain those who are in power, then we could never have an article like False or misleading statements by Donald Trump.

You cannot ask topic ban for both editors without having any evidence of misconduct. Same way, you cannot ask CU on either user only for your own mental relief. It is a high time that you should strike your comment, since you are falsely accusing others that they "seek to censor" this editor due to his "pro-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and pro-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) views". You should strike your comment. If you cannot do that, then I am sure WP:BOOMERANG is coming for you. Capitals00 (talk) 15:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy1: I, too, am baffled by your comment. We don't ban editors based on their POV; but we do ban editors who fail to follow our PAGs, and we certainly don't make excuses for editors who fail to follow our guidelines based on their POV. You seem to be suggesting we cut PH some slack because of their political position, and I find that deeply inappropriate. Among other things, I don't believe they have publicly stated anywhere that they support the BJP or the RSS, and we cannot make assumptions about them.

That said, the fact that this was still open prompted me to spot-check PH's contributions, and I find a lot to be concerned about. This edit is from 29 December, and appears to be entirely original research; I cannot access all of the sources, but snippet search does not bear out the content added, and the Raj era source for the first sentence certainly does not support the content it was used for. Baji Pasalkar, entirely authored by PH, is full of puffery ("first to sacrifice his life for the cause of Swarajya", and poor sources (like this blog, and this book, whose blurb I leave you to judge), from which most of the article appears to be drawn. Appa (title), also entirely authored by PH, has original research in its very first sentence; the sources that I can access give passing mention to people whose names include the suffix "appa", and thus could perhaps be examples of usage, but the sources most certainly do not bear out the claim.

I will note in fairness that I cannot access all the sources for the content I checked. But after spotchecking a dozen examples I have yet to find content PH wrote that was borne out by a reliable source, so I believe skepticism is justified. We are in territory where other editors may need to spend days cleaning up some of this writing. Bishonen If we're in CIR territory, just a normal indefinite block seems cleanest, surely? Or were you hoping that PH would help clean up their mess, perhaps by providing quotes from sources? That could be a pathway to contributing productively, but I'm not holding my breath. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bish: I agree, as my exchanges with PH today, in response to my first post here, have not inspired confidence. [26]. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've mostly dealt with PH around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankur Warikoo (2nd nomination). They do not seem to have the ability to read and understand our policies and processes. As such, a t-ban is too weak. The minimum I would support is a p-block as suggested below, though a full indef is also acceptable. They could then ask for the standard offer when they can demonstrate they no longer have WP:CIR issues. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these two edits, I'm more strongly leaning towards indef. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They now indicate they believe the article they edited was copied from one of the websites they used as a reference, when in reality the website is a mirror/scrape of the Wikipedia article. I believe we are firmly in WP:CIR territory here. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mirror of the Wikipedia article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

PerspicazHistorian, can you explain your understanding of WP:edit warring and the WP:3RR rule? I'd like you to read thoroughly enough to also explain wny someone may be edit warring even if they aren't breaking 3RR. Valereee (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PerspicazHistorian, that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is the first time someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that?

Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH; in their revert NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here. Valereee (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing this as a CIR issue. I'd like input from other admins, if possible. I'm a little concerned that setting a tban from IPA is just setting a trap. Maybe a p-block from article space would be a kinder way to allow them to gain some experience? Valereee (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PerspicazHistorian, have you seen how many times I or others have had to move your comments to your own section? This is an example of not having enough experience to edit productively. Please do not post in anyone else's section again. Valereee (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree we're in CIR territory, and the concerns expressed are completely valid. I don't think this editor is ill-intentioned. They just don't seem very motivated to learn quickly. Well-intentioned-but-a-slow-learner is something that can only be fixed by actually practicing what you're bad at. I'd prefer an indef from article space which gives them one more chance to learn here before we send them off to mr.wiki or Simple English to try to learn. Not a hill I'm going to die on, though. Valereee (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PerspicazHistorian, like Uther I have major concerns about the edit you made yesterday, which included replacing a citation needed tag with these sources.^[1][2] The first is a company that markets astrology services. The second is the site for a religious sect. Neither is a reliable source for explaining the concept of prasada in Wikivoice. You made this edit yesterday, after you'd confirmed here and on my talk that you understood sourcing policy.

The reason for an indef from article space is to allow you to learn this policy: You would go into article talk and suggest sources to fix citation needed tags. Another editor would have to agree with you that the sources are reliable before they'd add them. Valereee (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A tban from IPA for PerspicazHistorian would be a relief to many editors trying to keep this difficult area in reasonable shape. However, Valereee makes a good point about 'setting a trap': it's doubtful that PH would be able to keep to a tban even if they tried in good faith. I would therefore support a p-block from article space. Bishonen | tålk 16:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  Vanamonde93, no, I don't really think PH can usefully help clean up their mess; I was following Valereee, who has been going into this in some depth, in attempting to keep some way of editing Wikipedia open for PH. It's a bit of a counsel of desperation, though; there is very little daylight between an indef and a p-block from article space. Yes, we are in CIR territory; just look at PH's recent supposed evidence on this page for NXcrypto being "engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics": one diff of an opponent complaining on NXcrypto's page, and one diff of somebody reverting NXcrypto. What do those actually prove? That NXcrypto has opponents (big surprise). So, yes, as you suggest, I'll support an indef as well. Bishonen | tålk 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

• Is there a length of time proposed for the p-ban or would it be indefinite? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say indefinite; not infinite, but I'd be wary about letting them back into articlespace without some kind of preclearance. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks to me like there is a consensus for an indefinite partial block for PerspicazHistorian from article space. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given PH's recent slew of requests on multiple admin talk pages, yes, please do. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked from Wikipedia for ignoring the formatting of a table, I edited an article wrong, Bajii banned me for 2 weeks, but it didn't even take 1 and Hasley changed it to permanent, I tried to make an unban request, they deleted it and blocked my talk page. I asked for help on irc, an admin tried to help me make another unblock request, but the admin jem appeared and told me that I was playing the victim and banned me and expelled me from irc. I just want to contribute to the platform GokuJuan (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GokuEltit: This is a complaint about Spanish Wikipedia - see es:Especial:Contribuciones/GokuJuan, where you have a block history from August 2023 to September 2024 (machine translation). Your block affects Spanish-language Wikipedia - it does not affect English-language Wikipedia.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You also had some blocks on Commons, but they have expired.^[27]-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2025 (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

Daniel Quinlan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Boy shekhar (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:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan

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

• This edit violates the topic ban because it is in the topic area. It's also based on an unreliable source and the section header includes a derogatory term.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Here is the topic ban for persistent insertion of original research, use of unreliable sources or no sources at all, and tendentious editing.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 14 August 2020 by Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 15 March 2020 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• I've edited the article so I am involved. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: No, I don't think you're being too harsh. I think you're right. My thinking was that if I was uninvolved, I would have blocked them under WP:CT/IPA so I sleepily submitted it here last night instead of ANI, which is what I should have done. Daniel Quinlan (talk)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Diff of the AE 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.

This user hasn't edited for 4.5 years since they were TBANned, and none of their 31 edits show any ability to follow our PAGs. At the risk of sounding harsh, an extended AE discussion is a waste of time; a passing admin should indef them (I cannot, I am INVOLVED on most of the content they have edited). Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Quinlan: Apologies if that sounded like a criticism of you, it wasn't intended as such: I'm just advocating for the first uninvolved admin who sees this to block and close. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Vanamonde93's assessment is spot on, the edit in question is the kind of gross violation of WP:NPA we indef people for on the spot even when it's not a TBAN violation. Blocked as a regular admin action. Although I will say, without knowing how exactly Vanamonde93 is involved here, this is so far beyond the pale that they could have gone ahead and blocked on an "any reasonable admin" basis. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:49, 12 January 2025 (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

EF5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lemabeta (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/Eastern Europe#Final decision

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

1. 5 Jan 2025 - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
2. 4 Jan 2025 - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. E_F⁵ 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. E_F⁵ 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. E_F⁵ 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. E_F⁵ 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

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.

Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --Lemabeta (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are related but distinct concepts. An ethnographic group refers to a community of people defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, cultural heritage refers to the *practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups.

So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. Lemabeta (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) emerges from ethnographic groups but does not define the group itself. Lemabeta (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. Lemabeta (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. Lemabeta (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under a topic ban imposed by a consensus of AE admins from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:
  ;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION]]
  <!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> voorts (talk/contributions) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" @Lemabeta: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that I've deleted Draft:Rachvelians as a clear G5 violation. I think Mate Albutashvili is a bit more of a questionable G5. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared ... traditions" and "shared ... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". voorts (talk/contributions) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bishonen: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bishonen: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @EF5: They were "[p]reviously given ... [a] contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Lemabeta: Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity. There's a reason we use the words "broadly construed" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?)
  This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• EF5, I don't understand your "Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above" statement, can you please explain what it refers to? This T-ban? Lemabeta's block log is blank.

That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by their apology for "accidental violations". I'll AGF that they were accidental, but OTOH, they surely ought to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? Bishonen | tålk 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

EF5, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are very different, and the block log only logs blocks. Bishonen | tålk 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

• It seems that the general consensus here is to treat this as a final warning, and Lemabeta has acknowledged it as such. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:16, 11 January 2025 (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

WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Marlarkey (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:ARBPIA

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

[Before ARBCOM Notice on talk page]

1. 19 August 2024 - Mainspace PIA edit prior to EC status.
2. 19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request and acknowledgement of aforementioned edit.
3. 19 August 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
4. 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Accused another editor of vandalism.
5. 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request. Says, "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration."
6. 21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.
7. 21 November 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status. Accused editor of "vandalism" in edit summary.

[After ARBCOM Notice on talk page]

1. 13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
2. 13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request.
3. 13 January 2025 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Not an edit request..."Someone has reverted my removal of Israel - Hamas *AGAIN* so I've taken it out *AGAIN*."
4. 13 January 2025 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status.
5. 13 January 2025 - Self-revert of direct previous mainspace reversion that was prior to EC status.
6. 13 January 2024 - Direct mainspace reversion prior to EC status...Made while this enforcement request was being typed up. This reversion by Marlarkey is of an edit with the direct edit summary of "Per WP:ARBPIA". User is 100% disregarding CT requirements.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A. No previous blocks or topic bans.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[28] at 15:29, 21 November 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User has been on Wikipedia (on and off) since at least January 2010. It seems there is a WP:CIR-related issue on ArbCom PIA/Contentious topics, given the very clear lack of ignorance of the ArbCom Notification and subsequent edit summary arguments. I do not necessarily believe a block will be of use in this case, due to this editor's on-and-off Wikipedia editing status (less than 500 edits since January 2010). Either a topic ban and/or a 1,000 EC status requirement (i.e. EC-status requirement is something higher than 500 edits) is being requested. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the edits by Marlarkey listed above from 13 January 2025 has been removed by ScottishFinnishRadish for Marlarkey not being ECR logged. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marlarkey: I want to keep assuming good faith, so I wanted to let you know that WP:ARBPIA is what we call "broadly constructed". If you read WP:PIA, it says, "These are the current arbitration remedies applicable to any pages and edits that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." The edit you are attempting to me is related to the Arab-Israel conflict. The page itself does not have to be entirely about the war to be covered under the restrictions. Any edit that is at least, even slightly related to the conflict is covered under the restrictions. While the page is about declarations of war throughout history, the specific edit is related to whether the Israel-Hamas war was a declaration of war. That is obviously related to the conflict, given it specifically is in regard to the Israel-Hamas war. That is why the edits were reverted and why this violation report was filed. Hopefully that makes sense. Also, just a quick side-note, accusing other editors of vandalism is assuming bad faith and is not really how Wikipedia operates. You should always be assuming the other editors intents with good faith. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marlarkey: We are all working together to create a better encyclopedia. No one is against you and we do wish for all to edit Wikipedia. The ArbCom restrictions require that you have (1) at least an account of 30 days old and (2) at least 500 edits, to be able to edit content anywhere on Wikipedia regarding the Israel-Hamas war. At the time of all the edits linked above, you did not have 500 edits on Wikipedia. You were roughly at 490. At the time of this, you now have over 500 edits, which means you could now edit content regarding the Israel-Hamas war. That said, this report was made because of the several edits you made prior to reaching the 500 edit requirement.

Please understand this is for the edits that you made which were in clear violation of the policy, which requires you to have 500 edits prior to editing anything even remotely related to the conflict. This report was not that you are incorrect with your removal of the content. Not at all. This report is because you removed the content before you were allowed to (i.e. the 500-edit mark). Please understand we all are on the same-side here and no one is vandalizing anything. Once this is resolved, I would be more than happy to calmly discuss the content changes with you. I hope you can understand that this report is specifically because you made the changes before you were allowed to and not at all regarding the content in those changes. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rosguill: After my last reply, I realized I went 105 words over the 500-word limit. I would like to request that 105-word extension (so I do not have to reword or remove the last reply I made). I do not plan to reply again as I think everything I needed to say and link to has been said and linked to. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

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.

WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly reverting edits which are removing information outside the scope of the page in question. My edits are validly citated within the scope of the page. WeatherWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has cited WP:ARBPIA but that is not relevant to THIS article which is not a Palestine-Israel article. This article is not a contentious topic - it is factual.

My edits are WP:NPOV. This article is about declarations of war - the opening statement states "A declaration of war is a formal act by which one state announces existing or impending war activity against another." 1. Hamas is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hamas should not be included in the article 2. Hezbollah is not a nation state - So Israel vs Hezbollah should not be included in the article 3. Russia vs Ukraine are both nation states - the question then is whether there has been a declaration of war.

In the case 1 & 2, the removal of these two entries is WP:NPOV and the inclusion or otherwise in this article is in no way a comment on the conflict in question - only whether they constitute a declaration of war by one nation state on another. Which they do not because they are nation states.

In the case of 3, the inclusion of Russia vs Ukraine only relies on whether there has been a declaration of war. The citation I gave is documented evidence of Russia announcing that a state of war exists between Russia and Ukraine.

I suggest that by taking the action they have that the complainant is the one acting in a that asserts a political opinion about the conflict

The reference by Weatherwriter to 21 November 2024 - Talk page PIA edit prior to EC status. Is only a partial quote - what I actually said was "I don't give a stuff about what you or Israel say about the declaration. I care about whether it is in the scope of this page." The key is the final point - the scope of this article and whether the edits are validly cited in accordance with the topic of the article...namely a list of declarations of war.

Weatherwriter reversions of my edits serve to support a political opinion on a page which is about facts.

I'm pretty angry about being accused in this way when MY edits were factually based and neutral point of view, whereas by reverting my edits it does precisely the opposite, allowing contentious and politically biased information to infect the page. GRRRRRRrrr

Marlarkey (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On another point, following me reviewing the information in this complaint by WeatherWriter... "If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)" The complainant cites a link to information which I have JUST accessed and have never seen before just now. I was NOT aware of this information so it is false to suggest that this constitutes evidence that I was aware.

Again this makes me angry at the accusations being made against me. If you don't want people editing and contributing to wikipedia then please just say so. GRRR Marlarkey (talk) 00:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I give up... I'm being accused and being told off for responding to the accusation. I don't know anything about this procedure, have never seen this page before and know nothing about how this works because its new to me.

  But I get it - I'm not part of the club that decides things... so I'll let you get on with that. Marlarkey (talk) 00:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from WeatherWriter's section I get it - you'd rather call me out by this procedure than have an accurate encyclopaedia article. You've made accusations against me and put me through this over restrictions that I knew nothing about and policies I knew nothing about. I simply came across something inaccurate and followed what I understood to be WP principles and made an objectively accurate edit.

So now the end result is that an inaccurate article containing a politically biased assertion is going to stay live. Marlarkey (talk) 02:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marlarkey, you have gone a bit over your 500 word allotment for responses. Please do not comment further unless directly asked to. I will remove an additional reply that was both over your limit and in the wrong section. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weather Event Writer, extension granted as that's essentially what Marlarkey has already taken. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, having now reviewed Declaration of war's page history, its talk page discussion, and Marlarkey's contributions more generally, I find that:

• Marlarkey has repeatedly violated WP:PIA at Declaration of war since having received a CTOP notice
• Irrespective of whether it is correct or not to include the Israel-Hamas war, Israel-Hezbollah war, or wars between states and non-state entities more broadly, WeatherWriter's edits to the page are plainly not vandalism, which has a specific (and serious) meaning on Wikipedia
• It appears to be a long-term status quo to include non-state entities provided that there is a citation to some sort of formal declaration of war, and the page's inclusion of conflicts involving non-states Ambazonia and SADR do not appear to have been challenged at any point.
• Marlarkey is incorrect to assert that their edit is objectively accurate. Whether the edit is accurate is subject to community consensus, and the talk page arguments in favor of inclusion base themselves on RS reporting which is a valid, policy-compliant argument. Marlarkey's arguments that a declaration of war can only occur be between two states do not make any reference to a reliable source stating this; while that text is currently in the lead of the article, it does not have a citation nor is it clear that any citation in the article directly backs this.
• In light of discussion at Talk:Declaration of war, which at this point shows multiple editors in favor of keeping the Hamas and Hezbollah wars, only Marlarkey firmly for removing them, and one other editor calling for discussion as of December 31st, Marlarkey's edits to unilaterally remove the entries in January amount to slow-motion edit warring
• Given that Marlarkey has had an account for well over a decade, has edited a wide variety of topics, hit 500 edits while this was happening, does not appear to have otherwise shown interest in Israel/Palestine topics, and that the edits at Declaration of war don't fit into any clear POV-warrior pattern, I don't think that pulling extended-confirmed or issuing a PIA topic ban would help.

I'm thus inclined to suggest an indefinite partial block from Declaration of war (but not its talk page) as a regular admin action for edit warring, and a logged warning to be mindful of CTOP standards. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC

• As Marlarkey stated that they were unaware of CT, I wanted to confirm that I double checked and found that the CT notice was properly left in November. If Marlarkey chose not to read it, well, that's rather on him—we can only leave messages, we can't force people to read them. I would otherwise agree with Rosguill's assessment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I entirely endorse Rosguill's reading of this. I am not happy about Marlarkey's approach to our restrictions, but I don't see this as EC gaming, and I can't see how pulling EC rights could be justified at this stage. As such I endorse the proposed page block and logged warning. Marlarkey, you seem to believe that because you are right on the substance you can ignore process and guidelines - that simply isn't true. The arbitration committee has consistently held that being right isn't enough; you need to be able to edit within the scope of our policies. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pretty much everything Rosquill said. Marlarkey, it doesn't look like you have a huge amount of experience working in WP:CTOPs. I'm sorry you're finding this upsetting, but CTOPs are a whole 'nother world, and you're either going to have to learn how to nonproblematically work there, or not work there. Valereee (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, the CTOP warning was left on your talk page. You've got your archiving set so aggressively that you may be missing a lot of messages, and it's completely plausible that you missed this one, which was only on your talk for two days, and after it was left you didn't edit for a month. However, we do assume that if you've got your archiving set that aggressively, you're keeping on top of anything important by checking your notifications to make sure you didn't miss anything.

  You can probably prevent this happening in future by having your talk page archive no more frequently than you typically go between editing sessions, leaving maybe the five most recent messages unarchived, and/or being sure to check your notifications when logging back in. Any one of those three and you've have likely seen the notification. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (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

Beeblebrox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pages about which enforcement is requested

Denali-related pages

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:CT/AP

I think this is the right place to ask for this? Requesting an expansion of WP:CT/AP to cover all articles related to Denali, as it has unfortunately become a political hot-button issue as the POTUS made it a prioroty on his first day back in office to sign an executive order to revert the name of the mountain back to "Mt. McKinley".

In the past twenty-four hours there has been heavy editing/disruption in articles and on related talk pages and protection has been needed at several. Denali was probably hit hardest, but Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute got some too, as has Denali National Park and Preserve, which is explicitly not even part of the executive order. I wouldn't be surprised if the same issue is happening in Gulf of Mexico related articles, but haven't checked for myself. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, just checked Gulf of Mexico. 28 new talk page sections in the past day, was already ECP protected two weeks ago per WP:CT/AP.

I kinda think a single admin could do this, but I am editorially involved and probably slightly too infuriated to be objective. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies, that's kind of what I thought, but again didn't want to act on it as I'm editorially involved. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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.

Since I've protected Denali's talk page, I will comment here. I agree that we will be seeing serious issues in the coming month, considering all the shit the new president is throwing at the wall, but I believe the administrators are well equip to deal with this at the moment. I believe Valereee has protected the Gulf of Mexico's talk page, and I've dealt with Mount Denali's. We might need to apply more extensive protection during this coming month to stop the vandals, but current tools will do just fine. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinged here: yes, I've semi'd Talk:Gulf of Mexico, yesterday for 24 hours, today for another 31. I dislike protecting a talk, but it was a burden for editors working there. Valereee (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

100+ edits today on the article, which is EC protected. I feel like that's a lot. Valereee (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Beeblebrox: AMPOL already covers "Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed". I think that "broadly construed" would include Denali and Gulf of Mexico in the current moment. In any event, I think you'd want to go to ARCA, not here, for an amendment. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Denali is already ECP and Denali National Park and Preserve has semi-protection. There's no protection on Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute, but I'm not seeing anything in the page history that would justify it.l voorts (talk/contributions) 22:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• AE couldn't expand the scope of an existing CT designation; only ArbCom could do that. But I don't think we need to. If the disruption is related to a current American politics controversy, that's clearly related to "post-1992 politics of the United States", and so is already in scope of the existing CT designation. So, I'd say just treat it as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:38, 21 January 2025 (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

Schazjmd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Final_decision

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

1. 29 Dec 2024 Added Category:Misandry to a BLP, after CTOP notification and several talk page messages notifying DanielVizago that the category is not to be applied to articles about individuals (per category description, This category is for issues relating to misandry. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly misandrist.);
2. 4 Jan 2025 and 5 Jan 2025 Removing sourced content from Misogyny that states misandry is not a major an issue as misogyny;
3. 5 Jan 2025 Changing content in Male privilege to emphasize misandry (reverted by another editor with edit summary rv, poorly sourced (sources supplemented by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH), earlier version was better, closer to sources);
4. 13 Jan 2025 Added "bimisandry" to Biphobia, citing 4 sources, none of which include that term;
5. [30][31] 14 Jan 2025, weird edits adding Category:Female rapists with piped names to unrelated articles, then added those names directly to the category page;
6. 14 Jan 2025 restored the "bimisandry" edit to Biphobia, then added a 5th ref that includes the term but is just a blog; I left a 4th-level warning on talk page;
7. 14 Jan 2025 (after final warning) adds [[:Category:Female rapists|Carmen Ann Álvarez]] and [[:Category:Female rapists|Liezyl Margallo]] to Hurtcore; those two individuals don't have articles and there is no mention in this article of their charges or convictions, even though the category solely consists of articles of female individuals who have been convicted of rape in a court of law.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• None

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• I alerted them on 28 Dec 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Above diffs are all edits after the CTOP notification was provided. Before then, DanielVizago misapplied Category:Misandry to 46 articles, which is what caught my attention. Their attempts to add "bimisandry" to Biphobia started 16 Dec 2024. On 28 Dec 2024, DanielVizago added a lot of content to Supremacism about misandry, which another editor reverted with edit summary remove recently added pro-fringe section and put back the excerpt. Most of their 122 edits have been reverted by multiple editors.

Before the level 4 warning, I tried guiding DanielVizago away from CTOP; they don't engage on their talk page. (They've posted there once, to say "thanks" in response to a warning.) With their refusal to communicate, poor sourcing, and non-NPOV edits, I don't think they should be editing in this topic area. Schazjmd (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Since this report was opened, DanielVizago has continued to make questionable edits adding articles to Category:Female rapists.

• Possibly the worst edit, categorising a living person who has been accused (but not charged, let alone convicted) of sexual assault as a rapist (cf. WP:BLPCRIMINAL)
• This edit adds the category to a disambiguation page on the basis of one of the people listed on that page, who had in fact been convicted not of rape but of sexual activity with a minor
• this and this edit categorise two sexually-motivated murderers as rapists despite no evidence that they ever raped anyone in the article (cf. WP:CATV)

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be wise, as long as doing so wouldn't interfere with evidence, to get a revision deletion on some of the diffs presented above that make unfounded statements about BLPs. Simonm223 (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I've p-blocked from article space to see if we can get this editor communicating. Valereee (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I want to hear what they have to say, but I'm going to need a fairly convincing explanation as to how they're here to build an encyclopedia and not to POV-push men's rights activism content where it doesn't belong. The IDHT and spammy behavior and the BLP vios on top of that aren't super encouraging, either, but if they decide to communicate, I'm happy to reassess. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd like to hear what they have to say, too, but I'm also not averse to letting this archive with no further action since the p-block is an indef. I've left another message at their talk. Valereee (talk) 13:41, 19 January 2025 (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

Simonm223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Proposed_decision#ECP_by_default

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

1. May 4, 2024 Violates ECR restriction
2. September 16, 2024 Violates ECR restriction
3. September 16, 2024 Argues about reversion of ECR restricted edit using WP:OSE justification.
4. September 19, 2024 Still arguing about reversion of ECR restricted edit.
5. January 24, 2025 Violates ECR restriction
6. January 24, 2025 Responds to reminder of ECR restriction with WP:BATTLEFIELD claim that admins are trying to silence people.
7. January 24, 2025 Responds to direction to review latest Arbitration committee decision with more complaints about bias in Israel-Palestine CTOP.
8. January 24, 2025 Misidentifies me as an admin and then makes several minor personal attacks.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. None on record.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on April 18, 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
• Reminded of contentious topics January 24, 2025

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Frankly I'm somewhat concerned about WP:CIR issues as this editor makes grammatical mistakes in article text [32] does not seem to understand how WP:AFD works [33] and makes spurious talk page comments that suggest a weak understanding of the topic areas they edit within [34]. This is in addition to their assumption that I was an admin - which I will note I never represented myself to be. Simonm223 (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth it was not my intention to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. If you want me to strike the "mistook me for an admin" comments as irrelevant I would be happy to. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're taking in anything the admins are telling them considering they posted this after their latest reply here.

[35] Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2025 (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.

None of these accusations are true. This is purely a witchunt against me for trying to save Wikipedia. I assumed the person was an admin due to the fact that user reverted the edits like admins do.

I did not personally attack you either, I engaged with the facts. Your userbox is deeply problematic to have as an "impartial editor" instead of having neutral editors especially with the topics you have been editing. I have done more to save Wikipedia than most people along with several other brave souls who dare fight for the truth, regardless of how some people with deeply problematic views on Wikipedia says. We brave souls who try to save Wikipedia are attacked. This is just the beginning of the end for Wikipedia unless this arbitration case is dissolved. All I do is try to save Wikipedia from the impending doom that will happen unless the admins (not the user in question) uses bots to automatically permaban all people who puts bias in articles.

All I am trying to do is save Wikipedia. Attacking me by vague complaints with no basis in reality is attacking the core values of Wikipedia.

I know more about editing than the person who is attacking me for it. Just look at their previous edits that has been reverted and the edits that should be reverted but are yet to be.

I have not used personal attacks at all.

Wikipedia will keep sinking as long as the people who dare tell the truth are canceled on Wikipedia while allowing editors who are deeply biased to edit.

We need to reform Wikipedia deeply and remove the EXT-CON for all Israeli-Territory of the Former Mandate of Palestine as well to save Wikipedia to just get rid of the bias or automatically redirect to unbiased articles from the past (like 2011-2014).

Not everyone can try to save Wikipedia, but all should try!

• I do intend on following them and at the same time advocate for reverting them back to Make Wikipedia True Again! Melledelle (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please make all comments, including replies, only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

As said I will abide by the ECR rules while at the same time advocating for ending them as they are a tool to shut critical voices down Melledelle (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Melledelle's comments here, their recent comments on their talk page, and their edits all give me no confidence that they will abide by our PAGs going forward. I would oppose a TBAN, or any additional social sanction that would require future monitoring - we should indef them now, or give them a little more rope to see if they can abide by ECR rules"
• I will abide by the ECR rules and all rules as already said before

Melledelle (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I will ofc follow the rules while working to solve all of Wikipedia's problems before the ship sinks as it's the current path with the current administration and the current leadership of Wikipedia.

I am a problem solver, not a problem creator. Melledelle (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Certainly there's a CIR issue. Melledelle, there is no "leadership" or "administration". Administrators are just sysops, really -- they have a few extra tools they can use, but they don't have any special authority over content. Anyone can revert an edit, and in fact if an admin reverts an edit at an article, in many cases they've just turned themselves into an editor who can no longer admin there. If all that sounds opaque and confusing, it's because there's a ton to learn about how Wikipedia works, which is why we require people to have a minimum amount of experience before they start editing in the topic of Israel/Palestine, which as you can imagine in one of the most contentious topics on the entire encyclopedia. You can disagree with that policy all you want, but you must comply, and it's quite likely that by the time you have several thousand edits under your belt, you'll understand the reasoning behind it. "

Yet the people who are allowed to edit the Israel-pal articles refuse to remove the bias and plain lies. The bad editors should be permabanned yet are not for lying in several articles. The CF-EX-PR should be removed from these articles yet are not so we can not remove the bias and falsehoods which is a very bad thing. All edits from the bias editors ever should be removed and we should restore the Zionism article back to how it was before the activists and people who ruin Wikipedia ruined it with falsehoods....

Horrific. Let the people who know the truth edit instead and remove ext-con-pro. No wonder the co-counder of,Wikipedia left due to this blatant bias. We brave souls who dare edit neutrally are attacked but the bias actors are protected. Such a sad thing Valereee. The Zionism article should be reverted to like when it was at least true and not using bad academic sources from activists and not using first hand sources from the founders of Zionism instead. The co-founder of Wikipedia left for a reason and it's due to the blatant bias and things like this.

We who dare speak the truth are under attack. Melledelle (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't think they're taking in anything the admins are telling them considering they posted this after their latest reply here."-Simonm223

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Melledelle&curid=67351502&diff=1271739370&oldid=1081197235

So it's bad to be unbiased now? Are you kidding? Melledelle (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will abide by all rules as previously said before and do not have an agenda. You are allowed to have opinions on how Wikipedia is run while following the rules. Melledelle (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• "Endorse indefinite block per Tamzin, Vanamonde93, and Seraphimblade. Sheesh is an apt description.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)" I have done a lot of good edits to make Wikipedia better. A block would 1. Make Wikipedia far worse 2. Increase the amount of biased articles on Wikipedia by numbers never seen before 3. Be a violation of the good faith principle 4. Prevent Wikipedia from becoming better 5. Be harmful to our society as it creates an even worse encyclopedia than it can be. Making Wikipedia less biased is something obviously good. 6. Show that this arbitration case is just using me as a target to fight people who dare support less bias 7. Remove any sense of logic in the arbitration process and violate the core principles of Wikipedia as I follow the rules and intend to keep following them and I admit when I do something wrong. Especially when other users like S***s****r did not get blocked. 8. Show to other users that OPPOSING BIAS IS BAD SOMEHOW?! 9. Remove any form of fight for justice in this server and promote a culture of bias in articles[reply]

Melledelle (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore I would like to add that making me a martyr for the sake of some admins supporting unbiased articles you are not making Wikipedia a better place as everyone can view this in the future. This WILL GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS I FOLLOW ALL RULES AND INTEND TO KEEP FOLLOWING THEM. NO ONE IS PERFECT!! Melledelle (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Pretty clear ECR violation. Whether or not an editor thinks they are "saving Wikipedia" does not get them out of having to conform to the policies and rules of this wikipedia. This topic area is subject to editor restrictions, and Melledelle needs to conform to that. I'm not inclined to block immediately (and would instead issue a formal logged warning) if they will take on board that they cannot edit in this topic area except for a very few minor exceptions that their post on Talk:Zionism does not fit. But the lack of blocking is contingent on them understanding that their desire to "right great wrongs" is not how we approach things at Wikipedia. If they can't, they won't be around long. As for them mis-identifying the filer as an admin, that's not really relavant to the problem and is not needed for this sort of filing - to me, it just looks like throwing whatever at the wall to see if something sticks. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the reply - I'm inclined to either topic ban or just block indefinitely unless they respond positively to Seraphimblade's question below. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not seeing anything that doesn't scream "will edit in a battleground manner". I'm fine with an indefinite block, with the usual caveat that if they manage to persuade folks that they've learned better (which AGF says we must at least pretend could happen) they could be unblocked. I won't be holding my breath on that though. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not see any indication that this editor intends to abide by the ECR restriction. So, Melledelle, you've got a couple of choices here. You can either agree to abide by the rules, including ECR (you don't have to agree with them or like them, of course, but you are nonetheless required to follow them), and then in fact do so, or you will not be editing at all. So, will you choose the former option, or will we need the latter? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess that's technically an agreement like I asked for, but I'm not impressed with the attitude being shown here or elsewhere. If this editor is going to be around long, they're going to have to get better at collaboration and communication very quickly indeed, and I'm far from certain that such a thing will happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Melledelle's comments here, their recent comments on their talk page, and their edits all give me no confidence that they will abide by our PAGs going forward. I would oppose a TBAN, or any additional social sanction that would require future monitoring - we should indef them now, or give them a little more rope to see if they can abide by ECR rules. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not optimistic about their future, but at this moment I think we should close with no action. They've said they'll abide by the PAGs; let's see if they will. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, they say they will abide by Wikipedia ECR guidelines but comments like this--Attacking me by vague complaints with no basis in reality is attacking the core values of Wikipedia.--make me think that they don't really understand what the guidelines are. How can they deny infractions and then state that there will be no more infractions in the future? I get the feeling they are saying what they think we want to hear. A topic ban isn't necessary if they truly understand what the Arab–Israeli conflict covers but I think that the rope here is short.

I think more than the content violations is how they are attacking the rules of Wikipedia itself which we all must work within whether or not we agree with them. If they seek to remove ERC guidelines themselves (which sounds like a goal they have), this might turn into a general disruptive editing block, not a ECR-related block. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly there's a CIR issue. Melledelle, there is no "leadership" or "administration". Administrators are just sysops, really -- they have a few extra tools they can use, but they don't have any special authority over content. Anyone can revert an edit, and in fact if an admin reverts an edit at an article, in many cases they've just turned themselves into an editor who can no longer admin there. If all that sounds opaque and confusing, it's because there's a ton to learn about how Wikipedia works, which is why we require people to have a minimum amount of experience before they start editing in the topic of Israel/Palestine, which as you can imagine in one of the most contentious topics on the entire encyclopedia. You can disagree with that policy all you want, but you must comply, and it's quite likely that by the time you have several thousand edits under your belt, you'll understand the reasoning behind it. Valereee (talk) 12:46, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  SimonM, people are free to call Wikipedia biased. Melledelle, you should probably stop responding to anything that isn't a direct question from an admin asking for clarification. You aren't helping yourself with these long rants. We get it. You disagree with that policy. Valereee (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Welp, after a fairly long exchange at their talk, I'm not optimistic this editor is going to be able to edit constructively in this topic, but at this point, with them telling us they'll comply even though they disagree, I'm okay with going the 'give them another chance to show they're willing and able to comply' route. Valereee (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I still don't love the attitude of "My own thoughts are unbiased, and to the extent other editors or sources disagree with them, they're biased", or that only they can right some great wrong. Still, I suppose we can see how it works out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Vanamonde93 and Valereee: I have to disagree with letting this ride. This user is making clear that their intention in ARBPIA is to push a partisan agenda. If they were already EC, we'd be talking about a topic ban, so it doesn't make sense to let them off with a warning when that's where they'll be in 80 edits. To me the only question is whether to topic ban or indef as WP:NOTHERE, and I lean toward the latter as they are literally telling us that they are not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to promote an agenda. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: It would appear I missed their latest post here: I had this open last night but left it till this morning to respond. I would agree with a NOTHERE block, as they are explicitly telling us they will not abide by our core policies. FWIW: when I said "rope" above, I meant it in the sense of our essay on the topic: I fully expected this user to flame out, but I wanted to give them the chance to do be judged based on their future behavior rather than my expectations thereof. It just happened sooner than I expected. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeesh, I hadn't seen that one either. Yeah, there's no way they're going to come around; we're just going to end up right back here. May as well save the trouble. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse indefinite block per Tamzin, Vanamonde93, and Seraphimblade. Sheesh is an apt description.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I have blocked indefinitely, first year AE. Their final edit, FWIW, was an ECR violation on their userpage, despite having said above that they'd comply. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:19, 25 January 2025 (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

Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Luganchanka (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/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

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

1. 19:55, 12 January 2025 Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

18:28, 12 January 2025 BLP CTOP warning given

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by @NatGertler: [36], which he subequently blanked [37] There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence, but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RfC opened Talk:Scott_Ritter#RfC:_Ritter's_sexual_sex_offenses_convictions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

20:27, 12 January 2025

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.

The intro on the Scott Ritter page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I WP: assume good faith, it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Wikipedia editor.Luganchanka (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.Luganchanka (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to @Valereee and @Red-tailed hawk for your feedback. If you see the Talk:Scott_Ritter, discussions - 14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender" and First sentence. The latter discussion ended on 26th September, and resulted in the intro we had until a flurry of edits the other day, trying to move information on Ritter's sexual offence conviction, downplay it, whitewash it etc. My edits were aimed at restoring the edit reached by consensus, which had been in place for several months until the recent raft of edits with the clear aim of moving / downplaying Ritter's sexual offence conviction.Luganchanka (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this (nest), I really do appreciate your feedback and advice here!!Luganchanka (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC) (moved from admin-only section — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

As per Rosguill's comments:

"Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."

https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle

Luganchanka (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per WP:RSP), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Luganchanka: whether you're correct or not, you were edit warring. I believe an indef block from the article and/or a temporary site block would be an appropriate sanction here. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Luganchanka, edit-warring to remove negative content at a BLP is an exemption to 3RR. I see that NatGertler mentioned this in their edit summaries and at talk. As voorts points out, it doesn't matter whether you're right when you're reverting an edit that is being claimed as an exemption, even if you believe Rosguillwhiyou are "ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article". The solution is to go to talk, discuss, and get consensus. If you'd like to respond, ping me to your response at your talk and I'll post it here. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Luganchanka, if you really believe those two sections -- senior editors, indeed, this one was between someone with 13 edits and somcoen who wasn't ECR, for heaven's sake -- somehow prove consensus was strong, and you think that means you can ignore all the later ones -- at one of which you didn't even respond to a ping, where people were objecting -- then this is maybe looking like a WP:CIR issue.

  But even if you had been somehow editing to support a consensus you believed was settled, you cannot edit-war contentious material into a BLP when others are objecting to it. The solution, always, is to go to talk, discuss, and reconfirm consensus. There is zero urgency to have this information in the article. Including something negative in a BLP is not something you should ever edit war over. Valereee (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Luganchanka's reading of the state of consensus on the talk page as supporting their edits is so far off base that it borders on being a CIR issue if it's sincere. Indef block from Scott Ritter seems appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see RTH's point about the "First sentence" section in isolation. I'd note that the link to WP:FORUMSHOP isn't really appropriate here, as bringing the discussion to BLP/N was an appropriate action (if it was then brought to NPOVN, NORN, etc., that would be forumshopping). I'd like to see some actual contrition around the edit warring and frivolous accusations of whitewash before writing this off as time-served. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fair; I'll strike the link. My point in including it was that, when conversations fragment, we sometimes get these sorts of chaotic incidents. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Understood, I think that meaning was clear for us here in the admin section, but I could easily see a new editor misinterpreting it unintentionally. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not at all comforted by the fact that Luganchanka has proceeded to make Special:Diff/1269831044. The cited BBC source does not state masturbated and ejaculated on camera, saying only graphic sex act. As written, this is essentially another BLP violation, building a case that a ban from this topic is needed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Having reviewed the other sources, reliable sources do confirm the masturbation claim ([38], [39]) but not ejaculation, which appears to be supported only by New York Post, a generally unreliable source. Luganchanka, in light of this clarification, can you please address your decision to include the claims as you initially wrote them? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The detail is in the record of Ritter v. Tuttle (case No. 3:15cv1235 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 14, 2018)), so it isn't completely made up. But I would also like to hear from the user on this point as to whether there was secondary sourcing here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Seeing Special:Diff/1269853673 here and Special:Diff/1269853955, Special:Diff/1269845272 at Talk:Scott Ritter, I see no comprehension of the use of primary vs. secondary sources, nor any reflection of their past errors in engaging with this topic. I believe that a block from the page is needed to prevent further BLP violations as they have shown no understanding of the relevant policies even after being given several warnings, reminders and opportunities to revise their position. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Luganchanka:

  WP:BLPPRIMARY calls upon users to not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. There are some narrow exceptions (when primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source), but adding material to the article not found in reliable secondary sources is... suboptimal at best under our biographies of living persons policy.

  — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Luganchanka: Would you please provide a direct link to the talk page section you are referring to when you say there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors regarding the lead? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Luganchanka and Hemiauchenia:

  It does seem that the discussion at Talk:Scott Ritter#First sentence does indicate some support for that language i.e. (convicted child sex offender) in the lead, with some general lean against putting it in the first sentence. So, while There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences is true if it means the literal first sentence, I do see a rough consensus to include the material in the lead section in some way in that discussion.

  That being said, the BLPN discussion had a bit of different tone and tenor from the discussion on the talk page. There was notification about a BLPN discussion on the article's talk page, but Luganchanka, despite having been pretty vocal about this subject in the past, hadn't participated in that BLPN discussion. They instead grounded their edits in the argument that the article's talk page had consensus for the current content, and nothing on the article's talk page had changed that consensus. And that much was true. In any case, we've got two different forums with two different answerstwo different forums with two different answers here, which appears to be what's leading to the whole kerfluffle.

  Then the analysis comes to whether or not the label is a straightforward BLP violation, requiring us to read the sourcing in the article. This NY Times piece, which is cited in the body of the article (but not the lead), does state that Ritter was convicted unlawful contact with minors and other charges in the state of PA (the PA statute is here; "unlawful contact with minors" is the verbatim name of the crime). When dealing with a sting operation, PA treats it as an offense of the same grade and degree as if the criminal had actually contacted a child (unless it's a lesser crime than a third-degree felony, in which case it becomes a third-degree felony). This is an extremely common practice in the United States (there are lots of philosophical questions regarding mens rea and actus reus here, but that's not really relevant here). In any case, labeling this to be a child sex offense (or, alternatively, to simply use the name of the crime in the article) does not appear to be straightforward malice/POV-pushing/libel, and a reasonably informed individual might shorten it in this way. Whether or not that is wise or optimal to shorten it is the proper subject for content discussion.

  Aside from the edit warring (which was not acceptable, and was aptly handled by a block), this looks like a content dispute. A heated one involving a living person, sure, but a content dispute nonetheless. I see good-faith—albeit passionate—disagreement. If the editors were to come together and engage in one forum (such as the article's talk page, where this has been discussed a bunch), rather than splitting the discussion over multiple pages, I feel like we might have our best shot at attaining a consensus going forward.

  In short, it looks like the conversation fragmented, and consensus-building broke down. Edit warring ensued, which was bad, but we've already blocked for that in order to dissuade it going forward. A Request for Comment on the article's talk page for what the lead should look like is probably the best way to go forward here.

  — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  RTH, are you objecting to a p-block from the article? Valereee (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ping to @Red-tailed hawk Valereee (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we think that the user has been explained WP:BLPPRIMARY to the extent that a reasonable person would conclude that they are either (a) intentionally ignoring it, or (b) unable to grasp the concept, then I do not object to a p-block from that article. Either such case here might warrant something wider, particularly if this behavior pattern appears elsewhere.

  But if they haven’t ever been explained the primary source rules, it might make sense to do that in clear and explicit terms before giving them an indef p-block. People who do research for a living, or work with primary sources in other contexts, often find our guidance a bit non-obvious since they are used to writing secondary sources instead of tertiary sources.

  My apologies for the delay on this; I have been very busy.

  — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 14:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Luganchanka has been blocked for a week by User:ScottishFinnishRadish for BLP violations and personal attacks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just noting that this was a regular admin action and I wasn't aware this was before AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  With this in mind, I think we should wait to hear from RTH but otherwise expect to move forward to an indef p-block on top of SFR's stopgap action, as we haven't seen anything coming close to an adequate recognition of the relevant policies and practices from Luganchanka and after several second chances and nudges, I don't see reason to expect them to change course. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that there is a general consensus to indefinitely partially block Luganchanka from editing Scott Ritter. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:59, 25 January 2025 (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

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

TommyKirchhoff (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:ARBCAM and WP:ARBPS

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

1. [40] 30 January 2024—whitewashing
2. [41] 30 January 2024—whitewashing
3. [42] 30 January 2024—whitewashing
4. [43] 30 January 2024—whitewashing

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [44] 30 January 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• About gangsters: I understand where he is coming from. We're giving the lie to everything he stands for. Perhaps I should not speculate about his motivation, but this is a token that I feel some pity for his lost cause. I'm not heartless, but this is not about showing mercy, but about affirming mainstream medical knowledge. It's about knowledge, not about compassion. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [45] 30 January 2024

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 removed a dubious reference to quackerywatch.org, and its associated text in the article. Within four minutes, Hemiauchenia reverted my edit citing SKYISBLUE, which merits no logic. They said, "a non-explicitly medical source is okay but not ideal." Was that an apology? I thanked them, and reverted. I added a crucial addition to the first paragraph from the page's first citation. Five minutes later, Tgeorgescu reverted my revert. The bad guys were up in reverts: their two reverts to my one. They started the editing war. I thanked Tgeorge, reverted, and began adding a credible citation that reinforced appropriately the text I added. Just 13 minutes later, Ixocactus reverted me again. That's three reverts from the bad guys who are trolling this page mercilessly. Ixocactus told me I should gain consensus on the talk page; but I had reviewed the talk page many times, and these gangsters belittle, harass, name call, and insult anyone who tries to change this page. So I reverted again, knowing what would happen, and hoping to call attention to this issue. Nine minutes later, TgeorgeSCU reverted my revert a second time. That's badguys: 4, Tommy: 3. The badguys started the editing war over my removal of a terrible, offensive, non-scientific reference. So I reverted it again. Just three minutes later, Tryptofish reverted my revert. Badguys: 5, Tommy: 4. I added my credible reference to reinforce my addition text, and I was blocked. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9844554/ I am not the bad guy here. And I have many more credible references to add to this page. I simply skipped the Talk page because there is no talking to the bad guys. I could only be BOLD.

The year in this filing should be corrected 2024→2025.

Anyway, Traditional Chinese Medicine is on my watchlist, and TommyKirchhoff is edit warring the reported edit, now at 3RR. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just after I posted that, a 4th revert, despite previous ew warnings on user talk, so that should be an unambiguous block in any case. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now up to 5 reverts, and I see that a 3RRN filing has also been made. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He has gotten a page block for edit warring, but has subsequently posted this at the article talk page: [46]. (I guess that makes me a gangster.) It seems to me that the continuing lack of self-awareness, and the stated intention to resume edit warring when the block is over, call for something further from AE. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• TommyKirchhoff, I think it would be helpful if you commented here. If you think a strong belief that you're right justifies edit warring, I don't believe editing in contentious topic areas is a good fit for you. The talk page certainly is where to go if you need to discuss a proposed edit and the sources backing it, but namecalling while doing so is similarly not acceptable. If those issues can be resolved, that's one thing, but if we can expect more of the same, then you will probably just need to be topic banned. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the response here, I would support a topic ban from the ARBCAM topic area. If TommyKirchhoff sees this as some contest between him and "bad guys", this is never going to end well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that I partially blocked TommyKirchhoff for the 3RR violation. Also noting that this call to arms certainly doesn't bode well.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Given TommyKirchhoff's general battleground attitude, continued insistence that they are correct, and stated intent to continue editing down this path (see article talk and their statement above), I think – at minimum – an indefinite block from Traditional Chinese medicine is warranted. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ponyo & @Seraphimblade: any objections? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm good with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine by me as well. My initial blocked was just trying to nip immediate disruption in the bud while discussion was ongoing here.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]