Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:56, 18 August 2023

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

Petra0922

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 Petra0922

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Petra0922 (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/Horn of Africa

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

23:10, 24 July 2023 Personal attack against محرر البوق, accusing them of persistently and unjustifiably go after Amhara and related articles that cover the ethnic violence in Ethiopia and describing their edits as destructive, which appears to be baseless
15:48 25 July 2023 Repetition of the "destructive" comment toward محرر البوق.
14:33, 27 July 2023 continued personal attacks against محرر البوق.
20:25, 4 August 2023 Restoration of "Amhara genocide" in wikivoice in the lead, despite extensive recent discussion on the talkpage finding that nobody else but Petra0922 supports the inclusion of this.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

User is aware of the contentious topics sanction per this comment from May 2022, responding to a discretionary sanctions notice given by Beeblebrox on 19:17, 10 May 2022 regarding the Horn of Africa topic area.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Their old username "AmharaWAAGpublish" suggests that they are associated with the advocacy group "Amhara Women Association Against Genocide". I think that they are too emotionally invested in this topic to contribute to it in a neutral manner, and I think their comments and edit warring above above show that they are not capable of collaborative editing regarding this issue. At the very least, they need to be firmly told not to engage in personal attacks.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

03:10, 5 August 2023

Discussion concerning Petra0922

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 Petra0922

I like to start by saying that my edits are international and not limited to Ethiopia, and you will notice that I am focused on global human rights and war articles.

For the allegation that my edits represent an organization, that is not true. As an incoming newbie editor in January 2022, I had no idea about the rules of individual accounts, and due to their inspiration related to the women's group, I randomly (naively) picked that name. Then as soon as I learned this was a misrepresentation of the group while I was actually putting in edits as an individual, I understood that was misleading, and completely removed the irrelevant account name. Another experienced editor helped me understand that, and the history can be seen on my users page. Stating again, my edits are the work of mine alone per Wikipedia guidelines and don't represent any organization.
Giving some background on the early dialogues between myself and Hemiauchenia

As far as I can tell, Hemiauchenia stated inaccurate information in discussions dismissing what was disclosed on sources as the work of Amhara activists. At the same time, the editor was persistent in aggressively modifying the article in the middle of active discussions as it was also witnessed by @Random person no 362478479. Here is the link for the details of the discussion where I pointed out that Hemiauchenia was giving misleading information. The edits that I called destructive related to محرر البوق were manifested in the form of:

shaping narratives (especially for Tigray) without adding edit summaries discussing them first or without providing verifiable sources. This was also demonstrated with patterns of modifying fatality numbers and removing victim groups (those who were reportedly killed by Tigray forces)
demonstrated patterns of "cleaning up" contents that list the Tigray People Liberation Front as the perpetrator of Amhara and other civilians in Ethiopia, and sections that captured the dark histories of Tigray. At the same time, the editor consistently removed many war, ethnic, and violence-related non-Tigray contents in nature- providing misleading edit summaries (framed them as "not sourced.")
rushes to nominate Ethiopian and HOA notable articles for frequent deletion without notifying contributors and making an effort on diligent. I noticed most of them were voted to keep
provoking other editors who work on Ethiopia or other non-Tigray articles and ended up getting blocked- for getting caught up in the altercation with the same editor
others include adding multiple tags on Amhara materials to the point of making them difficult to manage and engaging in a persistent edit warring and tendentious editing- demanding others to provide sources to disprove the editors' point of view.

Please note that I just removed a list of 13 separate examples in order to meet the 500-word limit. They can be accessed here Petra0922 (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Random person no 362478479, Thank you! I am beginning to add more information now. It may be some sections at a time. Petra0922 (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[responding to Random person no 362478479] I am also curious about this same question. Given the list of evidences gathered and concerning matters against محرر البوق that I wasnt able to completely list them here (due to word limits), I like to open a new compliant.Petra0922 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[responding to Tamzin] Let me do that. Petra0922 (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Random person no 362478479

The edit summary for the restoration of "genocide" in wiki-voice includes "Discussion still active." I agree with Petra0922 that the discussion is still active (there is an RfC now). On the other hand the discussion currently trends towards not using "genocide" in wiki-voice and therefore Hemiauchenia's removal was justified and reasonable. I don't think that Petra0922 should have reverted, but I also don't think that this revert was completely unjustified. The accusations against محرر البوق are serious and if there is evidence for them should have been raised at the appropriate noticeboard. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please bare with me. @Petra0922 That's a bit outside my comfort zone. But I'll bear with you.^[Humor] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question Should the criticism of محرر البوق brought forward by Petra0922 be discussed in a separate section or should the two related issues be treated together? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by محرر البوق

@Petra0922 These accusations are completely baseless and unfounded. Its pretty obvious that you are trying to deflect this on me, by going through my history and cherrypicking my edits from months ago. Like I said before, if you have a problem with my "destructive edits" then file a report on the ANI, I would love to explain my reasoning behind those edits. However, you persistently accusing me of being biased and attacking my edits as being "destructive" on a talk page discussion exclusively about content is indeed a personal attack (WP:WIAPA and WP:ASPERSIONS) and seems to be the reason why this enforcement request was opened. Take accountability instead of trying to drag other users into this. محرر البوق (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Petra0922

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

@Hemiauchenia:, please clarify why the reported editor is aware of the CTOP protocols. Courcelles (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Or at least remove the laundry list of reasons someone can be aware and place the actual reason in that place. Courcelles (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Petra0922: Your current statement is 1,297 words long. Please bring it down to 500. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning toward a logged warning to Petra to focus on content and stay civil. Petra, I recommend following the steps of WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE if you have an issue with someone else's conduct, which starts with politely discussing it at their talk page. At a glance, I don't think there's much meat to your complaints about محرر البوق. Starting an AFD that leads to keep is not itself disruptive, and neither is deleting an infobox after what looks like rough consensus developed that it was misleading. They forgot to include an edit summary but they added one within minutes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support giving a warning to Petra0922 concerning comments towards محرر البوق. Petra0922 goes into uncivil territory when they commented on the users editing habits instead of discussing the content. If Petra0922 is concerned with a user's behaviour, they should discuss it with them civilly on their talk page. Considering their recent interaction, I do not suggest that Petra0922 opens any discussions about محرر البوق's behaviour in the near future.

I do not think Petra0922's addition to Amhara genocide was a good idea, but there is an RfC open on the talk page so that is the appropriate avenue to resolve this. I do not see further disruption from Petra0922 on this page.

Concerning محرر البوق's edits: I do not support any action towards this editor, as their actions seem to reach the realm of WP:BEBOLD. I would caution محرر البوق that pages regarding Horn of Africa are designated contentious topics and they might need to adopt a more conservative definition of BEBOLD when editing in these topics. Z1720 (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lettashtohr

Lettashtohr may not edit any article to emphasize connections to Ukraine (broadly construed) over connections to Russia (broadly construed), including changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv", without first obtaining a consensus on the talkpage, unless they are reverting to enforce an existing consensus. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:05, 18 August 2023 (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 Lettashtohr

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Contentious topic designation

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

30 June POV edit, removing information that Malevich is considered to be central figure of Russian Avantgarde;
7 August POV, community consensus is to use Kiev for this historic period
7 August Removal "Russian and French painter", replacing this with "Ukrainian painter"", non-RS
7 August Still the same problem; sources are better now, though mainly partisan ones.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: N/A

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

CT alert, 10 June 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user made about 150 edits and are not extended-confirmed. They were given a CT alert but continued to introduce POV edits in contentious areas. All their edits in July were reverted. Today they started edit-warring in Alexandra Exter, and I gave them a warning saying that the community does not allow non-extended-confirmed users to edit on topics related to Russian-Ukraine conflict (note that this is GS, not AE, though closely related). They responded without addressing the issue, basically a textbook example of RGW. So we are here.

The edits are clearly part of WP:GS/RUSUKR. There is an ongoing process which spills out to Wikipedia, when Ukrainians attempt to define everyone who is somehow related to Ukraine (e.g. born in what is now Ukraine) as part of Ukrainian culture. Since this is typically controversial, it became the subject of propaganda wars, prominently used by both sides.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Lettashtohr

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 Lettashtohr

Do you mean that I have to write up and submit edits in the individual talk pages of the artists? Happy to do that but often Ukrainian citations are not accepted as facts, whereas Russian ones are accepted bc they have been around for longer. It seems to be an uphill battle to clear the bios of eastern European artists from panrussianisms if we have to debate every fact in the talk page. The problem with artists pages that the museums and exhibitions often take the basic tag line and information from wikipedia > then they write it up in the cards next to the artworks > then this info becomes published in the booklet > then the printed media becomes a proof that the original panrussian info was correct. This happened at Venice Biennale in 2022 with Ukrainian modernists. Many modernists who worked and studied in Moscow during Ukrainian-soviet war 1917-1921 were placed by some art historians in the Russian modernists camp, even though the artists in their biographies have identified as Ukraininans. To some publications they automatically become "Russian" artists. So Ukrainian modernists become Russian modernists. Some people don't care about the difference but us Ukrainians and art historians do. It'll be a long journey to discern that. Lettashtohr (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lettashtohr: feel free to rewrite this but you need to keep all your comments here. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 74.73.224.126

@Firefangledfeathers: the consensus in question is documented at WP:KYIV. There was a WP:DANZIG style discussion a few years back that resulted in the use of Kiev for topics prior to 1991, Kyiv for topics postdating 1995, and individualized assessments for topics in between those dates or that were ongoing across them. Otherwise, I have no opinion on this request as a whole. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Lettashtohr

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

No comment yet on the CTOP side, but since the GS aspect is related, I will note: Please actually link to WP:GS/RUSUKR, preferably with an explanation of what extendedconfirmed is, when notifying someone of those general sanctions. While awareness is not strictly required for RUSUKR blocks, I would not be comfortable blocking someone who had only been told Please note that the community decided that non-extended-confirmed edits (such as you) may not edit articles on topic related to Russian-Ukrainian conflict with no further context. Here, I have elaborated on Lettashtohr's talk. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those edits fall under the topic restriction in WP:GS/RUSUKR anyway, she died in 1949. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I thought I'd spotted something looking at this last night, but now all I see is [1], which predates the GS regime and isn't about article content besides.
Anyways, to the matter at hand, @Lettashtohr: You should not be making edits anywhere on Wikipedia, but especially in a CTOP area, that you know will likely be reverted. If you can acknowledge that, and agree to seek talkpage consensus for edits about the labeling of people and things as Russian/Ukrainian/etc., or in Kiev or Kyiv, I don't see a need for sanctions at this time. If you can't agree to that, I would favor an editing restriction—probably not a full topic ban, but something tailored specifically to these labeling disputes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ymblanter that recent Russia-Ukraine conflicts have been a factor in increasing nationalist POV pushing on both sides, even when discussing historical figures that predate the conflict by a century or more. I would not feel confident construing GS/RUSUKR so broadly, but it's reasonable. Ymblanter might choose to refer some of the pages mentioned here to WP:RFPP/I to see if any uninvolved admin would like to apply EC protection. ARBEE has this situation covered for this page's purposes, and Tamzin has ensured that Lettashtohr is aware of the restrictions in the modern topic area.
I am not seeing a strong case for any action here. I would caution Lettashtohr to follow WP:BRD and to use edit summaries. If they continue to revert repeatedly and without explanation, a block is almost certain to come. Ymblanter, I encourage you to track down where consensus was formed to use "Kiev" for the period relevant to Aleksandra Ekster's life, and to refer newer users there specifically. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, 74.73.224.126. I'm sure I'll find that useful, and I hope Ymblanter does as well. I was thinking it would improve discussions like this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone object to closing with a note that Lettashtohr has been informally cautioned not to make edits they know are likely to be reverted, especially pertaining to Russo-Ukrainian matters, and has said they will abide by that? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Where has Lettashtohr stated that they will abide by not reverting re:Russian-Ukrainian matters? Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not about reverting, but rather about making contentious changes to nationality. That's how I took Do you mean that I have to write up and submit edits in the individual talk pages of the artists? Happy to do that above, even with a "but" after it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Their statement after "but..." does not give me confidence that Lettashtohr will abide by this without disruption, whether intentional or not. More comments to come below. Z1720 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

Placing Lettashtohr on a WP:0RR restriction on articles relating to Ukrainian and/or Russian biographies, broadly construed.
Placing Lettashtohr under a strict "sources must be provided" requirement to all edits that change the nationality of any article from or towards Ukrainian and/or Russian designation (so a change from French to Ukrainian or Russian would be covered under this restriction, and vice-versa).
Restricting Lettashtohr from changing Kiev to Kyiv (and vice versa) without thoroughly reading WP:KIEV and discussing this change on the article's talk page first.

While I see that Tamzin above wants to send an informal caution, and Firefangledfeathers thinks nothing more needs to be done, but I think a more formal designation would help the editor understand where their limits should be and avoid disputes in the future. Lettashtohr should be encouraged to discuss any concerns with nationality on article talk pages after supplying sources to support their preference. Z1720 (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only mildly opposed to these measures. I worry that Lettashtohr was given almost no warnings about their conduct prior to this filing, which is why I thought to leave it at a warning. If we go with Z1720's broad outline, I'd prefer 1RR to 0RR, hoping that it encourages them to get into a good BRD groove. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: If we're going to go down the road of sanctions, which I'm still not entirely sold on, but if we were, I would prefer: Lettashtohr may not edit any article to emphasize connections to Ukraine (broadly construed) over connections to Russia (broadly construed), including changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv", without first obtaining a consensus on the talkpage, unless they are reverting to enforce an existing consensus. This is a bit stricter on nationality changes, but lacks the 0RR, which I think is overkill for the conduct discussed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This works for me. @Z1720:, any thoughts? It would be nice to close this before we hit the two-week mark. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Z1720 (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, want to do the honors? Can get to it in 12 hours or less if no one else chimes in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Melechha

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 Melechha

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SamX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious topic designation

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

13:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC): Restoring Battle of Sangamner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to preferred version, characterizing another user's edits as "vandalism" after I'd advised them not to
14:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Reverting sourced material with the edit summary Give your citation dude else you will be banned by disrupting this article for no reason
18:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Polemics: You are so ignorant regarding Maratha history[reply]
19:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Essentially the same comment as above
19:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Another revert on Battle of Sangamner, again describing another user's edits as "vandalism"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: None that I am aware of

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 21:57, 5 August 2023‎ (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Admins: Please note that, while this section is titled "Melechha", I am requesting an investigation of and potential enforcement against all three editors mentioned in this report.

Melechha requested assistance on my talk page after I warned them for adding a copyright violation to Siege of Ponda, possibly under the mistaken impression that I'm an administrator, saying that they were "tired of these vandalists like @ThePakistanihistorian and others for their external interests". I wasn't sure what they meant at first since they didn't link to the article under dispute or provide diffs, but a quick look at the editor interaction analyzer revealed a dispute on Battle of Sangamner. I explained to them that TPH's edits weren't vandalism and advised them to resolve the issue on the talk page or at an appropriate dispute resolution venue. Since several other parties appeared to be involved in that dispute, I posted contentious topic notifications on their talk pages. I also noted that they also seemed to be using the account Melechha2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and advised them of WP:SOCK, to which they replied Yes I have been using my alt for editng with PC.

Shortly afterward, two other parties to the dipsute (ThePakistanihistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Aryan330 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) began commenting on my talk page. It's worth noting that Aryan330 is indefinitely p-blocked blocked by Black Kite from Mughal–Maratha Wars and has been warned by Abecedare for disruption on Draft:Battle of Umberkhind (an article at the time) and Battle of Pavan Khind. I repeatedly advised the two editors to instead discuss the matter on the article's talk page or at appropriate dispute resolution venues and refrain from accusing each other of vandalism, with little success. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also revert-warred on the article, although, to their credit, they engaged in discussion on the article's talk page without accusing anyone of vandalism. I only alerted them to the contentious topics procedures just now, which is an oversight on my part.

Since I'm not just requesting enforcement against Melechha, I've compiled diffs from the two other editors below. These diffs might not be exhaustive.

Aryan330

Contentious topics alert

17:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Incivility: did you have common knowledge about history atleast?
02:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Calling another user's edits "vandalism" after I'd warned them not to[reply]

ThePakistanihistorian

Contentious topics alert

05:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Accusing Meleccha of vandalism and stridently called for them to be sanctioned[reply]
8 August 2023 (UTC) Personal attack/WP:OWN: don't you ever dare to rechange it again, like even the amateurs know that it's a mughal victory
8 August 2023 Personal attacks: why are you being so sensitive about it, you are trying to be the victim here while you started this entire argument, do better.

I'm at my wit's end here. It's obvious that there's an intractable dispute going on that I don't have the necessary experience to deal with. It's very late in my timezone and I'll be fairly busy tomorrow, so I probably won't be able to reply here until 18:00 UTC. This is my first time participating at AE so I apologize if I've screwed up here. I'd also welcome feedback on my haphazard attempts to get the parties to resolve the dispute amongst themselves. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Abecedare and Black Kite since I bungled the pings earlier. — SamX [talk · contribs] 07:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Melechha

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 Melechha

Statement by Aryan330

First of all I had to say that there are some false allegations made by user samX as he said warned by Abecedare for disruption on Draft:Battle of Umberkhind (an article at the time) and Battle of Pavan Khind,which is untrue & I had told him at his talk page now,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169307732. I had started the discussion as the topic name "Vandalism" thought I apologise even after not knowing what my mistake was!I just reported @samX that :- user عبدالرحمن4132 is voilating three revert rule,nothing more than that. thought I shouldn't use the word like "Vandalism" as I already apologized about that in talk page of SamX https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SamX I will not repeat the same. Thought the query I had raised,nothing wrong in that as user عبدالرحمن4132 had made 4 reverts in less than 48 hours https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sangamner&action=history this user is also warned by samX previously,see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169256728, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169300167. & It was my first & last edit on that page,I had neither edited further nor engaged in edit war as user عبدالرحمن4132 engaged. Now he is also making articles on by one by sticking to only one source jadunath sarkar which is pretty dated source & can't be used as citation.The senior Wikipedia users also said same the user Abecedare & RegentsPark also said the same,see :- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1163841364. If one source is not considered as reliable & the user is creating articles one by one using that only source then as a Wikipedia user I had to raise a query & that what I done. Note:- I had not Disrupted the page seige of basavapattan as the user accusing me on false claims https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169305568. you can see that page where I even don't edited single time:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Basavapatan. He is adding wrong word "Disruption" as I just told him that his edits Is seems to be unconstructive & I will edit it soon & please don't distrib talk page of other user as he disturbed the talk page of Materialscientist & I just said to him that we can discuss it on that respective article & that's why I told him to come at page of basavapattan,see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169297504. About ThePakistanihistorian :- I had just commented that he had used abusive language for personal attack which was addressed by samX himself here. The issues raised by samX which are familiar with the issues I raised https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169288983https:/ ,https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169292668, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169289164. Even after that I addressed him on his talk page,but rather than correcting a mistake,he warned me https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1169292668 Thank you

@Abecedare First of all I was blocked for the things I do in past on the page mughal maratha wars which is only because of not knowing Wikipedia policies that time & thats over there.but that doesn't mean you can judge me on that basis!

No one is completely neutral in whole Wikipedia because even on that page mughal maratha wars those two users Capitals00 & aman.kumar.goel were pro mughals or anti Maratha but black kite had blocked only me because that time I didn't know about Wikipedia policies.But now I am aware of that. You said about WP:RS applied

to history articles, I wonder how you are saying that even by knowing that after that I was discussed about battle of Pavankhind in talk page without harming main article pag e? Even at last I didn't Edited if after knowing my mistake & realising what WP:RSis, especially releted to history articles

Thats why I am convincing user عبدالرحمن4132 about his mistake in his latest created articles. that's other point that he is accusing me for Disruption rather than working on that or thanking me.

My Condition Now :- I am totally aware of Wikipedia Policies,WP:RS especially releted to History articles.

So think next time before talking about that.

My role in this discussion:- This discussion is mainly because of 2 reasons.

1) Disruption on page Battle of Sangamner :- I had edited or reverted article section of that page only single time,while in talk page I written more than 3 comments.

2) Unnecessary Discussion on talk page of samX :- though I only reported about Disruption of user عبدالرحمن4132 because of violating Wikipedia three revert rule as he had made 4 reverts in less than 48 hours which is true & you can check this on article section of page of Battle of sangamner.The only mistake in whole I committed is I started the discussion with wrong topic name Vandalism as I should had write it as Disruption.this is the only mistake I done & speaking honestly this is not that very wrong thing I done as I accept my mistake but thats not that very wrong same as عبدالرحمن4132 done by violating that rule. Aryan330 (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Editorkamran The word which you are claiming to be descrimnery is Mleccha. But that user is having the name Melechha which is not appearing to be related or as same as the word you mentioned Aryan330 (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ThePakistanihistorian

Statement by عبدالرحمن4132

Hello!

First of all, the user seems to have removed my sources, which prove that the Battle of Sangamner was a Mughal victory, and used a source that says otherwise. I fixed the article according to the source, but still to no avail. I've taken this to the talk page to discuss until the user, Melechha, accused me of being vandalistic and ignorant, assuming I'm committing bad faith on the article. He also assumed that one of the sources I've provided was not only that but said that one of my sources, which is Jadunath Sarkar, claimed he corrected his mistake in his fifth edition, and I've asked him to show me that fifth edition but never replied till now.

The other user, @Aryan330 had also begun disrupting my articles by removing the source in Battle of Shivneri Fort and Siege of Shivneri Fort, he also attempting to disrupt my article in future which I created Siege of Basavapatan , which is Jadunath Sarkar, who provides great military details about battles, claiming it is a dated source I don't know what that means, but you cannot remove sourced content just because you find an issue with him; otherwise, the reasoning he provides doesn't really make up for it, claiming the following in Battle of Pavan Khind talk page: & about this battle it should not as his works are primarily depend on persion sources and sardesai said that persion sources remained silent on this Battle for reputation.

Due to his bad English, I'm assuming he's talking about Persian sources, which he seems to have an issue with.

Statement by Editorkamran

Melechha should be blocked for username violation alone. His username is a slur used for foreigners. See this and also our page on Mleccha. Editorkamran (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abecedare

Haven't taken a look at the current dispute that sparked this AE report although I have been pinged several times by various parties in the past few hours when I was offline.

Placing myself here since I have previously interacted with Aryan3000 (see here and here) and Melechha (see here) regarding sources/content and, IMO, neither seem to have an adequate grasp of WP:RS especially as applied to history articles. This combined with their obvious pro-Maratha leanings in the centuries old Maratha-Mughal wars (which unfortunately have relevance to religio-cultural wars in contemporary India and Pakistan) makes them somewhat of a time-sink in this topic area. This is not to absolve the other editors involved in the fracas whose conduct I haven't taken a look at. Abecedare (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TB

A plague-on-both-your-houses-approach is needed, except for Editorkamran. Melechha needs an username-ban, as argued. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Melechha

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

Melechha is problematic in both username and editing. Indeffed them and their sock. This does not resolve this filing, though, despite its naming. Courcelles (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just thinking aloud here, but I wonder if a sourcing restriction would be beneficial on some of these Mughal–Maratha Wars articles. No restoring non-academic sources without consensus, something like that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support placing Mughal–Maratha Wars articles under a WP:1RR restriction and "consensus required" restriction per WP:CTOP. Also support placing these articles under an "unreferenced edits may be reverted" and imposing a requirement that users who revert sourced information must immediately open a discussion on the talk page. While I like Tamzin's suggestion above regarding academic sources, I would rather avoid getting into discussions about what is an academic source, and focus more on editors resolving disputes in discussions or RfC. If the problem continues, I would support an academic sources-only restriction. My opinions on specific editor restrictions below:

If Melechha is unblocked, I suggest that they be placed on an immediate topic-ban from articles relating to the Mughal–Maratha Wars. Melechha should not be unblocked until they can describe what vandalism is in regards to Wikipedia.
ThePakistanihistorian should be topic banned from Mughal–Maratha Wars articles for WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN behaviour.
Aryan330 and ThePakistanihistorian should be advised to read WP:VAND. If they continue to characterise good-faith edits as vandalism, they may be blocked without warning.
All three editors should be restricted to discussing the content of this article on the article's talk page or appropriate dispute resolution notice boards. No more messages about this on SamX's talk page, or anywhere else. If they are concerned with the conduct of another editor, they should open a new thread at AE.

Thank you SamX for trying to resolve this dispute and bringing this to AE. Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

A general reminder to all editors is added to the talkpage as an AE action. Nishidani and filer Drsmoo are given logged warnings for battleground conduct and cautioned to follow the new general reminder. Further disruption may result in sanctions without further warning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:34, 18 August 2023 (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 Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Drsmoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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

15:49, 10 August 2023 "That is rubbish, a gross distortion, that's beginning to look deliberate."
06:08, 9 August 2023 "an insidiously obscure allusion to private interests motivating the former's work"
15:18, 6 August 2023 "It's extremnely embarrassing to have to tutor anyone in the abcs of how to read, write and quote."
16:32, 1 August 2023"That innuendo in the title is the careless consequence of not thinking about, or even grasping, what the article writes up."
10:37, 8 August 2023"Whoops, there I go again, making a classical allusion that no one will understand. (]Wilamowitz once berated Lachmann for treating the Iliad as if it were "ein übles Flickwerk", a 'wretched patchwork'. There's nothing epic about this article, as opposed to the epical length of the talk page discussion."
09:30, 8 August 2023"Every day I talk for an hour, socially, with local tradesmen mates about how to fix things, any common piece of household technology. Mention some problem with the washer, or TV, or antennae, and they put their heads together and nut out one or two solutions. Some people at tables nearby use the occasions, as they listen in, to keep complaining about the cost of laundry, the taxes on televisions, the change in antennae frequency due to the incompetence of the group controlling transmissions."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14:33, 14 April 2019 "banned for a week...they are misusing Wikipedia as a battleground and casting aspersions on others"
19:48, 13 March 2017 "Nishidani clearly violated the consensus required sanction placed by the Committee on all ARBPIA articles."

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Edit:I want to note that I'm not seeking any sort of ban. What I would like, in fact, is for the bludgeoning and hostility to cease so that editors on the talk page can make progress.

Nishidani has been making personal attacks, assuming bad faith, and casting aspersions on the talk page of Zionism, race, and genetics. Nishidani has also been intensively bludgeoning discussion. Of the last 50 talk page edits, Nishidani has added 76% of the content. While many of these edits are meaningful, a large number are strictly WP:FORUM, off-topic, non-sequiturs, or comments on their own comments that have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the discussion. Along with the personal attacks, the amount of noise and disruption caused by the WP:Forum talks and incessant bludgeoning has greatly increased the difficulty of organizing/working through information on the discussion page.

Another note, Nishidani was requested to stop bludgeoning by another editor a week ago. "you need to stop bludgeoning this discussion and leave room for other editors to participate."

The claims of "Stonewalling" have absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. In fact the opposite is true. After I spent hours writing a detailed, 18 point list of article issues, Nishidani's response was as follows: "I don't know whether there's any point in replying to your points."

Yesterday I posted two concrete examples of article issues, Nishidani's response was first "Don't invent stuff that in rebuttal and counterrebuttal will jam this article with useless argufying.", and then ""That is rubbish, a gross distortion, that's beginning to look deliberate." Nishidani completely refuses to engage with any argument they have no interest in, and then claims that the person who has been making the argument is "stonewalling", which is absurd and demonstrably false. I do AGF though, because the talk page is so incredibly, overwhelmingly, muddled, that it is very hard to follow who has said what where. And yes Iskandar323, when editors refuse to engage with your points, and then have the audacity to accuse the users making the points of "stonewalling", it is reasonable to conclude that there is an impasse and request additional comments.

Edit: Whoa, at no point whatsoever did I accuse ANYONE of being antisemitic or of attacking Israelis. Full stop. I am more than tired of his false claims that I am making "innuendo" or an "insidiously obscure allusion" or whatever hidden message Nishidani chooses to read into my edits. Drsmoo (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: Your reposting the link doesn't change the fact that I never accused anyone of being antisemitic or attacking Israelis. Full stop. Also, why are you linking to posts by Onceinawhile and attributing them to me? Drsmoo (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: I see I've gone well over 20 diffs. I wasn't aware of that rule, and over replied. I take umbrage at the repeated assertions that I'm transmitting "insidious" and "obscure allusion"(s). Drsmoo (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

21:27, 10 August 2023

Discussion concerning Nishidani

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 Nishidani

Josiah Ober recently published a very important book on the microfoundations of social order. In the overture he wrote that the ground on which our social intercourse is anchored consists of:-

'the self-conscious, deliberative use of reason as an instrument for the strategic pursuit of truth.'Josiah Ober, The Greeks and the Rational:The Discovery of Practical Reason, University of California Press 2022 ISBN 978-0-520-38017-2 p.1

The talk page from which Drsmoo's quotes are taken is intimidatingly long, and I apologize to Arbs that they are now obliged to read it. On it, I am responsible for 195,534 bytes. The evidence for my being severely sanctioned consists of 1184 bytes. Of which 801 (points 5 and 6) are immaterial (barrel-scraping). The gravamen of evidence consists of 380 bytes, ripped from context, but still technically, could be interpreted as indications that, in a dialogue imposed by WP:Consensus, I have lapsed in very rare moments from the strictest rules governing Wikipedia talk page dialogue. An editor must earnestly strive, whatever the differences, to find shared ground with those who disagree with them and not resort to snarky terminology, however frustrated by an intransigent stonewalling (that is what is going on, in my view) insouciant of all attempts to use logic and evidence to validate erratic claims. I take this obligation to engage very seriously. If someone disagrees on what I might think patently obvious, factual or logical, I will go to any length (unfortunately) to show at least why I think the refusal to find common ground in each instance is unreasoned. So we have 380 bytes of 195,335. If someone who is searching for a ban combs hard enough, they will find that there is fine grit for ridding Wikipedia of me in 0.194% of what I wrote there.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drsmoo. I noticed from reading your latest diff that you quoted a statement of mine, whose meaning in context is clear, but 'garbled' (I plead fatigue). I've corrected it now. You may like to tweak your diff to allow arbs to read it as corrected. I have several diffs to show why that statement was truthful, going back to 8 July. But I will withhold them for the moment, unless they are requested.Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A further point. Scruple demanded I examine my edits for any evidence that might lend itself to the charge you are laying. I found one piece you missed. I used the word 'balderdash' in replying to Bobfrombrockley here. Bob might disagree, but I am under the impression our wiki relationship has been sufficiently productive and cordial to allow that kind of remonstrative exclamation. He's welcome to correct me if I err.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, this is a personal attack - stating that my asking 'What's the problem?' bears a 'tone' you find offensive - by your own criterion, as is the inference that I have a ‘‘chronic ..aggressive disdain for other editors’. You are using the very language you find evidence for deploring in me. Nishidani (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I used the word ‘stonewalling’. I had in mind Drsmoo's repeating for an entire month, the same opinion, with variations, regardless of considerable efforts to disabuse him of his belief that evidence from researchers amounted to a disparaging attack on both the researchers ('genetic studies on Jews are 'Zionist' etc)and Israelis. He made this claim first here, then here, and here (the innuendo is that the very article is antisemitic). See also here, here,here, here, and here.

A full month later, he was still repeating it to Pharos, ignoring every disproof or request for evidence in the interim. Apparently it is I who bludgeons people. Nishidani (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa? See here Nishidani (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andrevan

I know Nishidani writes a lot of brilliant prose but they can be abrasive, and should rein it in. See here. This has a similar look - accusing their interlocutor of being too dense to understand what complexities lie within their expertise. That's bullying, and it's not appropriate. Andre🚐 02:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To response to Nableezy: I did not seek to upbraid or sanction Nishidani. I simply attempted to engage with them on their objection, to which they questioned my literacy and competence in a way that was incivil. That is my concern and it is certainly repeated here. Andre🚐 20:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to reiterate that I have great respect for logical debate. But Nishidani too frequently departs from the abstract nature of the discussion into the realm of accusation and of characterization of the opponent's ability to read, their ability to understand, and in dismissing others' views in an uncharitable and incivil way. It's quite reasonable to delve into a complex and rational argument and attack an opposing viewpoint, even aggressively. It is not reasonable to say something along the lines of, hey man you don't even seem to be able to read. The line being crossed is not one of tone. Nobody is being the tone police or punishing long-windedness. It's about crossing a line where you say I think you're being deliberately dense and I'm asking if something is wrong with you. Andre🚐 04:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

There is no explanation above of how the diffs presented violate anything, neither any behavioural policy, far less CT sanctions. Mildly abrasive responses about people's editing are not personal attacks, and this has nothing to do with WP:ARBPIA restrictions. Given that this page is already under discussion at ANI, that would have been the place, if anywhere, to raise this rather low-level complaint. In the context of that discussion being ongoing, this filing has the taste of an attempted punitive/retributive action and if anything should boomerang as a waste of community time. Given that the OP is very actively and self-evidently stonewalling discussions on the page, the overall lack of respect for community time is becoming an issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo: The second diff is not even on a CT page, but is simply the post on ANI, which is already visible to anyone who cares, and any administrator considering it sanctionable is already able to act upon it there. However, the burden for personal attacks is somewhat higher at ANI, as that is precisely the venue where editors got to lay their complaints, making it different from off-topic griping on an article talk page, because at ANI the topic is gripes. Per the first diff, I would say that "beginning to look deliberate" is an accurate characterization of many of your behaviours on the talk page, including your refusal to provide the feedback on what you think merits a POV tag - a bare minimum level of input about which you have been largely unforthcoming, e.g.: here, where instead editors have to follow you on the logically circuitous journey of you refusing to provide feedback, accusing others of failing to respond to your feedback and attacking you for it (and themselves being the problem), then declaring there is an impasse (here because you refuse to provide feedback), before concluding that the only way to get any feedback (in the absence of any from you) is via RFC. This was basically where I gave up on the discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm, @Tamzin, @Black_Kite: FYI, the talk page has cooled off a lot recently, so it feels like the situation and overheating of tempers that led to ANI and this AE has already somewhat self-limited. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Before this turns into an ANI page, responders should keep their comments within their own sections. For the sake of good order, filer is subject of a complaint at ANI filed by Nishidani here. I do not see where any complaint has been raised by filer at Nishidani talk page? Atm, this appears a tit for tat filing and the charges without merit or at the very least any such charges can be leveled at least equally at the filer.Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Andre, seems odd to bring that up when Nishidani was indeed correct that you were misconstruing what he said, despite his repeated attempts to explain it. See here for you accepting how you had so blatantly misunderstood what he said, took offense based on your misunderstanding, and then attempted to upbraid him on the basis of that misunderstanding. So yeah, seems similar indeed. Nishidani attempts to explain his position, citing a plethora of sources, somebody takes offense to something that he didnt say, and then seeking to sanction them based on their misconstrual, purposeful or otherwise, of what he did say. nableezy - 13:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

To get this out of the way first, let me stipulate that a couple weeks ago I posted this: [2], but then quickly did this: [3], and said this: [4].

I've been thinking for a while about taking Nishidani to AE myself. I've held back, largely because Nishidani has been doing some very good content work on the page itself, and I didn't want to step on that. But I think those revisions are largely done now, and based upon Nishidani's repeated disruption of the article talk page, I'm inclined to think that either a page ban or a logged warning are warranted.

Here are diffs of my own, all from the article talk page:

[5] "It's extremnely embarrassing to have to tutor anyone in the abcs of how to read, write and quote."
[6], [7] "Proposing titles that suggest different articles is pointless." In a discussion by multiple other editors brainstorming in good faith about a possible page rename, where Nishidani alone is repeatedly trying to shut the discussion down.
[8] "Have you read Alice in Wonderland? Just wondering."
[9] After accusing me and other editors of "That innuendo in the title is the careless consequence of not thinking about, or even grasping, what the article writes up", he claims that he is merely exercising "a right to reason with the editor concerned."
[10] It's everyone else's fault, not his.
[11] "If you can't grasp the point, fine."
[12] Sarcasm.
[13] "Frankly, Bob, that's balderdash".

Nishidani is an experienced editor, and he knows that there are two Contentious Topics in effect (the other one is Race and Intelligence), and being "right" on the content issues is no excuse. I don't mind a one-off loss of temper, but this is a chronic pattern, and the aggressive disdain for other editors is getting in the way of finding consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does look like things have quieted down a bit, although I suspect that it is because of concern about what could happen here. I'm OK with formal warnings, if that's what the admins decide, but the warnings need to be both firm and logged. And the warned editors need to know beyond any doubt that any slip-up in which the warning is forgotten will be a ticket back to here for a more severe sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Onceinawhile

Nishidani has a unique communication style, which doesn’t work for everyone, but for many of us brings a thought provoking, fresh and enjoyable editing environment. Not least because the vast majority of his edits and talk comments are thorough and source-based, and one almost always learns something new from reading them. Drsmoo has a very different style, often making short comments with thematic claims and rarely with specific evidence. Wikipedia has many editors of both types, and it is natural that these two extremes will struggle to see eye-to-eye.

I do think Drsmoo should have held the same lens up to his own comments in this month-long article discussion before opening this thread. For example, each of these four statements from earlier in the same discussion seem materially more abrasive that the diffs he provided: The entire article is… synthd together to push a POV. // And this is why the article is WP:SYNTH, first comes the opinion, and then search for keywords in Google scholar to try to support it… then slop it into the article; rinse, repeat.. // article is a collection of cherry picked sources WP:SYNTHd together to push a POV narrative // Were you sitting there pressing refresh and waiting to undo? If so, this takes tag-teaming to a new level. (the second sentence of this last one was struck through after I pointed it out).

Uninvolved editors are better placed than me to judge the merits of the competing claims (per Tryptofish and Swarm’s reference to the earlier ANI thread claiming stonewalling by Drsmoo). What is clear though is that only one of the two parties to these two disagreements has so far shown signs of introspection, reflection and consideration for the other’s perspective. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Concerning Drsmoo's second diff, "insidiously obscure allusion to private interests motivating the former’s work", that was 100% Drsmoo's own fault. Twice Drsmoo claimed that Onceinawhile and SelfStudier are not allowed to remove tags due to a "conflict of interest". Nishidani reasonably assumed that a highly experienced editor like Drsmoo would know what "conflict of interest" means on Wikipedia and that Drsmoo was accusing one or both those editors of "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". That would indeed be an insidious allusion to private interests and would deserve a rebuke. I don't in the least blame Nishidani for this misunderstanding prompted by Drsmoo's ignorance. Zero^talk 08:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Joseph

Granted this was years ago, but "All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case." Nishidani seems to get "his way" by posting walls of text and usually being acerbic to people who disagrees with him, and oftentimes just chasing editors away. There is a way to disagree with people without insulting them. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Nishidani

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

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Zionism, race and genetics, which contains a write up of the situation, and a formal complaint that Drsmoo is the hostile actor on that article who is endlessly propagating the dispute after failing to have the article deleted. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Drsmoo and Nishidani: You're both past the word limit. I'll grant an extra 250 words each, which puts Nishidani just barely under and leaves Drsmoo still 150 over. But as a matter of equity, Drsmoo, if you don't make any further replies, I won't enforce the word limit against what you've written so far.
As to the merits, this is the second time this in a month that this same article has wound up here. Last time I removed Drsmoo's comment for casting aspersions. So I don't have a lot of patience for this dispute, personally. Right now it looks to me like the best approach would be a one-month page-ban (article and talk) for both Drsmoo and Nishidani. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would be tempted to go for a logged warning for both. These are both very experienced editors, and I would hope that a "right - knock it off, or else" warning should be enough at this point. Obviously, if it isn't, we can pull out the blocks. Black Kite (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not outright opposed to that, especially if the warning is worded with a caution that admins may impose sanctions without further warning, but also would rather not have to have a Round 3 over this same talkpage. Even supposing that some opposition to the article is ideologically-motivated, there do seem to be some good-faith content objections (N.B.: "good-faith" ≠ "correct"), and there's something to be said for coming down hard before too many editors get scared away. So, not sure. Would love to hear from a few more admins. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Iskandar's observation above, I'm now fine with closing this with warnings for both, and will do so today unless another admin objects, or if you would rather be the one to write it. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they go in the AELog, this works. Courcelles (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Iskandar's observation that the talk page discussion has cooled off, and discussion is ongoing in a more positive direction. However, I see many behavioural concerns and I hope the talk page does not become heated after this is closed. I think some reminders should be posted on the talk page:

On the article talk page, editors should discuss article content only, not editor behaviour. If there is concern about editor behaviour, bring it to the appropriate noticeboard.
Editors with SYNTH concerns should clearly outline (with quotes from the article and quotes from the sources) where they think SYNTH is occurring in the article. If an editor is not concerned with the quoted passage, they should explain why.
Rapid back-and-forth discussions amongst two or a small group of editors is usually not helpful, especially when trying to convince the other person that they are "wrong". Instead, avoid commenting for a couple hours and let others give new perspectives.
I think that the banner should not be removed until there is consensus on the talk page that all SYNTH concerns have been addressed. "Addressed" does not mean "resolved" or "fixed", as an editor might think a sentence is SYNTH while consensus disagrees. If consensus is that there is no SYNTH concern with a specific passage, then editors should WP:DROPTHESTICK.

This comment was a lot longer, with concerns about specific editors addressed, but I'm hoping that general reminders will resolve the issue. I am happy to address specific editor behaviour if the talk page becomes a problem again. Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 Do you mean this in addition to the logged warnings discussed above, or instead of? I have no objection if it's the former. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: This would be in addition to the logged warnings. After reading the article's talk page discussions and reports, I am concerned with the behaviour of several editors, not just Drsmoo and Nishidani. I think these reminders would be beneficial to the talk page so that if the behaviour returns admin can take bolder action to t-ban users causing the disruption. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikieditor1234567123

No sanction appropriate as this was about old conduct before the warning. Doug Weller talk 07:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Landkomtur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: WikiEditor1234567123 (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:ARBEE

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

First He removed every single mention of this clan/society being Chechen without consensus in the talk page with other users.
second He removes this clan from the teip list of Chechen clans without any explanation .
third After his previous edit was undone he again removes the clan from the teip list of Aukh Chechen clans, again without any explanation not consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Previous wp:ae

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Wikieditor1234567123 engages in nationalistic POV pushing, he was warned for doing this while using folklore in the previous wp:ae. What the previous wp:ae didn't discuss in detail was his removal of Chechen related information like I have posted above. He seems to think that he can delete information related to Chechens without consensus, recently almost a month ago right after the previous wp:ae case he deleted an entire section about Chechens in the Fyappi article without asking anyone in the talk page. Previously he has TWICE removed information about this Chechen clan from the teip list. He acknowledged that he is in the wrong here but this seems to be a common theme. He tries to twist articles into his POV but when he gets called out he apologizes and tries to play it off, playing the good faith of the moderators. It is important to note that he did this TWICE after another user undid his edit, the more recent change was undone just 4 days ago here. Now after an admin suggested I make this wp:ae report Wikieditor apparently changed his mind and brought back the Chechen mention here I am not sure how much I can write in here but previous WP:AE cases against him paints a clear picture of his intentions. I can not fit everything in here, but you can even check his contribution history, this user clearly is engaging in sort of nationalistic POV pushing. This person even goes as far as swapping Chechens with Ingush name positions (!), regardless of the alphabetical order, nor population sizes of those nations. Doesn't this behavior warrant a sanction or a ban?

Quick response to Tamzin: Rosguill or rather Seraphimblade warned Wikieditor to not use folkloric sources to promote his POV, this report is unrelated to folklore, it is related to his constant removal of Chechen related text from articles without consensus. I only brought up the previous wp:ae to show that this user's nationalistic POV pushing is multi-layered. He has yet to be warned or sanctioned for his removal of Chechen-related text. In fact he kept removing Chechen-related text on the same day he was warned for using folkloric sources but no one noticed it.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion about WikiEditor1234567123

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 WikiEditor1234567123

I removed the section "Aukh Fyappiy" because I was thinking of making a separate article, as I made it clear with the quote: "This will need it's own article". I was literally the one who added the section in the article (see here) and at the time I had removed it temporarily to make an article for it, there was no other ppl who contributed to the article so who should I have first discussed the matter with?? For now didn't have the time to make the article so it was like that for a while. I literally didn't see a problem with separating the two terms--Fyappin society and teip Vyappiy (which originated from the former as indicated by it's name)--because after this there wouldn't be any confusion. Landkomtur, on the other hand, is trying to make it seem as if I removed this section temporarily because it mentions Chechens and is villainizing me. I added it back after discussing with an other user, but also realizing that if the section is that small, then it wouldn't be a proper article. I didn't add it back because admin suggested WP:AE or anything. Regarding the teip list, I had forgot I had removed it, I deeply apologize that I removed it and explained myself in my talk page. I most likely removed it in haste because I thought the Fyappiy (society) were mentioned as Chechen. Similarly I recently, in a haste, accidentally reverted user Muqale's edit, when I thought he added a biased source (here reverted back when I realized I made a mistake). Either way, I wouldn't remove the Vyappiy teip from the list because I thought it wasn't also Chechen, when in the earlier existed section "Aukh Fyappiy" I made it clear that it's a Chechen-Ingush teip. Furthermore this removal happened in March-April, 4–5 months ago, I don't think it's fair to pull up mistakes from very far ago and then punish a person for them. People make mistakes and change. (WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wikieditor1234567123

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

Does anything here postdate Rosguill's warning? If not, I'm not sure there's procedurally anything to be done. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Landkomtur: I'd have to see something really bad to be comfortable issuing any kind of sanction, even a warning, for conduct that predates the last warning. Inclined to close this procedurally. However, I realize I pinged the wrong admin above: It was Seraphimblade's warning. Maybe he'll feel otherwise, in which case I defer to him. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is relatively old conduct, and all predates the warning. If anyone thought they merited sanction, they should have brought this up sooner. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leyo

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 Leyo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: KoA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Leyo (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#Contentious_topic_designation

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions

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

August 20, 2016 The single user opposing it by stressing non-applicable guideline/essay might have some kind of agenda. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS
October 17, 2018 You have a well-known history of man-on-a-mission edits. Your actions are not the consensus. WP:TPNO
October 17, 2018 I wouldn't call it filibustering, but the fact that he explained his point of view (that has been well known before) in detail does not make it more valid. Switching to veiled accusations.
June 2, 2023 Overall, actions of certain users seem to have led to a bias in the selection of references used in this field. More veiled accusations with "certain users", more background in Recent edits section below.
June 4, 2023 You are describing your own behavior here, in past and now. WP:POT when cautioned the 3rd time about aspsersions/CT designation.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on
August 21, 2016
October 17, 2018
June 4, 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This comes off the heels of a recent admin action review started by Doug Weller on August 6 where Leyo made a bad block against me both on substance and as a WP:INVOLVED admin. One of the main suggestions from that review was to look at an interaction ban.[14] Before this, I had been dealing with aspersions from Leyo in GMO/pesticide topics in article space in violation of WP:TPNO since 2016. The sniping was sporadic enough then I hoped sanctions weren't needed. Given the recent escalation of that behavior to using admin tools in that hounding, I'm requesting an interaction-ban be imposed on Leyo towards me.

Older WP:TPNO sniping and aspersions

I warned Leyo about WP:ASPERSIONS in the GMO topic 2016 and 2018. The older diffs in evidence show a history of under-the-radar sniping/battleground. Back at the GMO ArbCom, we crafted that aspersions principle because people would take to the talk page to bludgeon/poison-the-well with comments ranging from broadly accusing editors of having an agenda without evidence, COI, etc. to outright or thinly veiled comments insinuating someone was a Monsanto shill.

The "You have a well-known history of man-on-a-mission edits" comment shows the poisoning-the-well that's part of the problem. There they tried singling me out on talk pages as just a lone actor with an agenda. In that case, others had to chime in to contradict that mischaracterization.[15] Generally the interactions were only occasional sniping, but still disrupted talk pages.

Recent edits

I cautioned about the GMO restrictions again just a few months ago between Leyo's certain users hounding comment above where they had not edited until after I posted in the previous section and promoting a WP:FRINGE organization (denial of scientific consensus on GMOs) as reliable in this discussion. This revival of the battleground attitude led to Leyo following me this month into another topic outside the GMO CT where they had never edited where the block occurred. When pushed at XRV about following edits, Leyo claimed they just picked me out of RecentChanges log, which editors were highly skeptical of.[16] @BilledMammal: also had a really good analysis of this interaction at XRV[17] concerning Leyo following my edits.

Where that ties into the GMO topic is that they ignored warnings about their behavior toward me in this topic to the point Leyo believed they were uninvolved when they tried to block me. At the review, multiple editors were concerned Leyo appeared dismissive of the history between us and carried on as if they had just merely given me warnings through their sniping detailed above. Because nearly all of this until the recent INVOLVED issue was centered around GMO/pesticides, I'm hoping a one-way interaction ban prevents this behavior from resurfacing in agriculture topics where we cross paths given the severity of the bad block I just had to deal with. KoA (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admin replies

Seraphimblade just to be clear, I opened in this AE so that I don't have to worry about the GMO-based interaction pursuing me anymore (the action reviewed at XRV has been the sole exception outside this CT topic). The admin conduct was already addressed at XRV, so there wouldn't by much for us to rehash here on that except the GMO behavior that led to that escalation. I'm just looking for the simplest solution right now to be able to move on, so I thought this was more appropriate given the CT designation. I don't plan to personally ask for desysop at ArbCom because that still doesn't solve the behavior in this topic. KoA (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, I'm at my word limit, so I'll just briefly say we regularly deal with this subject at AE with the Arb principle and WP:GAMING of it.[18][19][20][21] Doug Weller also had to block an editor for aspersions just recently.[22] It's a recurring problem in this topic with editors often making veiled claims (i.e., not specifically naming, but "certain editors" statements) of a user having an agenda in this space (and sanctioned for it).

The present concern is that while Leyo eventually said it was a bad block, they were still saying things that showed they did not really see an issue with their behavior explained at the very end of the XRV. They've only said they are taking a break from admin actions, so that's why I am still concerned about the "normal" editor interaction side here in the future. At least as the target here over the years, I think the admin-related discussion can be set aside for now if it's clear the non-admin pursuit of me will stop, however that occurs. KoA (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[23]

Discussion concerning Leyo

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 Leyo

Sorry for the late response due to the holiday season.
Over the years, I've watchlisted a number of articles that have been a target of major disputes, even though the articles aren't within my primary interests. As far as time allowed, I have been trying to keep an eye on NPOV (acknowledging that I have been devoting more time to such tasks in de.wikipedia). In some cases, I have noticed deviations from NPOV. In some of these articles, KoA was involved.
I feel that I am being put in the NGO/environmental activism corner. I therefore would like to provide an example that shows a different point of view: A few years ago, a very knowledgeable user in the field of agriculture was indef-blocked for suspected undisclosed paid editing on behalf of an agrochemical company/association (confirmed by a too hasty closed block review). I had pushed for a more thorough block review/an unblock, although such a procedure is not foreseen. I was criticized by several users for being pro agrochemical industry. Being criticized for not being eutral in two opposing ways could be an indication of having an intermediate position. In any case, it's a key aim of mine to work towards NPOV.
BTW, it seems to me that KoA is pretty quick when it comes to warning other users such as recently fellow admin Steven Walling for edit-warring after a single revert.
As previously mentioned it's striking to see the difference in KoA's approach to content disputes, depending on whether he prefers the pre-dispute/edit-war version or the other one:

If he prefers the pre-dispute/edit-war version, he won't allow any changes, unless a consensus on the talk page is reached (which can't be reached since he opposes, even if the majority would agree). Even when KoA is involved in the reverting/edit-war (sometimes even as the only one from "his side"), he uses edit summaries that give the impression that he is acting as an uninvolved user or even as an admin. Examples:
As seen in Dominion (2018 film), the attitude is completely different, if KoA disagrees with the pre-edit-war version: In such a case, he considers several reverts to be fine, after only waiting a few days to see if the other users repeat their disagreement.

That's all for now. --Leyo 22:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

I do believe that action is required here; based on the evidence I have seen I believe that Leyo used their admin tools to target an editor they were engaged in a dispute with. This is not behavior that can be swept under the rug; at a minimum, Leyo needs to be put on notice that further abuses of the tools will result in the tools being removed. If a reviewing admin wishes me to present the evidence here I will do so, but for now I will just direct any interested editors towards the XRV discussion.

However, I don't believe that AE is the correct location for action to take place; I believe either ANI or ARBCOM is required, and over the past few days I have been considering opening an ARBCOM case on this topic, and have been leaning heavily towards doing so. Now that this AE case is open I will hold off on doing so, with my current intention being to open one after discussion has taken its course here if it is still warranted. 11:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish and Tamzin: My concern is less with repeated use of the admin tools against KoA, but instead use of the admin tools in a dispute with a less established editor, whose block will not face the same scrutiny that the block of KoA faced, or that a block of any of us would face.

This is compounded by what I felt was an inadequate reply; they haven't laid forth any plan to avoiding these actions in the future, they haven't acknowledged that it was the ongoing dispute that made them involved (as opposed to the warnings they issued KoA), or even agreed that it was clearly an inappropriate block - the closest they have come to this is saying As for the user, I can partly understand why some people think I'm involved because of the warnings I've issued to the user due to his conduct. It is difficult to draw a line, where an involvement begins. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: You're right; I forgot that. However, it doesn't address my overarching concerns - that Leyo has demonstrated themselves capable of abusing the admin tools, that we have no protection against them abusing them again, and that the next time they do it it might be to an editor whose block will face less scrutiny. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I've been following and commenting on this situation, so I might as well comment here. I suppose one option that is within scope for AE would be to TBAN Leyo from GMOs, but I don't see much recent evidence that this would be anything urgent to do now. I agree with other comments here, that Leyo's stated intention to step back is something that is worth giving a chance, to see if it holds up. So it seems to me to be reasonable to close this AE without formal action, and wait and see if there is any recidivism on Leyo's part. If we're lucky, there won't be, and if not, this would be something for ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that Leyo is continuing to edit in the GMO topic area as of today: [24], although there is nothing at all wrong with the edit, as it is simple gnoming and not contentious. The only reason I post about it is that I think we need to be clear as to what Leyo has or has not voluntarily agreed to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gtoffoletto

I was not involved in the content dispute that lead to KoA's block and never edited that page. However, I have been part of this saga for a few months and my one week block for disputes in this area with KoA has been mentioned in this request. I will partially repost here a comment I made in the Admin action review that was also mentioned in this case.

KoA mentions that "Leyo made a bad block against [him] both on substance and..." (emphasis mine). As Thryduulf stated clearly in their reply to me: The community not endorsing the block is not the same as the community endorsing KOA's behaviour or any side of the content dispute - the consensus is simply that a block was not the right course of action at the time. His edits were clearly non neutral and disruptive in my view (and I sincerely hope the community widely agrees on this):

KoA was repeatedly changing the text documentary film with the text vegan anti-livestock farming film [25] against the objections of several different editors Special:Diff/1166825517, Special:Diff/1167229773, Special:Diff/1167935777, Special:Diff/1168612971. This was clearly disruptive, egregiously against WP:NPOV, and should have been sanctioned.

As I stated in the admin action review I feel that policies enacted for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms are being used to attack and block users (even when the disputes have little or nothing to do with the subject).

This all started months ago when I began investigating evidence of a systemic issue with the selection of our sources that privileges industry interests (here, User talk:Headbomb/unreliable/Archive 1#EWG.org Generally Unreliable?), with troubling evidence showing that CropLife International and American Chemistry Council, for example, are cited in 19 articles and 53 articles respectively, while we are regularly flagging as inaccurate, and removing entirely, citations from independent non profits and advocacy groups (such as Environmental Working Group or Pesticide Action Network). This is what started this whole saga and it is extremely worrisome. Wikipedia is highly vulnerable to manipulation from outside interests. If any proof is required of this we can look at this recent well publicised incident: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-07-17/In the media. How can we ensure the independence of Wikipedia if we use the policies we built to defend our encyclopaedia in this way? Corporate capture is extremely easy and all but guaranteed in this environment.

I'm just a casual editor so I don't have the resources to participate in this (wide reaching issue) appropriately and I am on holiday. But I hope the community will find a way to investigate thoroughly on what is happening here. This additional enforcement request does not feel right at all. It feels like a WP:BATTLEGROUND attack against an adversary. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Leyo

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

This appears to be primarily an issue regarding admin conduct and concerns about it. Given that, I think that would be much better addressed by ArbCom than at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leyo has acknowledged that the block was inappropriate, and based on that and other responses at XRV, I think they know that any subsequent interaction with KoA in an admin capacity would be a one-way trip to ArbCom. So I tend to agree with KoA that referring this to ArbCom as an ADMINCOND matter is not necessary at this time. (That said, Leyo, you may want consider taking a voluntary but enforceable restriction from admin tool use regarding environmental activism and editors active in that topic area, or at least explicitly recusing indefinitely.)
As to an IBAN, I'm not yet convinced. This is a rarer topic area to see at AE, and I don't entirely know its discussion norms, but as a matter of rough impression I would tend toward a logged warning for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Leyo would not be the first admin to be sanctioned at AE, and probably not the last either. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal, just to nitpick one thing there: In the diff I cite above, Leyo did say, boldfaced, I do acknowledge that my block was inappropriate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think an IBAN is needed at this time, as I do not see how Leyo is specifically targeting KoA in their 2023 comments. I think the 2016 and 2018 comments are too old to do anything about, and evidence that this is a recent pattern of behaviour was not presented above (an instance in 2023, 5 years after the previous instance, is not a pattern in my opinion). However, I agree with the conclusion at WP:XRV that this was a bad block, that Leyo should be now deemed WP:INVOLVED with anything to do with KoA, and Leyo needs to slow down their use of the block button. If this concerning behaviour continues, I would support an ARBCOM case concerning Leyo, but I don't think there's anything more to be done here. Z1720 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KoA left this message on my talk page responding to my comment above [26] in which I responded [27]. My response, summarised, is for KoA to WP:DROPTHESTICK and come back if Leyo starts bothering them again. Z1720 (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miner Editor

Indeffed by user:Guerillero, first year as CTOP sanction. Courcelles (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2023 (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 Miner Editor

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FormalDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Miner Editor (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#Behavioral standards

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

10:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Calls me "a disgrace to the community", violating NPA.
11:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Calling me "a danger to the integrity of the encyclopedia, and an impediment to its improvement", violating NPA.
12:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Accusing me of "bullshittery" and having a "reading comprehension issue", violating CIVIL and NPA.
13:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Accusing me (without evidence) of stonewalling and tendentious editing, violating CIVIL.
16:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Again states I have "reading comprehension issues", and claims I have a "passion for skewing this article to cast Kennedy and everyone associated with him in the worst possible light while removing anything which paints them in a positive light", violating CIVIL and NPA.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 03:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Some background, I started an ANI thread on Miner Editor regarding what I perceived to be competency issues from them, but later withdrew it after reading Miner Editor's response, and the ANI was closed. It was then reopened for Miner Editor who made multiple accusations against me, but ultimately decided to (in their own words) drop the stick and not seek any warning/sanction of me. Aside from the very first one, all the diffs I've provided are from after that point.

Note Miner Editor was told on 11:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC) that article talk pages are not the proper venue for conduct accusations. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miner Editor made a comment here that included more incivility, and removed it a little over three hours later without any note. They've been significantly refactoring their comments here hours after making them and without noting any of the changes. [28] [29] [30] I recommend reviewing this version from before their dozen reverts. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found another instance of a dispute where Miner Editor has displayed similarly poor behavior:

6. 08:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Questioning another editor's competence.

7. 08:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Claims they will drop the stick on this dispute.

8. 09:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Calling the same editor "Completely unfit to edit Wikipedia" and threatening to take them to ANI.

9. 10:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Again threatens to take the same editor to ANI.

––FormalDude (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Miner Editor: As Black Kite explained, this isn't about any content dispute, it's about your behavior towards other editors. "They started it" is not an excuse to act with incivility. Two wrongs don't make a right. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above was in response to this original reply I received from Miner Editor, which they again refactored minutes before my response was posted. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [31]

Discussion concerning Miner Editor

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 Miner Editor

I stand by all cited categorizations of FD. He is indeed unfit to be editing the Kennedy article and is a danger to the reputation of the work. His case against me at ANI claiming incompetence was complete bullshit (aka "bullshittery"). He has indeed stonewalled on the cited article, and appears to be a textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. His reading comprehension issues were are documented in the talk page. He continues to pile on reasons to question his suitability to be editing such contentious articles.

Regarding me calling his behavior "disgraceful", I realize that was strong, but I stand by it, although it was the improper forum. I was referring to his stamement, in ANI, that he would be "stepping away" from editing the RFK Jr Campaign article. He went back on his word about a day later, and I consider that contrary to the spirit of ANI, where we take editors at their word when they say what they will do going forward.

However, FD makes several good points where I used the talk page inappropriately, and I have struck those instances. Going forward, I will do my best to adhere to the spirit and letter of all policies and sanctions. I have, however left in particular #3 and #4 in their entirety, as he has banned me from their talk page and has banned me from pinging him. I do not believe I should be required to go to ANI to warn him his edits are problematic, or to question the suitability of his behavior pertaining to the article and warning them in-line seemed to be my only option. Miner Editor (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: Editors are allowed to edit/remove comments that have not been replied to, and your attempt to make that appear nefarious, or that I am trying to hide something, is more of the same ol' same ol'. Despite your claim, I did indeed document the removal of the "incivil" comment you cited (which I stand by) and gave a reason. Miner Editor (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: @Black Kite: Topic banning me is not indicated. My edits to the article are not under question here, it is my interaction with FD that is. I have not edit warred, I have respected concensus and sourcing requirements, and I have made objectively excellent edits, including removing the false and inflammatory claim from the lead that FD repeatedly inserted into the lead against WP:ONUS (and therefore in violation of the contentious topics sanction), that RKF Jr. received most of his funding from Republicans. This is the kind of thing that gets quoted by those who seek to disparage Wikipedia as biased....this would likely have remained in the article to this day without my action, and I did a big service to the project with that. Yesterday, I removed the laughable claim that RFK Jr said that "poppers causes AIDS", which a source used as a ragebait headline and an editor thought would be fine to add that to the article. I could go on but I'll be concise... It's never ending with that article, and removing my ability to affect the article would be untoward. My edits to the article space have been golden. FD's... not so much given that he has several times inserted inflammatory and incorrect material into the article which I then was compelled by policy to revert. Although I will welcome an interaction ban with FD, applying a topic ban to ME seems bass ackwards. Miner Editor (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And allow me to be clear in my motives. I am no fan of RFK Jr. The first edit I made to a RFK Jr. article was this after I learned he wished there was a law by which he could punish people for questioning climate change. That seemed extreme and Orwellian to me and adding it was warranted. As a Wikignome and vandal fighter his articles seemed worth watching. I am motivated by the belief in fair treatment; that he and his supporters deserve to have their views and actions accurately represented in the encyclopedia. Miner Editor (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: When someone calls me a "grave dancer" for defending proper encyclopedic practices, me calling them "unfit" in return is to be expected. "They started it", as I have often heard said. Miner Editor (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: Your continual complaining about me "refactoring" replies of mine, which have not yet been replied to by others, is unwarrented. As I said in the edit summary, edit my reply. Sticking to the point of this RFA, which is not Wikipedia content, but my comments, which I think is to be commended, rather than chastised. Miner Editor (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute @Random person no 362478479: refers to was here and also involved the editor who categorized my editorial position as "grave dancing", and to whom I then called "unfit". Miner Editor (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Minor Editor comes off as angry and aggressive. Regardless of whatever the complaints or disagreements, that only makes things worse. Their tone in response to the current complaint reflects the dysfunctional mode of their engagement. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Random person no 362478479

I won't comment on the recent dispute between Miner Editor and FormalDude. But I was involved in the second (older) dispute that FormalDude brought up (although not as the target of the linked remarks). In that dispute Miner Editor argued with me and another editor over whether to use quotes by RFK Jr. about LGBTQ+ issues or whether to paraphrase them. Unfortunately the other editor was a bit too passionate on the issue and flung quite extreme allegations against Miner Editor. His responses were actually quite measured given the context. And I found that once that other editor ceased participating in the discussion. Miner Editor argued his point in a perfectly civil and rational way. We managed to resolve the dispute without further ugliness. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Miner Editor

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

I procedurally closed the initial ANI report when Formal Dude withdrew his complaint. Black Kite re-opened it to allow the discussion to continue further. In terms of behavioural standards, in terms of the diffs presented by Formal Dude, Miner Editor has crossed the line with respect to uncivil statements and personal attacks. His repetitive usage of these words against Formal Dude constitutes plain harassment and bludgeoning of discussion. Miner Editor's statement out here is laid out with some spots, where they have continued their uncivil statements. This is prohibited. Lourdes 05:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless others feel significiantly differently given the persistent incivil harassing comments towards Formal Dude I'm intending to topic ban Miner Editor from anything to do with Robert F. Kennedy with a warning that anything further will result in more robust sanctions. I'd consider a broader topic ban, a block and/or a topic ban but as this issue seems to be primarily related to Robert F. Kennedy I'm hopeful that my more specific topic ban remove Miner Editor from this area where things are more heated without needing to use more severe sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. But as this report has been raised by FormalDude on uncivil comments directed at FormalDude, it would be prudent to impose an additional one-way interaction ban so Miner Editor cannot hound FD again. Thanks, Lourdes 08:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I re-opened the thread as it was clear it hadn't reached a conclusion. When ME called FD a "disgrace" I posted this which I hoped might de-escalate the issue (it didn't), and then this pointing out that, despite their complaints about FD, ME was the only person in the room being uncivil. This clearly didn't work either, as all the diffs provided in this filing apart from the first one happened afterwards. I think the TBAN as proposed by Callanecc is the minimum here. ~~I'm not sure if the IBAN is necessary as it only seems to have been on this article that the issues have occurred (unless I've missed something) though I suppose it can't hurt.~~ Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I've just seen this (which ME has since reverted). If they can't behave properly in an AE filing I don't have much hope that they can do so in a collaborative environment. So yeah, TBAN/IBAN minimum. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miner Editor "My edits to the article are not under question here, it is my interaction with FD that is." Yes, exactly. I haven't even looked as to who is "right" in the content dispute, my comments are merely based on your comments on the talk page and here. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ME needs to be removed from Ampol, not just RFK. Quite frankly, these comments are so vitriolic I would not oppose just indeffing them. Courcelles (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Lourdes 15:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bureaucratic rule against indeffing per discretionary sanctions (or is it supposed to be "per contentious topics" now? Per AE, anyway), but any admin can indef as a regular admin action, and I'm all for that in this case. I don't believe in topic bans for users who behave like this. Bishonen | tålk 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
My understanding is that, per the WP:CTOP changes, one can indef as an AE action—and an AE consensus can even impose a siteban—but it becomes a standard-admin block after a year. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct. The block loses AE’s “overturn this at risk of desysop” protection, but is still an in-force block. Courcelles (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I indefed due to the beyond the pale conduct. If they appeal to arbcom, I will recuse -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NMW03

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 NMW03

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: R.Lemkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: NMW03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

14:22, 12 August 2023 Stalks me to yet another article to drop a POV issues template on top, linking two discussions (including one on my talk page) despite taking part in neither and never editing this article before
22:36, 13 August 2023 Stalks me to another Wikimedia project to nominate my image that's clearly protected by 2013 copyright laws for deletion in bad faith
22:11, 13 August 2023 removes quotation marks for MOS:SCAREQUOTES for being "POV" but there are numerous sources casting doubt on the eco-activist claim and the sources themselves use quotation marks to express doubt
22:14, 13 August 2023 same as #3
22:07, 13 August 2023 same as #3
11:15, 14 August 2023 same as #3 but now edit warring
11:30, 14 August 2023 same as #3 but now edit warring
18:36, 8 August 2023 took part in a canvassing vote with several other users who are Admins on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, as another user pointed out

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

02:15, 16 July 2023 Warned less than a month after all of these incidents by User:Callanecc: "I would strongly caution you to be consider your editing and ensure that you are not following other editors around to revert them specifically."

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

Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 12 August 2023
AA2 advisory and warned for Edit warring
Introduction to contentious topics and warned for breaking WP:1RR

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Although it had been less than a month since NMW03 had been warned by Callanecc for WP:HOUNDING, NMW03 still continued following me around and getting into edit wars, not only on Wikipedia but following my account to Commons as well. And while stopping NMW03's bad faith attempt to delete my photo, I noticed that NMW03 had uploaded 500 photos of a "Young Wikipedians Wikicamp Azerbaijan" organization that, according to the description, is organized by the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Azerbaijan. Even more peculiar is that the indef-blocked and topic-banned Solavirum (talk · contribs · logs) is in these photos and appears to be teaching the camp.

And as listed above in the final diff of the list, Solavirum made a deletion request on Commons and was consecutively given votes of support by three users who, like him, are also Azerbaijani Wiki admins, including NMW03. Seems that this Wikicamp Azerbaijan is not beyond gaming the consensus system on Wikimedia. I'm aware that Commons is a different project, but this seems relevant both because NMW03 followed me from Wikipedia to Commons and for the evidence of meatpuppeting on both sites.

So not only is NMW03 still hounding after recently being explicitly told not to do that, NMW03 also seems to be a part of a meatpuppetry group for Wikimedia projects. R.Lemkin (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[32]

Discussion concerning NMW03

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 NMW03

Putting a POV tag on an article that two other editors also had concerns about is not stalking. R.Lemkin, you don't own the Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) article, and simply editing the article (not even reverting any of your edits) is not harassment towards you. Last time, you claimed I was stalking you because my first edits to those articles were reverts of your edits. Now, my first edit does not even have anything to do with you. Red-tailed hawk has given a great reply to your claims in points two and eight. About the scare quotes, I did what Wikipedia guidelines told me to do. I'll let an admin decide whether that's valid or not. This is now R.Lemkin's second report of me within a month.

There are things I'd like the admins to review in R.Lemkin's contributions too. In the Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article, R.Lemkin removed a POV tag, saying that they've "Replied on the article's talk page" without waiting for any response from me, who added the POV tag, or two other editors who have expressed concern at the POV issues in the article. Also, R.Lemkin is demanding other editors to discuss every edit before they make it ("Please engage in the discussion before introducing more changes.", "if there any specific issue, it should be discussed and replied first (if you have a good rationale)"). The article also has copyright problems with several sources, all in the content added by R.Lemkin, which need to be looked at. See Earwig's copyvio detector for the problems. NMW03 (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red-tailed hawk

I write only with respect to the parts of this report that allege impropriety at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Rza Talibov as a pattern of cross-wiki bad faith behavior and/or Commons socking.

Regarding that DR, if multiple AzWiki admins were present in a discussion, and they know that the uploader has previously engaged in deception and/or provided false information, it's a good thing that they would go to Commons and question the image submissions. And, as it turns out, there were multiple discussions on AzWiki not all that long ago about the behavior of the uploader of the images: and you will find NMW03 as a participant in at least one of them. Consequently, it doesn't look like NMW03 was gaming the consensus system on Commons. Meanwhile, Solavirum is a prolific editor on AzWiki, where they hold sysop rights. I would understand the concern about potential socking, but socking isn't really much of a concern if the uploader of that image is the photographer. And, there is a plausible alternative explanation for why there's a high level of Azerbaijani participation in the DR—all those comments from the Azerbaijani editors were posted on Commons after the relevant local AzWiki conduct discussion began.

Speaking as a Commons sysop, the participation in that DR on Commons doesn't look all that nefarious to me. It doesn't really serve as evidence of some sort of Commons socking ring, and the allegations of secret canvassing of Commons by "Wikicamp Azerbaijan" seem a bit off-base in light of the very public discussion about the uploader's conduct that began before AzWiki users began to comment on that DR.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning NMW03

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

Kevo327

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 Kevo327

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NMW03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kevo327 (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

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

14 August Restoring clearly POV language with the edit summary "comment on talk first with good rationale" (implying that these edits did not have good rationale [33], [34]).
17 August Reverting the restoration of a POV tag in the same article, after preventing a user from removing the POV wordings.
17 August Restoring POV scare quotes and reverting perfectly fine edits simply because they were not discussed beforehand.
17 August Reverting the same user and restoring UNDUE wording in lead.
4 August Restoring an exceptional claim with problematic sourcing. See below for more explanation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

4 December 2020 Blocked for 72 hours for edit warring in several AA2 articles

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 24 January 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Kevo327 has been repeatedly reverting edits made by Paul Vaurie on various articles with strange and demanding edit summaries. Kevo327 restores obvious POV wordings ("Ethnically cleanse the region of indigenous Armenians", "so-called 'eco-activists'", and "Many observers do not believe that Artsakh Armenians can live safely under President Aliyev's regime" among others) and tells Paul to discuss the edit first "with good rationale" in the edit summary. When Paul approaches Kevo327 about the revert, Kevo327 tells him to "gain consensus first" [35] before making an edit. In the third diff, Kevo327 reverts Paul again, restoring POV scare quotes and irrelevant material that was removed by Paul, demanding that the edit be explained in the talk page first. In the fourth diff, Kevo327 again reverts Paul, for the third time in a single day, and restores UNDUE wording in lead and irrelevant content in the article. Again, they demand that Paul discuss the edits in the talk page first.

In the fifth diff, Kevo327 restores an exceptional claim one minute after posting a reply to my explanation of why the content was problematic. The source Kevo327 added, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) was a copy-paste of an article from Al-Masdar News, which actually cites SOHR as its own source. So, there's no actual source and these two articles cite each other as their source. Moreover, Kevo327 claims the source to be an "extremely reputable source" [36]. I find it weird how any editor can believe either Al-Masdar News (See #Notable reports, fake news and disinformation) or SOHR (See #Accuracy) can be described as such. In our discussion, Kevo327 ignores this citogenesis and tells me "If you can't grasp this, I suggest you disengage from the discussion" [37] and later "What is this and how do you expect others to see good faith in your comments? Because you just jump the ship every time your previous argument fails, and try to come up with something new to keep arguing." [38]

Kevo327 is obviously here to spread their POV and not contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. They are uncivil, do not assume good faith, and carefully edit war to not pass 3RR. Their behavior violates the recent WP:AA3 case's principles of Standards of editor behavior, Edit warring and Tendentious editing. Additionally, they were warned last year for using the CSD process politically. NMW03 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

Discussion concerning Kevo327

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 Kevo327

Going through the diff list provides:

Paul Vaurie had not participated in the talk page discussion and when asked to do so, said "I don't want to get involved in a content dispute right now". But Paul Vaurie proceeded to remove content that was well sourced.
Paul Vaurie kept adding the POV tag without explaining what was a POV violation, which is required for using the tag. Instead, Paul added the tag, was reverted and asked to discuss on talk, and then added the tag again, never explaining the reasoning. So, it was Paul Vaurie that was edit warring.
NMW03 refers to these are "POV scare quotes" but that is completely false. WP:NPOV is "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and the reliable sources put these terms in quotes ('Azerbaijani "activists" are blocking the road...', '...claims that the Karabakh Armenians were "illegally" extracting gold from mines...'. I had pointed this out to NMW03 but they still reverted.
Paul Vaurie removed cited content and an entire section that had been on the article for years without any consensus, or reason besides being "unnecessary". By the way, why is NMW03 reporting incidents they weren't involved in on behalf of other users?
As I explained on the talk page, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is a very reliable source. I had checked the WP:RSN to verify this, and came across and informative discussion where multiple users agreed that when SOHR and Al-Masdar report identical things related to Syrian affairs, these can be considered well cited. In another discussion, another user pointed out that when it comes to Syrian news, there is either "pro-government Masdar or pro-opposition SOHR" to chose from. In this case, both sources reported the same thing.

As if making an enforcement request over content disputes wasn't bad enough, in 3 out of 4 articles NMW03 has linked in their diffs list, they haven't even made a single comment on the respective talk pages. Maybe they should start discussing content first? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NMW03 now changes their commented after my response despite violating WP:TALK#REPLIED. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kevo327

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

[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]

@@ Line 777: / Line 777: @@
 As if making an enforcement request over content disputes wasn't bad enough, in 3 out of 4 articles NMW03 has linked in their diffs list, they haven't even made a single comment on the respective talk pages. Maybe they should start discussing content first? - [[user:Kevo327|<b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3</sup><sup style="color:#0033a0">2</sup><sup style="color:#f2a800">7</sup>]] ([[User talk:Kevo327|talk]]) 17:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
+:NMW03 now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1171045878 changes] their commented ''after'' my response despite violating [[WP:TALK#REPLIED]]. - [[user:Kevo327|<b style="color:#d90012">K</b><b style="color:#000000">evo</b><sup style="color:#d90012">3</sup><sup style="color:#0033a0">2</sup><sup style="color:#f2a800">7</sup>]] ([[User talk:Kevo327|talk]]) 18:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====

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