Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:15, 24 May 2022

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

SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mhawk10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

8 May 2022 Baseless accusations of "meatpuppetry"
8 May 2022 Reiterating baseless accusations of "meatpupperty" and falsely accusing me of violating discretionary sanctions
9 May 2022 Using an article talk page to falsely and baselessly accuse me of violating discretionary sanctions

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14 September 2014 User:SPECIFICO is warned that any such anti-community behaviour may lead to a site ban
3 June 2018 SPECIFICO knows very well that rewording or attempting to summarize what may be existing content can be quite contentious and edit warring to retain this rewording or new summary is in no way "reverting to longstanding stable content". This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus.^[1]^[2] That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed (internal links transformed to notes for template reasons).
Previously given a logged warning for conduct in the area of conflict on 9 April 2020 by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with the note that SPECIFICO is reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and warned that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions.

Notes

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

The user issued a discretionary sanction warning on the topic within the past twelve months on 17 August 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

To provide context to the above, I have repeatedly asked the user to retract their accusations of meatpuppetry and they've refused to do so. This all spurred from my response to a request on WP:RFCLOSE in which I closed a discussion on the article talk page. SPECIFICO has repeatedly made false allegations that I am acting as a meatpuppet of Iamreallygoodatcheckers, refused to strike that characterization or apologize, and then baselessly made allegations on an article talk page that I violated discretionary sanctions by editing a page to which they clearly do not apply. It's frankly uncivil at this point and, while I am someone who generally enjoys wading through discussions and writing closing summaries of complex RfCs, this sort of uncivil behavior towards an uninvolved closer that stems from a content dispute in which SPECIFICO is a party has driven me here to request that the user be given a final warning on civility and casting aspersions in the WP:AP2 topic area.

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I don't know how you are meatpuppeting the agenda of X user is to be read except to be an accusation that I am meatpuppeting. While I agree that an indef T-ban is excessive, I would still like an apology from the SPECIFICO for casting this aspersion against me and I would also like the user to be either given a final warning or to be put on civility parole. The rate at which these sorts of interactions occur in the AMPOL area are part of the reason that I have more hesitation when deciding to make RfC closures in the that area, even though I generally enjoy closing complex discussions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]; @SPECIFICO: I accept your apology. I agree that creating #58 was not optimal its initial phrasing, though as I've explained on the article talk page, the close was written in a way that made it clear that there was no affirmative consensus for Iamreallygoodatcheckers's sentence to be included as written. I am happy to see that editors were able to come to an agreement on the content dispute following the closure of the discussion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]; To echo Nableezy, I don't think that an AmPol topic ban is the most narrowly tailored solution here. Out of the top twenty pages Specifico has made edits to, the majority have involved edits related to American Politics. If the issue that administrators see is a civility issue, then I re-emphasize that the user should be given a final warning and placed on civility parole. This would allow for the editor to continue to make productive edits in the topic area, while also allowing for a mechanism to deter future issues with civility with clear enforcement mechanisms should civility remain an issue. A topic ban, however, seems to be a bit much at this point, especially given the editor's lack of any sort of sanction or logged warning in this topic area since 2020. The editor has made a good-faith apology here and I think the editor would be willing to make a good-faith effort to remain civil going forward. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

02:49, 10 May 2022

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

As I've said elsewhere, I stupidly misused the term "meatpuppeting", which I later looked up and learned did not apply to this situation. However, I explained in some detail the concerns I had about what I feel was OP's undue endorsement of Chex' viewpoint on this issue both in the RfC close and in OP's subsequent creation at Chex' request of a redundant "consensus 58" incorporating the (IMO) flaws of OP's close, when there was no new consensus. So if an apology will resolove this, Hawk you have my apology for using that term "meatpuppeting". SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from reading that Ernie says, w/o evidence that I'm "sneaky" and that North remembers something unspecified from a decade back, as does G, I am not seeing anything sanction-worthy or anything regrettable aside from my misuse of MEATPUPPET, for which I've abjectly apologized. Frankly, the closer and Chex were rather unresponsive to a direct concern about the content and their editing of it and I thought trying to identify my concern (which I bungled after Hawk doubled down) was a better move than tying up editor resources by requesting a close review on a minor matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope everyone here actually follows the links and reviews the threads that show the content dispute referenced by @CutePeach: so as to properly evaluate its relevance to this complaint. (BTW, yes, WSJ is a corporate affiliate of the NY Post and yes that is a matter of mainstream concern, e.g. [1] [2]. Thank you, SpaceX, for providing context to some of the other discussion here. It's good example of why the context needs to be independently researched by all of us reading noticeboard postings, and I hope all assertions in this thread will be similarly scrutinized by all who care. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimbade and El C: With due respect for your volunteer efforts, I am at a loss to see any documented basis for your repeated assertions that I am habitiually uncivil let alone that my contuing participation at AP articles is or would be disruptive to article content or talk page collaboration. We all presume you are not merely counting heads on this thread or taking at face value various assertions without thoroughly investigating the context. Checkers self-describes a young and inexperienced editor, so nobody should be surprised that he has at times been overly insistent on talk page threads in ways that have been pointed out to him by various editors, not just by me. I've given him some good advice on other modes of pursuing his views, and he has adopted some of what I'v'e told him in the past. In the present case, I would have hoped that you Admins looked on his talk page when he commented here. His misunderstanding of WP:TE and the confusion between Sealion and WP:Sealion that led to him mistakenly accusing me of attacking him have been fully hashed out. Yes when he was starting out here,he was IMO sealioning and tendentiously repeating views after they'd failed to achieve consusus. I advised him on that on at least two occasions and explained to him how he could use sitewide noticeboards like BLPN and Close Review to ensure that his views were fully considered. On the occasion he As I told him, I had no intention of reporting that for enforcement. I would be disappointed if either of you Admins, in light of the context, would conclude that going to his user talk to raise that issue away from the article pages was unusual or outside of WP norms or agree with his feeling that I was threatening him when I made a point of telling him I was not going to seek enforcement. Looking at that TE thread he cites in his comment below, please consider, Admins, whether you agree with his asssertion that I did not identify the TE, when I twice stated that it was due to his having gone to the article as soon as the RfC ended, to reintroduce the text for which his RfC sought and failed to get approval. It turned out later, evidently, that Checkers was not aware of the full text of [WP:TE which I then quoted to him on his talk page and for which he thanked me.

At any rate, after Hawk's complaint was amicably resolved between the two of us, this thread now appears to be turning to undocumented assertions of a serious ongoing problem. The two most active and experienced AP content editors who've commented have disagreed with that view. Of course Admins have the authority to sanction in the DS areas without waiting for an AE filing, but the community expects such actions to be based on documentation and reasoned evaluation. AE has been an acknowledged work in progress for the community, with Arbcom well into the second year of working on improvements. Along with the necessary sanctions on clearly bad actors, there have also been too many questionable decisions that have led to the retirement of some of our best content editors in the AP area after overly aggressive and poorly reasoned applications of DS.

Reflecting on the valid portion of the concerns raised here, I think it's clear that (due to IRL reasons and time pressures beyond the scope of this discussion) I have been too careless in my use of links as shorthand for specific complex issues. I misused WP:Sealion instead of Sealion. I referred to WP:TE to an editor who apparently was not fully aware of its text, and I misapplied WP:meatpuppet intending the incorrect meaning that's already been explained and now resolved. So If I were an Admin closing this thread, I would warn SPECIFICO not to rely on links on another user's talk page without also giving a detailed explanation of the issues and why I feel they apply. In my opinion that would be constructive advice worth giving and following. I don't expect to comment further unless I'm asked to respond to a question.. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick further comment concerning the participation of Mr Ernie here. Ernie was banned from participating at AE by @Sandstein: in this diff due to behavior similar to what he's done in this thread. Sandstein later granted Ernie's appeal based on Ernie's statements that he would not repeat such behavior and further that he did not even intend to participate at AE, here. Ernie regularly appears at various pages to support sanctions against me, but given the above, I was surprised to see him appear on this thread at AE, with off-topic disparagement ("sneaky") and the several comments about me and Assange. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers

I have been interacting with SPECIFICO for some time now (mainly at Talk:Donald Trump), and while much of it has been fine, I have definitely experienced some of SPECIFCO's uncivil behavior. I've usually tried to give them the benefit of the doubt and just ignore it, but their uncivil behavior has in fact caused me some deal of anxiety and frustration, which has created a toxic environment in areas surrounding American politics.

The following comments concern this discussion: User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers/Archive 2#WP:NPA at Trump talk. On March 4th they left an accusation on my talk page with no sort of evidence, such as diffs, accusing me of violation WP:NPA. I responded saying that I had done not such thing. In that same thread, Mr Ernie warned them about providing unevidenced allegations. SPECIFICO made no response to mine or Ernies comments. On March 6th, SPECFICO accused me of WP:Casting aspersions, this time providing this diff. [3] Now this is a response I had made on the Trump talk page after SPECIFICO had accused me of WP:SEALION, a redirect to WP:Civil POV pushing, here. [4] With this diff SPECIFICO, says that I casted aspersions and assuring the links (WP:SEALION and WP:Civil POV pushing) are not the same. Now these links very much are the same, just click them if you don't believe me. I and Mr. Ernie again told them to stop with the behavior and that SEALION is the same as Civil POV pushing. SPECIFICO only admitted they were wrong about SEALION and Civil POV pushing after Valjean explained to them that they did in fact cite WP:SEALION against me. However, SPECICIO continued to say that "the problem remained," and that I was sealioning from their understanding. They did not provide any evidence to back these allegations, a fact that is pointed out by Ernie in the discussion. I never have received any form of apology or comment striking (after my request) for SPECICO's false allegations against me of NPA. Relevant diffs: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

SPECICO has done this to me again just this week on my talk page (see User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers#WP:TE at Donald Trump). They accuse me with no evidence of any kind with WP:TE and "overly-insistent and POV editing at AP and BLP articles." They say they are "unlikely to do the work to document" my behavior, which I see as justification on their behalf of providing zero evidence. They also say my behavior is "worthy of a topic ban" in their view. I tell them to please stop with their behavior and that it's caused me stress and created a toxic environment. I have yet to receive any response from them. As detailed above by Mhawk, they have also accused me and Mhawk of meatpuppetting together, an allegation with no evidence. All this is WP:Casting aspersions and potentially WP:HOUND. Relevant diffs: [11] [12]

Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At SPECIFICO's request, I'm linking this discussion that provides further context on some of concerns above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

SPECIFICO violated DS at Julian Assange, another politically charged article, a few weeks ago. There is a section on their talk page with the details of that here. What I want to highlight is one of the reverts ([13]), removed content that was decided by RFC consensus just a few weeks ago, with SPECIFICO's participation. Note the RFC was required in part due to SPECIFICO's removal of the content before the RFC. Read the edit summary in the removal after RFC consensus - "NOTNEWS - not a significant fact about Assange No ongoing coverage in his life story." This is a sneaky move to remove content they simply just don't like, and SPECIFICO didn't seem interested to explain it in the linked discussion on their talk page. I don't think another final warning will do any good here - just check the sanction log. In addition to what the OP linked, SPECIFICO received a short topic ban from Joe Biden in 2020, a short topic ban from Julian Assange in 2020, a reminder and a warning in 2018, "Anti-Filibuster, Courtesy in reporting, No personal comments, and Thicker skin sanctions" in 2018, a restriction in 2017, and a warning in 2017. A standard AmPol2 topic ban should do, and I'll support the removal of it when SPECIFICO simply agrees to edit more collaboratively. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago SPECIFICO disputed content at Assange ([14], [15], [16]). There was a lengthy talk discussion which resulted in consensus for inclusion ([17]), but SPECIFICO insisted on an RFC in this section [18]. The RFC ran and concluded with consensus for inclusion, despite SPECIFICO canvassing noticeboards ([19] [20]) with a note disparaging participating editors. You can see the same type of behavior in my original post, with SPECIFICO forcing an RFC for content they don't like, and a few weeks after it closes with consensus SPECIFICO removes the content, again, ([21]) with a misleading edit summary. There are no reminders or warnings that have lead to any change in editing behavior in at least the last 8 years (noting NYB was on the Committee in the 2 cases linked below where SPECIFICO was sanctioned.) We've seen it over and over and over and over, disagreements on content that lead to personalizations of disputes. I don't understand why a preventative topic ban should not be imposed, which can easily be removed after an appeal by SPECIFICO addressing the issues that have been brought up. Another warning is easily ignored and requires no change of behavior. I urge consideration of a topic ban at least at Assange if there is no appetite for an overall AP one. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is more time needed before this can be closed? Or more diffs, or what? It's been more than a week, with 5 admins in favor of a sanction of some sorts and 2 who are not. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th (SPECIFICO)

I don't have much to add, only that I believe this ds/alert issued by SPECIFICO could be construed as reactive to the content dispute between SPECIFICO and Mhawk10. Also from what I can tell, the 1RR/24-hour BRD page restriction point is erroneous with respect to Talk:Donald Trump, as having checked the enforcement log entry that sanction only applies (as far as I can see) to the main article and not the associated article talk pages. From what I've seen elsewhere in the enforcement log, when an article and its talk page is subject to sanctions there is usually some text like Article Name and its associated talk page which is absent in this log entry. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Space4Time3Continuum2x

Seems like a spat arising from a content dispute between two of the most active editors on Donald Trump that could and should be settled among the editors involved. (The content dispute appears to have been solved for now, with none of us getting our preferred versions.) Meatpuppeting — I don’t think that applies, but the term seems to be directed more against Iamreallygoodatcheckers than Mhawk10 who got caught in the middle of the dispute. The suggested indefinite topic ban from American politics seems over the top. I don’t see the relevance of two sanctions in other areas eight years ago, or how this is worse than this incident of disruptive behavior which resulted in zero action. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding context to the warning on June 3, 2018, FWIW. I doubt that any editor other than Winkelvi would have taken that interaction to the noticeboard after a discussion lasting exactly one hour (well, maybe D. Creish, banned from all Wikimedia sites since March 2019 and one of the other editors involved in the edits from this one to this one, would have). Winkelvi racked up 13 blocks between 2014 and 2018, including an indefinite one in November 2018. Their request to unblock was denied in 2019. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CutePeach: FYI: The Wall Street Journal, through its parent company Dow Jones & Co., and the NY Post, through its parent company NYP Holdings, are owned by the same third party, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. That makes them affiliates. A few sources explaining "affiliates": [22], [23], [24], [25]. Whether or not that needed to go into the article and whether or not it was sourced or needed to be sourced is a different matter but that's been taken care of through normal editing by several editors at least eight months ago. Apropos bias, this, really? Three sketchy sources reporting on a story in the Daily Mail (it's on WP's deprecated sources list) and a misquoted fourth source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CutePeach: If I had been involved in that article, I would have immediately challenged, i.e., removed, the section on not one, but two opinion pieces written by a member of the WSJ editorial board, citing WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV. The WSJ editorial board is well-known for its right-wing political stance, and their news side has been upset about it for years (CJR, NYM). The statement that the WSJ is a NY Post affiliate was unsourced but challenged material is removed from WP all the time through normal editing. Hushed-up — seems to me that there was plenty of coverage, just not the 2016-kind hoped for by Bannon researcher Maxey, Giuliani, and the NY Post, the immensely reliable parties involved in the lack of a "clean chain of custody" (WaPo). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

I agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x that an indef topic ban is way over the top, and such old incidents should not be entered as evidence. The real issue is civility, and a warning is justified. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support the concerns from Mhawk10 and Nableezy. An AmPol topic ban is over-the-top, whereas a civility parole would deal with the real problem. Considering the apology has been accepted, we're in a situation that amounts to the police dropping all charges, but the judge still issuing a death sentence, rather than a fine (a civility parole). One should also keep in mind that previous accusations made by one of the most tendentious editors we've seen in the AmPol area, who has been banned, should not be counted against SPECIFICO. We should never side with the bad faith accusations from such people. Being attacked by such a person is a badge of honor that shows that SPECIFICO must have been doing something right, rather than wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

I've not had interactions since many many years ago. But back then was similar to the above. Including IMO false accusations as a tactic in AP debates. Something to lessen the grief for other editors and help SPECIFICO Wiki-evolve would be good. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A statement to sincerely work towards a goal of always wearing a wiki-hat (not pov-hat) first when working at articles, and being sure to only make firmly justified complaints about editors (never ginned up as a tactic in debates) would be cool and maybe set a course for a more fun future. With no implication that those negative things occurred, and just a goal so that it doesn't create a minefield for SPECIFICO. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

FWIW what exactly is an AP topic ban? I assuming it's American politics. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Theres been an apology, the apology has been accepted, the person who requested sanctions says an indef topic ban is over the top, but thats what is seriously being discussed below. That is the cause of this complaint has been resolved according to the person who opened it, and they say the proposed sanction even prior to the apology was overkill, and yet that appears to be what yall going to settle on. Seems a bit extreme. Just a wee bit. nableezy - 20:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel like a two week turnaround time is pushing it here. nableezy - 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CutePeach

I encountered SPECIFICO when I created Hunter Biden laptop controversy to separate the issue from the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory article, and I was less than impressed with this editor's deletion of WP:DUE content [26] [27] [28] - while an AFD was ongoing [29]. I found SPECIFICO's interpretation of WP:BLP and WP:NOR to be highly egregious in the TP discussions [30], and they led to the deletion of the page, which has since been restored. Furthermore, their repeated attempts to call WSJ an "affiliate" of NY Post and TP arguments to put this unsourced allegation in wikivoice - was not only a violation of WP:NOR, but also WP:RS. I refuse to believe that an editor as experienced as SPECIFICO was unaware then, as he seemingly is now, of such core policies and how they are applied. As harsh as the topic ban may seem, I think this incident and those mentioned by Mhawk10 and Mr Ernie, show that this editor is unable to leave their POV at the door when editing AP articles. I think an indef topic ban from AP may be what is required to communicate to experienced editors that such conduct can and will be sanctioned. As a valued member of the community, I'm sure SPECIFICO's appeal will be accepted after six months. CutePeach (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope everyone here does reads the links I referenced, as SPECIFICO advises, since they show a flagrant violation of WP:NOR in order to WP:PUSH a POV about the Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post article SPECIFICO now references to justify the allegation they put in Wikivoice - that the WSJ is an affiliate of the New York Post [31] - is not only a violation of WP:NOR, but also WP:SYNTH. I completely agree with the WaPo article about the WSJ pushing the letters-to-the-editor boundary, but it has nothing to do with the Hunter Biden laptop saga,and it does not call into question the WSJ's editorial independence. SPECIFICO's position on Hunter Biden laptop controversy page, just like their position on the Julian Assange page, was widely opposed, yet they went against it - and continue to justify it. As I previously stated, this demonstrates that the editor is unable to edit without including their unsourced POV, and this warrants sanctions, or at least a logged warning - to prevent this from happening again. If admins Newyorkbrad, Bishonen and Seraphimblade are just going to let this slide, then this is evidence of administrators enabling the Ideological bias on Wikipedia through selective enforcement of WP:PAGs, which can be cited in a WP:ARBCOM case request on this matter. I will be interested to observe how administrators enforce policy with editors from the other side of the aisle facing the same charges. CutePeach (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I am well aware that The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post both belong to Newcorp, making them affiliates by any dictionary definition, but that is not the issue. The WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems were in the way SPECIFICO presented their unsourced claim to discredit a WSJ editorial board member criticizing the media's lacklustre coverage of the controversy. SPECIFICO violated WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in three ways: 1) claiming in Wikivoice that what the WSJ editorial alleged was but a Fox News allegation, [32], 2) injecting the insourced affiliation claim in Wikivoice to temper the Jenkins criticism [33], and 3) deleting the section entirely [34]. As I've said before, I personally don't believe there to be anything very nefarious in the Hunter Biden's laptop/s, but the way the media hushed it up only fanned the flames of controversy, and efforts like SPECIFICO's attempts to confound this controversy with the conspiracy theory have damaged Wikipedia's credibility on the subject. The VanityFair article they rely on for the affiliate claim cannot be used for any statements of fact in our voice, [35] and it had no bearing on the Jenkins oped, which came out months later. To claim that WSJ editorial board isn't independent of its proprietorship is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that needs very robust sourcing, and SPECIFICO should have known better. If they persist with these shenanigans, we are going to be right back here, and very soon. CutePeach (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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

Beyond what Mr Ernie and Mhawk10 mentioned, SPECIFICO was sanctioned in Austrian economics and mentioned in Interactions at GGTF (both in 2014). It is clear to me that the only path forward is an indef topic ban from AP. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can move forward without any action, but I have a strong feeling that we will be back here having this very same discussion in a few months -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ban isn't the cure. In fact, since DS should only be used when regular sanctions aren't sufficient, I don't see a need for DS sanctions at all, since civility is the issue, and it is an ongoing issue everywhere, not just in AP2. It's not a daily thing, but the civility issue has cropped up a few times over the last year. I think something needs to happen, but in a general way, as the issue transcends AP2 and is wiki-wide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see the long-term pattern being around things that can be connected to AP in one way or another -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are confident it does tie to AP and a tban is warranted, I understand, however, I still think starting with an indef is a bit harsh for a pattern of incivility issues that (individually) has been insufficient to warrant a block. I DO agree that something needs to be done, not for this single incident, but for the pattern that has evolved over the last year. Frankly, I was thinking a 30 day block, but a 6 month tban may work. SPECIFICO has been here awhile, long enough to know better, but has also done some worthwhile work. I'm willing to defer here, but prefer something shorter than indef. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still of the mind that a short block could be warranted, but I still can't see an indef tban as the best solution. Arguably, it is already settled and no sanction is required, but if the consensus is to sanction, a block is the only thing that really makes sense to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I admit I'm not terribly active on AP so it's taken me several days to dig through the background here, however, insofar as I read the history I'm inclined to agree with Guerillero on the utility and justifiability of an indef TBAN. Working our way up from 30- to 90- to 180-days, etc., would be punitive in my estimation by meting out a "sentence" in the absence an objective reason to believe a specific time period is necessary. An indefinite ban merely acknowledges this is a protective, not a judicial, measure and the editor can freely request to have it lifted at any time in the future, whether that's next week or next year. Chetsford (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with @Guerillero and Chetsford: indef AP TBAN is probably best at this point. Dennis Brown, similarly to Guerillero, in my experience, AP has been the nexus behind most problems concerning SPECIFICO. But I could also see myself supporting a well thought out appeal in, say, 6 months. Also, similarly to Chetsford (and for similar reasoning), I am generally opposed to TBANs that have a precise expiration, which of course has nothing to do with SPECIFICO themselves. El_C 19:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've about reached the point here where we can say that warnings have ~~not~~ been ineffective, and so some action is needed. It seems the general consensus is for an AP topic ban, and I would agree to that. I do not generally like time-limited topic bans for the reason given above, though in this case I would certainly be willing to consider an appeal after some time has passed; "indefinite" need not mean "permanent". I do not agree with the above that, since other editors are uncivil, we should not do anything about individual editors who are being uncivil—indeed, perhaps if enforcement were more frequently done, we would start seeing that practice curbed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will, with some reluctance, agree to not imposing a topic ban at this point, given that the issue has been resolved. However, I will entirely endorse what Newyorkbrad had to say regarding the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Although SPECIFICO should be more cautious about her use of wiki-speak in making accusations, and better still should just stop making accusations against other editors period, I cannot agree that a topic-ban is warranted resulting from this incident, which has been resolved to the satisfaction of the editor who filed the report. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @SPECIFICO: If you are not topic-banned at this time (the outcome is not yet determined), please conduct yourself going-forward in a way that doesn't lead to your being well-groundedly brought back here, because the result next time might well be different. We have several experienced administrators above opining that you should be excused from the American politics topic-area based on the accumulation of prior incidents, and while I currently disagree with them, it's understandable why they might feel that way. Please do your best from now on to stay away from even the borderline of what might be considered personal attacks or accusations. At times this is best achieved by stepping away from the keyboard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Newyorkbrad. Bishonen | tålk 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I think that this can be closed with a formal warning to SPECIFICO to be careful going forwards with regards to (a) their general civility on Wikipedia, and (b) the American politics topic area. If there are future issues regarding either then there is a very high likelihood that formal sanctions, such as an indefinite topic ban, will be the result. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Director of Editing and New Content

Director of Editing and New Content blocked indef (with TPA revoked) as a normal admin action. El_C 19:19, 23 May 2022 (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 Director of Editing and New Content

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Director of Editing and New Content (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:A/I/PIA

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

18:25, 16 May 2022 new editor adds hospital as being in "Israel" (hospital is located in area occupied by Israel since 1967)
23:50, 16 May 2022 same
18:30, 17 May 2022 same
05:56, 19 May 2022 same
02:19, 20 May 2022 same
06:54, 22 May 2022 same

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

none (new editor)

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

Alert given 22:23, 18 May 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

New editor (with less that 500 edits) edit-wars to say that hospital in the Israeli-occupied areas is "in Israel". They removes alert I gave them, when I gave them a "last warning", they removed that, too. They obviously are not listening to me, perhaps they will listen to admins? Huldra (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Director of Editing and New Content

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 Director of Editing and New Content

Statement by Selfstudier

Account is blocked now anyway (username vio). Selfstudier (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Orangemike

After being blocked as a role account (a job title is not an acceptable username), user "responded" by deleting the block notice, as well as prior warning content. I then revoked talk page access. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Director of Editing and New Content

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

Abrvagl

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 Abrvagl

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abrvagl (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:ARBAA2

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

14 April 2022 removes sourced information from lead
16 April 2022 removes sourced information from lead
29 April 2022 removes sourced information from lead
22 May 2022 removes sourced information from lead

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 26 January 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Abrvagl repeatedly tries to remove the 2020 Ganja missile attacks being a response for the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert from the lead, despite there being multiple sources confirming this, as has been explained to Abrvagl many time on the talk page.

Abrvagl also tries to add expressions of MOS:DOUBT further down in the article by writing, "According the Armenian sources, Ganja was hit in response to...". Eurasianet is clearly not an Armenian source, and the article leaves no doubt about what Abrvagl is trying to dispute: "The conflict zone in the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to expand, as Azerbaijani forces have hit the de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, and Armenian forces responded by hitting Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, Ganja."[36].

The constant WP:SEALIONING of the issue on the talk page, edit-wars, and refusal to drop the stick (doing the same WP:TENDENTIOUS edit even after a month) leaves me no choice but to bring this to AE's attention. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what in the hell was this 7000+byte wall of text? For now, I'll just address these accusations against me.

ZaniGiovanni previously was warned/banned for edit-wars [58] and personal attacks[59][60]. I observe the same behaviour against me:

You're literally showing my first block when I registered here a year ago and a 72hour block, in an AE case against you, in an attempt to achieve something / browbeat me? I'm so confused.

1. 17:21 I did revert as no consensus was reached. 9 minutes later, at 17:30 uninvolved Zani created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text, where he blamed me edit-wars and disruptive editing.

And you were edit-warring and being disruptive, not that it's the first time. That talk consensus is still against you btw, Talk:Melik_Haykaz_Palace#Azerbaijani_sources_refer.

2. Here, I raised issue, as material is not anti-sentiment related. I tried to reach a consensus, but Zani responded: You need to finally read that policy and understand that Wikipedia is not a repository for bullshit.

Honestly, this is getting ridiculous. You pick one of my comments, no not even a comment, part of my comment from an overall discussion and present in an AE case against you for what purpose exactly? Do you think I'm going to walk away my statment or something? Yeah, Wikipedia isn't a repository for bullshit and I made my reference clear in the full comment (hint: extremely undue gov claim).

ZaniGiovanni shadows me and challenges edits without solid justification. I put efforts to reach consensus, but it mostly ends with him ignoring or me taking obvious edits to the dispute resolution boards. Here [61] Zani argued against the simple BLP issue. Continued to argue even after BLPN[62]. He stopped only after warned[63]

Another example of god knows what that you already showed in ANI against me that resulted in nothing Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092#User:_ZaniGiovanni. I'm not even going to answer this again. If anyone is interested, please check my first comment in that thread (5th point).

Here [64] is another example, where I provided detailed explanation, Zani replied with irrelevant comment and ignoring me since then, although I reminded him a number of times.

Nobody is interested in your baseless opinions about random talk discussions in here, you need to understand that. I don't plan to reply to every WP:CRUSH comment, and I explained myself pretty clearly in my last comment. You even brought that source in RSN 3 days ago Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Hyperallergic, what is the relevance of it here? Are you just throwing as much pile at me as possible at this point?

Here[65] many editors reached a consensus, but due to Zani this simple edit went through DRN[66] and RfC[67]. Zani never commented to RFC, which supports position of majotiry

What the actual f*ck is happening, what is this essay of rants even suppose to mean? There was a discussion, Abrvagl opened a DRN about it [37] and it resulted in an RfC [38]. Now what are you trying to say again, that I MUST comment in that RfC? To be honest, I'm not interested about that discussion anymore and consensus seems to be formed in that RfC. Now why is this something weirdly being brought up against me, hello?

Tbh I feel like gaslighted by all of these rants against me when I simply showed tendentious edits / edit-wars of Abrvagl and wanted to see a simple and valid explanation. Instead, I received absolute nonsense rants against me in a browbeat attempt and belittling of the actual report against Abrvagl, more than half of those rants were already tried and failed in the past. This editor is too nationalistic for AA topic area, like other editors have also suggested (diff1, diff2, diff3). This rant by them is just another sentiment to it. Sorry for the long comment, most of it was just replies to this slanderous nonsense against me. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address the underwhelming explanations by Abrvagl now:

The statement was added by banned[42] user Steverci. Diff:[43]. Steverci added the statement without consensus: RfC and DnR.

Gross misinterpretation of events. Looking at the RfC, it had no consensus against or for anything, it was literally closed as "Consensus is that this RfC did not conform to WP:RFCNEUTRAL"[39]. This doesn't prohibit users to edit the article (btw a user's ban after 7 fucking months of that edit doesn't mean anything, another attempt to belittle something you disagree with) and has nothing to do with the stable version of the article for more than a year that you changed without consensus and edit-warred over a month.

Everything you show below is your attempts of overwriting stable version of the article without any achieved consensus. On their last revert, Abrvagl is casting doubt on a third-party source and attributing statement from it to "Armenian sources" [40]. Clear example of WP:TENDENTIOUS edit and this user's continual disruption of the article.

The majority of reports didnot claim that Ganja was bombarded specifically in response to Stepenakert bombardment and cherripicking a single source and presenting it as fact is a violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral.

This doesn't even make sense. Do you have a source disputing Eurasianet? The article makes it very clear that 2020 Ganja missile attacks was a response to 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert, "The conflict zone in the fighting between Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to expand, as Azerbaijani forces have hit the de facto capital of Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, and Armenian forces responded by hitting Azerbaijan’s second-largest city, Ganja.", and you have been explained this many times in the talk discussion. Third party user in talk also disagrees with you [41].

Your misinterpretation of events and unreasonable justifications for your edit-wars and reverts of stable version aren't convincing. Coupled with the groundless and disgusting rant you posted against me below this "explanation", which btw counts as a personal attack just like all baseless rants/accusations do, I firmly believe that this user isn't qualified to edit in a very contentious topic area like AA2. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Abrvagl

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 Abrvagl

I NEVER removed sourced information.

1.14 April 2022[42][43] I rephrased the statement. Reverted by ZaniGiovanni[44].

2.16 April 2022, I reviewed the case in details, and identified following:

- The statement was added by banned[45] user Steverci. Diff:[46]. Steverci added the statement without consensus: RfC and DnR.

- Provided sources didnot support the statement. All sources are either primary or just quotes primary sources. The statement is WP:SYNTH and not in line with WP:NPOV.

Considering the above, I removed the statement, and in detail explained myself on the talk-page[47]. Zani replied [48], but his reply was ignoring my points. So I wrote even more detailed explanation for him [49]. Number of times I tried to get solid justifications and answers to my concerns from the Zani [50] [51] [52], but Zani continued repeating The Armenian sources said it was a response to the Stepanakert shelling, and third party sources covered what the Armenian sources said although I had proved that opposite. Then Zani started ignoring me, and discussions stopped.

3. On 29 April 2022[53] I reviewed case again, ensured that statement definitely violates Wikipedia policies, and removed it again. On 30 April 2022 ZaniReverted edit[54].

4. On 31 April 2022[55] ZaniGiovanni added new source. As new source was supporting the statement partially, I proposed a consensus[56], but Zani ignored me for 3 weeks.

5. On 22 May 2022 I rephrased the statement in line with WP:OR and WP:NPOV and according to last source provided by Zani, in order to reach consensus. Also removed unrelated sources[57]. I left a note on the talk-page[58]. I attributed it to Armenian sources, as an article in the body referring to the Armenian sources.

Then I was going to take it to the NPOV/noticeboard because experts who conducted investigation do not support above statement HRW Amnesty. The majority of reports didnot claim that Ganja was bombarded specifically in response to Stepenakert bombardment and cherripicking a single source and presenting it as fact is a violation of WP:WEIGHT/WP:Neutral.

ZaniGiovanni previously was warned/banned for edit-wars [59] and personal attacks[60][61]. I observe the same behaviour against me:

1. 17:21 I did revert as no consensus was reached. 9 minutes later, at 17:30 uninvolved Zani created a topic on talk-page with +1,879 bytes of text, where he blamed me edit-wars and disruptive editing.

2. Here, I raised issue, as material is not anti-sentiment related. I tried to reach a consensus, but Zani responded: You need to finally read that policy and understand that Wikipedia is not a repository for bullshit.

ZaniGiovanni shadows me and challenges edits without solid justification. I put efforts to reach consensus, but it mostly ends with him ignoring or me taking obvious edits to the dispute resolution boards. Here [62] Zani argued against the simple BLP issue. Continued to argue even after BLPN[63]. He stopped only after warned[64]. Here [65] is another example, where I provided detailed explanation, Zani replied with irrelevant comment and ignoring me since then, although I reminded him a number of times. Here[66] many editors reached a consensus, but due to Zani this simple edit went through DRN[67] and RfC[68]. Zani never commented to RFC, which supports position of majotiry.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Abrvagl

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

RuudVanClerk

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 RuudVanClerk

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Uanfala (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups

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

RuudVanClerk makes content contributions where the sources consistently fail verification, and whenever the issues are brought up their responses have ranged from deflection to gaslighting.

In this edit RuudVanClerk added a reference to Aparna Rao's 1982 book, which is – conveniently – out of print, held by very few libraries, and in a language that not many people in this topic area can read. Unluckily for them, I was able to access a copy of the book and found out it doesn't have anything remotely resembling the statement they were using it to support. When I brought this up on their talk page, their reply didn't address or even acknowledge the problem [69]. They further stated that they have a copy of the book in question, but when I asked them for quotes, their only response was to promptly blank the entire talk page section [70]. All of that was part of the wider disruption they were causing at Peripatetic groups of Afghanistan (I will provide more details if anyone would like to see them.)

I've also checked a few of RuudVanClerk's other content additions and all have had verifiability problems at various levels of severity. Here are a few examples:

Several edits between 7 and 18 May at the Dhan Singh article (examples: [71] [72]), which introduced OR and misrepresented the source: this is explained in this talk post
Several edits to the Khatri article from 14 May: completely failed verification, see talk page post
16 May addition to the Bengal Sultanate article [73] where half of the significant claims are not supported by the source cited (talk post)
17 May addition to the Sikhism in Italy article [74] (if you'd like to spot-check a single example, this should be it: the source is very short and freely available online, and it's easy to see how it's been misused) – instances of OR and source misrepresentation (see talk post).

These are not just the mistakes of a new editor who's still learning the ropes here. As can be seen from their participation in discussions, RuudVanClerk themself always repeats the need for sticking to the sources. I suspect this discrepancy isn't due to CIR so much as to POV. The vast majority of their edits are to do with either the Rajputs, or their antagonistic groups. Invariably, the former are cast in a positive light (the Bengal Sultanate edit above involved the plugging of a minor episode of Rajput glory), while the latter are presented in negative terms (among the examples above: the Afghanistan peripatetics case was part of their push to insert the word "Jat" into the title of this article about a stigmatised social category; the other two involved adding negative content about Sikhs and about a Gujjar).

In an effort to keep this report brief, I've kept only the most illustrative events. I'll be happy to provide more context and further diffs if necessary.

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

Alerted in April [75].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[76].

Discussion concerning RuudVanClerk

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 RuudVanClerk

(Typing on phone so may be a bit jumbled so do excuse me)

The evidence for arbitration enforce is quite weak. In relation to the first point relating to the article, Peripatetic groups of Afghanistan, the Aparna Rao source itself actually uses Jat in the title itself hence the reason I was in favour of changing the article title. Note the book name: ^ Rao, Aparna (1982). Les Gorbat d'Afghanistan : aspects economiques d'un groupe itinerant "Jat". Editions Recherche sur les civilisations

Rather than disrupting the article when the editor reverted the name, I actually attempted to get a third party to mediate the dispute, see here: [77]

In relation to the Bengal Sultanate claim, how is adding a small paragraph with a source disruptive in any way? It’s a different matter if it’s not reliable but that should be taken to the reliable sources noticeboard.

In relation to the Dhan Singh article, the source literally says that he possibly incited rioters and looters. In fact following our discussion I actually added possibly to reflect that: [[78]]

Your accusations of me glorifying Rajputs are comical but unfortunately also a personal attack on myself. Most of my edits do not even concern Rajputs. You just seem unhappy with my edits but unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is an environment where people will inevitably have differing opinions and it is important that you come to terms with that.RuudVanClerk (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that a lot of your points are quite general almost like you are trying to pull the wool over the admins eyes. Can you detail what exactly is wrong with this edit on Sikhism in Italy:

[[79]]

How does this relate to me being a supposedly being a “Rajput supremacist”.RuudVanClerk (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen Will need my French translator tool for the Aparna Rao quote. Please ping me if that is not provided in 24 hours as I am off work tomorrow so will get it done. In relation to Dhan Singh, Uanfala has already provided that quote here:[80]. I will post again as you have unfortunately missed it:

It thus appeared that [Dhan Singh] had informed his fellow Gujars of the outbreak, perhaps even encouraging them to plunder, and now his loyalties were divided

Can you detail how adding this is POV. Can you also detail how adding this is POV. What is my POV, how does this benefit my POV? What does “however difficult” in the beginning meant to imply? I hope no one has joined this discussion with preconceived notions just because one editor has been editing for a longer period. That would be very unfortunate RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further to this @Bishonen, can you detail how changing the title to Jat is POV? An entire encyclopaedia Iranica article uses the term Jat:

[81]

Aparna Rao’s own work uses it in its title. Is the late Aparna Rao and Encyclopedia Iranica in league with Rajput supremacists like myself to denigrate others? I merely thought it was right to change it and when challenged requested comments. After that, I subsequently left the issue. I hope I am not being witch hunted here, I would requested other admins to get involved now. This is seriously affecting my mental health which is not what Wikipedia is supposed to do.. RuudVanClerk (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abecedare: @Utcursch: @Ad Orientem: Pinging other admins as well for further opinions. Not sure if against the rules to do this, please delete if not.

The crux of the issue is that Bishonen and Uanfala have taken particular issue with two of my edits. One which I have already proven here ([82]) is supported by a source. And another which I will endeavour to post the quote of soon. At the very most this is a content dispute however they are accusing/implying that it is POV. Do these edits support the view that it is POV? RuudVanClerk (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes are here.

The quotes in question as requested. Actually located on page 32 instead of 83 (apologies):

“S’aplliquent donc a au moins six groupes [Baluc, Gorbat, Jalali, Pikraj, Sadibaz, Vangawala] qui se distinguent les uns des autres autant par leurs metiers que par leur langue et par leur origne… Bref le term “Jat”, serait un ethnonyme impose”

For those that don’t speak French, they detail the various groups that are termed as Jat including the Baluch, Gorbat, Sadibaz etc. near the end of the extract, the clear use of the word Jat is seen hence my logic in including the word, JAT.

Further down on the same page:

“distingue six groupes jat dispersés dans tout le pays . Si tous ne sont pas d'origine indienne ( les Ghorbat , par exemple…”

The author here clearly mentions that these groups are considered by locals to be of Indian-origin implying a relationship with the Jats of the Indian Subcontinent (detailed under Jat people on Wikipedia).

Now many of you may be saying oh it’s in French, we can’t take it seriously but alas, English language commentary on Rao’s work also corroborates this. See here the Encyclopaedia Iranica article ([83]). The quote on this article reads as follows:

“Aparna Rao (2004) lists four general features of the Jāt noted by outsiders to differentiate them from other nomadic and semi-nomadic communities in Afghanistan: (1) They lived in houses in urban areas and in white tents when they lived in rural areas and, in contrast to the black goat’s hair tents of the pastoral nomads, in white tents when they lived in rural areas; (2) they were collectively known as outsiders with Indian origins even though a Jāt community itself, as in the case of the Ḡorbat, would claim Iranian roots; (3) they were considered both physically and ritually unclean and associated with undesirable and polluting occupations of feeding on carrion and corpses, bloodletting, prostitution, pimping, and child-abduction; (4) their small and dark physical features validated their Indian, non-Afghan, origins.”

Here it states clearly in English that Rao says that they are viewed as having Indian Jat origin.

Now I am not here to argue that the article should be changed as clearly Uanfala knows how to game the system to his advantage and being a long-time editor he is probably on good terms with the administrators as well. No, I am demonstrating here that my edits are justified and NOT POV as many other people would also interpret the above in the same way. Now I expect due to me not paying obeisance to an Admin but challenging their point, I will probably be banned or sanctioned on some ground of “using the wrong page number” or “slight misspelling” but what I have demonstrated here is that my view was justified and not part of some defamatory and juvenile accusation of Rajput supremacy or whatever. RuudVanClerk (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning RuudVanClerk

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

Re Rao's book being "conveniently" out of print, please assume good faith even when it's difficult, Uanfala. That said, RVC's evasiveness when you told them the given page in the book (page 83) didn't verify the text is highly suspicious; at best, it's failure to discuss in a collegial way, at worst it's, well, just evasive. RuudVanClerk, this section on your page together with your removal of it with aggressive edit summaries and reverts at the article throws a very bad light on you. Please provide the requested quotes here and now, before you edit anywhere else, or I will indeed sanction you for misuse of "sources". Your post above, handwaving at the title of Rao's book, is not useful for this purpose. The same goes for this edit, which Uanfala also tried to discuss on both the article page and your talkpage, where you added unsourced and controversial text in such a way that it looked sourced. I could accept that that was an innocent mistake, if you had provided a source when asked for it; but that didn't happen. Again, please provide a quote from the source that directly supports the text "by looting the offices and homes of East India Company officials". These things, as well as others enumerated by Uanfala above, look deceptive. And, just as Uanfala says, they look like a POV issue rather than a competence issue. Is that just appearance? Now is your chance to show that it is, by providing the quotes I'm requesting. Bishonen | tålk 16:54, 24 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Re RuudVanClerk's piecemeal reply to me above, [84][85][86][87]: What "French translator tool" is that? Is there anything wrong with Google Translate? That definitely doesn't take 24 hours to access; just click on the link and you're there. Is that how you yourself read the book, via a "translator tool"? Because you needn't translate anything on my account; French is fine, that's what we want, as Abecedare also emphasises below. Your attempts to change the subject and interrogate me aren't doing you any good, you know. Just please provide the quotations I've asked for. And no, I didn't "unfortunately miss" the quotation "It thus appeared that [Dhan Singh] had informed his fellow Gujars of the outbreak, perhaps even encouraging them to plunder, and now his loyalties were divided". That is discussed here, where Uanfala explains, in what I consider a convincing way, that it does not support the POV text you added. You'll have to do better. In view of Uanfala's diffs, as well as RVC's evasive replies to me here, I'm more and more inclined to go with an indefinite block as a regular admin action. Bishonen | tålk 21:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

(responding to ping) I haven't had time to examine all the evidence yet but to start with, I second Bishonen's request for Ruud to provide the (original French) quote from pg 83 of Rao's book that supports the statement they had cited it for. Abecedare (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&diff=843502722&oldid=843501405

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPECIFICO&diff=843504249&oldid=843437894

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 361: / Line 361: @@
 *:::{{ping|Abecedare}} {{ping|Utcursch}} {{ping|Ad Orientem}} Pinging other admins as well for further opinions. Not sure if against the rules to do this, please delete if not.
 *:::The crux of the issue is that Bishonen and Uanfala have taken particular issue with two of my edits. One which I have already proven here ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1089594026&oldid=1089585541]) is supported by a source. And another which I will endeavour to post the quote of soon. At the very most this is a content dispute however they are accusing/implying that it is POV. Do these edits support the view that it is POV? [[User:RuudVanClerk|RuudVanClerk]] ([[User talk:RuudVanClerk|talk]]) 19:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
+*::::The quotes are here.
+*::::The quotes in question as requested. Actually located on page 32 instead of 83 (apologies):
+*::::“S’aplliquent donc a au moins six groupes [Baluc, Gorbat, Jalali, Pikraj, Sadibaz, Vangawala] qui se distinguent les uns des autres autant par leurs metiers que par leur langue et par leur origne… Bref le term “Jat”, serait un ethnonyme impose”
+*::::For those that don’t speak French, they detail the various groups that are termed as Jat including the Baluch, Gorbat, Sadibaz etc. near the end of the extract, the clear use of the word Jat is seen hence my logic in including the word, JAT.
+*::::Further down on the same page:
+*::::“distingue six groupes jat dispersés dans tout le pays . Si tous ne sont pas d'origine indienne ( les Ghorbat , par exemple…”
+*::::The author here clearly mentions that these groups are considered by locals to be of Indian-origin implying a relationship with the Jats of the Indian Subcontinent (detailed under  [[Jat people]] on Wikipedia).
+*::::Now many of you may be saying oh it’s in French, we can’t take it seriously but alas, English language commentary on Rao’s work also corroborates this. See here the Encyclopaedia Iranica article ([https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/jat]). The quote on this article reads as follows:
+*::::“Aparna Rao (2004) lists four general features of the Jāt noted by outsiders to differentiate them from other nomadic and semi-nomadic communities in Afghanistan: (1) They lived in houses in urban areas and in white tents when they lived in rural areas and, in contrast to the black goat’s hair tents of the pastoral nomads, in white tents when they lived in rural areas; (2) they were collectively known as outsiders with Indian origins even though a Jāt community itself, as in the case of the Ḡorbat, would claim Iranian roots; (3) they were considered both physically and ritually unclean and associated with undesirable and polluting occupations of feeding on carrion and corpses, bloodletting, prostitution, pimping, and child-abduction; (4) their small and dark physical features validated their Indian, non-Afghan, origins.”
+*::::Here it states clearly in English that Rao says that they are viewed as having Indian Jat origin.
+*::::Now I am not here to argue that the article should be changed as clearly Uanfala knows how to game the system to his advantage and being a long-time editor he is probably on good terms with the administrators as well. No, I am demonstrating here that my edits are justified and NOT POV as many other people would also interpret the above in the same way. Now I expect due to me not paying obeisance to an Admin but challenging their point, I will probably be banned or sanctioned on some ground of “using the wrong page number” or “slight misspelling” but what I have demonstrated here is that my view was justified and not part of some defamatory and juvenile accusation of Rajput supremacy or whatever. [[User:RuudVanClerk|RuudVanClerk]] ([[User talk:RuudVanClerk|talk]]) 21:15, 24 May 2022 (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