Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Bus stop

Appeal declined. Bus stop is advised to make constructive contributions in other topic areas for a minimum of six months, without engaging in bludgeoning, before filing another appeal. The "unofficial grace period" for this topic ban ends, effective immediately, and any future topic ban violations will be met with blocks. — Newslinger talk 15:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

Appealing user: Bus stop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the American politics topic area, imposed at User talk:Bus stop#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban as a result of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#User:Bus stop bludgeoning discussion at Talk:Parler, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#American politics 2

Administrator imposing the sanction: Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Statement by Bus stop

I am requesting a review of my topic ban. Some information on that can be found here. I've already requested a review of my topic ban here. The ANI thread is here. My commitment of course is not to WP:BLUDGEON in the future. If this is the wrong place to be posting this or if I've posted this improperly, please bring this to my attention. Bus stop (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the proper procedure here is. But GorillaWarfare is asking if "they genuinely can't see their own behavior for what it is". I am admitting to the charge of WP:BLUDGEON. Therefore I am seeing the reason for the topic ban for "what it is". There are a multitude of points on a political spectrum represented by the editors here. Disagreement is hardly out of the ordinary. But overaggressiveness is not welcome. I apologize for my repetitiveness and vociferousness and I commit to more moderate speech. Thank you for the adjustment to the way I formatted this, GorillaWarfare, and I am now notifying Bishonen. Bus stop (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss—how am I making myself "seem the aggrieved party"? By admitting wrongdoing? I participated in an overly aggressive way at Talk:Parler and I am committed to not participating in an overly aggressive way in the future at any article's Talk page. This I am stating sincerely. I don't know why you are referring to anything I have said as "boilerplate". I can't state what I am stating more clearly. Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to you, Mandruss, as opposed to debating you. I am simply saying I did not present myself as "the aggrieved party". Bus stop (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss—it would not be "obtuse" of me to point out that just because you perceive something as "boilerplate" that it actually is "boilerplate". Bus stop (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG—your input is over the top. It is too much of a bother to track down your offenses. You've said "These are prominent radical right figures whose response to protests over the killing of Black people is to downplay them, the "all lives matter" approach." That is found here. You are an administrator? You wrote ""If black lives mattered to Black Lives Matter, they would be protesting outside of Planned Parenthood" casts BLM in the light of the hyper-privileged mindset of anti-abortion activism." Same page. "To place anti-abortionism, as Kirk does, above the murder of Black Americans by police, is grotesque. Kirk opposes the death penalty but only because it is more expensive than life in prison. He doesn't seem to care very much about non-privileged lives." Same page. You are not cognizant this is an encyclopedia. You refer to Andy Ngo as a "neo-fascist apologist"[1]. What? You should be banned before I am banned. Bus stop (talk) 10:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint—does it not occur to you that administrators, some of them, are part of the problem? I cannot be trusted but an administrator using this platform, combined with their authority, to launch verbal diarrhea such as references to "the hyper-privileged mindset of anti-abortion activism"[2] can be trusted? I fail to understand that. I am saying "I commit to no more bludgeoning". That is plain English. As Boing! said Zebedee correctly points out, I have said it before. I am saying it now. The English language does not change, at least not in this short amount of time. Is JzG even addressing their association of "anti-abortion activism" with "hyper-privilege", which sounds suspiciously like white privilege? JzG is an administrator who needs their wings clipped. Bus stop (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually was not keenly cognizant of WP:NOTTHEM, Black Kite. I may have seen it before but I'm not sure. I vociferously and repeatedly argued a point at the Parler article. And I am conceding that. Administrators are not above doing the same. Why aren't problematic administrators challenged as to the propriety of their everyday pronouncements? A problem that I am pointing out is problematic administrators. That should not be overlooked. That is too serious a problem to be glossed over. Nor is this an excuse for my everyday pronouncements. I vociferously and repeatedly argued a point at the Parler article. Should I have done that? No. I was wrong. I was wrong. I apologize. I apologize. I'm being repetitive. I'm being repetitive. I'm being vociferous. I'm being vociferous. Mandruss had it right: "boilerplate", but not on my part. I am using English to express points that I genuinely think need expressing, but what I'm reading here and at other venues is "text (copy) that can be reused in new contexts or applications without significant changes to the original". Another way of putting that is I am speaking to you as a human being and you—not you specifically, Black Kite—are speaking to me like a heartless machine. It isn't too early for me to be requesting this un-ban. The timing is entirely appropriate. This is a request to be un-banned. I am articulating a commitment not to WP:BLUDGEON in the future. I am admitting wrongdoing for BLUDGEONING at Talk Parler. I am not admitting wrongdoing for a ton of other things that my detractors have implied are applicable to me. I'm tempted to repeat that but I'll resist the temptation. Bus stop (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent—I'm not "venting" when I say or imply that administrators ought to act like they are above the fray. Too many administrators use their enhanced influence to push politically motivated narratives. These concern the usual array of factors including religion and race and ethnicity. There is always an angle. Unless I am describing the curvature of a vase in an art article, I would be in violation of a "post-1932 American politics" topic ban. Yet on the other hand we commonly have administrators—not all, but some—putting their finger on the scale of myriad articles that ultimately impinge upon subjects like religion and race and ethnicity. Is it germane to my un-block request? Yes, I think it is. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The words Did you watch the hearings yesterday in which Ted Cruz grills Jack Dorsey? would definitely fall under the heading of "post-1932 American politics". You are right about that, Iridescent, but I wasn't addressing that. I won't reiterate what I was addressing. You go on to say "Despite what some may claim, Wikipedia welcomes people of all political opinions, but what we don't welcome is people of any persuasion who feel that their personal opinions are objective truth and they're justified in using any means necessary to force them everyone else, and I'm starting to get a strong whiff of that here." I can assure you I don't think my "personal opinions are objective truth". Bus stop (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as a posited "hope everyone else will get tired and let you have your way" that is definitely not the case in fact the opposite is the case—it is I who am "tired" of requesting that I be unblocked. Have it your way. I recognize consensus. Maybe tomorrow if this is still open I will weigh in again. But I have other things to do. You know—in real life? Bus stop (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam—you say "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Would that word mean the same thing for an administrator as a non-administrator editor? You might say "yes" but I would say "no". Wikipedia does not need activist administrators. Such administrators are deleterious to the project. Why is GorillaWarfare spearheading the effort to get negative information into the ledes of articles like Parler and BitChute? In my opinion some administrators are a big problem for this project. We are talking about what would be violations of WP:NPOV even if done by non-administrator editors. Let me quote another editor, Adoring nanny, on the Talk page of the Parler article. "Now WP:NPOV is a Pillar of Wikipedia. It should therefore trump mere policies. To the extent that policies allow one to have localized discussions that lead to a highly-visible discussion of antisemitism in the article for Parler, but little-to-no discussion of antisemitism in the above articles (especially the Khamenei article), that shows that the policies are not respecting the pillar, and we have a problem. We need to address it" and in a later post also by Adoring nanny "Here is the point. If Wikipedia talks prominently about antisemitism in the lead of the Parler article but not in the articles I mention above, particularly the Khamenei article, we are looking at an elephant through a microscope and generally have our heads up our proverbial butts. We can have all the policies, sourcing rules, and so forth that we like, and follow them, but what readers notice is the absurdity of the final result.[15][16]." The effort to put "antisemitism" in the lede of the Parler article is being spearheaded by GorillaWarfare. They are initiating the RfC called Should "antisemitism" be removed from the lead? I contend that activist administrators are a problem. I should not be penalized for resisting their efforts to violate WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam—it is my strongly held opinion that administrators should be held to much higher standards than non-administrator editors. An administrator's role is to inject policy concerns into discussions that non-administrator editors might be having. An administrator's role is not to spearhead change—especially not change of a highly political nature. Bus stop (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JzG—your dialogue enters the realm of Gaslighting when you say "Different people can come to different conclusions based on the same facts". You are both an administrator and an activist. That, in my opinion, is very problematic. Bus stop (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

Statement by GorillaWarfare

(Noting that I am the one who opened the ANI discussion that led to the topic ban.) The reviewing administrator(s) need only to look at Bus stop's contribution history since the ban was imposed at 20:23, 17 November 2020 to see why granting this appeal would be a terrible idea. See these edits to the discussion after the ban was placed for a prime example. Bus stop has done nothing since then but continue to discuss their ban, and they have continued the exact same behavior that led to it, repeating the same arguments they were bludgeoning the Talk:Parler page with while simultaneously claiming they have learned their lesson. Several editors, including myself, suggested they should be given some leeway and not be immediately sanctioned for the immediate violations of the tban on ANI and on their talk page, but they have continued to act as though the topic ban does not exist. I think they were somewhat lucky to fly under the radar of more strict administrators who would have sanctioned them for the immediate breaches of the sanction, so I'm amazed to see them bringing this up at AE. I can't tell if they want to be sanctioned and/or sitebanned, or if they genuinely can't see their own behavior for what it is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Bus stop, I've fixed the format of this appeal, where you'd accidentally used the "request sanction" template. Heads up that you will need to notify Bishonen if you haven't yet. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am baffled to see Bus stop trying to turn this appeal, in which JzG suggested AP topic ban appeals should be considered early (something that appears to be sympathetic towards Bus stop), into some kind of action against JzG. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

We live in strange times, and strong feelings are spilling over into Wikipedia disputes. This TBan is well supported and makes obvious sense, but we should IMO be looking at early appeals after the dust has settled for any AP2 bans enacted recently and up to Jan 20. Guy (help! - typo?) 09:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop neatly displays the source of the problem. Different people can come to different conclusions based on the same facts, the problem comes when you assert, loudly and repeatedly, that there can be no valid interpretation other than your own. In some cases that may be true (there is no world in which being a neo-Nazi is good, for example) but those cases are rare. Wikipedia is mainstream.

If I thought Bus Stop was evil I would have argued for a siteban. I don't. I see him as a passionate individual whose stress levels have probably been escalated by the current timeline. I recognise this feeling: I have PTSD, and 2020 has been the worst year for my symptoms since initial diagnosis and treatment. I think a brief TBan is a good idea. I think an early appeal (after the dust has settled) is also a good idea. It makes sense for us to recognise that we are dealing with unprecedented events and people are reacting to those events in uncharacteristic ways.

We still have to deal with a parallel Truth™-based information ecosystem with which Wikipedia has always struggled, starting with creationism, spreading into climate change denial, and now encompassing pretty much any area where there is a tension between progressive and conservative values. That's independent of the conduct of any individual editor. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Bus Stop began with a commitment. Good start, albeit early. But within a half day, took the bait and started veering into WP:NOTTHEM territory. Not a good sign about the ability to maintain that commitment. O3000 (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The applicant is informed that this is not the place to talk about x, and then continues to talk about x. First rule of AE: Don’t manifest the problem at AE. O3000 (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Consider the waste of editor and Admin resources just since GW's complaint. This drives good editors away, thwarts article improvement, and weakens the project. To resolve this, I recommend lifting the TBAN with the understanding that there will be a site ban on the first recurrence of the behavior appellant has now acknowledged. SPECIFICO talk 16:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m choosing not to act as an admin in politics-related issues, but I honestly think, after Bus Stop’s latest post, that they need to be blocked for a week or two for repeated violations of their topic ban, here in this very thread, after multiple warnings. “Venting” is one thing, but it’s been a week. I won’t be obnoxious and ping the uninvolved admins. But if we aren’t going to enforce a crystal clear sanction, then there’s no reason to even appeal. —Floquenbeam (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen 328

In my view, it is far too soon for Bus stop to try to appeal this topic ban. I would expect to see at least six months of unproblematic editing in other topic areas. As I see things, Bus stop has been tendentious in the Judaism topic area and in the contemporary art topic area as well. I am concerned that they will be unable to edit without drama for six months, but I sincerely hope that I am wrong. If this editor could just refrain from making the same argument over and over and over again, and digging in their heels, that would be a wonderful step in the right direction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 5)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Bus stop

No way. One need only look at Bus stop's contribution history since the ban was imposed. Knowing that a violation would result in a full ban, Bus Stop went ahead and violated it more than once. Instead of lifting the topic ban, they should be fully banned. -- Valjean (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, BLUDGEON is only a part of the problem. There are serious issues of WP:IDHT, WP:REHASH, WP:SATISFY, and more, issues that have persisted for at least six years (that's only my experience and some say it has gone on much longer than that). Bus stop has a particular talent for pushing one to the end of their rope and then imploring them to calm down and be nice, making himself seem the aggrieved party to those unfamiliar with the history. That is not good faith behavior as I see it. I see no evidence that Bus stop truly understands these issues and is capable of addressing them. Even for BLUDGEON, he has offered the absolute minimum of boilerplate appeal, effectively: "I agree not to violate [insert link to the page cited most often in the ban and discussion]". That doesn't adequately demonstrate understanding in my book. Considering that many at ANI preferred a community ban, I think it takes a considerable amount of chutzpah to show up here with an appeal of the lesser AP ban after a mere five days. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, I did not come here to debate with you, I've done more of that than I care to think about during the past six years, all of it wasted. I made a statement that arbs may completely ignore if they feel I have not been sufficiently responsive to your comments. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am simply saying I did not present myself as "the aggrieved party" - Nor did I say you did here. I was referring to that as part of your long-time pattern of talk page behavior. More IDHT. This is my last comment, no matter what further obtuseness you send in my direction. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Criticizing the administrator that said we should IMO be looking at early appeals was certainly a strategic error - and perhaps a "triggered" one. Of all the ways to appeal a sanction, this appeal was one of the worse ones, considering the post-ban behavior. starship .paint (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Q.E.D.. I've never seen anything like this... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good sanction - appeal should be no sooner than 6 months, not 6 days. — Ched (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that (1) the sanction was justified; (2) this is too early to appeal; (3) six months is an appropriate time for an appeal to be allowed; (4) JzG's suggestion should be kept in mind for the future when other sanctions levied during this period of time are appealed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop, I'm generally sympathetic with the article level concerns you have. However, at some point you have to work inside the Wiki process. Yes, that can be frustrating when it looks like you are being blocked by apparent group think. Even when that is how it feels there has to be a limit. It was clear from the previous discussion that even editors sympathetic to your editorial concerns took umbrage with your talk page interactions. The next step is self reflection and curbing that... enthusiasm to persuade at length. As someone who thinks the changes you want are often improvements I don't want to see you kicked out of AP2 for good but if you keep this up that is likely to happen. I strongly suggest withdrawing this request and as others have said, waiting at least 6 months and showing good talk page behavior on other topics (even perhaps controversial topics outside of AP2) then requesting a lift with clear statements statements regarding how you will avoid bludgeoning in the future. I think a declared, self-imposed limit to 1 reply to comments not directed at you/your comments for say 6-12 month after the AP2 block is lifted would make others feel a lot better. Springee (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Bus stop

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

Since there was a rough consensus at ANI for some sort of sanction, I do not think it is wise for this to be lifted, by us, so soon without community input. I would be willing to entertain an appeal here after 6 months of issue free editing. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If editors have concerns about JzG's behavior, arbcom is thataway and is more than happy to hear those concerns. I would caution editors that unless the arbs give dispensation, topic bans still need to be followed there. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, the intent of WP:BANEX is to allow you to appeal the topic ban, and not to enable you to use this page as a forum to attack another editor in the topic area (e.g. Special:Diff/990196648) while the topic ban is in place. I recommend declining this request, and concur with Guerillero that your best course of action is to work in less controversial topic areas for a minimum of six months before submitting another appeal. — Newslinger talk 10:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since this appeal is being used to attack other editors, I am closing it immediately. Any future topic ban violations will be met with blocks. — Newslinger talk 15:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If ever I've seen a deserved topic ban, this is it. It's a textbook example of disruptive behaviour and is exactly what the sanctions policy is for. I also think that not listening to advice to wait six months, but instead going ahead with a premature appeal here, is yet another IDHT example. I would oppose any appeal before six months of constructive work in other areas. (And to show a bit of HT, Bus stop, I think withdrawing this appeal would be a positive step forward). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and on Bus stop's latest promise to stop bludgeoning, see this. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bus stop: Attacking another editor in your ban appeal is certainly an ... interesting ... choice, but I'm sure you've read WP:NOTTHEM at some point and will know that you need to concentrate on arguing why your ban should be lifted, rather than why someone else should be sanctioned. Because that's not going to happen here, and you're not helping yourself by doing so. I'm not sure why you aren't following the advice that's been given to you by multiple experienced editors. Black Kite (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Bus Stop's repeated and increasingly-long argumentation here, I can only take this promise to stop bludgeoning with a grain of salt. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 18:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone not in the US who to the best of my knowledge has never edited an article on American politics other than minor typo fixes, this is absolutely clear cut. The very first link provided by Bus stop, which they presumably feel in some way exonerates them, is a link to them breaking their topic ban in their initial response to being notified of it. (To be clear, I wouldn't recommend taking further action for that—we tend to allow leeway for the fact that sanctioned editors' initial response to the sanctions is often to vent before calming down—but to try to then use it as evidence in an appeal is fairly clear evidence of a disregard for process.) We don't expect every editor to agree with every consensus reached on Wikipedia but we do expect every editor to respect them; if another editor is also causing problems we have mechanisms for reporting that, but "I'm not the only one causing problems" is never going to fly as an appeal. Looking at the three links provided by Bus stop in their appeal ([3], [4], [5]) there's clear evidence that there was a strong consensus in support of an AP2 topic ban at minimum; unless evidence is somehow found that that decision was based on false evidence or that those supporting the topic ban were biased, I don't really see how we could supervote and overturn such a clear consensus. ‑ Iridescent 19:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're seriously claiming—as you appear to be in your reply to me—that Did you watch the hearings yesterday in which Ted Cruz grills Jack Dorsey? isn't "a discussion concerning post-1932 American politics", you're either wilfully misrepresenting the facts, deliberately bludgeoning a discussion in the hope everyone else will get tired and let you have your way, or have such a serious competence issue that you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, and I very much doubt it's the last of the three. Your response confirms my initial feeling that the topic ban was extraordinarily lenient and you're extremely lucky not to have been banned altogether. Despite what some may claim, Wikipedia welcomes people of all political opinions, but what we don't welcome is people of any persuasion who feel that their personal opinions are objective truth and they're justified in using any means necessary to force them everyone else, and I'm starting to get a strong whiff of that here. ‑ Iridescent 20:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The recent ANI thread included about a dozen experienced editors calling for, or endorsing, a topic ban (as well as a couple of calls for a site ban). The TB was imposed primarily for wp:bludgeoning, and there was a previous 3-month ban from AN for bludgeoning (followed by "I commit to no more bludgeoning). Without some evidence that Bus stop is able to control the behaviour, I don't see any chance of a successful appeal. I'd advise at least six months of bludgeon-free contributions before considering one. --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AE gives admin a lot of wiggle room to deal with problems, however, I don't think we really CAN accept an appeal at this time. There was a sanction, ANI allowed the community to opine on it and there was a rough consensus that a sanction was needed, and that was just a few days ago. We could maybe review that process (which seems to be fine) but it is way too soon to be considering an appeal, and the community as a whole might would take it as a slap in the face if we were to grant an appeal with no real evidence that anything has changed since the sanction was imposed. That said, from a cursory look at the events, the sanction was earned. I would suggest closing with instructions that it can be appealed after a minimum of 6 months. Anything less is overriding the established community consensus, which is not what we are here for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:54, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by RickyBennison

Closing w/o action. No merit to appeal. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

Appealing user: RickyBennison (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – RickyBennison (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from pseudoscience, alternative medicine or fringe science for 12 months.

Pseudoscience arbitration case discretionary sanctions, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2020#Pseudoscience.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Nick (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

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

Statement by RickyBennison

Hi, I would like to appeal for this ban to be lifted on the following grounds. First and foremost it is not valid. The admin, Nick, administering the ban has not given prior warning as per the rules regarding administrator imposed sanctions for perceived disruptive editing. Nick first argued that an alert template delivered by another editor counted as their warning. I pointed out that it explicitly states it should not be interpreted as a warning, to which he seemed to concede but go on to state it was all that was needed. This is not the case. It in no way means standard administrative protocol does not need to be followed. For disruptive editing there is an escalating scale of administrator action ranging from warnings to increasingly long blocks. This scale is in place not just to disarm disruptive editors, but also to protect editors from abuse by admins. A twelve month ban without warning is one such form of abuse. In addition to the ban being invalidated by a lack of warning, it is additionally invalidated by Nick being involved in editing the content of the article in question, Grounding (earthing) culture. This can be viewed on the page log of the article, which has currently been nominated for AfD.

Secondly, my edits in no way amount to disruptive editing and do not come close to doing so. I had attempted to incorporate the concerns of other editors in my edits, and thereby establish a consensus. When editors expressed concerns in regard to advertising, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:MEDRS, I attempted to edit the article in such a way that would alleviate them. These things refute a charge of disruptive editing.

Whilst I do not believe the ban is valid on procedural grounds, and its reasoning flawed, I will acknowledge that there are things I could improve on in my editing. Such as establishing dialogue on the Talk page more if I have reached an apparent impasse with another editor. Understanding why some people have MEDRS concerns and some do not is also something I hope to understand better, especially in regard to specific sources. These are two areas I hope to improve on in the future. Thank you for your time and for hearing this appeal. RickyBennison (talk) 15:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick

I have tried to be sympathetic to RickyBennison and I always remain open to modification or reduction of sanctions, but it's impossible to see how this could be considered currently, given their troubled understanding of the Arbitration Enforcement process and the way in which they believe they've got yellow cards they can accrue before a red card is issued. I've explained the system and referred them to the Discretionary Sanctions page, but there still seems to be a worrisome gap in their understanding. I believe that's also the case when it comes to understanding guidance around MEDRS and what was required of their editing in the general pseudoscience area. Nick (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Praxidicae

This isn't really my area of expertise (ArbCom) but I don't see any mishandling of the situation and I think if RickyBennison really wants to contribute, they should demonstrate this by participating in other areas that would not violate their topic-ban, which will also help demonstrate their understanding of sourcing requirements. Praxidicae (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by RickyBennison

Result of the appeal by RickyBennison

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

It appears that the one-year topic ban was issued by User:Nick following this edit summary by RickyBennison: 'erased aggressive notice from editor with bad reputation'. RickyBennison had been given a timely alert of the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions by User:Praxidicae. The above complaint that the ban was improperly given makes no sense to me. Praxidicae appears to have given the alert following RickyBennison's creation of a new article called Grounding (earthing) culture. Though the mere creation of a possibly-pseudoscientific article might not need any admin response, the edit summary 'erased aggressive notice from editor with bad reputation' certainly does cast an WP:ASPERSION on Praxidicae, the editor who issued the alert. Speedy deletion of the new article under A10 and G11 has been declined, but the page is now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grounding (earthing) culture. Normally you would expect that any benefits of grounding for human health would be supported by WP:MEDRS sources. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal is based on a mistaken assumption that there are "rules" governing regarding administrator imposed sanctions, as if this were a game to be worked around. This is not a game, and the policies governing Arbcom Enforcement sanctions are at WP:ACDS #Placing sanctions and page restrictions. They require awareness on the part of the editor (which the DS alert ensures) and require the editor to adhere to the highest standards of behaviour. There is a considerable amount of wiki-lawyering in RickyBennison's response to the topic ban that simply do not address the issues that lead to the ban. Considering the issues raised about RickyBennison's edits to Grounding (earthing) culture and the talk page edit summary quoted, I don't see that a sanction was beyond the discretion of Nick, who was not involved in any content dispute with RickyBennison (which is the criterion necessary to meet the definition of WP:INVOLVED).
I recommend to RickyBennison that they reconsider their position. It is quite possible that a clear indication of self-reflection concerning their behaviour, and a better grasp of WP:MEDRS might persuade AE admins that a lesser sanction may be appropriate. --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The attempt to wikilayer this is both incorrect and further hurting the users chances of appeal. Besides echoing my fellow admins above, I don't think one edit reverting Ricky qualifies as involved. Further there is no substantive evidence provided to consider the ban not needed. If there are things that the user says they can improve on, then this would be good for an appeal down the road to show the change. Right now I don't see anything actionable and this should be closed after the standard time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 21:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline this request per RexxS's comments --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that administrators need to follow a formalized four step process of escalating warnings before taking decisive action to stop disruptive editing is false, and shows poor understanding of how Wikipedia works. The attack on Praxidicae, the editor who delivered the standard DS notification, is quite troubling. Instead of blocking the editor entirely, Nick gave a more limited topic ban, to give RickyBennison the opportunity to edit productively elsewhere. That is what this editor should be doing instead of wikilawyering and complaining. This request should be declined. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anony20

Closing with a logged warning to Anony20. Bishonen | tålk 15:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Anony20

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Heba Aisha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Anony20 (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

[6] Added glorifying image of a famous warrior on the top of caste article. Though I told in my edits that read User:Sitush/Common#Castelists. Individuals donot represent caste but reverted my edits.
[7] Showing biasness towards various social groups . They didn't liked Rajputs to be compared with Jat and Ahirs, a bid to assert supremacy of former. WP:POV WP:COI issue
[8] Personal attack on LukeEmily
[9] Personal attack here too.

User talk:Anony20#Alert for India/Pakistan/Afghanistan related articles he is aware of the sanctions. See here.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The accounts activity says that they want glorification of a particular caste only as all the edits shows seek to glorify the community. Even they removed sourced content earlier which they found objectionable to their caste.

On their talk page they accused me of bombarding the page with notifications. So it will be helpful if someone notifies them on my behalf.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen is right I have not placed that sources on ur talk page and your activities shows that you are concerned with caste glorification only rather than productive contribution. Ex: Here You blanked sourced content as you didn't find it good.[10]Heba Aisha (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RegentsPark regarding content on Rajput related articles we went for RFC for nearly one month.(Bishonen is witness). LukeEmily presented many sources of high quality and the editors who accused me or him of being partial were asked to bring similar quality sources but they failed. After RFc ended they are here again with another pretext. As for example in the above diff. Mr. Anony20 says: He need LE agreement on other articles too.Clear sign of creating disruption in future for WP:POV pushing attitude. They edit pages related to particular caste only and it is clear that WP:COI issue is there which may be problematic in future.Heba Aisha (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have already gone long discussion on issue and many ppl like NitinMlk and Мастер Шторм asked them to bring sources to contradict what is written. See Talk:Rajput#RfC about deletion of allegedly derogatory words in Origin section. But they are here again and again with personal attacks and new kind of disruption. Heba Aisha (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I usually patrol previously edited pages and if someone have forgotten to give warning I do it. I have done this not only in the case of LE but in case of other editors also. Again.....it is clear to me that you are primarily concerned with WP:COI related to Rajputs as you have mentioned in your message that "I m trying to uplift the lower caste's status and degrade those of upper caste" (it means you are strivi g to maintain the superiority of Rajputs over other caste...in fact your remark on Jat, Ahir etc here [11] makes it clear. Also you had problem with the verifiability of picture because Rajput were not looking Royal there....on the same note editors like you also challenged this image

(Rajputs don't look royal here)...but none of you are challenging this image .... though both of them are of British period.Heba Aisha (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have myself taken this image during my tour and you found it bogus because you wanna portray every rajput as royal(though it is not true...most of them are cultivators)....btw during this Bihar election many media channels have surveyed voting behaviour of Caste and I can post link of one such video in which they visited the same village from where this image

belongs ....if admins are interested they can check "dressing pattern " looks of Bihari Rajputs.Since Wiki don't allow external link.....those who are interested can type this keyword on Youtube and watch how Rajput of bihar look.[✅ सोनपुर के राजपूतो ने न लालू नितिश ने और मोदी क्या किया] and you replaced that image with image of nobles who took part in 1857 revolt

...ironically there were few ruling families in Bihar and most Rajputs who constitute 4% of Bihari population were peasants. If admins have seen video.....I would recommend a topic ban as this is clearly WP:COI which may impact Neutrality (it is still impacting when you are challenging encyclopedic image) Heba Aisha (talk) 10:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my pictures related to Bihar...I m not concerned with degrading or rising status of caste groups but I contribute towards whatever I like.:

Heba Aisha (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to this[12] I have provided the method to check verifiability of image above and its not single revert.

Abusive language and accusations(Even after warning of Bishonen earlier one month before [13])
Reverting sourced content on Rajput (To undo a lot of productive edits: basically to get rid of word Shudra)Heba Aisha (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to this [14] in Bihar caste certificate are issued to only Other Backward Class and SC ST. And this shows ur lack of understanding in this area.Truly a case of WP:CIR.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok finally see this news report. I urge @RegentsPark: and @Bishonen: to check it [15]..it have many images of Bihari Rajputs. And Mr. Anony20 wants only image of princes and nobles.Clearly a glorification attempt.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In above diff. You have again accused me of sockpuppetry which is after Bishonen warned u months before.I m not showing WP:OWN behavior. The news article I shared has the current image of Rajput ppl and since Kingship ended long ago....we should update the article with new image.[16] since it is licenced image my image is usable here. See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY about ur view supported by majority of ppl even they are wrong.The article is about common Rajputs and not Landlords which you are trying to portray through image.Also see User:Sitush/Common#Castelists we should refrain from keeping notable people on top of caste article. The image you put are of freedom fighters mainly zamindars who participated in 1857 revolt against british not the commoners. Heba Aisha (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The image Anony20 has used is also used on this article [17] it is the image of Kunwar Singh and his attendants who were Rajput landlords and chieftain.Plz see the article admins. Bihari Rajput is an article about a social group not handful of landlord from same caste.PS: He has opened separate talk on WP:AN.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No way plz read carefully... Revolt of 1857 in Bihar specially Arrah was primarily a Landlord's revolt.Plz stop putting specific personalities on top of caste article.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2020 (UTCs

Admins plz take note it is what we call User:Sitush/Common#RoyalPuffery since 1971 privileges have ended and every caste has poor and rich now. The news article I shared shows how Rajput ppl look nowadays.I m still opposed to putting pic of some notable personalities (here Kunwar Singh) and his attendants on top of caste page. If this is so Teli ppl will put Narendra Modi on the top of their respective caste article and so do other castes. Plz take required action as WP:Wikihounding refers to engaging an editor on multiple fronts which he is doing by opening another discuss on WP:AN Heba Aisha (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Plz see the caption and even title of image mention Koor Singh with his attendants check on Kunwar Singh article.You have uploaded a poor version of same image.

Heba Aisha (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No just cropped one...both represent same ppl.Heba Aisha (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I would like to take this matter to RFc at talk page because anyone can see to compare that both represents the same thing I.e group of warriors who are notable and you also said in your previous comment that that the person in centre is Kunwar Singh.Also ur image is of doubtful copyright status as I can see.Heba Aisha (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified that why it was removed?.It represents Kunwar Singh and his attendants as you also said..here[18] ...against the policy.Heba Aisha (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are uploading copyrighted image from facebook on commons...which was deleted by admins. Plz be aware of the Copyvio rules.You violated it by uploading Amethia Rajput and I believe that all other images are also non free.Heba Aisha (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Anony20

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

Statement by Anony20

I had raised my concern with the image uploaded by Heba Aisha in the page of Bihari Rajput. The complainant replied to me there(Check talk page of Bihari Rajput)[19] and simultaneously provided unnecessary sources on my user talk page[20]. To be noted, I have never asked the complainant of those sources but only raised the concern with the image in Bihari Rajput page. I asked Heba Aisha about the need to abruptly flood those sources to my user talk page, to which she marked this as ds/aware and then WP:AE

Hi Bishonen, first of all, let me clarify that I haven't complained about HA's message rather I had asked her about the reason to flood my talk page, I guess I was wrong in thinking so, as you have pointed out that those were footnotes. Secondly, my purpose is neither to demean any caste nor to glorify any as pointed out by HA in his/her allegation against me. I'll prove it in the next paragraph but let me first highlight that my edits which HA has highlighted are of August and I haven't edited any of those pages from the past 3 months. Just after pointing out the image uploaded by HA on the talk page of Bihari Rajput, it was reverted by LE without any reply to my concern on the talk page of Bihari Rajput and within hours I received HA's message that I have been reported. I ask you to check the talk page of Bihari Rajput [21] to get a clear insight of my concern and how it was overlooked. I suppose wikipedia is a platform to discuss and contribute and it should remain so.

Now coming to HA's allegations, what I have seen HA and LE doing, is to edit each page related to Indian castes with recent and often disputed sources, so that all the castes can be put at the same level. One can check my edits if I ever tried to demean any caste through my edits on their page. There are multiple sources to counter the edits that were made by HA or LE repeatedly on pages of Rajputs in August, although I left that argument with them as I am not always active on wiki. If HA or LE are concerned to know why I had objected their edits, then I can share some of the sources, though I am in no mood to do so now, still HA can check:

1) Shail Mayaram; Against History, Against State; p. 202: Ancient North India witnessed rule by various Kshatriya dynasties and Kshatriya republics of Haryanka, Surasena Yadav 2, Sakya, Moriya, Yousheya & Arjunayana clans.

2) Jai Narayan Asopa (1990); A socio-political and economic study, northern India; Prateeksha Publications. 89 : the word “Rajput” is an ethnicity of various lineage-kinship networks of various Kshatriya clans ( kuls ) and their subclans ( khaaps ). From Kumarpala Prabandh of 1435 AD, there has been a tendency to enumerate these clans to 36

3) Smith, Vincent A. (October 1907). Coin of Vyagrahamukha of the Chapa (Gurjara) Dynasty of Bhinmal”; 923–928: For instance, the first political appearance of Chavda Rajputs was in the form of Vyaghramukha Chavda, a Bhinmal ruler, under whose reign the mathematician-astronomer Brahmagupta wrote his famous treatise in 628 AD

4) Nandini Kapur Sinha; State Formation in Rajasthan; Mewar, p. 37: Sri Pravarasena (530-590 CE), the Hunnic ruler was separated by the early Guhilot Rajput inscriptions ( Samoli Inscription 646 CE) barely by a few decades and yet the latter showed neither political affiliation nor cultural similarities. Rather they showed political affiliation to the Moriya Rajputs of Chittaurgarh

5) Babur Nama; Journal of Emperor Babur; p. 289: Due to his military reputation, Sanga built a Confederacy of Rajput states of Eastern Rajasthan, Chambal and Doab that first defeated a Mughal force at Bayana but was routed at Khanwa.

I was infuriated by the repeated reverts and edits which were made by them in August but still I left it to them as I am not much active on wiki. Although, I still don't know the reason behind raising this concern after 3 months when I haven't edited those pages in between and raising it after I pointed out HA on talk page of Bihari Rajput. Thanks

Heba Aisha, LukeEmily you guys still haven't answered, why the edits of Rajput article is highlighted now if I haven't edited it from past many months, and highlighted it only when I challenged the image uploaded by HA "Rajput men watching Mallah" on Bihari Rajput as misleading. Bishonen, RegentsPark I ask you to have a look at the talk page of Bihari Rajput.

LE if you are here for discussion about the edits on Rajput page, then I must tell you that Shail Mayaram quotes that "some Kshatriya lost their status in time while Sudra rose to power to rule". It doesn't say anything about the origin of Rajput or Kshatriya, it rather speaks about status. Even the Nand dynasty was of a Sudra (or barber to be specific) but he isn't counted as a Kshatriya or Rajput (Life Unshackled By Mallikarjun B. Mulimani). And none of your sources predates Kumarpal Prabandh which clearly states 36 royal races which are still counted in pure Rajput clans. Regarding other castes like Bhil, Gond, Ahir, Gujjar, Jat there are numerous mentions of them attempting to fake their genealogy to connect themselves as descendants of Rajput(Like Mah Ranjit Singh Jat to Bhati Rajput, Mah Surajmal Jat to Jadaun rajput of Karauli, Ahir rewari principality to Jadaun of Tirjala) or by Sanskritization/ Arya Samaj uplifted their status and adopted the lifestyle and titles of Rajput(1910 Yadav Mahasabha, instructed Ghosi/Pal/Gadariya/Ahir/Gwala/Gop to adopt Yadav 'a Kshatriya title'). As I have said, I am in no mood now to have a discussion about Rajput article, but still LE if you're interested then we can have it on the talk page of Rajput.

Regarding my accusation of taking LE and HA as a group, I found a pattern in the time of their joining of wiki and making repeated and often humongous amount of edits on the pre existing pages of Indian castes. (Take a look of edits in August [22][23]) Whenever either of them was challenged or his edits were reverted, then the other one would either revert it or would drop a message in user talk page, the same thing happened in the case of Bihari Rajput. When HA's uploaded image was objected, LE came in picture abruptly, it left me to think as if they are working as a group with a certain agenda to generalize all the castes or to uplift the earlier marginalized one.

If my purpose would have been to glorify a caste or race then I must have been active in making edits to the pages of a caste. But, I rarely make any edits like I did one after 3 months on the page of Bihari Rajput [24]

Heba Aisha don't try to divert from your earlier arguments here. Instead of answering my question, you're beating around the bush with such false allegations on me[25] Secondly, in my above remarks I have pointed out Sanskritization and the wrong quote of LE regarding Shail Mayaram. Again you've come in defence of LE like earlier instances and trying to portray me as a caste supremacist which I am not. I think you should see the recent remark of KashKarti on Bihari Rajput [26], he agrees with my point and maybe there are many more who feels same like KK. If you had a problem with my edit on Bihari Rajput, you could've pointed out me on its talk page. I guess there is no monopoly of a single user on wikipedia and it works on consensus and discussion. So it's nothing like I can't challenge your "Rajput men watching Mallah" image on Bihari Rajput if I didn't find it verifiable. For just reverting an unsourced image with a sourced image doesn't goes for topic ban under WP:COI

The pic uploaded by me on Bihari Rajput is of rajput rebels from Bihar and I guess not all of them are noble which you've misunderstood. Or tell me what you understand by the term "nobles". Have you checked the caste certificates of that group of men, that you're adamant that they are all rajputs? If you have their caste certificates then may be you can upload them on drive and cite it's link on wikimedia. But still I feel that image is not a representation of community.

Heba Aisha your recent accusation[27] are truly a personal attack on me. I simply asked you how did you verified those men as rajputs and you're attacking my sensibility and knowledge under WP:NPA. You are making false allegation against me by quoting Bishonen August remark[28] and quoting them as one month old[29], I have already quoted it in my above(1st para). I can't take your beating around the bush just because I challenged your image on Bihari Rajput. You are not ready to accept my argument and repeatedly making fresh allegations against me. Another user has disagreement[30] with the image which you had uploaded in that article and I would like to hear from KashKarti, why that image and your argument to defend it were not satisfactory. I think you would listen to KK if not me.

When did I asked you to upload images of prince and princes?[31] RegentsPark, Bishonen I would like if you interrupt Heba Aisha as HA is making false allegations against me and trying to demean me with hoaxes. Pls have a look at the comments of HA, LE and mine to know how newly fabricated accusations are made against me. Also, HA what are you trying to prove by sharing articles from news websites, are they in anyway relevant with the allegations you're making here?

Heba Aisha is showing authority over Bihari Rajput WP:STEWARDSHIP WP:OWNERSHIP , not ready to listen to my arguments WP:POVRAILROAD, making newly fabricated/misleading false allegations against me WP:NPA and misinterpreting my statements[32] WP:Civility, HA is singling out me when another user KK has a similar view on Bihari Rajput [33] WP:Wikihounding. This is clearly WikiBullying WP:BULLY @RegentsPark: Just because I challenged her image on Bihari Rajput, HA is misquoting my statements, portraying me a caste supremacist, highlighting my 3 months old comment which I haven't used after the warning of Bishonen, making false allegation against me that I actively edit Rajput page which I haven't edited from past many months. And all these allegations and accusations just because I pointed HA in talk page of Bihari Rajput [34] is HA acting as an owner of that page.

That image is not of zamindars but rajput rebels. HA is misquoting the title.[35] HA, those attendants are not zamindars themselves, instead Babu Kunwar Singh(man in middle is the only zamindar in that image)[36] Note: I have appealed to Admin as I am being constantly misquoted and misinterpreted by HA.

I am not putting an individual's image. Neither it's a pic of zamindars in their traditional attire, so it doesn't reflect royal status. It is a group of rajput rebels from 1857.

In my above statement, I have clarified it's not an individual's image, also the caption of image doesn't mention any notable person. Going by your argument HA, I would like to state that "group of unverified people with semi clothed man and children watching Mallah" doesn't reflect Bihari rajput in any sense.

HA, the image of Kooer Singh which you've uploaded and the one uploaded by me are different. Yours is an engraving while mine is the original picture. Do read the caption, it doesn't mention kooer singh, period.

I have made it clear, it's the original picture while the one uploaded by you is an engraving of it. If you can't find difference between the two, I would suggest you to leave it to the admin, period. Even the caption beneath your uploaded image reads "from a photograph", as I've said it's an engraving of the original picture. I feel I don't need to clarify it further.

Update: Hi @Bishonen:, HA has removed the image from Bihari Rajput. The reason for it's removal quoted by HA was already discussed here and on the talk page of Bihari Rajput. "The picture was of Bihari rajput people and not of an individual personality". Need your interference in this regard to stop such repeated edits by HA on Bihari Rajput.

HA Taking Revenge ------

@RegentsPark:, @Bishonen: HA is using foul methods to revert my edits on Bihari Rajput. HA is misleading and misusing wikicommon[37] to get my uploaded image deleted(Quoting original photograph to be a duplicate of a later engraving)[38] It's a serious case of asserting domination by HA. HA is asking or more appropriate would be to use 'misleading' other users to delete my uploaded image from wikicommons [39] [40] When I have already clarified that the image which she's showing is an engraving(Read the caption of HA image) while mine is the original photograph.

Statement by (LukeEmily)

I fixed the talk page section of Anony20 that I had posted earlier so the references stay in that section only. Was reading this conversation (as I was looking at Anony20's edits today after his post on my talk page) but was not sure if I should comment. However, since , Anony20 is posting misleading information, and because Bishonen gave me permission to discuss, I will do so. First of all, his allegation is absurd. Heba and I do not work together nor do we edit the same topics. In fact, I have no interest in Indian Politics (especially north Indian) and I do not have any know-how of most of the topics from Bihar that she edits. We did agree on some of the Rajput edits as we both felt that the page was one sided and since then Anony20 has been calling us twins, dumbos and what not. I personally am not offended by name calling but I do not like vandalism as it results in considerable waste of time. For example here, Anony20 reverted many academic sources that were coincidentally all unpleasant [41]. Specifically his revert got rid of the words "Shudra" , "illiterate" "peasant" and "Rajputization" - everything that is unpleasant. etc. I just checked and Anony20 reverted the version to a version that was several days old by going back about 50 edits! The Rajput caste page was full of glorification when I read it. Evidence does indicate that Anony20 objects to any unpleasant edit on the Rajput page. I honestly feel that he and some others are involved in caste promotion. Anony20, I did not remove any existing sources or text, did I? Here is the response to the sources that Anony cited above.

None of the sources that Anony20 listed directly contradict the sources that were added to origin and even if they did it does not justify the blanking of sources unless you are involved in WP:PUFFERY. Anony20, the section specifically talks about origin of the community and not what some people might have called them later and none of the sources you just stated discuss the origin and even if they did, it does not mean you can blank out 10-12 high quality academic sources. You can simply add more opinions as Sitush has said. In fact if you do a search for Kshatriya and Maratha you will get a lot of sources too. But the origin is a different issue. Even if you add every source you mentioned above to the Rajput page, it will not contradict what is in the origin section as every view has been mentioned. Neither Heba nor I removed any of the existing sources. But you came in and reverted a lot of hard work in a few seconds by blanking out the new additions and reverting the page to an old version. Ironically, Marayam whom you quoted above says the following about Rajput origin.

1.Mayaram, Shail (2010). "The Sudra Right to Rule". In Ishita Banerjee-Dube (ed.). Caste in History. Oxford University Press. p. 110. ISBN 978-0-19-806678-1. In their recent work on female infanticide, Bhatnagar, Dube and Bube(2005) distinguish between Rajputization and Sanksritization. Using M.N.Srinivas' and Milton Singer's approach to social mobility as idioms they identify Rajputization as one of the most dynamic modes of upward mobility. As an idiom of political power it 'signifies a highly mobile social process of claiming military-political power and the right to cultivate land as well as the right to rule. Rajputization is unparalleled in traditional Indian society for its inventiveness in ideologies of legitimation and self-invention. This was a claim that was used by persons of all castes all over north India ranging from peasants and lower-caste Sudras to warriors and tribal chiefs and even the local raja who had recently converted to Islam. 2.Ishita Banerjee-Dube (2010). Caste in History. Oxford University Press. p. xxiii. ISBN 978-0-19-806678-1. Rajputization discussed processes through which 'equalitarian, primitive, clan based tribal organization' adjusted itself to the centralized hierarchic, territorial oriented political developments in the course of state formation. This led a 'narrow lineage of single families' to disassociate itself from the main body of their tribe and claim Rajput origin. They not only adopted symbols and practices supposedly representative of the true Kshatriya, but also constructed genealogies that linked them to the primordial and legendary solar and lunar dynasties of kings. Further, it was pointed out that the caste of genealogists and mythographers variously known as Carans, Bhats, Vahivanca Barots, etc., prevalent in Gujarat, Rajasthan and other parts of north India actively provided their patron rulers with genealogies that linked local clans of these chiefs with regional clans and with the Kshatriyas of the Puranas and Mahabharata. Once a ruling group succeeded in establishing its claim to Rajput status, there followed a 'secondary Rajputization' when the tribes tried to 're-associate' with their formal tribal chiefs who had also transformed themselves into Hindu rajas and Rajput Kshatriyas.

I already gave you about 10 more academic sources here:User_talk:Anony20#No_personal_attacks. Here are 10 *more* FYI (in fact, I have not come across any modern high quality academic source that opposes these views) and I am not even adding all the sources like Koyal, Sinha etc.:

Peasant/Pastoral origin:

3.Eugenia Vanina 2012, p. 140:Regarding the initial stages of this history and the origin of the Rajput feudal elite, modern research shows that its claims to direct blood links with epic heroes and ancient kshatriyas in general has no historic substantiation. No adequate number of the successors of these epically acclaimed warriors could have been available by the period of seventh-eights centuries AD when the first references to the Rajput clans and their chieftains were made. [...] Almost all Rajput clans originated from the semi-nomadic pastoralists of the Indian north and north-west.

4.Daniel Gold (1 January 1995). David N. Lorenzen (ed.). Bhakti Religion in North India: Community Identity and Political Action. State University of New York Press. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-7914-2025-6. Paid employment in military service as Dirk H. A. Kolff has recently demonstrated, was an important means of livelihood for the peasants of certain areas of late medieval north India... In earlier centuries, says Kolff, "Rajput" was a more ascriptive term, referring to all kinds of Hindus who lived the life of the adventuring warrior, of whom most were of peasant origins.

5.Doris Marion Kling (1993). The Emergence of Jaipur State: Rajput Response to Mughal Rule, 1562–1743. University of Pennsylvania. p. 30. Rajput: Pastoral, mobile warrior groups who achieved landed status in the medieval period claimed to be Kshatriyas and called themselves Rajputs

6.André Wink (1991). Al-Hind the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: The Slave Kings and the Islamic Conquest : 11Th-13th Centuries. BRILL. p. 171. ISBN 90-04-10236-1. ...and it is very probable that the other fire-born Rajput clans like the Caulukyas, Paramaras, Cahamanas, as well as the Tomaras and others who in the eighth and ninth centuries were subordinate to the Gurjara-Pratiharas, were of similar pastoral origin, that is, that they originally belonged to the mobile, nomadic groups...

Illiterate and non-Kshatriya origin:

7.Norman Ziegler 1976, p. 141:...individuals or groups with which the word was associated were generally considered to owe their origin to miscegenation or varna-samkara ("the mixing of castes") and were thus inferior in rank to Ksatriyas. [...] What I perceive from the above data is a rather widespread change in the subjective perception and the attribution of rank to groups and individuals who emerged in Rajasthan and North India as local chiefs and rulers in the period after the muslim invasions(extending roughly from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries). These groups were no longer considered kshatriyas and though they filled roles previously held by kshatriyas and were attributed similar functions of sustaining society and upholding the moral order, they were either groups whose original integrity were seen to have been altered or who had emerged from the lower ranks of the caste system. This change is supported by material from the Rajput chronicles themselves.

8.Norman Ziegler 1976, p. 150: Rajputs were, with some exceptions, almost totally illiterate as a caste group

9.Reinhard Bendix (1998). Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait. Psychology Press. pp. 180–. ISBN 978-0-415-17453-4. Eventually the position of the old Kshatriya nobility was undermined not only by the Brahmin priests but also by the rise of a warrior caste in northwest India. Most of the Rajputs were illiterate mercenaries in the service of a King.

10.Sara R. Farris (9 September 2013). Max Weber’s Theory of Personality: Individuation, Politics and Orientalism in the Sociology of Religion. BRILL. pp. 140–. ISBN 978-90-04-25409-1. Weber however explained this downgrading of their status by the fact that they represented a threat to the cultural and intellectual monopoly of the Brahmans, as they[Kshatriyas] were also extremely cultured and educated in the art of administration. In about the eight century the Rajput thus began to perform the functions that had formerly belonged to the Kshatriya, assuming their social and economic position and substituting them as the new warrior class. Ancient illiterate mercenaries, the Rajput did not represent a threat to the Brahmininc monopoly and were more inclined to accept the Brahmans' superiority, thus contributing to the so called Hindu restoration.

Note: There are many more. This is in addition to the other 10 sources I had provided on your page - so 20 sources plus at least 5-6 more that are not here. All sources are very high quality(Cambridge, Oxford, SUNY etc.) The amount of high quality material available discussing Rajputization is really overwhelming. It has also been linked to Female Infanticide (please see Rajput#Female_infanticide) and hence is an important topic. There is no intent to disparage or insult or offend any community but we have the duty as editors to use WP:RS on Wikipedia and not revert it if the source is acceptable.LukeEmily (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Anony20

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

Heba Aisha, I'm sorry to get technical here, but WP:GS/CASTE is not an arbcom discretionary sanction, it's a community sanction (and one that I don't think the user has been warned about). Requests per that sanction need to go to WP:AN, not here. On the other hand, it might be simpler for you to leave it here and merely change WP:GS/CASTE to WP:ARBIPA, which means the arbcom discretionary sanctions for India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. That would work perfectly well. You actually involve both of the types of sanctions in your report above, referring to the alert for ARBIPA, so leaving it here and changing WP:GS/CASTE is probably your best bet. Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Anony20, is what you have posted above the extent of your defence? It seems extremely thin. You are mistaken in thinking HA added those sources at the bottom of your page. (Even if they had done so, I don't see that there is much in that for you to complain of. What about the other points raised here?) Those sources are footnotes to an earlier post by LukeEmily on your page, here, from September, and they are a list of reliable sources that you had removed from the article. They are highly relevant to LE's post. I'll make a more general comment on this case later. Bishonen | tålk 13:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
I'd be very interested to hear also from LukeEmily, who has been involved with Anony's editing and arguments — indeed, Anony has several times treated LE and HA as a "team", or implied that they're one person,[42][43] an aspersion that seems highly unlikely to me. Bishonen | tålk 16:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I'm somewhat on the fence here. In August 2020, Anony20 behaved frankly atrociously. This is bad in several ways: attacks on Heba Aisha, attacks on Sitush, unacceptable caste commentary. Compare also my warning (aggressively received) to Anony20 here. They were then far from new, having started editing in 2018, but as of today they have only made 113 edits altogether. So in that sense could be considered a newbie still — a newbie editing one of our most fraught topics, castes and social groups. Their August edit here to Rajput is atrocious in another way: removing all content that could be seen as negative — as LukeEmily points out, removing terms such as "Shudra" , "illiterate" "peasant" and "Rajputization" — plus a whole raft of reliable sources supporting those terms. That was pure caste promotion. A very bad edit. But what I would like to know is this: Anony20 took a break from 1 September to 26 November. Is there anything really bad from the last few days? There is certainly this recent nonsense about 'twin users'. But literally all they have done at any article in November is add images to Bihari Rajput. I think Heba's complaint about these images is a bit overblown, and altogether that Heba's timing in bringing this complaint is not the best. The point where a user has taken a three-month break and has only returned a few days earlier is not a good time to take them to WP:AE. Unless somebody can point to egregious talkpage edits in November, I would close this with a warning to Anony20: Anony, you shouldn't talk down to people such as LukeEmily,[44] who obviously understands sourcing in the area far better than you do, but listen to him and other competent users, and to educate yourself about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If there is obvious caste promotion from you going forward, admins are now watching, and you're likely to be topic banned from all articles and discussions about castes and social groups. P.S. Oh... I just saw that Anony20 has taken Heba to ANI[45] over the same stuff that is being discussed here. What a terrible idea. I suppose I'll write it down to inexperience. Sigh. Bishonen | tålk 16:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]

The last two diffs in OPs complaint are concerning. Accusations of sock or meat puppeting, "dumbo", "twin sister", are all personal attacks. I'm not sure whether the caste related diffs are egregious content related stuff but these personal attacks are not a good sign. At a minimum, Anony20 needs to be made aware that they can be topic banned from specific topic areas (caste related India articles, for example) unless they shape up. If there is evidence of disruptive content editing (I don't see anything that stands out but haven't looked carefully), I'd be willing to support a topic ban.--RegentsPark (comment) 16:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: I suggest closing this with a warning to Anony20. I tried reading the walls of text above but .... A note to the commenting editors, "in future, please be brief!". --RegentsPark (comment) 17:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella

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

Request concerning GizzyCatBella

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Astral Leap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GizzyCatBella (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: TBAN and other questionable edits

Full disclosure: I came about to scrutinizing GizzyCatBella's edits after she filed a bogus sock-puppet case against me. User:Nsk92 suggested that GizzyCatBella deserves further scrutiny in light of her multiple AE blocks, an AE topic ban and her sneak revert of a WP:NONAZI blocked user's edits, placing Aryanization in Affirmative action.

Generally questionable edits:

[46]: sneak reverting (hidden at bottom of copy edit) of Zezen's addition of Aryanization to Affirmative action. Zezen was WP:NONAZI blocked by User:Bishonen in part due to this edit.
[47]: Derailing discussion to attack User:Trasz she is in dispute on other pages.
[48][49]: Changing "antisemitic (branded "anti-Zionist")" to "anti-Zionist". Not only is this unsupported by the sources, GizzyCatBella doctored quotations. In page 121 of book she placed it says "and in the aftermath of the "anti- Zionist" campaign of 1968", with scare quotes, yet GizzyCatBella doctored this to: "and in the aftermath of the anti-Zionist campaign or 1968" without scare quotes. This omission completely changes the nature of the quotation.

Edits that violate WWII in Poland TBAN (or skirt awfully close)

[50]: Includes significant WWII in Poland content. Under "Second World War" section: "A labour subcamp of the Stalag II-D prisoner-of-war camp was also operated in the town by Germany.", under "Post-war Poland": "After World War II the city became again part of Poland, under territorial changes demanded by the Soviet Union at the Potsdam Conference, and was handed over to Polish administration on 1 June 1945..."
[51]: Discussing inclusion criteria for list whose first entry is The Holocaust, second is Nazi genocide of ethnic Poles, and also has Polish Operation of the NKVD.
[52]: Article is about Polish myth on region lost in WWII.
[53]: The article is about the WWII educational policy of Poland's ruling party.
[54]: One of the main topics of the WWII Potsdam Conference was the allocation of Polish territory.
[55]: Removing German place name of formerly German village allocated to Poland in 1945.

Edits that violate violence immediately prior/after to WWII in Poland TBAN (The TBAN includes: any acts of violence by, in or against Poland, or by or against Poles or Polish Jews, during or immediately prior to or after World War II)

[56]: Vote in RFC whose content difference includes anti-Jewish violence immediately after WWII: "In 2008, Wolniewicz addressed a packed crowd at the Basilica of the Sacred Heart of Jesus in Krakow and shouted "The Jews are attacking us! We need to defend ourselves", in an event protesting against the Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz book and alongside Jerzy Robert Nowak." Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz is about anti-Jewish violence immediately after the end of WWII.
[57]: This facility was known for torture and incarceration of without trial of Polish Jews and other minorities between 1934 and until the Polish collapse in September 1939 ([58][59]), included in anti-Jewish/Polish violence immediately prior to WWII.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

April 2018 AE block
June 2018 AE TBAN
May 2019 AE block
June 2020 AE block

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Replying to GizzyCatBella's statement, does she expect editors to ignore the diffs? To be brief, I'll highlight just one falsehood. In the Polish city of Kołobrzeg she writes that "The edit is entirely about the Middle Ages", but if you search the diff for:

1. "A labour subcamp"

2. "Propaganda in Nazi Germany"

3. "was handed over to Polish administration on 1 June 1945"

There are three separate paragraphs she edited that are on 1939-1945, not the Middle Ages. And her opinions on Aryanization and Affirmative action are even worse than the TBAN issue.--Astral Leap (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After I wrote the above, GizzyCatBella struck her point no.1, responding to User:Ealdgyth saying she was mistaken and would have done so anyway without me commenting on her falsehood (which disingenuously was presented as "extremely bad faithed and dishonest" on my part), but other points are blatant falsehoods. She said: "3 - False; there is no mention, NONE, about WW2 in Poland in the entire article" on diff. However, the article had "which after 1945 were separated from Poland" (The 1945 World War II Potsdam Conference again, which affirmed the reallocation of Polish land during the war). The article was all of 3 lines and less than a day old, created by User:Buidhe. GizzyCatBella should know 1945 is related to World War II, and should be able to read three lines. And again, I am even more worried about her placing Aryanization in Affirmative action. The aryanization edit is more worrying than all the other Polish edits, and this worrying irrespective of aryanization being a World War II topic taking place in Nazi territory, including Poland.--Astral Leap (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to this statement by GizzyCatBella, does she think Wikipedia editors are fools? She links to End of World War II in Europe, that states:

The Potsdam Agreement was signed on 12 August 1945. In connection with this, the leaders of the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union planned the new postwar German government, resettled war territory boundaries, de facto annexed a quarter of pre-war Germany situated east of the Oder-Neisse line, and mandated and organized the expulsion of the millions of Germans who remained in the annexed territories and elsewhere in the east.
— Wikipedia editors, End of World War II in Europe

The Potsdam Conference and agreement are a core part of WWII in Poland, see also: Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II, Recovered Territories, Kresy. The agreement transferred the Kresy eastern territories, seized in the 1939 invasion, to the Soviet union while awarding the Recovered Territories, conquered in 1944-1945, to Poland. I am unsure what alternative is worse here: GizzyCatBella taking us for fools or GizzyCatBella actually believing what she is writing.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Potsdam Conference is included in Category:World War II conferences, and Territorial changes of Poland immediately after World War II has "immediately" in the title.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [60]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

This report is of tit-for-tat type and resembles all other attempts of getting me blocked where users were issued an interaction ban due to stretched pieces of evidence[61] such as the ones below. Please allow me some extra time to address it due to my real-life issues at the moment. I'll ping administrators @Guerillero:, @El C:, @RexxS: involved in prior case since they are the most familiar with my situation and a long-overdue topic ban lift. Hope they have time to look at it also. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:21, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

~~(Update - I'm so sorry that I have no time to address this today; I should respond by tomorrow's end.)~~

First, I would like to note that Astral Leap and Nsk92 coordinated this report's filing[62] (User talk:Nsk92#Can you take a look?) so Nsk92s comments are not independent. ~~(to be continued..)~~ - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(thank you for the wait)

So Astral Leap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who spent on Wikipedia a total of 31 hours editing time [63] since their account initiation back in February/June 2020 [64], was generous enough to dedicate his exceptional skills of know-how around here and, according to their own words [65], examined up to 1000 of my last edits to find all of this.

Let's take a look at what they have discovered:

Generally "questionable" edits

1 - This has been addressed already following the question of EdJohnston [66] I answered in detail[67],[68]. Why is the junior account of Astral Leap bringing up yet again here and as the #1 issue that has been addressed already even though this report is about my alleged breach of the topic ban? Because based on that one diff they wish to paint a false picture and brand me a "NeoNazi" or "NeoNazi friend" right at the intro, as they shamelessly referred to me on their talk page[69].

Regarding Astral Leap's latest comment regarding Aryanization [70] - Astral Leap has no idea what my opinion about "Aryanization" is. Them ascribing any such views to me is dishonest, manipulative, and a personal attack. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 - With the mentioned user, I don't have disagreements; I had issues with that user stocking my edits [71][72][73] hence my note to them[74], but that is a different affair.

3 - False, I haven't "doctored" anything; it was an anti-Zionist campaign, and it is supported by sources [75] (pl. Kampania anty-Syjonistyczna w Polsce 1967-1968 --> eng. The anti-Zionist campaign in Poland 1967-1968 -->google translate[76])

Edits that "violate" WWII in Poland TBAN

1 - False; I haven't touch anything in regards to WW2 in Poland; (I'm meticulous about not touching that for almost 3 years now!) The edit is entirely about the Middle Ages, which can be easily seen[77]. Yes, the article does have some info in it about WW2 but that’s because it’s a general level article about a city which goes over the city’s history. I didn’t make any edits to the part concerning WW2, so this presentation of a diff is extremely bad faithed and dishonest.

Update - fell into the trap again! - I just remember now! (I see that Astral Leap commented on it already) Sorry, I didn't remember this incident when I was writing the above, I remember now, and I was fooled again while writing the above response. This is also regarding my closing note below. Here is how I reacted when I accidentally breached my topic ban, which I did a few minutes earlier with this diff [78]. I self reverted [79] right away. I also expected one of the new accounts would arrive soon to revert me and it did here [80] (surprise, surprise - within 14 minutes). Do you see how closely these sock accounts follow me!? 14 minutes. And here is the trap! That was a deliberate setup, and the anon sockpuppet knew about my topic ban. My original revert was ONLY about the Middle Ages [81] However the new account added at the very bottom some minor things related to WW2 [82] with tricking edit summary "bring back lead and remove nonconstructive changes". Bringing back the lead and remove, eh? They do it all the time to me, as I outlined in my closing comment. Now, I remember exactly when I noticed that trap. Soon after, I reverted the new account [83] believing that I’m reverting the Middle Ages part and and missed that sneaky additions. Then I didn't have a chance to correct myself because the new account reverted me [84], so I left the article. I meant to inform RexX and EI_C about it but I forgot. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few examples of past set-up attempts by the brand new accounts that were unsuccessful— all the same modus-operandi as the above.

a - A brand new account (now blocked as a sockpuppet of Icewhiz [85]) arrives within 9 minutes to revert my edit [86] please note at the bottom the sock puppet sneakily adds material related to WW2 hoping I'll not notice and revert "His wife and daughter, after being briefly imprisoned in a Nazi concentration camp, joined him".
b - Here, a blocked sock puppet of Icewhiz arrives within 9 minutes to revert my edit [87] but at the bottom modifies article adding words about WW2 "During the Second World War.... University faculty members utilized"
c - Here, a brand new account arrives within 27 minutes to revert me [88] at the article about Czechoslovakia to revert me and sneakily adds material about WW2 in Poland at the bottom "...was annexed by Poland following an agreement with Nazi Germany"
d - Here, a brand new account arrives to regress my edits [89] and attaches at the very bottom WW2 related material "The ethnic German inhabitants were Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–1950.."
e - Here, a brand new account arrives to revert me[90]. Please note at the bottom the account sneakily removes material related to WW2 "The camp ... September 17–18, 1939 after the Soviet invasion of Poland" hoping that I'll revert without noticing it.
f - Here, a brand new account arrives at completely unrelated to WW2 in Poland discussion pretending to support me with a comment about WW2 in Poland.[91] --->These are just a few examples of numerous instances of attempts to get me tricked into a topic ban violation just to illustrate the issue better.

2 - False; I haven't discussed anything in regards to WW2 in Poland, there was no mention of anything WW2 when I composed that comment [92]

3 - False; there is no mention, NONE, about WW2 in Poland in the entire article[93]

4 - False; there is no mention, NONE, about WW2 in Poland in the comment. I only noted that it was a new account.[94]

5 - False; I haven't touched anything in regards to WW2 in Poland.[95]

6 - False; there is not a single word about WW2 in Poland in the article.[96]

Edits that "violate" violence immediately prior/after to WWII in Poland TBAN

1 - False; I haven't discussed anything about WW2 in Poland or violence against the Polish Jews. That person is a post-war philosopher, not a historian specializing in WW2 in Poland or a person involved in the war.[97]

2 - False; Bereza Kartuska was not a prison for "Jews" or such like Astral Leap is falsely claiming. The source does not support what Astral Leap claims at all. Bereza Kartuska was a prison mainly for far-right extremists, communists and Ukrainian nationalists. Regardless, it operated before WW2, so outside the scope of the topic ban. The fact that Astral Leap is manipulating the truth here about the nature of this subject and what's in the sources in a shameless attempt to get someone blocked should raise all kinds of red flags regarding that editor.

Answers to Astral Leaps added comments

Regarding this comment -->[98] World War 2 in Europe ended in April/May 1945. [99] Potsdam Conference took place in July/August 1945 [100] after the War. STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE! - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another personal attack! [101] "I am unsure what alternative is worse here: GizzyCatBella taking us for fools.." I'm not taking anybody for a fool! Astral Leap, full stop now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note:

I will take the time and bring this significantly bothering me issue to this board as well. My initial topic ban introduced in 2018 was a consequence of the filing of now globally banned user Icewhiz[102]. Since the introduction of the ban, I was continually being reported (10 times already if I count correctly) by Icewhiz/his peers/new accounts in an attempt to get me banned or blocked. I outlined the history of that in the last case under ("AE cases filled upon me" [103]). Since the conclusion of that case, I'm being followed by a bunch of newly created accounts that arrive quickly at the articles I edited to revert my edit or challenge me on talk pages. As an example: this new account [104] this one [105], this one [106], this one [107], this one [108], this one [109], this one[110] this one[111], this one[112], this one [113], this one [114], this one [115], this one [116] and more..They even impersonate me filing SPI reports. That just happened on October 22 under [117], but since then, that fake report has been deleted, and I can't provide a proper diff anymore. I think you can view it in your administrative records. Sometimes they purposely enter WW2 Poland related information [118], understanding that I'm Topic Banned from that area. These examples are from the last 3-4 months only, but this is going on for a lengthier time than that, with greater or lesser frequency; I summarized the latest occurrences here already [119]. I'm constantly on alert following my topic ban restrictions and not to stumble into a trap set up by socks, or I'm struggling with the reports aimed at blocking me. I have to tell you that this is extremely exhausting. I'm hoping to get my topic ban lifted soon, being encouraged by the positive comments of the administrative team members, such as El_C-->[120] or RexxS-->[121]. If you would consider that at the same time, that would make me extremely happy (you can't imagine how happy) and would return enjoyment in editing. Thanks. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella replying to Ealdgyth

Look Ealdgyth. It took me well over an hour to compose that update,[122], collecting diff, underlining what's important and describing the situation. I'm not a fast typer, I write offline and then copy/paste things. After I already posted my response, which took me an entire night to write, I noticed and recognized that incident myself. Just before I was ready to post the update, I saw that Astral Leap already commented on it. So no, my update wasn't triggered by Astral Leap's response. I would write that update anyway. "You should know by now that you need to check over EVERYTHING when you're reverting," you say? Yes, I'm careful, 1000 edits Astral Leap checked I'm careful, three years of the struggles of not breaching my topic ban, I'm careful. I have indeed been stalked and harassed mostly by throwaway accounts or brand new accounts like Astral Leap. Their purpose has been to drive me off Wikipedia by starting edit wars with me, setting up traps, and filing spurious AE reports. This is part of a pattern, and I cried about to El_C and RexxS. Until you are subject to the same kind of campaign of harassment, you should withhold judgements, especially when the topic ban breach here was minor and done by accident due to the deliberate setup. Aside from that one mistake, the rest of Astral Leap's report is blatantly false, just like I stated. And by the way, my name is Gizzy, not Grizzly as you wrote [123] (speaking about making mistakes) - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ealdgyth for correcting my name[124], but I was not offended by the misspelling or anything like that; I only pointed it out to show that we are all making mistakes. Believe me; I'm sooo careful about not breaching a topic ban that it's an obsession by now. I'm currently collecting a few other similar setups where I immediately detected it and didn't fall into the trap. Bear with me; I have to dig through the diffs. I'll try to do it today, I'm exhausted, but I'll try. (PS - Icewhiz wanted me to be sanctioned for misspelling his name

--> GizzyCatBella is directed to write Icewhiz's name properly...[125] or for placing discretionary sanctions note on his talk page [126] - I'm showing you this to show how far back these block attempts go) - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, I posted some of those diffs here [127] How many times is needed to finally succeed to entrap somebody? 10? 20? 100? Hope that made it easier to understand what I’m dealing with for the past 2-3 years. Nightmare :( - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning GizzyCatBella

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

Statement by Nsk92

I dislike the tit-for-tat nature of the events that led us here, but in terms of substance this report has merit. IMO, the diffs provided by the OP either skirt extremely close to violating GizzyCatBella's TBAN or actually do violate it. For instance, I believe that the edits [128] on Potsdam Conference and [129] on Talk:Bereza Kartuska Prison violate the TBAN. The future of Poland was a major topic at the Potsdam Conference, Potsdam Conference#Poland, and the decisions made at Potsdam finalized the post-WWII arrangements for Poland. The Bereza Kartuska Prison describes, incliding in the lede, that suspected German sympathizers were incarcerated there immediately prior to the start of WWII and they were freed when WWII started and Germany invaded Poland. GizzyCatBella already has 3 AE blocks and they should have known by now to stay well clear of anything that can be interpreted as breaching their topic ban or coming close. (See User talk:GizzyCatBella#Arbitration enforcement warning for extra discussion on the topic where GizzyCatBella promises to be more cafeul.) Instead they keep pushing the envelope closer and closer to the edge, and sometimes over it. Clearly, some additional sanction is needed, either a wider topic ban under the same Eastern Europe arbcom case, or a longer block. Nsk92 (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After Astral Leap prepared this repor at User:Astral Leap/sandbox, they did contact me at User talk:Nsk92#Can you take a look? and asked for my opinion. I did offer it there, in a single post[130]. I did not edit the report, nor did I suggest any extra diffs to be added to it. That was the extent of the "coordination" here. In any case, I hope that the report will be evaluated based on its substantive merits and not on any ad hominem considerations regarding percieved motives of the commenters. Nsk92 (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re GizzyCatBella's comment: "World War 2 in Europe ended in April/May 1945. Potsdam Conference took place in July/August 1945 after the War. STOP MISLEADING PEOPLE!". The comment is a blatant, and rather unconvincing, attempt to wikilawyer around the plain meaning of the topic ban. The topic ban was not for "World War 2 in Europe" but for World War 2: "For the avoidance of doubt, this includes any acts of violence by, in or against Poland, or by or against Poles or Polish Jews, during or immediately prior to or after World War II, as well as persons known for their involvement in the World War II history of Poland." World War II ended on September 2, 1945 with the unconditional surrender of Japan, well after the Potsdam Conference. Nsk92 (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ealdgyth

~~Grizzly~~ Gizzy - YOU are responsible for your edits. You should know by now that you need to check over EVERYTHING when you're reverting. If you think folks are out to get you, then you should be extra careful. Frankly, you seem to be too caught up in the hunt for socks and folks out to get you and not enough caught up in making sure your own edits are good and within the bounds of your topic ban. Spend more time inpsecting edits and less time blindly reverting.

And I'm not impressed with the impassioned declarations that all the diffs were false but then when the exact problem is pointed out, suddenly you remember? Did you not LOOK at the diffs presented? Or did you just assume they were false without inspecting them ... I'm AGFing that it was the first, but after a while, this will be harder and harder to do. (And this was after you needed extra time to deal with the filing here - I would hope that if someone asks for extra time they .. use that time to be sure they are replying to the matters brought to the noticeboard.) -- Ealdgyth (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologizes for the misnaming. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buidhe

I'm in no way out to get GCB. In fact, I did not report her even though I noticed that there was (what appeared to me) to be a TBAN violation at the Bereza Katruska article. However, I agree with the comments above that the case should be evaluated on its merits, regardless of the possible motivations of the filing party. (t · c) buidhe 02:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

There are two aspects to consider here. First, the filler himself linked to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CommanderWaterford/Archive, which GCB opened against them. While that case was closed with no action, per comments there by parties and CUs I think it is quite clear (WP:DUCK) that AL is not a new account. Whether they are avoiding scrutiny due to sanctions on their past account or not, it is hard to tell for sure since nobody has yet positively identified their previous account, but filling this revenge AE is clearly contributing to the WP:BATTLEGROUND, and that kind of mentality, in turn, was something that did result in a number of editors active in the topic area that AL and GCB both frequent getting banned. Therefore, some sort of WP:BOOMERANG is highly recommended, as editors should be made to de-escalate, not escalate, one way or another.

As for the edits reported here, they seem to be the usual borderline stretching of the 'widely construed' wiki-legalese. IMHO there is no violation here, except by extreme stretchy standards - like editing an article about Europe or planet Earth would be bad too? Because GCB was banned from the topic area which is located in the smaller subset of such articles... c'mon. Like the Bereza Kartuska, it was a non-issue during the war, but sure, if you dig deep enough you can make a connection between it and anything. This further reflects the usual battleground-ish attempt to roll the proverbial dice and see if something sticks this time ("hey, maybe random admin x will conclude one of the dozen diff I throw this time is actionable? Let's spin the admin lottery wheel!"). This is also doubly troubling when it comes from a new account (AL's activity is a few months long). This fits the modus operandi of a number of disruptive editors, who create such temporary accounts for the purpose of 'staying around until burned' and taking the occasional potshots at their opponents, hoping that every now and then they can take them down with them. AE admins should be extremely familiar with this tactic.

Frankly, I feel that GCB has been doing pretty well dealing with the topic ban they've been settled with. The more active one is, the more likely it is one will make some borderline edit once in a while, and per diffs above, GCB has been trying to stay away from breathing the ban, every now and then asking me or another editor whether they can make an edit or not. This is cumbersome, stressful, and a waste of time, particularly when we consider that this topic ban originates from the Icewhiz-era. If Icewhiz (now site-banned for real-life harassment of myself and others) haven't been here to goad and provoke others, the odds are good GCB would never have been topic banned in the first place. I suggest lifting her topic ban, which should bring us closer to the desired stability and quiet of this topic area from the pre-Icewiz era. Things were relaxed and peaceful until they appeared, and now that they have self-destructed, we should ensure things go back to the way they were, and not let them or any fellow sock travelers take innocent victims down with them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Since I noticed Postdam Conference being mentioned and comments about some editors being fools... well, GCB's topic ban states that is includes "events... during or immediately prior to or after World War II". In my view, immediately, implies days at best, not months (for example, I'd consider Gleiwitz incident from 31 August to be "immediately before", but not the March 1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania, with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of mid-August meriting a warning for 'skirting on the edge'). Likewise, three months is not "immediately after WWII", though of course, if one prefers a geological time scale... Anyway, for future similar bans, I'd suggest using wording that is less ambiguous. If I was the one imposing such a ban, to avoid weaseling, stretching, and ban-shopping, I'd either use precise dates or would have made used undisputable definitions like "any event included in the Category:Aftermath of World War II" or such. Not that I think this particular category is the best since it includes events from the 1950s like the Korean War which are presumably even further removed from the concept of 'immediacy', but anyway, using categories to define the scope of topic bans would at least remove the onus from admins on having to figure out if the adjective "immediate" in historical context refers to seconds, days, months or years. Something to consider in the future. Oh yeah, the comment about fools. Well, I think it will be foolish indeed if the bad-faithed attempts for ban-shopping above remain unaddressed. Boomerang, please. Battleground-creating socks should not be tolerated. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not harass (or be harassed) other editors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GizzyCatBella

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

Yurivict

Yurivict is indefinitely topic banned from post-1932 American politics. If anyone feels a separate AE or ANI report is required to look at the conduct of User:Valjean then that may be actioned at any time. Black Kite (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Yurivict

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Yurivict (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 :

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

02:51, 19 November 2020 Attempts to give credence to the conspiracy theory of voter fraud by Dominion voting systems using affidavits, violating WP:NOT and WP:OR
04:26, 19 November 2020 Repeat addition of the same content as above.
23:44, 22 November 2020 States that "Mass media outlets like CNN/CBS/MSNBC/New York Times/etc don't seem concerned about objective news reporting, and instead have long turned into the instruments of propaganda." and continues to claim evidence of voter fraud.
21:19, 26 November 2020 Same as above
17:41, 29 November 2020 "the voting data posted in Pennsylvania after Nov 9PM is forged"

Awareness Critera: Met, in 2017, and one on the 20th of November

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Yurivict, while a long standing editor, attempted to give credence to the conspiracy theory of voter fraud by Dominon voting systems in the Sidney Powell article, and has continued this disruption at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Why the mainstream media are considered RS when they continuously and demonstrably lie?, accusing reputable media outlets of being "liars", showing WP:CIR issues. Yurivict previously opened a thread entitled Since it is obvious that it has been no Russian interference, this article should be either renamed or deleted on the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections talk page in February 2018, showing that they have consistent pattern of this behaviour. I request an AP2 topic ban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Done

Discussion concerning Yurivict

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

Statement by Yurivict

The claims of incivility are false. On every occasion I provided extensive logical reasoning for what I said, and repeatedly asked Valjean to explain his reasoning, and he consistently failed to answer, no matter how much I tried. I expressed the only reasonable conclusion possible in this situation: that he lacks the ability for logical reasoning and discerning truth from falsehood. There is no incivility there, only logical conclusions. Valjean's user page indicates that he is a far-left activist, expresses his hatred towards certain current politicians, and is here on Wikipedia to promote his political causes. In his other edits he also expressed his conviction that he "is on the right side of history". This apparently justifies the means for him.

RS are voted on by Wikipedia editors. I pointed out the obvious problem with inveracity of statements in sources being incompatible with sources being considered RS. Despite my numerous attempts to provide proof that the information asserted by mass media is false, others consistently plainly rejected all arguments, showing their extreme level of bias. I literally couldn't get even one bit of acceptable argumentation as to why the mass media statements in question should be considered correct. One of the most egregious examples is the user stating "Yes, 98% of the batch [of 23,000] could just be votes for Biden." This answer is just one example of extreme, acute bias that far transcends the boundaries of reasonableness. Yurivict (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

("Reply to Liz"): I never said this. Please do not attribute any broad statements to me that I never said. Yurivict (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

("Reply to Bishonen"): This is **not pushing**. The page in question is a voting page, where editors express their opinion about sources in order to establish if they are RS. You appear to think that only certain opinions are welcomed, and not others. This undermines the very process of voting. Yurivict (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

("Reply to Cullen328"): I never said that I reject any fundamental process. I only questioned specific statements from the media as to their veracity and compatibility with being RS. Yurivict (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

("Reply to Valjean"): Valjean feels personally attacked and hurt, despite none of the above was meant. His remark about "it is known that the sky is blue" only shows how pre-opinionated he is. He votes with the expectation of a particular outcome, not with open mind and intention to establish what the average opinion is. He has the mentality of a classical far-left activist. Yurivict (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

("Reply to Koncorde"): Regarding your false assertion: "The subject of this request has already posited his opposition to "an adherence to reliable sources and consensus" and advocated the use of the least reliable sources currently being promoted. This somewhat renders your argument moot." - I never said anything like this. I only asked the question about veracity of statements in specific media. To this moment I still didn't get an answer. Please stop your insinuations. Yurivict (talk) 01:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

("Reply to Valjean" (again)): You don't qualify to claim anybody's "INCOMPETENCE" because you couldn't even answer a basic logical question with three simple clauses in it, which led to this whole discussion. You are essentially wrong in everything you are saying. Yurivict (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

("Reply to Valereee"): I only asked a specific question about a specific statement. People didn't like my question and couldn't answer it, and blew it out of proportion. It's so depressing that after the Wikipedia voting process people begin to judge you and blame you about how you voted. You obviously don't value freedom of speech and freedom of opinion, the values I hold dearest. Yurivict (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that items (3), (4), (5) above (in Diffs) are in talk pages discussing sources, and asking a specific honest question about source's statements. Why can't an editor ask questions about sources? This is an OUTRAGE!!! A persecution of a dissenting opinion. "Please vote as long as we agree with your vote, or else you will be banned!" It is OUTRAGEOUS to see this happening on Wikipedia! Shame! This is totalitarian and completely un-American! Yurivict (talk) 07:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

The major issue here is Yurivict's open opposition to RS and a lack of basic competence to evaluate the reliability of sources:

the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. Editors should familiarize themselves with Wikipedia's guidance on identifying reliable sources and be able to decide when sources are, and are not, suitable for citing in articles.

Yurivict constantly uses unreliable sources in their arguments.

They also engage in:

[131] [132] multiple deletions of reliably-sourced content;
edit warring with unreliable sources;
defends unreliable sources and attacks RS;
considers our RS mechanism to be broken.
the dubious distinction of being one of the very few editors (unsurprisingly with PackMecEng and BlackBird1008) to defend Newsmax. It is now SNOWBALL deprecated.
incivility, personal attacks, and failures to AGF [133][134][135][136]
a warrior for "truth" over verifiability.
Their thread at WP:RS/P #Why the mainstream media are considered RS when they continuously and demonstrably lie? is a master class demonstrating a complete absence of competence regarding sourcing.

I believe an AP2 topic ban is necessary, as well as a topic ban from all controversial subjects, as their basic incompetence regarding sourcing will continue to be a problem. -- Valjean (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Below, Yurivict states: "You appear to think that only certain opinions are welcomed, and not others. This undermines the very process of voting."

Let's use an example. If we have a vote about the color of the sky, and knowing that all RS state that the "sky is blue", ONE editor then votes that the "sky is not blue", based on their use of unreliable sources and disbelief of all those RS, that vote shows the editor is not accepting what RS say. It shows that the editor is at odds with our RS policy and is not competent to evaluate the reliability of sources, even though that ability is a fundamental and absolute REQUIREMENT here. Such a vote is not welcomed but scorned.

Yes, editors are allowed to express their opinions, but if those opinions reveal they are not in harmony with our policies or RS, it has consequences for them. We do not allow such editors full and unfettered rights and access to any and all forms of editing, as they cannot be trusted. We clip their wings, and a topic ban is one way to do that. We allow children to play with balls in the gym, but we do not allow them to play with balls in the antique store. -- Valjean (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comments by Yurivict on this page reveal a complete absence of understanding their problem, so I am now convinced that an indefinite community ban is required, but that is apparently not an option on this board. Is a block allowed? The degree of NOTHERE and INCOMPETENCE are truly stunning. Conservapedia is thataway.....>>>>> -- Valjean (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
InedibleHulk, I already retracted that. -- Valjean (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yurivict, "couldn't even answer a basic logical question" is not what happened. I certainly could have done so if I had the time and inclination, but I know when not to waste my time. -- Valjean (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IHateAccounts

As the editor who left the notification [137] and a polite reminder to Yurivict that they needed to abide by Wikipedia policies regarding Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:FRINGE items such as conspiracy theories, I should make a statement.

I remain concerned by Yurivict's attempts to push misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories related to elections in the United States. This includes at Jon Ossoff (link [138]), Matt Bevin (link: [139]), Andy Beshear (link: [140]), and Sidney Powell (links: [141] [142] [143]).

I am also concerned by their demonstrated disregard or opposition regarding Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy, as can be seen in the evidence provided by Hemiauchenia. Similar comments occurred in the thread "Important notices" that following my notification and polite reminder on their talk page (page link as Yurivict has now deleted it from their talk: [144]), in which they responded to various editors (not just myself): "That edit contained truth, not a fringe theory. Wikipedia's reliable sources mechanism is broken and it doesn't allow really reliable sources to be cited" [145], "I am sorry that you are so brainwashed and so devoid of the ability of independent thought and analysis" [146], "And when RS is not really RS, your documentation is garbage, garbage in, garbage out" [147] and "The One America News TV channel does honest, excellent reporting; NewsMax accurately reports current US news; The Epoch Times (https://www.theepochtimes.com/) has very reliable information; same can be said about American Thinker (https://www.americanthinker.com/) and Big League Politics (https://bigleaguepolitics.com/). Mass media outlets like CNN/CBS/MSNBC/New York Times/etc don't seem concerned about objective news reporting, and instead have long turned into the instruments of propaganda." [148] This can also be seen in a post they made to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources: [149].

They were last warned about inserting WP:FRINGE content into Wikipedia in 2018 [150] after a series of comments to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections [151][152][153][154][155]. Reading their edit history, they appear to have stopped in this case after their discussion was closed with the comment "Closed. This borders on trolling. The article cites 406 reliable source that support that Russia interfered with the elections.Wikipedia is not a court where proof has to be presented. Come back with 406 reliable sources that say Russia didn't do it and then we will have a basis for a discussion." by MrX [156]. In 2020 similar reminders have not been enough.

I think their expertise in other matters, such as computer programming, is valuable for wikipedia but in the area of American politics they appear to have trouble with evaluating source reliability. IHateAccounts (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be incomplete if I did not also state my concern with their multiple attempts to paint Valjean as a "far-left activist" in this very discussion [157] [158]. Their comments stating that they "repeatedly asked Valjean to explain his reasoning, and he consistently failed to answer" do not match the evidence in page history. In the thread on Yurivict's talk page, Valjean repeatedly explained their position ("You have a duty to follow that policy and prioritize verifiable information from RS, not your subjective ideas of "truth". That information must come from what we consider RS (IOW accurate sources, regardless of any left or right bias), not from the fringe and unreliable sources that you consider reliable. They are misinforming you.") and Yurivict made repeated and direct insults towards Valjean: "If you really believe so I have no choice but think that you totally lack the ability to discern what is true and what is false, and should never edit Wikipedia articles about any subject matter"[159], "Wikipedia editors approve what is considered to be a "reliable source", and approve it again by editing accordingly or advocating for the system, like you do here. Which, again, brings us to the conclusion that you can not discern what is true and what is false."[160], "Hence, this is almost a mathematical proof that you can't discern what is true from what is false" [161]. IHateAccounts (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by InedibleHulk

Edit warring and personal attacks are reasonably not cool, but arguing for or against the reliability of sources is fine, it's how we all find consensus (especially at RSN). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never did any edit warring. I only argue about reliability of sources, specifically about veracity of certain statements in mass media. Yurivict (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to suggest you were guilty of these things, just that such things should be considered punishable offences, while one's thoughts on reliability (and any related discernment process or system) should not. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe affidavits can be considered credible evidence without being presumed proof. If such credible evidence reportedly exists, that merely disproves a claim of "there is no credible evidence", everything else is everything else. I also believe a desire to investigate or discuss election fairness can be held by anyone concerned, not just Trump supporters, but including them. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean, as a man who was indefinitely banned from everything for what I and several others think was a stupid reason, I must say it seemed to constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and if you choose to pursue that for this guy, we can no longer be work friends. We won't be work enemies. I'll just pretend you don't exist. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean, it's not retracted in your statement, it's at 01:10. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Koncorde

I am the one mentioned regarding this statement: "Yes, 98% of the batch could just be votes for Biden. Occams razor." To be clear; to me the user was making, has been making, and continues to make unfounded assertions that there is evidence of fraud, that affidavits qualify as such, and that amateur analysis of no notability stand on their own as hard and fast factual interpretations of the facts. In effect;

the user argues that we must reject reliable sources characterising the lack of evidence of fraud as a lack of evidence of fraud.
to do this the user presents unreliable sources (usually the unfiltered claims of lawyers) / primary sources (affidavits, legal submissions, including those not even submitted and never likely to be submitted as a case) and / or use the existence of self published sources and WP:OR as evidence of fraud in order to invalidate the RS opinion.
failure to accept parts 1 and 2 is because "You are extremely biased." Koncorde (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The subject of this request has already posited his opposition to "an adherence to reliable sources and consensus" and advocated the use of the least reliable sources currently being promoted. This somewhat renders your argument moot." - I never said anything like this. I only asked the question about veracity of statements in specific media. To this moment I still didn't get an answer. Please stop your insinuations.

Just in case there is any confusion, their words on the subject:

I am arguing not for inclusion of anything into Wikipedia, but against certain sources being RS. You can't use the sources this arguments is made against as a basis that the argument is wrong, due to circular reasoning.

I don't believe I am misrepresenting this position, or insinuating anything, when the user says (to paraphrase) "you can't use reliable sources against the argument for dismissing my claims, oh and by the way here are some unreliable sources I'd like to use" this sort of statement is taken in conjunction with below edits and edit summaries to make it clear that this is not a "question about veracity" as claimed and is instead an open rejection of wikipedia norms.

Rejects reliable sources:[162] argues against using existing reliable sources [163][164]

Attempts to use unreliable sources[165] and argues for overturning RS with self published nonsense and OR [166][167] Koncorde (talk) 09:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bus stop

Topic ban violation --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

May I weigh in here? I am currently "indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions concerning post-1932 American politics". I am especially horrified by the administrators here—Liz, Bishonen, Cullen328. Wikipedia is going to become a far-left screed. Nothing but polemic will populate our pages. Opposition should be welcomed. Instead you are silencing people. An article should reflect an adherence to reliable sources and consensus. When you ban people you reduce the likelihood of ever attaining the admittedly elusive WP:NPOV. Administrators should be rejecting this sort of witch-hunt which aims to silence opposing voices. Bus stop (talk) 00:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this request has already posited his opposition to "an adherence to reliable sources and consensus" and advocated the use of the least reliable sources currently being promoted. This somewhat renders your argument moot.

If they were presenting reliable sources that said "woah, look at the mountains of evidence!" clearly we would reflect it. But that isn't what is happened, or is happening. Koncorde (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

AP2 TBan is a foregone conclusion. WP:OR. W:CIV, WP:IDHT, WP:CIR, WP:RS, WP:BLUDGEON. I think a community ban for WP:NOTHERE is more difficult, particularly since this is AE, not ANI. Although, I'm generally in favor of saving time. O3000 (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Nsk92. On competency, the word is broad. A driver who refuses or is unable to abide by the rules of the road is as dangerous as one ignorant of the rules. Although, better not to use the term here. On a block, if this is closed with a TBan here, and then immediately filed at AN/I for a block – it would fail. Therefore, a block shouldn’t be issued here. O3000 (talk) 13:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

An AP2 ban would not be sufficient. An editor who can't even pretend to accept the underlying basics of Wikipedia can't edit here, and should be indeffed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nsk92

Oh, good grief! Why was this thread re-opened after having been closed[168]? Because Valjean said something they shouldn't have? Well, either give Valjean another warning and a strong smack on the back of the head or issue a block. Neither action requires reopening this thread and wasting time by needlessly prolonging the discussion here. At the time the thread was originally closed by Johnuniq, there was overwhelming consensus among the uninvolved admins in favor of an AP2 topic ban for Yurivict. There is still an overwhelming consensus among the uninvolved admins in favor of an AP2 topic ban for Yurivict. A proposal for a community ban can be pursued later at WP:AN if someone wants to file it, but that is beyond the remit of AE. WP:CIR is a red herring here. Yurivict is a long term editor with a long term record of constructive contributions. They certainly know exactly what they are doing, and the current underlying issue is tendentious editing. That is exactly what topic bans are for. For those arguing for an immediate indef block, while the level of disruption here is indeed quite severe, I am not aware of the situations where an indef block had been applied as ain initial AE remedy. Given that Yurivict was a constructive editor in the past, I think that an AP2 topic ban should be given a chance to work. So please re-close this thread and move on. If someone really wants to participate in an interminable thread, there a few of those currently ongoing at ANI. Nsk92 (talk) 12:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shinealittlelight

In April 2020, Valjean said that I appear to have no knowledge of the subject I was working on with him: [169]. Then, when reminded he's not supposed to question users competence, he struck that remark but in the very edit in which he struck it he (surprisingly) repeated it: [170]. When asked to remove that repetition of the claim that I appear to have no knowledge of the subject, he did so, now adding a claim to the effect that I have failed to understand something or other: [171]. He subsequently stated that I will "likely like" unreliable sources: [172]. There were additional such remarks, but you get the drift. I decided to let it go at the time, as we normally do with Valjean. But the truth is that he doesn't follow the sanction he received, and he isn't going to in my opinion, so Admins have to decide if they care. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

As this closed before I had a chance to chime in, posted the following at closing admins page:

Here you closed an AE filing against BullRangifer (now going by the username @Valjean:) stating clearly "BullRangifer is warned that he must not speculate about the competence of other users in discussions regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions"...yet in the case you just closed against Yurivict, Valjean violated this many times..I count Valjean questioning Yurivict's competence twice and saying he is also incompetent twice and the second time they used all caps. Valjean's zeal not only to topic ban but to even site ban a long term contributor with a clean block log, while violating portions of a prior verdict against them is stunning. Your close on the Bullrangifer case was less than a year ago and perhaps their name change was confusing but sanction should have also been applied against Valjean for this violation of an earlier AE judgement you made. Are you going to address this or do I have to open up another case for this violation?

Above, Valjean violated DS warning he recieved in January 2020 while still using his prior BullRangifer username. Apparently, as demonmstrated by Shinealittlelight above, this is not a one off since he recieved his AE warning less than a year ago. For an editor so anxious to have a previously never before sanctioned or blocked editor not only topic banned but community banned as well, yet to continue to violate the warnings of their own sanctions recieved here is an indication of problematic behavior that should also be addressed.--MONGO (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Yurivict

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

So, Yurivict, are you saying that everyone who believes in and accepts Wikipedia's assessment of reliable sources is biased? Because if you do, we are getting into competency territory that is larger than a topic ban. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yurivict, this was my understanding after reading your comments at Reliable sources/Perennial sources talk page. Your comments read as if you believed sources the Wikipedia community has concluded are reliable, aren't. I'm not trying to "silence" any one, I just want you to understand that Wikipedia has, over many years, come up with policies and standards that you must accept if you want to edit on the project. These rules aren't specific to any particular political orientation, they are ones we all must follow. You can challenge individual sources through discussion at RSN but the wholesale dismissal of accepted mainstream reliable sources as "biased" will make editing, especially on contemporary political articles, difficult if not impossible. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemiauchenia's report and diffs as well as IHateAccounts's post are very complete and convincing. Pushing One America News, NewsMax, Epoch Times, and American Thinker as reliable sources, as done here, is nothing short of hair-raising. I strongly support an indefinite topic ban from American politics. Perhaps more is needed, also, in view of the user's general attitude to our policies concerning reliable sources.[173] Bishonen | tålk 20:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Sadly, Yurivict rejects at a fundamental level the processes by which Wikipedia editors evaluate the reliability of sources. Their repeated insistence that the existence of "affidavits" somehow proves consequential election fraud is ludicrous, and has been universally rejected by judges in all the contested states. Accordingly, I consider a topic ban on post-1932 American politics to be essential, and if they disrupt in other topic areas, an indefinite block will then be required. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting reliably-sourced information and at the same time promoting sites like OANN and Epoch Times is a red flag from editing AP2 articles, even without the incivility when called out on it which is still going on today at WP:RSP. One day, such editors will understand that we don't allow sites like these to be used not because of their political affiliation, but because they print falsehoods as news stories on a regular basis. Such sites make Breitbart look like a paragon of unbiased reporting. An AP2 TBAN is required here. Black Kite (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is so depressing. A long-time productive editor who suddenly this month drastically changes their editing pattern. Yurivict seems to have gone off the rails along with the US sociopolitical system. I do agree that we need diverse opinion, including about what qualifies as a reliable source, and I do worry that we silence conservative opinions. But honestly, Yurivict, if the WSJ and National Review aren't giving credence to the stuff OAN's going on and on about, we can't take it seriously either. The WSJ/National Review should be the gold standard for editors on the right. If they don't think it's a big deal/true, we don't either. Support AP2 TBAN for now. —valereee (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yurivict, you're incorrect. I do value freedom of speech and of opinion. But in the RS discussion, you were stating your opinion as fact: These statistical abnormalities mathematically prove that the voting data posted in Pennsylvania after Nov 9PM is forged, and certainly didn't occur naturally. You're free to state that as your opinion. When you argue your opinion as fact at a discussion board, you've stopped behaving as an editor and started behaving as an advocate. The fact you had to go to rumble to find a source to support your opinion, and then had to work backward to argue that since rumble is saying what you believe to be true, rumble must be RS, is just a logical fallacy. —valereee (talk) 12:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken summarizes it succinctly. But if an indefinite block is not within the remit of AE, then an indefinite AP2 topic ban is clearly warranted as a minimum. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had closed this request as an indefinite AP2 topic ban but MONGO has reminded me on my talk that my close of a January 2020 WP:AE request included: "BullRangifer is warned that he must not speculate about the competence of other users in discussions regarding a topic under discretionary sanctions." User:Valjean notes that Valjean is BullRangifer renamed. In the January case, BullRangifer/Valjean gratuitously referred to "competency issue" (diff). In this case, their statement above starts with "lack of basic competence to evaluate the reliability of sources" and has other mentions of that term. I'm not sure what should be done about that as the two cases are wildly different. However, I have re-opened this for further consideration. Any further evidence regarding Yurivict could be posted but the main purpose of continuing is to consider what should result regarding the competence issue. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I almost quoted WP:CIR myself in my rationale, because this is, in the end, a competency issue - an experienced editor who either does not understand or, worse, deliberately ignores a core policy in the shape of WP:V. Black Kite (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards