Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Marcelus

Marcelus's AE block replaced with indefinite 0RR per the consensus of uninvolved admins. Piotrus has also volunteered to mentor Marcelus which was agreed between them on Marcelus's talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 27 September 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 Marcelus

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Prodraxis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Marcelus (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:DIGWUREN WP:CTOP WP:1RR [1]

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

[2] Marcelus reverts Cukrakalnis' removal of Povilas Plechavicius's Polish name (Cukrakalnis' edit: [3])
[4] Marcelus' second revert within 24hrs following Cukrakalnis' revert of Marcelus (Cukrakalnis' edit: [5])

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[6] Previous AE, recieved a 0RR
[7] Successful 0RR appeal, which got downgraded to 1RR

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

[8]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The 0rr was previously downgraded to a 1rr before following a successful AN appeal [9]. I remember supporting his 0rr appeal as he previously seemed to understand the disruption caused by his editwarring in the past. I ran into him again while commenting on some WP:RM's (namely [10]), noticed his contributions and saw what looks like a 1rr evasion to me.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[11]

Additional statements by Prodraxis

I have no comment regarding the removal of the content itself per se, but am rather more concerned about the potential breach of the 1RR here. Also, regarding the previous report - at the time, I was less mature and less experienced and I am sorry for all disruption caused by said report, and it was made in haste without considering the full background of the situation. I'm not siding with anyone here, just that Marcelus may have broken his 1RR recently. As long as Marcelus self reverts and discusses on a Talk page or something further regarding the content without any more reverts I am OK for letting go without sanctions this time. #prodraxis ^connect 14:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ostalgia Yeah, a 2 way IBAN seems pretty reasonable here due to a past history of Cukrakalnis and Marcelus edit warring with each other, per both the diffs Cukrakalnis provided of Marcelus breaking his 1RR on Landsberg family and per those two ANEW reports which got both parties blocked before for edit warring [12] [13]. I think that Cukrakalnis getting some sort of revert restriction or turning Marcelus' 1RR to a 0RR again might also be a good idea due to the history of editwarring. #prodraxis ^connect 00:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin @Piotrus The mentorship proposal seems OK with me. As long as Marcelus stops edit warring everything else is fine. #prodraxis ^connect 00:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Marcelus

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 Marcelus

I am sorry that my edits were interpreted by Prodraxis as a violation of the rule, at the time of making them I had no such realization.

The first edition was simply a restoration of the well-sourced content ([14]) removed by Cukrakalnis. I immediately started a discussion about it on the C discussion page ([15]), since I didn't want it to turn into edit waring. Also, I immediately added a new source ([16]), since C had objections to one of the original two (that's why I didn't consider it revert). Then I added some more new content ([17]). C then removed the mention of the Polish name again, but giving again as the reason his objections to only one source - Tomaszewski 1999 ([18]). This seemed to me to be wrong and against the rules, so I restored the Polish name again with three sources, but did not restore the information that only Tomaszewski 1999 (objected by C) confirmed, that is, regarding the household language ([19]).

FYI: previous report on me by Prodraxis. Marcelus (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukrakalnis: The things you say about sources used by me do not prove that they are unreliable, but only that there is a difference between them and other sources. Besides, in many places this difference is non-existent: native language is not the same as the household language, identity can be mixed (not surprising in this region), his wife's identity poses difficulties, etc. Two things can be true at the same time. This is not the place to discuss sources and content, I'm just showing that your comments are largely unfounded, and the changes I've made do not cause conflict and are not based on unreliable sources.

As for the Landsbergs: why did you change these names without giving new sources or at least a reason? It looks like disruptive editing. Marcelus (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cukrakalnis

The edits by Marcelus were not at all well-sourced, which is why I removed them in the first place. As I made clear in my edits [20], [21], the sources used by Marcelus for the person's Polish name are not at all accurate or reliable when describing his private life, because they get:

1. the person's ethnicity wrong,

2. his native language wrong,

3. his wife's name wrong,

4. his wife's ethnicity wrong.

A Polish name does not belong in Plechavičius' article any more than the translation of his name in all of the other languages he knew (Latvian, Russian, German, French, etc.), but including all of them would be absurd considering that the person was a Lithuanian, so, obviously only his Lithuanian name should be there.

This is also not the first time that Marcelus has broken the 1RR since he was allowed to revert once after the appeal. He reverted twice in the article Landsberg family within the span of 24 hours: 22:41, 5 September 2023, 21:20, 6 September 2023.

Another possible case was in the article Mikołaj "the Red" Radziwiłł, where Marcelus reverted the same edit outside the span of 24 hours: 18:24, 19 August 2023, 05:55, 24 August 2023. I leave it up to the reader to decide whether this was an attempt to evade the 1RR.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: it is not true that I objected only to one of sources given by Marcelus, because certainly more than one had mistakes - T 1999 said his wife was Polish and gave the wrong name - which ruins its credibility for Plechavičius' private life; the P 2003 source called Plechavičius a "Polish aristocrat" when he wasn't - he had noble roots, but not in the Polish, but Lithuanian/Samogitian nobility, and was the son of a Lithuanian farmer. Either way, such flagrant mistakes discredit the use of such sources. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ostalgia

I think the sanction applied by Tamzin is proportional to the infraction, and just want to point out that this is the nth case involving Marcelus and Cukrakalnis. Given the huge overlap between Lithuanian and Polish history, and the evident bad blood between them, perhaps a 2-way IBAN could help prevent further disruption. Ostalgia (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

As noted, I'd be happy to mentor Marcelus by answering any and all qurries they have and/or offering mediation if discussions gets heated and I am informed of the situation (I am also relatively familiar with the topic area). That said, while I am active and can answer wiki queries within a day or so, there's not much I can do after the revert except explain why it was a bad idea :P That said, I think 0RR is unfeasible and if it is applied, I'd advise Marcelus to not edit at all. Seriously, 0RR is just asking to be banned later or abstain from editing. The fact that Marcelus survived 0RR once alraedy should be enough to give him more ability to edit regularly, under 1RR+mentorship. On a side note, INHO 1RR is also better for seeing how an editor behaves, since it offers a bit of a rope that generally should not be used. Perhaps a compromise might be 0RR for the next month, then 1RR for the next few months (indef until an appeal here at 6-12 month mark?). And my early mentor advice to Marcelus would be: 1) don't revert anything without asking me first and 2) try to stay away from any controversies in the Polish-Lithuanian topics, or any controversies in general, as it is too easy to make a bad edit in such articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Marcelus

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

I accepted the downgrade to 1RR previously. This is a blatant violation, and Marcelus' comment above shows no mitigation, just an acknowledgment that he did it, doesn't see it as a violation, and thinks it was Cukrakalnis' edits that were "against the rules". I have blocked for 2 months, on the lower end of the escalating block pattern for someone whose previous EW blocks were for 2 weeks and 1 month. I see this as the minimum appropriate sanction here, though, and would like to hear from others as to whether something more is warranted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed. I thought Marcelus was making progress and I was happy to see that the restriction I imposed was lessened. As the downgraded restriction was violated but there were few problems before the downgrade, I would re-impose the 0RR. I think Marcelus still has much to offer the topic; he just needs to lay off the undo button. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I supported the downgrade to 1RR, and agree with HJ here. Courcelles (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comments on User talk:Marcelus, I am not necessarily opposed to reducing to 1 month in exchange for agreement to mentorship by Piotrus (the "hard" kind of mentorship, where if Piotrus says not to do something, you listen), but would like to hear HJ Mitchell and Courcelles' (and anyone else') thoughts. This is separate from the matter of reinstating the 0RR, which I'm inclined to support. Marcelus, regarding your email about Cukrakalnis, you're welcome to post those thoughts on-wiki, but I otherwise have nothing to say. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin has Piotrus offered this mentorship? If so can I get a link for it? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: The usertalk I linked. Specifically User talk:Marcelus § September 2023. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to entertain the idea of mentorship. I think Marcelus has plenty to offer; it's his reverting that keeps getting him into trouble. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If @Piotrus is willing to commit the time, I’d be fine with an early unblock (even now, no need to wait a month) and 0RR. Courcelles (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus is a very experienced editor, including specifically in this area. If he's willing to do that, I'm willing to let him try. I still think reimposition of the 0RR, at least for an initial period, would be necessary, but maybe with a shorter period than the standard 6 months before that can be reexamined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm supportive of an unblock and 0RR restriction: if Marcelus thinks something should be reverted, they can open a talk page discussion about it and if there is consensus someone can do it for them. I disagree with Piotrus's assertion above that "0RR is just asking to be banned later or abstain from editing." 0RR doesn't mean that information can't be added or changed, it just means that others' edits cannot be unilaterally removed with one easy click of the undo button. With 0RR and mentorship by Piotrus, I think Marcelus can learn what is acceptable to remove from articles, and when discussions need to be opened on the talk page. I strongly recommend that Marcelus stay away from the articles that caused the controversies, at least for a couple of weeks or months. There are 6.7 million articles on English Wikipedia, surely there are articles outside this topic area that interest them. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trakking

Trakking subject to indefinite WP:1RR and warned for making personal attacks and personalizing disputes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:08, 27 September 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 Trakking

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FormalDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

11:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Accusing editors who disagree with them of being "left-wing activists" at Talk:Conservatism.
16:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Template:Fascism sidebar.
17:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Template:Fascism sidebar.
18:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Template:Fascism sidebar.
18:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Template:Fascism sidebar.
22:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Template:Fascism sidebar.
05:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Template:Fascism sidebar.
08:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Trakking removes longstanding content from the lead section of PragerU without discussion.
09:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring over the same content at PragerU.
13:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring over the same content at PragerU.
13:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Canvassing someone to the discussion about their editing warring at PragerU in a clear attempt to influence the outcome of the discussion, and calling another editor an "angry leftist activist".[reply]
16:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Trakking claims there's "nothing to discuss" regarding their edits to PragerU and says that the "fact-check" done by them and the editor they canvassed is enough to have their edits restored.
18:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Continued edit-warring at PragerU.

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, first on 15 January 2023 and again on 29 March 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is not all inclusive, there is likely other problematic behavior exhibited by this editor, but I've already spent a lot of time putting this together to show Trakking's consistent problems with incivility and edit-warring. They were warned about calling editors they disagree with "left-wing activists" on 29 March 2023. Their talk page shows at least six warnings for edit warring, including some by admins that could be considered a final warning. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trakking: None of these are minor edits, though you have incorrectly marked many of them as minor despite being warned not to in August 2022. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee: Are you calling me "ForumDude" as some sort of insult? ––FormalDude (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional diffs found:

14. 17:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Referring to other editors as "You and your comrade".

15. 14:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Calling an editor "the fascist thought police".

16. 14:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Again accusing editors who disagree with them of being "left-wingers" at Talk:Conservatism.

––FormalDude (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Trakking has implied here that TrangaBellam is "the devil". ––FormalDude (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[22]

Discussion concerning Trakking

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 Trakking

This only concerns some minor edits—nothing serious.

Yes, I called a guy a leftist activist once. Why? Because he reverted different people's edits with phrases like "another rightist who tries to change this part of the article". Fun fact: I have had friendly and fruitful discussions with this guy afterwards. I consider him a valuable partner on Wikipedia.

Two of my reverts at the template were because users mistook my edit for another edit, which they wanted to revert. One of the users apologized for his mistake while the other one has remained silent without reverting again.

Someone insinuated today that I may have canvassed a guy, but this is a false accusation, because if you follow the history, I was reverting this guy's edits on another page. He is NOT my friend.

I only made two reverts in the PragerU article. This edit was my own addition of information, which is not considered a revert. There were other users edit-warring on that article as well, but I promise to stay off it henceforth.

Andrevan: I have only listened to a few short videos from PragerU and it was years ago. I am not a fan, I believe their material is a bit silly and oversimplified. I was trying to reach neutrality on Wikipedia. Half the introduction consisted of criticism, which poorly reflected the article in its entirety. Then I agreed to keep the criticism, given that we fixed the factual errors contained within it. The discussion at Talk became quite heated, but I kept my cool. Trakking (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: I did not call any user a leftist activist; I referred to the critics cited in the article, many of which were leftist activists. It is understandable that they are critical, and it ought to be included in the article, but it should not cover half the introduction. As per Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Lead section, the introduction should ”establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points”. Trakking (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: I provide a lot of quality edits to Wikipedia, I receive many thanks, I have many polite discussions, I am a teacher in real life etc. Last time someone accused me of something (turned out they mistook me for another user), I read answers from random people I had never seen before, saying, ”Trakking is a trusted user.” The issues here are minor, as Springee stated. With all the craziness going on at Wikipedia—vandalism, threats etc.—this is nothing. You are wasting your time. But I promise I will never enter an edit war again. Trakking (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out as well, for any neutral observer, that FormalDude has been canvassing people to come here in the Talk for PragerU, knowing that they were anti-PragerU and/or opponents of me in the debate. The only neutral person here is Springee. Trakking (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: That is disgusting of you. I am a CATHOLIC and a LIBERTARIAN—which places me at the very opposite of national socialism. In every discussion on national socialism, I quoted scholar Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn as one of my intellectual heroes—a Catholic libertarian who wrote volominous books against the ideology of contemporary national socialism. Please apologize for your terrible comment and remove it. Trakking (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

This seems premature. I think FormalDude is jumping the gun on this complaint. While they provided a long list of diffs, about half are from quite some time back. They make it look like Trakking has obviously violated 3RR but looking at the edit history I'm not seeing that. I see 1 original edit (08:55am) and then 3 other good faith attempts at alternative compromise wording. Yeah, it probably would have been better to go to the talk page after the first compromise edit was reverted but this isn't a simple case of someone making a BOLD edit then restoring it 3 times. The talk page comment is unadvisable since it impugns the motives of other editors however, I do think some of the talk page comments here [[23]] and revert comment like, " when Republicans became anti-truth, truth became "leftist"", while not directly attacking any editor, are not exactly bringing the temperature down either. Honestly, I think a quick close with some trout small trout for Trakking for the talk page comment and additional trouting for FormalDude bringing such a minor issue to these boards. Disclaimer: Involved in the general topic but not the specific discussion in question) Springee (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC) @FormalDude: also correcting accidental "ForumDude" to "FormalDude" with apologies Springee (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Andrevan your reply is unreasonable and given the total lack of justification it's borderline disruptive. Springee (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, the problem is you haven't shown what you are claiming and certainly demanding a citeban would require some really strong evidence of wrong doing which hasn't been shown here. Even the TE claim is weak. Springee (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, I think in a case like this, where non-bright line edit warring is an issue, a 1RR is a very good option as it allows the editor to express their views without disruption to the article space. An andmin once told me that they always operated as if they were subject to a 1RR limit as it makes them a better editor. In my experience they are correct as it forces you to make your case vs thinking you can "win" an edit war. That said, is a "1RR-no time limit" a reasonable fix? I can see the concern with 1RR repeating every 24hr. However, a 1RR with no time limit opens the editor up to good faith violations that may be held against them. Consider a case where the editor makes a change to the second sentence of a paragraph. The change is reverted. Does that mean they can't edit that sentence two years later? Perhaps a 1RR with a clear warning to not even give the appearance of skirting the 24hr limit? Springee (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Andrevan

Clear siteban is merited. Andre🚐 22:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, I do not believe that Wikipedia should be allowing WP:TE and WP:RGW to whitewash right-wing propaganda like PragerU. This is WP:NOTHERE, a standard admin block. Andre🚐 22:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[24] This user is calling other users a leftist activist in diffs provided by FormalDude today. Andre🚐 22:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User diff[25] user also making changes to the Nazism article to make it seem less like a far-right ideology. Andre🚐 22:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell's proposed sanction is fair. Thebigulyaliens' aspersions are unwarranted. Andre🚐 02:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave

I'm active at the PragerU article but uninvolved in the current discussion. Diff #8 popped up on my watchlist and raised my eyebrows - It's not appropriate to remove all mention of criticism from the lead with some vague handwave about "leftist criticism". Diff #9 is an immediate reinstatement of the same content, 9 minutes later, without discussion. This was bright-line edit warring.

Dismissing editors in the discussion as "left-wing activists" and pinging a different set of editors (diff #1) is also entirely inappropriate, and they pull the same stunt again in Diff #11. The fact that these edits span 6 months is not a mitigating factor, rather it shows that they have not learned their lesson despite having received a number of talk page warnings about edit warring and civility during that time. It's clear that folks have had enough of this incivility and tendentiuous editing and it's time for soemthing stronger than a slap on the wrist. –dlthewave ☎ 23:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, these two edits [26][27] are removing the same content 9 minutes apart with no attempt to discuss. Is that not edit warring? –dlthewave ☎ 23:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a logged warning and possibly 1RR would be sufficient here. Discretionary sanctions allow any uninvolved admin to give such a warning/restriction as they see fit, so there’s really no need to drag this out any further. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanielRigal

As far as I can tell, Trakking first appeared on my radar back in December 2022. It might seem odd to bring up behaviour from so long ago but I think it is relevant here because it is so similar to the much more recent behaviour at PragerU (in which I am involved).

Trakking made two edits to Nazism which were both unmerited removal of sourced content, seemingly for no better reason than that Trakking disagreed with what was being said. First removing the referenced description of Nazism as "far-right" (and marking the edit minor), despite this being covered in the FAQ, and then yoinking out an entire paragraph with an edit summary that confirms a pretty extreme POV. I reverted those edits and put a fairly gentle level 2 warning on Trakking's User Talk page and got accused of trolling for my trouble. The drama then shifted to the Talk page where Trakking insulted the authors of the content accusing them of dishonesty and Stalinism and calling the paragraph "insidious". The whole wretched saga is archived here.

This establishes the pattern of POV editing that we see, on and off, to this day. The current dispute over on PragerU is similar in many ways. Trakking yoinked a chunk of text, with a dubious edit summary, and got into a small edit war, only taking to the Talk page when somebody else started a thread. A pattern of removing content for POV reasons and then not respecting consensus is well established. When things did not go Trakking's way they canvassed AbiquiúBoy into joining the fray. AbiquiúBoy is a new user who could easily have stepped on a rake editing such an article! Fortunately, AbiquiúBoy didn't step on any rakes and focused instead on trying to improve the chunk that Trakking had tried to remove. I'm not happy about the canvassing but I don't think that AbiquiúBoy has done anything wrong and, even if he had, that wouldn't entirely be his fault even if a more experienced user would probably have known to be a bit more cautious about being canvassed.

So, what should we do here? I don't think we need a siteban but we do need to do something. It is clear that Trakking has a POV that they can't or won't let go of. Maybe a topic ban from post-1945 US politics (broadly construed) and maybe from other global far-right related topics would make sense? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that FormalDude posting a short, neutral notice about this case on Talk:PragerU, a shared place that is directly relevant to the case, constitutes canvassing. It wasn't an attempt to bring in specific individuals or to tilt the scales. It wouldn't have prompted me to dig into Trakking's behaviour if Trakking wasn't already vaguely on my radar due to previous behaviour. It is in no way comparable to the canvassing that Trakking did and for Trakking to bring it up here (see above) and use it to question almost everybody's impartiality seems like an attempt to draw a false equivalence. Also, the way Trakking assumes that readers of Talk:PragerU are "anti-PragerU and/or opponents of me in the debate" shows an inability to WP:AGF and a general WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, with maybe a bit of WP:OWN sprinkled in. This harks back to the false accusation of "trolling" back in December and suggests that Trakking is still incapable of collaborative editing on sensitive topics. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AbiquiúBoy

[Answering FormalDude’s comment to Springee] It was a mistake lad, why assume bad faith? AbiquiúBoy (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely erroneous citing of WP:NONAZIS

calling someone a Nazi is a very serious claim and your rather callous manner of doing so is highly problematic.

@Trakking is NOT a Nazi or anything close whatsoever and it's very bizarre that @TrangaBellam has tried to use such this rationale with no actual explanation of how it applies here. AbiquiúBoy (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TrangaBellam

Siteban is merited - WP:NONAZIS. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, being an adherent of Christianity (or any damn religion) does not automatically preclude anyone from being a Nazi or espousing views that are sympathetic/whitewashing of Nazism and similar fascist ideologies. I have no interest in knowing who are your intellectual heroes - your edits speak for yourself. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andreas

I would recommend a quick re-read of Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor#What is considered to be a personal attack? – along with some reflection on how sticking to the advice given there might help Wikipedia and make life easier for all the individuals involved, especially when they have different views. --Andreas JN 466 19:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Generalrelative

Speaking as one of the editors who was called a "left-wing activist" on article talk by Trakking, I am most certainly involved here. A few points:

I will reiterate what I said on their user talk page, that the kind of ad hominem comment of which Trakking appears to make common practice is very clearly at odds with the principle of "comment on content, not contributors." I see also that their response to my post was essentially to dismiss this principle: Well, you were actively pushing for a left-wing perspective, so I characterized you as left-wing activists. That's certainly not a helpful attitude, and not conducive to long-term success on a project where we must collaborate with folks who fall along a wide spectrum of perspectives. Trakking, if I may address you directly: it doesn't matter what you believe about me or anyone else. You're not permitted to say that here. WP:CIVILITY is a core principle for a reason. We need to be able to collaborate across differences. From my point of view, and apparently from the point of view of most editors here, many of the things you consider to be "left-wing perspectives" are just eminently mainstream ideas. But you've never seen me calling you a "right-wing activist" on article talk (nor have I accused you of showing fascist tendencies as you once did to me). That's because I respect the rules that allow this project to function. Such allegations –– which are indeed serious –– need to be reserved for noticeboards like this one.
I would suggest to TrangaBellam that leaping to WP:NONAZIS in the case of Trakking is not appropriate either. I say this as someone who's spent a lot of my time on Wikipedia dealing with actual Nazis in the race & intelligence topic area. Trakking certainly has shown that they have unorthodox ideas about what the word "Nazi" means (they've even demonstrated that above by implying that one cannot be a Catholic or libertarian and also a Nazi, though one need only point to prominent cases like Carl Schmitt or certain fans of Ron Paul to falsify such an outlandish claim). But Trakking displaying a pattern of POV-pushing against consensus to portray Nazism as a form of socialism does not make them a Nazi. It's certainly disruptive, but far less severe. They will, after all, not be successful.
If anyone is interested in my 2¢ here, I would suggest that Trakking is due for a logged warning to avoid edit warring and ad hominem remarks. The POV-pushing can and is being dealt with through the normal consensus process. If they still cannot abide by p&g, then a t-ban would be the logical next step. I do not think we're at the point where a site ban is called for.

Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: No, the dispute at Template:Fascism sidebar was indeed a case of POV-pushing against well-established consensus. See this discussion and refer to the FAQ here. Generalrelative (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Willbb234

Regarding the dispute over Template:Fascism sidebar, it does not appear that this was motivated by a particular POV. It seems like it was a bad case of edit warring and should be treated as such; from what I understand, it centred around the question of how to express Nazism in the sidebar.

I agree to an extent with Trakking over the dispute at PragerU. It seems like the critisicm section in the lede might be a little off balance when summarising what is in the body. Still, the paragraph should not be deleted in whole and a different approach should have been taken. It doesn't seem as if this was motivated by a particular POV and instead the issue should rather be what can be done to ensure that edit warring of this nature does not happen again. I would also note that of the three parties mainly involved in the initial part of the relevant talk page discussion, one party based their argument on their POV, another based it on some vague principles relating to how the content had "been in the article for several months" and "that starting such a discussion would be time-wasting", while Trakking based their argument on the manual of style. Out of these three parties, Trakking clearly took the best approach on the talk page. Willbb234 22:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

Uninvolved except for previous interactions with these editors, but sometimes the quiet part needs to be said loud. An editor is making edits that clearly have a right-wing lean to them. FormalDude, Andrevan, Dlthewave, and TrangaBellam all came in swinging. Springee immediately came to the editor's defense. I could have told you all of that without even opening the discussion. These editors, virtually without fail, consistently advocate a specific ideological position regardless of the merits of an argument. Trakking is just the latest subject of this proxy war. Editors like this are a far bigger timesink than editors like Trakking. At what point does this become sanctionable tendentious editing? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief discussion with one of the involved parties, I'm choosing to strike some of the more specific comments here. Reading them back, they do look like strong accusations. There is a broader problem of which these disputes are just a symptom, and it does need to be solved. But I have no grounds to say that any of these specific editors are at fault just because they're the ones who showed up to this specific dispute. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Recently, I was wondering why Nazism and fascism have never been considered to be a contentious topic or, formerly, a candidate for discretionary sanctions. Given stuff like this, I think that would be a reasonable move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Trakking

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

I'm not at the point of a permaban. Yet. A topic ban would be functionally the same. But the diffs above certainly show a concerning pattern of conduct. I'm contemplating a short-to-medium-term site ban between a week and a month, combined with a revert restriction and a very strong logged warning about discussion style. I expect that will go one of two ways. Hopefully Trakking will take the hint that trying to brute force your preferred version through edit warring and insults is not the way Wikipedia works. If not, we've simply postponed the inevitable permaban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't think we're at permaban stage either yet. However, someone who makes this edit (and especially with that edit-summary) lacks the competence to be editing hot-button political articles. Black Kite (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m uncomfortable with the unspoken idea that seems to set in sometimes that where a topic ban would be “equal to a site ban” due to an editor’s focused activity on a topic that the bar to a topic ban should be higher. I’m not sure we have a great option available, as AP2 wouldn’t prevent the edit highlighted by Black Kite. Courcelles (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Courcelles I'm not necessarily suggesting this (I don't intend to formally endorse or oppose any sanction here), but under Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Contentious topic restrictions, isn't AE allowed to TBAN from beyond the scope of existing CTOPs? any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. So a TBAN from, say, right-wing politics broadly construed, would be within our authority, if necessary and proportionate (I think?). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm just a bleeding-heart liberal but I'm inclined to give someone just a little bit of rope in a situation like this. If their opponents' assumptions that they have no interest or ability to contribute positively are correct, that will soon become clear. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to see how Trakking's edits and the articles of concern fall under WP:ARBAP, but I am concerned about Trakking's edits and don't want to Wikilawyer this point. If I'm missing something, feel free to leave a message on my talk page as this would be the wrong place to discuss if these constitute AP2 (in my opinion).

I see repeated instances that Trakking removed both sourced information and lede text added after consensus was reached. When Trakking's edits were reverted, Trakking removed the text again without obtaining consensus on the talk page. I would like to remind Trakking that there are several dispute mechanisms, including WP:RfC, where they can ask the wider community their opinions on the matter.

I'm not in favour of a permaban at this time. I think the best solution is a 1RR for Trakking on all fascism-related articles, broadly construed, with the 1RR extended in perpetuity for their edits (so if they remove content and it is reverted, they cannot wait a couple months and then remove the same content again, as seen in Template:Fascism and PragerU). I would also be amenable to a topic ban of Fascism-related articles (although allow them to propose changes on the talk page) but I can also see HJ Mitchell's point above that it might not be necessary now, per WP:ROPE, and don't feel strongly either way the inclusion of this further restriction. Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Springee: The "in perpetuity" is trying to send a clear signal to Trakking that they cannot keep trying to make the same changes to an article or template several weeks or months later. In your example, this would be considered a "grey-zone" and admin/editors have to evaluate the edit. If Trakking is trying to add new information, or copyediting the text that doesn't change the meaning, then additional sanctions would not be required as disruption is not taking place. If they are trying to change or delete the same information in the same way as the last reversion, as observed at PragerU and Template:Fascism, then I would support additional sanctions. Concerned editors can post here and admin will determine if it rises to the level of additional sanctions. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not generally in favor of time-limited sanctions, and I don't see an exception for that here, so I would not be in favor of a short-term topic or site ban. I do think a 1RR restriction (indefinitely, with the normal appeals process), combined with a logged warning for personal attacks and personalizing disputes, would be a place to start. Either that will suffice to get the point across and stop the disruption (which is, of course, always the outcome I'd hope for), or it doesn't, and then we'll know for certain that stronger measures are needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've missed the boat on any short-term block/siteban here but for what it's worth Arbcom fairly consistently suggest/mandate escalating blocks and I think there's merit to the idea when dealing with misconduct that falls short of an indef. We need somewhere to go between a warning and long-term/indef sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't agree with time-limited sanctions either (indef blocks require the user to demonstrate that they understand why they were blocked before getting unblocked, which time-limited does not allow). I also agree with HJ Mitchell about how it's too late to justify a short-term block. I think 1RR needs to be put in place, and if it is violated escalating blocks can be imposed. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Balkanite

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 Balkanite

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Rosguill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Balkanite (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

September 26, 2023 adding unreferenced information to Bosniaks in Germany, misuse of minor edit
September 14, 2023 adding unreferenced information to Hidroelektra workers massacre, misuse of minor edit

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Warned for incivility at ANI February 2022 (arguably not relevant to this case)

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

Balkans/EE DS notification February 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Balkanite has had issues with providing proper sourcing dating back to when they first started editing (talk page warning w/ explanation from 2020). This has continued to the present day, with many examples including the creation of articles entirely comprising OR at Draft:Bosniaks in the United Kingdom (6 May 2023) and similar titles. Their misuse of minor edits has also been continuous since they started editing, and they received a talk page notice about it in February 2022. The edits that I've highlighted at the beginning of this report, are particularly egregious, however, as they not only fail to provide adequate (or really, any) sourcing, they show clear intent to emphasize a specific ethnonationalist perspective (and, in the case of Bosniaks in Germany, directly contradict seemingly well-referenced claims at Bosniaks regarding the history of Bosniak vs."Muslim" identification under the successive governments of Yugoslavia. Given the persistence of sourcing issues over multiple years, there is a case to be made for a regular site block (although there perhaps has not been enough escalating warnings for that); I think that the persistent failure to cite sources and clear POV bent mean that at a minimum a topic ban from Bosniak history and identity is needed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1177485386

Discussion concerning Balkanite

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 Balkanite

I've been made aware of these accusations for a while.

Since then, I've always ensured to properly cite my contributions towards any article that I made the decision to create or edit. Also, noting that there has not been any progress in the making of such articles in the page, I simply wanted to fill in the gap that was not addressed towards anyone who may have been interested in the topic.

Also, the accusation that I'm attempting to "emphasize a specific ethnonationalist perspective" is perposterous, because it was evident at the time that there were zero recording of anyone in SFR Yugoslavia that identified as "Bosniaks" up until its dissolution. I'm beginning to be concerned that you're accusing me of propping up a nationalist perspective of an ethnic group that has recently became more prevalent since 1991, especially given the fact that I belong to said group, and preventing the addition of more information about them to fulfill WP:CITE and WP:NPOV, even though I have made it evident that I made sure to include the involvement of the ethnic group in various sides during World War I and II, and including information about the diaspora in other countries. You can see the same thing being done with other ethnic groups, however no action has been taken against them. I understand that your concerns may seem alarming as I have been misusing the "minor edit" button when it came to editing articles, but the reason being that misusage is that the majority of the contributions that I've made are actually minor, and do not entirely change more than half of the article that has been written.

I do suggest that you refrain from the idea of banning me from providing more information to Bosniak history and identity, as I'm one of the few that finds time to add more information about the people, and its diaspora. I have not seen you made ANY contribution to any of the articles you're accusing me of editing and contributing towards, and it's unfair to accuse someone of emphasize a specific ethnonationalist perspective, especially when I do not mean to spread information intended to incite or mislead, AND when it comes from someone who has done absolutely ZERO research on the various subjects that led to the creation/editing of said articles.

Wikipedia suffered a similar situation with the Croatian page back in 2013, as it suffered from a group of nationalists that wanted to smear Croatia's history to those that may have taken an interest in it by abusing the administrative powers that were given to them, and it became severe to the point where the Croatian government advised its citizens to not use Wikipedia as a source of information. Since then, there were countermeasures made to prevent such an incident from happening again. The reason why I'm named "Balkanite" in the first place is because of the fact that ethnic identity in the Balkans is based on the individual's perception of their origins, and given that it does not show any ethnic connotations other than what I've previously mentioned, I believe it shows exactly my stance on my perception of my own identity. Balkanite (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Balkanite

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

I haven't read over all of this yet, but I'd point out the issues on the Croatian Wikipedia are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand here. That doesn't give me a lot of confidence, but I'll have to do a more detailed review. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edits like this, which was marked minor and added a large chunk of unsourced text certainly seem to demonstrate an issue with their editing. Something like a topic ban for 6 months and 500 edits might do to let them learn how better to source their edits and follow community norms. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me. Anyone else have another idea? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also happy to give that a go. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there aren't any objections in the next day or so I'll implement that, if someone doesn't close it before me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

F2Milk

F2Milk blocked (as a normal admin action) indefinitely for clear battleground attitude and not being here to build an encyclopedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:05, 1 October 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 F2Milk

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Carter00000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: F2Milk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

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

Current Issue

28 September 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Portal:Current events/2023 September 26, making vague references to wrongdoing "...please read the rules on reverting"
28 September 2023 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks on user-talk.
28 September 2023 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks on user-talk.

Previous Issues

3 December 2022 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks at AFD. The vote was later moved to the talk-page by Administrator Tamzin as being off-topic/inappropriate.
3 December 2022 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks in edit summary.
3 December 2022 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks in edit summary.

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 28 September.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Editor has persistently casted aspersions and made personal attacks in content disputes relating to the AP2 topic area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification to User

Discussion concerning F2Milk

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 F2Milk

Let me put say it out aloud about the current state of Wikipedia. We have a lot of gatekeepers and editors who make editing seem a chore. I am not going to mince words here. I have been editing Wikipedia for the last 20 years or more. There have been editors who seem to have an ulterior motive in removing other editor's edits citing 101 rules. eg notability, reliable sources etc. I have faced my fair share of editors (so called left-leaning editors) who want to shape Wikipedia in their own image. Reliable sources to them is CNN, Washington Post, etc. I put in an edit from Daily Mail saying 100 people died in a Hurricane, and the edit is removed. What difference does it make if CNN says 100 people died in Hurricane or if Daily Mail says 100 people died in Hurricane? None at all. We live in a polarized world where gatekeepers try to paint all conservative websites as unreliable, but put their so-called bias references like CNN, Washington Post, etc as reliable. Post something negative even if it is factual about their golden boy or party. eg the Democrats, they try to scrub everything to paint themselves as angels.

Now if you call out the editors such as this, they will cry victim (the story of the boy who cried wolf comes to mind) and waste resources saying the other editor has cast aspersions on them. Give me a break. If you want civility, you better be more respectful of other's contributions and don't give flimsy excuses in your summary when removing other people's edits, especially in the Current Events section. I am not going to change my upfront approach to these matters. I will continue to point out the hypocrisy that we are currently witnessing in Wikipedia today. F2Milk (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24

Non-admin, never edited that page, never met either of these people before. I'm going to address only the accusation that F2Milk cast aspersions and made personal attacks.

First accusation of personal attack: [28] Nope. F2Milk states what actions the addressee made and objects to a post they put on F's talk page. The closest this gets to an attack is "you probably have a left-leaning bias." I don't call that an attack. The person F is talking to might feel attacked by detecting F's disapproval, but that's not the same thing as F violating any rules or norms.
Second accusation: [29] Eh. Closest this comes is "You should stick to facts instead of removing edits to the Current Events that don't fit your agenda."
Third: [30] Huh. This is an attack but it's not personal. FMilk is not directing hostility at any one person, only at a non-specific "There is a lot of bad faith actors in Wikipedia at the moment." It does rise to an attack with the words "legacy media sycophants," but it's not directed at anyone. It's better classified as a negative opinion of Wikipedia in general.
Fourth: [31] I think Carter might have put the wrong diff here, because it's just FM adding a link to Forbes, a reliable source. That's what we want editors to do. Oh wait, the edit description mentions "bad faith actors." Carter, is there some context, perhaps on another talk page, that shows that this is directed at specific Wikieditors? Because then it's name-calling.
Fifth: [32] See above. The diff shows FM adding sources (good) with the diff summary stating that he wants to neutralize (my word) "bad faith actors" (F's words).

Conclusion: Not all of these diffs show personal attacks, but if there is context showing that FM was referring to specific Wikieditors as "bad faith actors," then FM engaged in name-calling, which violates WP:CIVIL. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning F2Milk

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

I think with the obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND statement here that a topic ban is probably warranted. It seems unlikely that they will constructively contribute. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, either an indef AP2 topic ban or a NOTHERE block. The battleground comment here combined with the single purpose makes me lean towards NOTHERE but I'm okay with a TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above, we've got the statement I have been editing Wikipedia for the last 20 years or more, from an account less than half that old, which certainly leads one to wonder. Given the circumstances here, I would lean very much toward a NOTHERE indef, and will probably do exactly that unless an uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am not going to change my upfront approach to these matters. I will continue to point out the hypocrisy that we are currently witnessing in Wikipedia today. No objection here barring a drastic rethink of their approach to editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closetside

Closetside given a logged warning regarding edit warring and 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:04, 3 October 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 Closetside

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Closetside (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: Arbpia

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

23:34, 27 September 2023 reverting this edit
11:36, 28 September 2023 reverting this edit

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 10 September (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor was subject of a 1R complaint filed recently and still on this page as I write this, resolved without sanction. There is a content dispute about the material subject of the reversions which will be dealt with in the usual way. Editor was offered the opportunity to self revert but has not, instead producing an unhelpful and false response alleging that I have broken 1R instead.

@Closetside: Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. Please show that previous version in respect of Diff 3.Selfstudier (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Closetside: Diff 2 removed " a pro-Israel US based press monitoring organization"<Intercept ref>. Diff 3 added "a Washington-based media-monitoring group considered close to Israel"<Reuters ref>. Please explain how Diff 3 is a revert of Diff 2.Selfstudier (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Closetside: On the contrary, this was a normal editing process, the removal was only because the given source did not support the material, I edited to give a new source and quoted it directly. The removing editor, whom you cited in edit summary in support of your revert, states that they have no problem with adding the material as long as it is supported by the source, which it is, and that is another reason, apart from the 1R breach, why reverting relevant properly sourced material was inappropriate. Selfstudier (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Closetside

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 Closetside

First, clearly explained why Selfstudier is guilty of violating 1RR.

Second, I mentioned Selfstudier's userspace harrasment towards me in my response without elaborating. Selfstudier made three false allegations that I violated the rules: (a) claiming that my self-reverts violated 3RR and claiming (b) one of my disambiguating edits expressed a POV and (c) I was hounding Selfstudier. Repeated false allegations about rule violations constitute userspace harrassment.

Third, Selfstudier claimed that Diff 3 in my explanation was not a revert. WP:3RR clearly states: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours." Other editors' actions include reverts. Therefore, both Diff 3 and Diff 5, which occured within 24 hours, prove that Selfstudier violated 3RR.

Fourth, based on Longhornsg's clarification I may have misrepresented Longhornsg's position. However, I reverted before the clarification, so the potential misrepresentation of their view is irrelevant here. I reverted based on the information I had.

Fifth, I would like to redouble on my concession that by executing Diff 6, I violated 1RR. However, Diff 6 restored the page to the version right before Selfstudier's illegal revert. Next time, I will confront the 1RR-breaking (or 3RR-breaking for most articles) editor, asking them to self-revert, instead of reverting myself. I have never experienced such a situation before. I would like to apologize to the Wikipedia community for my error. In contrast, Selfstudier is clearly aware of the standard case of 1RR, but violated it anyway.

In conclusion, Selfstudier's violation is far worse than mine. I regret my violation and pledge not to repeat it in the future. Selfstudier shows no regret for his clear violation; they even deny it. Additionally, they harassed me in my userspace. I appeal to a neutral administrator for a just verdict.

@Selfstudier, you reverted Diff 2 in Diff 3. Then, you reverted Diff 4 in Diff 5. All in a span in less then 24 hours which violated 1RR. As I established earlier, undoing a revert is itself a revert. Please thoroughly read my comment before critiquing it. Thanks! Closetside (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those two statements are functionally equivalent. They both mean that MEMRI is an organization with an ideology that supports Israel that monitors Arab media. You don’t need to restore a previous version character-by-character for it to be a revert.

Same for sources. The use of a different source which makes the same point doesn’t mean the edit wasn’t a revert. The version before the original reversion and the version after the new reversion are functionally equivalent.

If either wasn’t the case, dubious information would be the status quo on Wikipedia. Just use a synonym and/or a source that makes the point in a slightly different way and it’s not a revert for 3RR. @Selfstudier, that is why Diff 3 is a revert. Closetside (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'm convinced per you and Longhornsg. I concede Diff 3 wasn't a revert and apologize to you for the mess-up. I will self-revert both Diff 4 and Diff 6, and then restore Diff 6 (both per local consensus). I will revert and restore Diff 6 implicitly, without actually going through the motions to achieve the same result. I know this is my second time, but I will extra careful regarding 1RR in the future. Closetside (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24

Okay, the two edits were made within 24 hours of each other, and they're on the same page, so yes this is a 1RR violation, but on a fundamental level this looks like two invested editors with different worldviews in a content dispute. Closetside broke a clearly posted rule, so Closetside should get the standard response, but the core problem could be solved by more active use of dispute resolution. The talk page goes back to January 2023, and I don't see any RfC requests or 3O on that talk page. I do see Closetside and Selfstudier initiating talk page discussions about keeping/removing questionable material. I know how much pressure a person can feel to not let a wrong/"wrong" version of the article stand, especially if they think the other party will take that as giving up or tacitly conceding on the facts. Can you two reach an agreement not to make those assumptions or pretend to have made them? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Closetside

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

I think a logged warning about edit violating 1RR would be reasonable here. Closetside, you're a relatively new user swooning in the deep end of the pool. I suggest that you fully familiarize yourself with contentious topics and editing norms. You would probably be well served to bow out of conflicts in contentious areas, or at the least hold yourself to 0rr until you're more experienced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think we're past the point were leaving it at advice is reasonable but not at the point were a ban or block are necessary. A logged warning would be a final chance though, anything after this will likely be met with an extended topic ban or block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CapnJackSp

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 CapnJackSp

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Solblaze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: CapnJackSp (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:ARBIP

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

CaptainJackSparrow refuses to drop the stick. Despite multiple warnings, he repeatedly uses WP:OR and prevaricates about the obvious meaning of quotes from WP:RS to justify the removal of the result on 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff, and attempts to WP:GASLIGHT me instead of engaging with me in good faith.

09:27, 3 September 2023 Removes result directly cited from Vipin Narang and Christopher Clary published in International Security, calls said material contentious and certainly problematic, as well as justifying Smahwk's (who has since not spoken) removal of this material on the basis of their personal assesment of the conflict (diff).
12:18, 16 September 2023 Informed that the cited source is highly reliable, and scholarly content cannot be reverted based off the personal assessments of editors. Ghosts the talk page for weeks in response, but instantly returns when the result is restored with additional supporting citations, only to once again remove the result on the basis of their personal analysis of the conflict, claiming the result is out of context POV pushing (every citation provided for the result has used in-context quotes clearly referring to the failure of the Indian military's standoff with Pakistan - you can read them yourself).
19:35, 16 September 2023 After being provided multiple quotes from the previously cited academic literature (even of Indian analysts stating the conflict was a failure on India's part), CaptainJackSparrow again claims I am presenting words out of context.
18:22, 21 September 2023 In the spirit of WP:AGF, I once again directly quoted the words of scholars and Indian analysts stating the standoff was a failure on India's part, and asked CJS what specifically he may have had trouble understanding. However, CaptainJackSparrow again resorted to responding with his personal analysis.
13:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Despite being warned countless times that his original research carries no weight in the face of scholarly literature, CaptainJackSparrow again declares based off nothing but his prevarication and personal analysis and that the conflict is not an Indian failure, going as far as to suggest his original research takes precedence over the words of scholars. For example, while Clary and Narang (quoted repeatedly) refer to the the failure of the military standoff with Pakistan - CaptainJackSparrow claims even then, the "standoff" didnt fail.
CaptainJackSparrow also claims that the multiple scholars being cited are stating a fringe minority viewpoint being given undue weight in the lead. CaptainJackSparrow has not cited a single source in this entire discussion, while I have cited to death. However, the version of the lead which CaptainJackSparrow is edit warring for cites one source - some Indian news anchor with the Indian military claiming the conflict showed how brave India was and therefore achieved "some" objectives. A single Indian news anchor's comments on a conflict with Pakistan do not outweigh the works of multiple scholars writing in reputed published journals years after the conflict ended.
10:40, 26 September 2023 At this point, four citations (incl. three scholars, Indian analysts, and Indian media) have been cited as saying the standoff was an Indian failure. Captain Jack Sparrow calls this obtruse reading of two sources to try and overrule the vast majority of sources (what majority of sources? the single Indian news anchor?) and declares he will keep removing the result. It is pertinent to note Captain Jack Sparrow has cited nothing but his WP:OR and prevarication ad nauseam so far.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No sanctions issued, but warning issued - see below.

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

User has posted template on their talk page in early 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User previously warned for behaviour on ARE and given very short piece of WP:ROPE by @Dennis Brown:. Asked to discuss more, in good faith.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Link

Discussion concerning User:CapnJackSp

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 User:CapnJackSp

While I may be held guilty of not investing too much time in the discussion cited, the string of allegations are widely inaccurate. When making the reverts, I saw someone using one source to justify writing the result of an India - Pakistan confrontation as being the "failure" of someone, as is frequently done by by vandals and new accounts with a POV to push - Which was the reason for my actions and arguments, which admittedly, could be framed better. I will do so below.

Detailed explanation of the disagreement and the issues with sourcing of the material introduced by OP

The op in their edit introduced a new change to the article, changing the longstanding version, which stated

Status quo ante bellum

Nuclear war averted

to instead say

Indian failure

Status quo ante bellum
Nuclear war averted

They also introduced one line in the lead to repeat the claim that the standoff was an "Indian failure".

Since then, they have edit warred to try and reintroduce this content, making 7 separate reverts to introduce this material despite knowing they were contentious.

They have described themselves as using "four citations" to prove their point. However, the only actual citations that are somewhat usable are both authored or co-authored by the same analyst. The other two citations in fact do not support their claim - The OP has conflated a mobilisation operation with the standoff itself. They claim that the current version is supported only by the version as told by one Indian news media source. Yet the fact that the standoff ended without Nuclear war, and did not escalate into war, is not a controversial statement. If necessary, it can easily be supplanted by more citations, though the OP has not made such a request.

Interestingly, this is not the first time the OP has made controversial change to the lead and been reverted by me on this page - The OP had previously removed a mention of the loss of territory by Pakistan towards the end of the standoff, where the Indian army captured a strategic point. While the OP cited MOS, their succeeding series of edits make the assumption of good faith much more difficult.

I also hope that OP understands Watchlists and how they might be reviewed occasionally, since they seem quite aggrieved that I missed a message where I was not tagged but noticed a bunch of edits on the page days later. Despite complaining about a slow rate of response, the OP did not tag me during the time they purport that I "ghosted" them. Regardless, the delay was regretted and was apologised for immediately upon noticing; It is unexpected to see that being used as a sign of misbehaviour here.

OP in this complaint and in the discussion the preceded it has also ignored the concept of WP:VERIFIABLE vs WP:DUE - Just because one analyst supports their position does not mean their perspective deserves to dictate the result. Indeed, the infobox skims over several aspects (for example, the loss of territory by Pakistan) that are supported by much more than one analyst.

In essence, this is at best a content dispute that the OP has presented here. The OP has not even justified their claims against me - The claims regarding WP:GASLIGHT and WP:CIR do not match up to even their summary of events, let alone an unbiased reading of the situation. Indeed, the OP has continued to introduce material that has already been challenged, for which they know there is no consensus, and is changing longstanding material in the lead - This is not the mark of an editor interested in collaborative editing. The editor made no attempt at resolving the impasses through third opinion or RFC, instead attempting to brute force their preferred version through repeated reverts. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc I would be open to addressing the concerns of the OP through discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the OP keeps dragging up the year and a half old ARE, I find it pertinent to bring to notice that the concerns were in particular with my misunderstanding of WP:CLOP at the time, something which has long since been remedied. Indeed, the point that I had been arguing (too harshly, as noted in the close), regarding maintaining strict attribution instead of stating accusations against WP:BLP subjects in wikivoice, turned out to be well founded as the news organisation withdrew those articles and allegations later on after being found to be untrue and fabricated by an employee of the news organisation. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TrangaBellam

This doesn't look good to me - I agree with literally everything said by the OP. And, not the first time that I have seen CJS engage in an idiosyncratic reading of sources that would have smacked of trolling if not for their usual competence in most areas. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Googlegy007

I dont have much to contribute here, I agree with the OP. Recently I recieved this comment from CJS which struck me as offposting, I proceeded to check their contribs which, while nothing immediately jumped out as a policy violation, also felt off. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DSP2092

Solblaze (talk · contribs) has accused CapnJackSp of violating Wikipedia policies, including WP:OR (original research), WP:GASLIGHT (gaslighting), and WP:AGF (assume good faith), and seeks enforcement of WP:ARBIP sanctions.

Solblaze claims that CapnJackSp has been engaging in disruptive behavior by repeatedly removing content from the article that describes the standoff as an "Indian failure." They argue that CapnJackSp's removal of this content is not supported by reliable sources and that he has instead relied on his personal analysis, which violates WP:OR. I find Solblaze this edit problamatic here, he explained the reason for changes in the summary as 'trim lead to <4 paragraphs per MOS. Solblaze asserts that CapnJackSp has not adequately supported content regarding the "Indian failure" in the article. Solblaze should provide sufficient evidence or reliable sources to justify the Indian failure and appears that the burden of evidence lies with Solblaze to justify the inclusion of this specific content, especially if it's considered contentious.

CapnJackSp (talk · contribs) claims that the changes made by Solblaze were contentious and introduced a new perspective into the article without sufficient consensus. CapnJackSp claims that the sources provided by Solblaze do not unequivocally support the claim that the standoff was an "Indian failure." He also asserts that Solblaze has failed to justify their changes according to WP:DUE (due weight) and WP:VERIFIABLE policies.

Based on the arguments, this appears to be a content dispute rather than a clear-cut case of policy violations. The issue revolves around the interpretation of sources and the inclusion of specific content in the article. It is recommended that the involved parties seek consensus on the T/P or consider dispute resolution mechanisms, such as a request for comments (RFC), to address the dispute. DSP2092^talk 05:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Solblaze

@Callanecc: I've tried my best to engage in good faith with CJS for the last month. But it's like talking to a wall. I can quote scholarly sources ad nauseam only for CJS to ignore it all and respond with WP:OR and prevaricate in a manner that seems like borderline trolling.

I have not violated the 1RR restrictions on the article, and I am welcome to other uninvolved editors' input on the matter (@TrangaBellam:, @Googleguy007: and @DSP2092: included). I will also start an RFC.

I reiterate that my concern does not stem from a mere difference in points of view held by CJS, but rather from CJS's prevaricatory behaviour and defiance of WP:RS.

CJS's conduct has not only been noted by myself but also been condemned by others within the community including a closing admin on ARE. Solblaze (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abhishek

The edits by Solblaze clearly violates MOS:MIL (especially this and it was unwise for him to edit war over this thing without gaining consensus in the first place.

That's all I have to say. Since "MOS:MIL" was not mentioned on the whole talk page,[33] I recommend no sanctions for any parties here. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning User:CapnJackSp

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

This seems very much like a content dispute that needs to be resolved with dispute resolution rather than edit warring. I am hopeful that both of you will be able to move forward with discussion rather than needing have sanctions applied related to the edit warring which would likely be 1RR at this point. @Solblaze and CapnJackSp: Can you both commit to doing that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nhradek

Normal indef admin block as NOTHERE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 3 October 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 Nhradek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nhradek (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:ARBPS

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

[34] 29 September 2023 — they are not willing to obey WP:PSCI
[35] 29 September 2023 — they are not willing to obey WP:PSCI
[36] 29 September 2023 — they even deny that WP:PSCI is applicable to precognition
[37] 29 September 2023 — total WP:IDHT

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [38] 29 September 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Reply: WP:PSCI is WP:NPOV, there is no WP:NPOV without obeying WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39] 29 September 2023

Discussion concerning Nhradek

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 Nhradek

Read what we said in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Precognition. He can argue that I'm violating Wikipedia:Psci but they are violating WP:Neutral point of view in Precognition.

Precognition is not WP:PSCI. Multiple studies and meta-analyses have shown this.

Here's a link to the meta-analysis by Bem and Tressoldi, et al. disputing the claims of WP:PSCI. If I'm violating WP:PSCI then certainly they are violating WP:NPOV by not including the meta-analysis. I tried to include it but was reverted in this diff with the response " Daryl Bem is a hack" by @Hob Gadling. How does this not violate the core principle of WP:NPOV?

I hit a nerve with the "skeptics" on this community but WP is not a posting board for their idealogical agenda. It's an online encyclopedia. Might I have violated WP:PSCI? Maybe, but they sure violated WP:NPOV and haven't given Daryl Bem a fair article in Precognition.

In addition in Wikipedia:FRINGE/QS it clearly states an article should not be labeled WP:PSCI if reasonable debate still exists in the scientific community which it does.

I quote from WP:FRINGE/QS Articles about hypotheses that have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views; however, such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists.

How does the meta-analysis I included violate this?

How did I violate WP:PSCI if there are meta-analyses and many studies providing evidence for precognition in the parapsychological literature?

I don't wish to argue too much about violations in the Precognition article here, but how does the following statement in the article not violate WP:NPOV and WP:No_reliable_sources,_no_verifiability,_no_article? Despite the lack of scientific evidence, many people believe it to be real; it is still widely reported and remains a topic of research and discussion within the parapsychology community.

It's like that everywhere and almost no supporting evidence for Bem or Tressoldi's research.

There is scientific evidence in support of precognition including the analysis I cited earlier and in Talk. Claims that my edits and the topic of Precognition in general are WP:PSCI are nonsense and my citation of Bem and Tressoldi's meta-analysis should be included. Nhradek (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24

I don't know either party and have never edited the pages in question. Given the diffs offered, the problem isn't that Nhradek refuses to respect Wikipedia's rules about pseudoscience. It's that Nhradek does not accept that precognition is pseudoscience. (It is; DGMW, Nhardek is wrong about this.) I noticed something else: All of the diffs offered here are talk page statements. Nhradek is saying on article and Wikipedia talk pages that they think precognition isn't pseudoscience. Yes, it's a bit strange, but it's not a problem the way, say, adding unsourced or improperly sourced material to Wikipedia articles about precognition would be a problem. This boils down to "Someone on the talk page has an annoying cherished belief."

Nhradek, can you promise that you won't add anything to the articles if you can't find support for it in the types of sources that Wikipedia respects (just like everyone else has to)? Can you promise that you if you remove text from an article and others put it back, you'll use established dispute resolution processes (WP:3O, WP:RFC)? Also, I'd recommend that when you talk to any given individual person on that talk page, remember what you already said to them and whether or not that specific person found it unconvincing. During the Trump administration, we got a lot more information about how to change people's minds and why they believe what they believe, and it turns out that "show the same people the same evidence and arguments over and over" doesn't work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nhradek

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

I'm hesitant to leap to anything too harsh with what appears to be a new, good faith editor who's behavior is disruptive. I feel that some of the issue is due to unfamiliarity with WP:DR. Nhradek, the reliability of the source you've provided has been challenged. WP:RSN would be the next stop if you'd like broader input on the reliability of your source. You also need to focus on why the source you provided is reliable, not calling anyone who disagrees with the author of the source as pseudoskeptic. A general dialing back of your engagement style would also be wise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good block. I was on the edge of blocking, but was hoping a little advice and some AGF might work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since ScottishFinnishRadish's message above, that it's clear Nhradek has read, they have engaged in similar conduct in the RSN discussion. That is bludgening and failure to listen and accept Wikipedia norms, see in particular this comment. Given that I've blocked as NOTHERE but am happy to modify or for other admins to modify that if that's the belief here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good block. Bishonen | tålk 08:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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