Arbitration enforcement archives .mw-parser-output .hlist dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul{margin:0;padding:0}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt,.mw-parser-output .hlist li{margin:0;display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist.inline ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist dl ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ol ul,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul dl,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ol,.mw-parser-output .hlist ul ul{display:inline}.mw-parser-output .hlist .mw-empty-li{display:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dt::after{content:": "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li::after{content:" · ";font-weight:bold}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li:last-child::after{content:none}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:first-child::before{content:" (";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dd li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt li:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dd:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li dt:last-child::after,.mw-parser-output .hlist li li:last-child::after{content:")";font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol{counter-reset:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li{counter-increment:listitem}.mw-parser-output .hlist ol>li::before{content:" "counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .hlist dd ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist dt ol>li:first-child::before,.mw-parser-output .hlist li ol>li:first-child::before{content:" ("counter(listitem)"\a0 "}.mw-parser-output .navbar{display:inline;font-size:88%;font-weight:normal}.mw-parser-output .navbar-collapse{float:left;text-align:left}.mw-parser-output .navbar-boxtext{word-spacing:0}.mw-parser-output .navbar ul{display:inline-block;white-space:nowrap;line-height:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::before{margin-right:-0.125em;content:"[ "}.mw-parser-output .navbar-brackets::after{margin-left:-0.125em;content:" ]"}.mw-parser-output .navbar li{word-spacing:-0.125em}.mw-parser-output .navbar a>span,.mw-parser-output .navbar a>abbr{text-decoration:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-mini abbr{font-variant:small-caps;border-bottom:none;text-decoration:none;cursor:inherit}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-full{font-size:114%;margin:0 7em}.mw-parser-output .navbar-ct-mini{font-size:114%;margin:0 4em}vte 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Onceinawhile[edit]

Closing as moot. The block has expired and there wasn't any interest shown in overturning the action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

Appealing user
Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Onceinawhile (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sanction being appealed
One week block, imposed at here
Administrator imposing the sanction
El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Onceinawhile[edit]

I made a mistake. And the block was a mistake too.

My mistake was to use a phrase which was too strong, and too easily misunderstood. My choice of wording was poor. I was trying to summarize in half a sentence something that happened four years ago, and I used unnecessarily elaborate words which I had not fully thought through. I certainly did not mean to make an allegation (and actually I do not believe) that there was any unusual coordination between the three editors back in 2018. Two links to support this: (1) an explanation of why I did not anticipate the word "concerted" being read literally,[1] and (2) proof that in almost 40,000 edits here I have never used the word "concerted" before and so had never really thought through its implications.[2]

The block was a mistake because:

  • It was made extremely quickly without me being given a chance to provide my own view or remedy the three words I had written. The notifying editor and / or the blocking admin could have saved a lot of time by asking me to clarify my words. I believe over many years of building high quality articles in a difficult topic area, I should have earned the right to have administrators hear me out before making these kind of judgements.
  • All parties involved appear to have incorrectly thought that I was operating under a final TBAN warning, which as kindly acknowledged here,[3] was not the case. I was given an ABAN warning over a year ago on a very different article and topic, in a very different situation.
  • The original post at ANI included a number of false characterizations about editing at the page in question. Since those were not given as reasons for the block, I will not distract from this by addressing them. But they served to create an overall misleading sentiment, which will have affected the decision to block. Exactly the same thing happened at the AE which got me the unrelated “ABAN warning” a year ago – it was submitted with multiple falsehoods (by an editor who turned out to be a sock). Perhaps a case of Brandolini's law, an article that I wrote.
  • It serves no purpose, other than stopping me in the middle a discussion about maps of the Golan,[4] and stopping me from thanking the two other people who came to my talk page today, one to thank me for what he called my “amazing article” about some bowls,[5], and the other to inform me that my DYK about obelisks was one of the most viewed of the month.[6] The last time I was blocked was eight years ago,[7] and that block was quickly rescinded. Perhaps I have an overall “mistake rate” of one a year. I am trying my best guys; I am not perfect, but I am trying to be.

Since the spectre of a TBAN warning was raised, I should also point out that such a warning would be equally inappropriate:

  • A TBAN warning should be a last resort, for editors who are being disruptive, not handed out in response to a first mistake in a year.
  • Judging exactly how our words are to be interpreted by other people is incredibly hard, and we can only ever hope for 99%. With the 1% of mistakes that as humans we will make, we simply need a chance to immediately remedy them. I have made this same point to El C a year ago, and again today, and he has stated a belief that in doing so I am WP:NOTTHEM bludgeoning. So I apologize, but I do feel very strongly about this.
  • It would mean that if I ever again misjudge how my words are going to be understood, by any person who chooses to read them, then I must be kicked out of this part of the project. I could not write anything under those circumstances, and certainly could not risk engaging with any editors who would like to see me topic banned. I pride myself on being a thoughtful and collegiate partner to other editors in a difficult topic area, and as I have always said I prefer working with those who have a different perspective to me because we build more impactful articles together. As I wrote many years ago at WP:IPCOLL, "our encyclopedia has the opportunity to become the subject's most balanced reference point, with a truly bilateral narrative"; we cannot make that happen whilst living in fear.

El C was kind enough to write "But you know what? Maybe I'm the one who has gotten it wrong here. We can see what others have to say."[8], and I appreciate his open-mindedness. For the avoidance of doubt, rescinding the block would not change the fact that I made a mistake, which I fully accept and apologize for. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(copying the following from Onceinawhile talk page at his request and executing the requested strike to his prior statement Selfstudier (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
I have been trying hard to understand El C’s advice. Some key snippets which I think I now understand are: "WP:NOTTHEM and bludgeoning problems [in discussions with admins]… adoption of novel ideas that concern warnings, sanctions… just a bit [of]… self-restraint [in discussions with admins]".
I simply did not understand that this was prohibited and sanctionable behavior. I was wrong. In both interactions with El C, a year ago and now, I let my desperation to retain my dozen years of clean sanctions record get the better of me. Because of this mistake I am now risking losing access to the area which I have poured my heart and soul into over 12 years - this is my fault and noone else’s.
Please could my AE statement of 15 March be struck, all except for the second paragraph (starting “My mistake was…”) and the last eleven words of the final sentence (starting “I made a mistake”).

Statement by El C[edit]

Before I respond, I want to make sure that the appellant wishes to have the appeal, here, at WP:AE rather than at WP:AN, because it looks like Shrike made that decision for them. Onceinawhile, the appeal could still be moved to AN (though I doubt the format would be accepted at WP:ARCA), if you prefer, so ping me to let me know your preference. Thanks. El_C 14:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC) Reply[reply]

I'll wait the day for Onceinawhile to clarify their choice of venue. If I don't hear from them by then, I'll give my statement here. El_C 16:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I mentioned at ANI and on the appellant's talk page (here), an indef ARBPIA TBAN is in fact called for, in my view. In that sense, the one week block can be seen as a (temporary) boon. But, like with prior warnings/sanctions, stark WP:NOTTHEM and bludgeoning problems persist, regardless. For example, telling me that: [I] have not explained anywhere what the block is for (italics is my emphasis), when obviously it was the very first thing I did upon issuing the block (i.e. the block notice is not blank).

Another serious problem is the appellant's adoption of novel ideas that concern warnings, sanctions, and the manner in which, in their mind, they are supposed to perfectly align. But that is not how WP:ACDS works (the d stands for discretionary). Anyway, according to this novel interpretation, it seems like it shouldn't really be possible to sanction them for policy violations at all, because they'd always get a pre-sanction warning. And whether a warning or a sanction, expect these to be argued and re-argued to the point of bludgeoning and repetition. Consider, then, them having said: Personally I think it would have been appropriate to first assume good faith and ask me what I meant by my words. Again, to me, this illustrates that recurring theme.

Further, on their talk page, I noted to the appellant that truly living up to the spirit of NOTHEM would have been to take a more flowingly introspective approach overall, rather than getting bogged down in the weeds of a particular dispute from a year ago. Because the impression people might get is you trying to navigate procedure rather than getting to the heart of the matter (underline is my emphasis). Judging from their responses (including in their appeal statement above), I don't think they took that advise to heart. Of course, they can say whatever they like here (within reason), but to me, it inspires little confidence that the block ought to be rescinded. Again, as mentioned, if anything a full TBAN is probably due. Likely, we'll find ourselves back here again over the same problems. We can't allow ARBPIA editing to deteriorate and devolve. We can't allow it to become an even more hostile corner of the project than it already is. On that I am unwavering. El_C 10:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lines are drawn, but it's taboo to mention that they exist. I didn't expect Selfstudier, Zero0000, or Nishidani to take issue when I indef TBAN'd one of the appellant principal opponents at the time, Wikieditor19920. It makes sense that they wouldn't. And this isn't unique to ARBPIA, it's all the same at AP2, EE/APL/BALKANS, ARBIPA, AA2/KURDS/IRANPOL, et cetera, etc.
But what I find odd, Nishidani, is when I'm asked to play pretend with the emperor's attire. That doesn't work for me. I think I'm able to be blunt and direct while also being respectful. Sorry to learn that some/you disagree on that account. But, let's be fair, criticism, or praise, of an arbitration enforcement action usually follows how each side (I said the s-word again!) is positioned in relation to whatever the specific case might be. Because partisanship in this highly-contested area is what it is, at least at this stage of human development. El_C 13:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not looking for "groveling," Zero0000, just a bit self-awareness and self-restraint. Obviously, "sides" is simplistic. I thought it was obvious that that was a generalization; i.e. views that usually favour the Palestinian position versus those which usually favour the Israeli one. Trying to make it seems as if my perspective is that it's all black and white and absolutes, it's odd to me that the three of you (you, Nishidani and the appellant) would still fixate on that argument, because I think it's a weak one. Now the appellant even says (on their talk page) that I'm being WP:PUNITIVE for some reason. Okay. I'm done with the split discussion there, in any case.
I do, however, see day-to-day collaboration that doesn't lead to conflict or where conflicts get quickly resolved. I well know that these instances represent the vast majority of encounters, again, not just in ARBPIA. But that does not discount or diminish from when conflicts do become acute (in the conduct sense), and everything that follows from there.
I'd say, then, that it is perhaps you, all of you, who see me when things get seriously derailed. Not so much the other way around. And I can't account for everything under the sun, always. Qualify everything, to the uttermost. Again, sometimes, to get a limited point across, one has to cut to the chase, even when it involves simplifying at the cost of nuance. It is what it is. I don't know what else to say. Also, Zero, please sign and timestamp your comments during this appeal. It's confusing to tell what you've written when. El_C 18:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE: One example that particularly disturbed me: Once linked to an attempt to make peace with his opponent and El_C called it a WP:NOTTHEM violation, or something — when someone says something to the effect of: I tried making peace with them but it was not reciprocated, that reads like NOTTHEM to me. El_C 18:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE: treat everyone like naughty schoolkids who have to go on detention for saying "fuck" in the playground — I probably say fuck more than all of you combined. It isn't about just being rude or impolite, and it isn't about tone-policing, which I'm very much not into. No, the incident here was about the appellant having grouped a globally-banned user with editors in good standing, without distinction, in their 'frightening, concerted attack' comment (see block notice). Which neither resembles a playground scenario nor a fuck moment. El_C 18:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zero0000, they did not make that distinction wrt the 'concerted, frightening attack' comment (diff). Concerted as in more than one person, as in coordinated. Also, while I can appreciate your passion, maybe take it down a notch? When you speak to me in this dismissive and adversarial way, you are not only doing yourself a disservice, but also (more so) the appellant. It's a distraction and, frankly, it's beneath you, or at least it ought to be. El_C 02:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Iskandar323, I look at the context. And I look at the disparate components: at "frightening" (which you omitted), at "concerted," and at "attack." I neither adopt the worse possible interpretation, nor the most sanitized one. I call 'em like I see 'em. That's it. El_C 03:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Look, Iskandar323, others, I think I've probably said all I wanted to, especially concerning this latest incident, which I've expanded and expounded on at some length. Three uninvolved admins support a TBAN at this time, so maybe it isn't actually about me "inventing new rules" and so on. El_C 04:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RE: I have been trying hard to understand El C’s advice. Some key snippets which I think I now understand are: "WP:NOTTHEM and bludgeoning problems [in discussions with admins]… adoption of novel ideas that concern warnings, sanctions… just a bit [of]… self-restraint [in discussions with admins]" — the appellant misquotes me (in bold) in their updated appeal. I never said with admins, specifically. In fact, when I spoke of self-restraint, I primarily was thinking about the 'concerted, frightening attack' comment.

The self-awareness is also partly to do with the filing of this very appeal, so I'll emperor's attire -it. While obviously it's the appellant's right to appeal, I just don't think it was in their best interests to do so. Because this was a relatively mild sanction. And as I note above, I think that many of those supporting the appeal actually did them a disservice with their comments and overall approach.

The fact is that had the appeal not been filed, it's likely that after a week they'd be back to editing ARBPIA (hopefully, more cautiously) with no TBAN. Whereas now it may happen, not least due to how this appeal has been handled (also the preliminaries/split discussions on the appellant's talk page). Finally, I've been discouraged and disheartened by the comments that the appellant and some of their supporters have made concerning myself. So I doubt I'd comment further, unless misquoted again. El_C 18:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Drsmoo[edit]

I just don't see how one can claim that "I remember finding the concerted attack frightening", is anything other than an intense statement of us-vs-them and tendentious editing. Regarding alternate definitions of concerted, the word was applied to the cumulative actions of three different editors, so it can't be claimed that it was meant in the singular sense. The usage fits the standard definition perfectly. And even, for the sake of argument, if a conspiracy wasn't being alleged, it's still being referred to as an "attack" and "frightening". How is one supposed to edit constructively with someone who views standard edits that reflect another viewpoint as "frightening" and an "attack"?

I also resent and reject the claim that there were "false characterizations" in my post, there weren't.

It may be worth pointing out that hostility and personal attacks are absolutely nothing new from this editor, I have personally, (along with others) been the recipient of a large amount of vitriol from this editor over a long period, some of which has been recorded in noticeboard posts, some of which remains strewn across talk pages.

Edit: To respond to Zero, I’m a bit baffled by his example. When Onceinawhile posted that link, it was as an example of how I had in some way “not reciprocated” his attempts to “resolve our relationship”. But that is not what that example was. He was thanking me because after he baselessly accused me of racism, amongst other personal attacks and incivility, I chose, in that instance, to not advocate for a topic ban, for which he thanked me. I’m honestly baffled as to how that example could be used for how I’m somehow the one at fault. Drsmoo (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit: To respond to Zero again, there is a false narrative being presented. This was the image Onceinawhile originally uploaded to the third holiest site in Judaism. The focus on that image isn't even on the tomb, it is on the barbed wire and broken cinderblocks on the ground. There is no way that is an appropriate image for the third holiest site in Judaism, and there was not a single editor who supported it aside from Onceinawhile. Onceinawhile then cropped the image, and reverted two other editors, one after another, who attempted to replace it, all before I commented. Drsmoo (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit: To respond to Huldra, I do not see any edits from NoCal100 on that talk page. No one goaded Onceinawhile into calling edits "a concerted attack", or calling me a racist, or posting "girl you know it's true" on my talk page regarding Onceinawhile's incorrect views on Jewish history, or repeatedly calling other editor's posts "bullshit". On the contrary, Onceinawhile has been aggressive and tendentious for as long as I have interacted with them, and I have always made sure to not respond in kind. The notion that Onceinawhile was just being "goaded" the whole time is ludicrous. Drsmoo (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit: To respond to Huldra, I implore other editors to look at the links you posted. Onceinawhile calls me "pathetic", says my statements are "vacuous", says "you made a stupid revert about something totally irrelevant, and noone can be bothered to deal with it", says "Continually claiming POV without explanation makes it look like there's another reason you don't like it but you're not willing to tell everyone" etc. I am working hard to maintain civility. No one is "goading" Onceinawhile, this is how they carry themselves on Wikipedia. These talk page archives are from 2016(!) Drsmoo (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Zero[edit]

Of the words "frightening concerted attack" only the word "attack" is problematic. "Frightening" is an overly melodramatic expression of Once's personal reaction, not a statement about the other editors. By all the dictionaries I consulted, "concerted" can mean three things: (1) "determined" (which could be true, I don't know, but determination isn't a sin), (2) "carried out jointly" (which is certainly true), (3) "coordinated". Editors are permitted to coordinate their editing; we call it "cooperative editing" and encourage it. In summary, "attack" is it.

So El_C blocked Once for a week, ok. Now El_C thinks that Once should get an indef topic ban. I knew in advance that El_C would become exasperated by Once's style of debating, but something more objective should be provided before such an extremely productive editor is removed for a long time. I don't believe that has been provided.

One example that particularly disturbed me: Once linked to an attempt to make peace with his opponent and El_C called it a WP:NOTTHEM violation, or something. On the contrary, evidence of intention to edit collegially is exactly the sort of thing that an appeal against a personal attack block should contain. NOTTHEM is not the sole content of WP:GAB, nor does NOTTHEM read "nothing except grovelling on the belly is acceptable".

El_C, your "sides" discussion is simplistic. You might look in the Tombah case above where I took pains to write "Tombah has a good knowledge of the subject and could be a valuable editor" even though we would both assign Tombah to the "pro-Israel side". My hope is that he comes back soon and helps to improve articles in a collegial fashion. I saw no cause for such hope in the Wikieditor19920 case. In my opinion, we too often forget that our one and only mission is to write an excellent encyclopedia and instead of judging editors by their value to the project we treat everyone like naughty schoolkids who have to go on detention for saying "fuck" in the playground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero0000 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@El C: You wrote "the incident here was about the appellant having grouped a globally-banned user with editors in good standing, without distinction, in their 'frightening, concerted attack'", so we can look. "Edit warring the image out of the article without consensus by Icewhiz, NMMNG and Drsmoo, against the wishes of other editors. This is a long time ago, but I remember finding the concerted attack frightening." So Once listed the three editors in the same sentence and the sin was that one of them was a banned editor. Is that it? Really? Thanks for inventing a new rule; from now on let's block anyone who mentions a banned editor in the same sentence as one who's not banned. But it's worse than that. In his previous edit 70 minutes earlier, Once wrote "The image was edit warred out by a user now banned for sockpuppet abuse. That user, together with two other users (Drsmoo and No More Mr Nice Guy) objected to the image." So in fact you are wrong and Once did make the distinction. Zerotalk 02:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the time being referred to, all three editors were in good standing. Zerotalk 03:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The back story. Onceinawhile visited Rachel's Tomb and took a lot of photos, one of which he sought to include in the article head. NMMNG and Icewhiz objected. The conversation started here and continued for several days. It was quite polite until Drsmoo joined in with "Obviously having a disgusting and amateur user photo is not appropriate." Overall, Icewhiz was characteristically polite, NMMNG was uncharacteristically polite until he started calling Huldra "childish" a bit later, and Drsmoo's first input was an attack on Once's work. I don't agree with Once's description of the exchange as a whole and wouldn't describe it that way, but I'm not surprised if Once remembers being offended by Drsmoo's words. Zerotalk 07:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To editor Dennis Brown: You are proposing to remove one of our most valuable editors for a long time but what you have written so far is so general it could appear on any appeal by anyone. You really should justify yourself in specific terms. Zerotalk 02:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier[edit]

I don't really know much about or even understand the current dispute but over time I have observed that there is no love lost, regardless of the issue, between the two editors involved, a situation unlikely to be rectified by banning one of them for a week. It might be better if they would just stay out of each others way.Selfstudier (talk) 14:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to say here that I have the impression that since Once was given a stern ear bashing by El_C a ways back, a concerted effort was made to back away from too much direct involvement in the area and producing instead a slew of DYKs and alternative editing, it's easy to see in the edit history, open a 500 edit view and it's quite plain to see, these are significant contributions to WP. Its not an excuse, I still think this recent incident was rather unfortunate and I maintain my view that Once would do better to avoid interacting with editors where a prior unproductive history exists.Selfstudier (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Shrike[edit]

Per Drsmoo comments I think one sided interaction ban is warranted as tban will be lifted in the end --Shrike (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

There seems to be this escalation for dissent mentality on display at times. An indef topic ban for something already apologized for? And the thing that merits that is saying "frightening concerted attack"? That merits an indef topic ban? Or is it for daring to appeal? Boggles the mind a bit. But if "frightening concerted attack" is topic ban worthy, there a whole lot of AE reports coming your way. nableezy - 21:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dennis, do you think it is fair to propose an indef ban and then say the evidence exists on some talk page the end? What exactly is the basis for that proposal. What diffs demonstrate any such need? How is "The discussions are all there on the talk page, not buried in an archive, so it isn't difficult to see the problem." at all useful in identifying any diff that substantiates "a serious problem that needs to be stopped with an indef topic ban"? nableezy - 00:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dennis, I agree with your last sentence. But all of us need to understand what exactly it is that merits a topic ban here. Is it seriously the "frightening concerted attack" line that has already been apologized for? Once needs to know, and just as importantly, all of us need to know what it is that is triggering what I personally find to be a gross overreaction here. Because we all understand the rules of the road here, but this is not following that trajectory at all. So please, can you let us know what it is that you find to be so egregious here? nableezy - 15:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323[edit]

While the originating comment was misjudged and pressing the boundaries of WP:AGF, this all seems to have escalated rather quickly, and looks to be escalating further with the suggestions of a TBAN. It this all just based on one comment? Was @Onceinawhile even asked, politely, to reconsider their choice of words anywhere before all of this originally went ANI nuclear? Iskandar323 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@El_C: The comment where Once disambiguates between Icewhiz and the other two editors is just two comments earlier in the same discussion thread, so it is very plain to see. I would also suggest that while arguments appealing to etymological ambiguity are never the best, 'concerted' certainly is a word with a range of meanings, with only the worst and most 'personal attack-y' interpretation here being the sense of 'co-ordinated', and the mildest being the sense of a 'concerted effort', where simply means determined or serious, carrying much less sense of collaborative agency. While I appreciate all of these meanings and would definitely avoid a similar wording on Wikipedia, outside of Wikipedia, I would say I more frequently encounter the word in the sense of the latter. This is before we even consider what different language ability everybody has here, and if everyone is the same level of native English fluency. I see a lot of weight being given here in a linguistically grey area. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that Once produces laborious encyclopedic work like Phoenician metal bowls, the block seems counterproductive, while the suggestions of a TBAN here do seem a little overweighted relative to the misstep. If a slap on the wrist was deemed necessary, despite Once's largely innocuous conduct, surely a limited ABAN or IBAN might have been more appropriate? Iskandar323 (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@El_C: Sure, you see what you see. I see 'frightening' as melodrama. But the context here is also that Once did make a distinction between the editors in their immediately preceding comment, which, as Zero noted, does seem pertinent to the 'without distinction' note. The other context is that Once is generally speaking an upstanding member of the Wikipedia community. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella[edit]

The block history reveals that the user has been blocked only once before this incident - for one day (blocked and unblocked [9]). There is also a warning [10] logged in the user's name as an outcome of the complaint filed by a sock-puppet. Circumstance that needs to be taken into account. User:Dennis Brown, in my humble opinion, an indefinite topic ban might be a little too severe right now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Huldra[edit]

First: To El C: I have at various times voted against bans/for recinding bans of pro-Israeli editors (editors like Bolter21, Davidbena), and I have also seen Zero0000, Nableezy & Nishidani doing the same.

Second: (and to adress "the elephant in the room"): Onceinawhile has indeed been, and still is, the object of (more than one) off-wiki harrassment site (I will not link to them; last time I did so it was (correctly) oversighted, (see here)) (if admins needs links: pls notify me)

Third: to impose a topic-ban for the three words against an editor with countless good and helpful edits seems ...draconian to me, especially when Onceinawhile has agreed that he made a mistake (in using those words).

Fourth: It is really strange to see accustions that Onceinawhile cannot edit "friendly" with editors he disagree with, when I see him bending over backwards in, say Talk:Balfour Declaration

Fifth: There have been several notorious socks active on Talk:Rachel's Tomb (like Nocal100 and Icewhiz); they are absolute experts in goading their opponents. And yes: Onceinawhile have been guilty at times falling for that goading. (So has I, unfortunately :/) Huldra (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response to Drsmoo: See User:Epson Salts, in Talk:Rachel's Tomb/Archive 4 and Talk:Rachel's Tomb/Archive 3, Huldra (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Onceinawhile[edit]

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 (uninvolved editor 1)[edit]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]

Result of the appeal by Onceinawhile[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
withdraw idea
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Remove block and replace with indef topic ban. With the tban in place, the block is no longer needed and would only be punative. The discussions are all there on the talk page, not buried in an archive, so it isn't difficult to see the problem. This isn't a criticism on El_C's generosity in effecting a mild sanction initially, it is just that since we are shaking the Magic 8-ball in regard to sanctions, and a sanction is clearly warranted, I feel the tban will be much more effective while being proportional to the problem at hand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please note: My recommendation isn't based on a singular incident and request for appeal. That isn't how this works. Looking at the talk page and some edits, I see a serious problem that needs to be stopped with an indef topic ban, which doesn't mean forever, but it does mean until they can demonstrate they aren't a detriment to the process. Even at AN, an appeal can result in a consensus to do more than the original sanction, for in order to review a sanction, you must review the entire history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Keep in mind folks, my opinion is just one opinion. Even if other admin determine that the one week block is sufficient, Onceinawhile needs to understand that they are treading on thin ice, and the next sanction may indeed be a topic ban. Being useful and helpful in a topic area only goes so far, you also have to not be a source of problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some key snippets which I think I now understand are: "WP:NOTTHEM and bludgeoning problems [in discussions with admins]… adoption of novel ideas that concern warnings, sanctions… just a bit [of]… self-restraint [in discussions with admins]". makes no sense. What do admins have to do with it? NOTTHEM and BLUDGEON apply to everyone equally. There is no separate standard of conduct when you are talking to an admin than when you are talking to non-admin. In fact, most admin are like me in that we might let you get away with saying something rude to us, but if you said it to another editor, you might get blocked, so if anything, admin are kind of expected to put up with stuff that we wouldn't ask regular editors to put up with. The issue is your conduct towards other editors. Admins have nothing to do with it. The reason I brought up the topic ban wasn't to punish you, it was because you seem to lack the overall understanding of what kind of behavior is acceptable and not acceptable. The topic ban isn't for you, it's for all the other editors who want to edit peacefully, but can't if you are behaving poorly in that area. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean about admin, it doesn't make sense, but you seem to have a perspective that is out of step with the rest of your editors. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm going to out on a limb and take Onceinawhile at his word, and strike my call for a topic ban at this time. I do think the one week block was well within admin discretion and appropriate given the issues at hand. So for that, I would change my opinion to Endorse Block, and Onceinawhile will just need to ride it out, hopefully learning something along the way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ValarianB[edit]

Unanimous that this is a minor infraction worthy of an informal warning only. ValarianB appears to better understand policy now, so no need to keep open. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:51, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 ValarianB[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Mr Ernie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
ValarianB (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:1RR, WP:ARBAPDS
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 08:46 March 21 First revert
  2. 08:42 March 22 Second revert, less than 24 hours after the first.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on December 2021.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is under 1RR, which is explained in the edit window as "You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article." I approached ValarianB to point this out, but they reverted my message with the edit summary "1 day apart, friend." The restriction is related to a 24 hour period, and 23 hours and 56 minutes fall within that time period. There is an ongoing discussion at ANI regarding another editor in this topic space, and after I brought some diffs there of other editor issues I was instructed to bring those diffs separately into their own complaint, so here we are. Normally I am loathe to report anyone, but the response of reverting my attempt to discuss at user talk in lieu of a trip to a noticeboard does not give me confidence that ValarianB will not ignore this restriction again. I believe a warning at least is appropriate. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding concerns this may be retaliatory, I had brought up concerns about other editors in the 24rhhtr7 ANI and was instructed to bring them as a separate issue. I had attempted to resolve this with discussion but was rebuffed. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning ValarianB[edit]

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 ValarianB[edit]

23:56. For 2 entirely different edits and editors, I was under the impression that 1RR applied to the same reversion, but who knows, maybe I am wrong there. But that is really besides the point --- Four minutes. I still have a smidgen of faith that the Wikipedia is not so bound by technical minutiae that this is a big deal. Two-hundred and forty-one seconds more, and this wouldn't even be a thing.

Also note that Mr. Ernie quite explicitly says this is a retaliatory filing ("but given that you reported 24rhhtr7 to ANI"), because I brought an filing on extremely abusive user (User:24rhhtr7, who shares Mr. Ernie's "side" in the article debates) which resulted in a 60-hour block. ValarianB (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

EvergreenFir, noted, will be mindful of that in the future. Again, I find four minutes to be extraordinarily ticky-tacky, and despite the OPs pleas to the contrary, this was quite plainly retaliatory. Again, their words in the link provided by me above. ValarianB (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NewYorkBrad, yep, I acknowledge that it was a misinterpretation on my part. ValarianB (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning ValarianB[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • For a 4 minute window, I would think a warning would be the maximum sanction here. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What User:EvergreenFir said. Both times. On a side note, I was over on that talk page earlier, after seeing the ANI report, and that talk page is a cesspool. Much of the discussion is so way off topic, WP:FORUM, debating ancillary conspiracies and insufficient discussion about the actual article and changes. I want those 30 minutes back. Or someone to full protect the talk page. I didn't join in on the discussion at ANI, didn't want to get involved in that mess. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is obviously a de minimis infraction if any, so I don't think any enforcement action is warranted. For future reference, though, I join in advising ValarianB that EvergreenFir is correct about the rules. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

JustinSmith[edit]

JustinSmith is indefinitely topic-banned from the subject of COVID-19, broadly construed. ~Swarm~ {sting} 06:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 JustinSmith[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
JustinSmith (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/COVID-19
  • Suggest indefinite TBAN from COVID-19, broadly construed.
Violation

John Campbell (YouTuber) is an article about a retired nurse who has made a number of controversial COVID-19 videos, sometimes containing misinformation as documented by RS, and the Wikipedia article accordingly.

JustinSmith arrived at the article and immediately started bombing the lede with a factoid about how Campbell is apparently vaccinated. Despite pushback from multiple editors and on the Talk page this has now become full-on edit warring, per the diffs below:

  1. [11]
  2. [12]
  3. [13]
  4. [14]
  5. [15]

Warned about DS and the risk of sanctions, JustinSmith said "... Banning me, after 16 years editing Wikipedia, might be doing me a favour anyway, it takes up so much time. I will only accept an edit that acknowledges that Campbell cannot be "anti vax" because he is triple vaccinated".[16]

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

The editor seems productive in unrelated areas, hence a TBAN seems appropriate.

  • I have to say I'm a little bit disappointed with the response to this request. While I can appreciate the desire to encourage erring editors onto a better path this hasn't happened here and instead there's been further article disruption and the addition of antivax talking points to article Talk.[18] In particular, Masem, AE should not be an opportunity for you once again to get on your familiar hobby horse and press your idiosyncratic views about biographical content which are at odds with Wikipedia's requirement to carry neutral articles, while you fail to address the underlying behavioural issues here. There seems to be some assumption in the air that the many good and experienced editors working on this article are a bunch of bumpkins who don't know that BLP is important, or how to search diligently for all appropriate sources. It is all rather discouraging. Alexbrn (talk) 06:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning JustinSmith[edit]

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 JustinSmith[edit]

I think that Dr John Campbell page is just about the most biased, and frankly inaccurate page, on Wikipedia. It is implying Campbell is anti-vax, yet he himself is triple vaccinated ! I put a link on to one of his Videos where he states that and was told that was not acceptable as it's original source and what I need is another source saying Campbell said it. Quite bizarre and an obvious attempt to push a censorship agenda. As it happens there are other sources quoting Campbell :

Pollard also said he was hopeful that a new vaccine, if needed, could be developed "very rapidly." Pollard's comments come after UK-based health analyst Dr. John Campbell told DW that omicron is "not likely to completely invalidate the vaccines." "It might reduce the efficacy but it's looking like the vaccines will continue to prevent severe illness, hospitalization and death in the vast majority of cases.'" https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-oxford-chief-says-omicron-unlikely-to-reboot-pandemic/a-59954236

and

Dr John Campbell says Oxford AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is safe https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/19165658.dr-john-campbell-says-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-safe/

Quite obviously not the comments of an anti-vaxxer.

The additions I made are provably factually correct. Furthermore I think a sentence in the opener needs to confirm that Campbell is not anti vax as not to do so is misleading. Campbell repeatedly states that vaccination of anyone at significant risk from Covid is very advisable, but he is against mandating vaccines and advises caution regarding vaccinating younger people who are at lower risk. I cannot see anything controversial about this.

Can you please explain why I add provably correct cited content, then some biased editor repeatedly removes it, yet, when I try to replace it it's me who is accused of a reversion war. How does that work exactly ? JustinSmith (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC) moved from Firefangledfeathers' section Firefangledfeathers (talk Reply[reply]
      • TBH I am not sure I follow all this esoteric Wikipedia speak, but what I do know is this edit has been reversed for no reason I can possibly think of :
        defined by numbers of deaths of people whose death certificate mentioned COVID-19 as one of the causes [1]
        This is a direct quote from the gov.uk website, so can anyone explain to me the justification for this ?
        It is absolutely obvious to me that certain editors are pushing a biased narrative here.
        How do we try and get a more balanced article and protect edits from their reversion war ? JustinSmith (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I have replaced the cited official gov.uk definition of a Covid death as used in the 175,000 stat. There is no reason for it not to be there at all, other than for editors who do not want anyone to know that a Covid death has to be closely defined if it to mean anything. Might I suggest that any editor removing this is the subject of restraining measures ? JustinSmith (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from the admin section. You need to keep your comments exclusively in this box with your name. This is a formal admin board, and that's how we do it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ "GOV.UK Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK". Retrieved 15 March 2022.
[To Dennis Brown:] I accept you are trying to be helpful Dennis, but you appear to be saying is let those aggressive and obviously biased editors have their way. You yourself implied, or even said, that page is totally biased, they are discussing whether or not including the definition of a Covid death make Campbell look better or worse ! Which is totally irrelevant. The editor who deleted the official definition of a Covid death said it was "Ignorant and irrelevant". that's all you need to know. If it their bias is not obvious to these particular editors it is because they are so blinkered they cannot see properly, and therefore it is pointless debating with them
Having a knowledge of Wikipedia's esoteric editing practising should have no place it this, something is either right or wrong. And it is obvious to any unbiased person what is going on here.
Why should these self appointed "owners of the page" get to dictate what's on it anyway ? JustinSmith (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[To Masem:] If you had read some of the stuff those so called editors write you would realise there is no way anyone will persuade them that they are biased. They are only interested in propounding their blinkered narrative. I suspect they think they are performing some kind of public service as regards Covid and how they think it should be handled. I cannot remember the original author, but you cannot argue with certainty, because certainty knows....
You only have to read the debate on Dr John Campbell's Talk page, there is no chance whatsoever of a consensus emerging, it has to be imposed, and, despite the fact it seems generally agreed that page is biased, as far as I can see nobody is going to do this. JustinSmith (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)[edit]

Was going to launch this myself comments like this [[20]] and this [[21]] worry me, after 16 years they seem to think OR and RS are "obscure policies" [[22]] is also troubling. It is clear that (on this issue at least) they have a serious POV problem which means they have a battleground mentality. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a POV problem ? What about yourself !
You are deleting cited information because it does not agree with your agenda, that's censorship and you should be ashamed of yourself. JustinSmith (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No I deleted it because we do not say he is anti-Vax, so it does not address anything we say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also note his doctorate is in education, not medicine, he is not an MD. Hell he does not even have a scientific doctorate (as I said it is in education). Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That whole page is totally biased and does not reflect Campbell's views or many of his videos. The attitude of those reverting factual provable additions are obvious. JustinSmith (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To answer the point about why there are so few sources, as far as I can tell he was not really notable until RS picked up on his Covid comments. Prior to that he was (in effect) just another Youtuber. So there may be an argument for him not really being notable, except as a Covid denier of some shade. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem is that the only sources we are getting are with third party sources calling out his Covid comments or primary sources about what he saying (or sources that do not even mention him but seem to be being used to give support to his claims (which RS have debunked). What none of his "supporters" have really produced is that much in the way of positive third-party coverage of him. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And with this [[23]] they are still edit warring. Note that despite starting a talk page thread up, no one who has inserted this has actually bothered to explain exactly what it has to do with what RS has said about the subject. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And this [[24]] strongly implies it is an attempt to imply the official figures are wrong, how else are we to read "other than for editors who do not want anyone to know that a Covid death has to be closely defined if it to mean anything.". Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They are not a Newbie, they have used their 16 years of editing experience as an excuse to tell us we are in the wrong. Slatersteven (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With the latest comment they seem determined to get a ban to make a point. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC) [To Alexbrn:] The issue (I think) is till now they have been a useful contributor, with no history of disruptive acts. So I think people tried to give them room to take on board what they were being told. The fact (as their threat to retire indicates) that they seem to have morphed into a wp:spa is something outside normal experience, we do not see this to happen except in hacked accounts on the whole. Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we now close it one way or the other, rather than just leave it hanging? Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers (re:JustinSmith)[edit]

@Dennis Brown: I'm glad to have your thoughts on the article overall. I urge you to reevaluate the conduct issues at hand here. JustinSmith did not make only "a couple of reverts", and they definitely edit warred. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dennis Brown, I am ok with a little rope here. If there are further issues, would you be open to a ping, or are you watching the article and talk page closely? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ping me and I will look, keep a link to this if its been a while. Yes, I get to break the rules, but simpler this way ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
JustinSmith, please keep your replies in your own section. You asked me about what constitutes edit warring. Please carefully read the edit warring policy. I am sympathetic to misunderstanding of the policy, and I'd be happy to answer questions at my user talk page. In this case, I felt comfortable describing your actions as edit warring because you broke the 3RR rule, a bright-line violation. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by FDW777[edit]

Let's see. JustinSmith has...

1. Added "though he emphasised this depends on how you define a Covid death" to the factual statement that Campbell wrongly claimed that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted. See COVID-19 misinformation#Misreporting of morbidity and mortality numbers and Campbell's attempt to present his alternative figure of 17,000 (compared to the correct figure of 175,000+) prompted the ONS to refute it saying "to suggest that [the 17,000] figure represents the real extent of deaths from the virus is both factually incorrect and highly misleading". There are zero references that agree with Campell's claim that the true figure is 17,000.

2. Added "allegedly" prior to the factual statement that Campbell spread misleading commentary about vaccine safety and "though Dr Campbell is triple vaccinated and recommends vaccination to all those at significant risk from Covid" after it. See COVID-19 misinformation#Vaccines, December 2021 fact check and March 2022 fact check. At Talk:John Campbell (YouTuber)/Archive 3#Wikipedia is being bought into disrepute there is universal rejection of the addition of Campbell's vaccine status to that sentence as synthesis. In addition the text from point 1 is added back with even worse POV pushing, stating It is claimed Campbell wrongly asserted that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted though this does depend on the definition of a Covid death. They also edit warred to add back their disputed changes

However the elephant in the room seems intent on making itself noticed even more, with this comment in the last hour. evaluate the risk benefit, if not all of what you say. There is almost no benefit to jabbing kids, and not much in vaccinating healthy people under 40, so any risk, however small, from the vaccine becomes relatively speaking, more significant shows clearly this is not someone innocently trying to remove claimed bias from a page, but to push a misinformation agenda. The idea that healthy (whatever that's supposed to mean) people under 40 aren't at risk from COVID is one that's as anti-science as it gets. FDW777 (talk) 13:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by KoA[edit]

Not involved in this article, but I'm rather surprised by the lack of DS enforcement for such a straight cut case like this. DS are supposed to deal with issues like this in a more expedited fashion rather than let them languish like an ANI. Part of that is to keep the burden off the rest of the community having to deal with the disruptive editing. JustinSmith has already established they are WP:NOTHERE, at least for this topic of fringe stuff in COVID, so make the topic ban formal and let everyone move on. If someone disagrees with content itself, that needs to be handled at the talk page, not on a DS discussion board.

Looking over the evidence here though, there's no reason not to have taken care of this right away when a 10+year editor is engaging in this degree of battleground tone even after being brought to AE. KoA (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning JustinSmith[edit]

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

*Need to dig into this deeper. I will say this, the lede on this article is extraordinarily negative, enough that it kind of shocked me. NPOV and DUE are considerations, and I need to dig around a lot deeper here. After all, our goal is to provide a balanced summary of the individual, not discredit them wholesale. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Reply[reply]

  • Ok, I've gone through some of JustinSmith's additions, and the content seems to be consistent with the sources. That doesn't mean they automatically should be included, but what I've checked is consistent with the claims he is making. To get an idea of what Campbell thinks, I went and watched a video by him. This doesn't exactly match what the article is saying about him. And yes, Primary sources can be used (if you don't go WP:SYNTH) to state some's positions on a topic. Even if sources conflict and you need to qualify the statements. This makes me a little empathetic to JustinSmith. This doesn't mean I approve of his methods.
  • Let me make one thing clear: While this article is under COVID-19 protection, first and foremost it is a WP:BLP, and that takes precedence. Are we being fair to the subject? Are we showing only the most negative things in an WP:UNDUE manner? Where the sources are conflicting, and are we stating they are in the body of the article? In short, I'm more worried about how we treat Dr. Campbell than how we treat COVID. And I would assume most editors and admins feel the same, as that is what our policies dictate.
  • I'm not here to determine content, but I am here to recognize and solve problems. Frankly, the article (and lede) doesn't strike me as balanced. I don't get the feeling it was written dispassionately by objective eyes. I don't question the sources used, but I can't help but wonder what sources are missing. This is why it's important to have differing points of view on the talk page. I would not take action here and certainly wouldn't support a topic ban. I would recommend that everyone go back to the article talk page, remembering first and foremost that this is a BLP: This is a real human, so we need to be careful in how we represent them. JustinSmith needs to be careful how they edit and try to get consensus first, although a couple of reverts isn't exactly an edit war. Use the talk page first, and learn to start an WP:RFC to get outside opinions if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • JustinSmith, I think, understands they have been given a little WP:ROPE by me this one time. If I didn't make it clear, I will in that if they continue to edit war, they will be blocked. I think they have good motivations, but like I said, I don't approve of their methods. I prefer to not sanction in cases like this if I think there is a chance to move them to the talk page, and frankly, that article needs some balance. It that one respect, I am being too generous, but my concern is with the BLP aspects, so if he will use the TALK page instead, I can overlook one spat of edit warring. Of course, another admin can come in and do something completely different, that is within their rights. Instead, I'm hoping we leave this open long enough to see JustinSmith actually go to the talk page and discuss in good faith. Otherwise, yes, and I tend to block hard when I've extended a lifeline to someone and they take advantage of it. Again, my goal is to find solutions, not just dole out sanctions. Sanctions are easy, solutions take a bit more effort by all concerned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Slatersteven I can believe that, that his stance on Covid is what made him notable. Looking back at previous edits, I saw where some organizations misrepresented what he said, and we said so here, but we still need to balance this out. Regardless of what made him notable, BLP applies and we need to be very careful in how we present the information. Again, this is a real person, and we want facts, but we want to be sure we aren't playing judge and jury as editors. I don't think it would require that much effort to stay neutral, as he is very public, but it does require a bit of diligence in how we present that info. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Nothing wrong with using Primary sources, as long as we are not talking in Wikipedia voice. That is what we have to be careful with when there is conflicting info, and... it can lead some folks into overreacting when trying to "correct the record". I'm saying if the article was a bit more balanced, you would have less problem with that. It doesn't excuse edit warring, but I can at least "get it" when the article seems lopsided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • JustinSmith BINGO! You just answered your own question and didn't know it. You don't know all this Wikispeak, and frankly, I feel your pain. It is difficult and takes time. Here's the deal; when you are editing a "normal" article (not under Arb protection, like Dog, Car etc) it can be intimidating, but in Arb protected areas, it can be dangerous. Let me explain it as short as I can. Some areas, like the Palestinian conflict, COVID, BLP (biographies of living persons) have special protections that are enforced.....here. If you are new and not up on Wikispeak and rules, you are risking getting blocked, banned, slapped, whatever, when editing those articles. It's easy to not even understand WHY. You will learn why, and how to edit in protected areas in time, but for now, how do you keep out of trouble? Don't edit the article. It's that simple. Use the talk page, talk about what changes you want, start an WP:RFC (formal discussion that gets advertised around the place, so fresh people come in and give opinions). Use the talk page until you get up to speed. There are a lot of rules, so I empathize with your confusing. I've been here close to 16 years and I still don't know them all. So, in keeping with my original thought, to find a SOLUTION, I'm recommending you simply don't edit directly and use the talk page and work with people and moderating the tone of the article some. Don't dig in, stay humble, and you will learn. Otherwise, if you go back to edit warring, I will simply block you, which prevents you from editing anything. I would rather not do that, I think you might have something worthwhile to add to the discussion on the talk page, but I will. I'm being extra lenient today (at least half of admin would have already just blocked you), but to keep me smiley and all nice, you need to listen and follow my guidance. Be patient with the other editors, and they will be patient with you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TBH I'm a bit sick of all this and considering getting rid of my Wikipedia account, it can be so time consuming anyway. JustinSmith (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried. As is often the case, my critics were correct and my expectations are too optimistic. From reading your previous comment (which you deleted) it is obvious my "solution" isn't a solution after all, requiring so little from you but obviously it was asking more than you have to give. I withdraw and will leave this to others to consider. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have to agree with Dennis here that the article absent Justin's changes is written in a heavy handed POV way to shame the BLP, though the solution to fix is definitely not through the edit warring processes used by Justin here. The material is poorly written but not in a way that meets 3RRNO, so how to improve should be done on the talk page. That a long time editor like Justin does not claim to know this basic practice is a bit disconserting, and I would agree that a topic ban or general block is in order should this behavior continue. But again, Justin should take it this in confidence that their assessment that the page is poorly written with a POV sent is absolutely spit on, and should work with the other editors to resolve that.--Masem (t) 13:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Someone who has been here for this long should know better. Their behavior in this article, no matter the article quality, is disruptive, and a topic ban is more than warranted. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Drmies, and recommend an indefinite topic ban from COVID-19. And @JustinSmith: please take on board that you're supposed to comment only in your own section. After being told repeatedly, you're still all over the place. Bishonen | tålk 09:14, 18 March 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Shirshore[edit]

Shirshore is indefinitely topic-banned from Horn of Africa, broadly construed. The topic ban can be lifted on appeal, which is possible after six months.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Shirshore[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Shirshore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn_of_Africa#Final_decision
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 14:26, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sanaag.
  2. 14:38, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sanaag.
  3. 15:35, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sanaag.
  4. 15:06, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
  5. 15:36, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
  6. 19:05, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
  7. 20:34, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
  8. 15:19, 24 March 2022 POV edit in which Shirshore removed almost 20% of the article by blanking a sourced section wholly with the summary: Removed derogatory content which belittles group concerned. This demeaning content should not be allowed on Wikipedia.
  9. 20:05, 24 March 2022 Shirshore removed an entire sourced section of the article with the edit summary: Removed derogatory and degrading text not suitable for Wikipedia. This is abhorrent and can’t be allowed on Wikipedia". This appears to have been an edit they've made from a mobile device.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 15:42, 16 April 2021 Shirshore was reported for engaging in the same kind of disruptive POV edit warring behaviour on some of the same articles included in this report (e.g. [25]), as a result of the report they were blocked.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor has been engaging in disruptive editing for sometime within the Horn of Africa space, particularly within Somaliland/Somalia articles. Their edit summaries indicate they are only interested in pushing a specific viewpoint and are more than willing to erase sourced content they dont like using "derogatory" as justification (e.g. from 2019: Removed derogatory and inflammatory material on the Derivsh period. This material, although sourced cannot be allowed on Wikipedia. [26], vs 2022: Removed derogatory content which belittles group concerned. This demeaning content should not be allowed on Wikipedia [27]. Please see User_talk:Kzl55#Dhulbahante_-_Dervish_Period. for a discussion in which this behaviour was discussed and Wikipedia guidelines were explained to them. They've been sanctioned last year for the the same disruptive edit warring behaviour [28]#User:Shirshore_reported_by_User:Dabaqabad_(Result:_Blocked).

They do not seem to care all that much for edit-warring warnings as they have gone back to edit warring within minutes of the notice [[29]], [30].They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. As such I request a WP:NOTHERE ban, failing that I think a permanent topic ban from Horn-related articles is the minimum necessary sanction. Kind regards -- Kzl55 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[31]]

Discussion concerning Shirshore[edit]

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 Shirshore[edit]

The content removed is derogatory and inflammatory towards the group concerned. I don’t believe such content should be on Wikipedia, it can be deemed abusive should be removed off the platform. However, if other editors believe it to be constructive I will cease editing. Regards

  • I don’t think there is need for a topic ban or a block. Since my editing has been received as disruptive I can simply cease editing controversial issues to avoid conflict before consensus is reached with other editors. I think my contribution to the project overall has been constructive and I have helped improve the quality of articles concerning the Horn of Africa in general. I have a lot of knowledge on the region and ultimately I seek to dispense that in a neutral and balanced manner for readers. Unfortunately, I see that many articles have evolved to form a bias towards one entity over another, and my endeavours to correct that has been misconstrued by editors who consent to that bias, hence this engagement here. Nevertheless, I’m more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and I intend to observe them in all my edits in the future. I’m not here to be disruptive, I’m here to contribute to the platform in a meaningful way. Kind regards!

Statement by Freetrashbox[edit]

I don't disagree with TBAN because I have several problems with Shirshore's edits, especially this one. However, the same goes for Kzl55 and Jacob300 for joining in the editing battle. It is clear from the BBC and VOA articles that these areas are disputed areas. Kzl55 and Jacob300 are clearly violating WP:POV and there is no doubt that their edits are frustrating their opponents. I have had several dialogues with Jacob300, but they simply repeat their arguments with the latest version fixed to their preferred edit (and their logic is that "as long as no consensus has been formed, the current version should be adopted,") and I rarely feel that a consensus can be formed in a dialogue with them. It would induce hasty and emotional editing. If their editorial attitude is not changed, it seems likely that similar examples will follow. I have been a long-time participant in the Japanese Wikipedia, but the situation in this topic on the English Wikipedia is extraordinary.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional comment @El C: I re-read my post above, and I apologize for the content that could be taken to suggest that the English Wikipedia is inferior to the Japanese version. I mainly translate English Wikipedia articles into Japanese version, and I browse in a wide range of fields, including science, culture, geography, and history. Compared to those, there are many editorial battles in this field to rewrite A into B (and B into A), and the articles are not being enriched in spite of this. Editorial battles are generally caused by both sides. I think it is good idea that both be mentioned jointly, but it seems to me that this is being rejected by both sides participating in this field in the Somaliland/Somalia(Puntland) capacity.--Freetrashbox (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Shirshore[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Recommend an indef WP:BROADLY WP:TBAN. Even though editing WP:HORN pages is all Shirshore appears to do on the project, so I'm not sure how open they'd be to that, still, at a minimum, I believe this is what's required to curb the disruption. If they are able to edit productively elsewhere for, say, 6 months, appealing this sanction would have a fair chance of success. El_C 11:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There was also a June AN3 report (warned) and I think their talk page speaks for itself. They have made 7 edits between Aug 2021 and Jan 2022. Anyway, there needs to be strong assurances, at this point, I think (I've yet to see any at any point), which a TBAN is the ultimate test of. I still think it's due. El_C 14:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Freetrashbox, excuse me if I take long-time participant in the Japanese Wikipedia with an extra grain of salT, knowing what I know about the alarming extent of historical revisionism on that language project. Anyway, the general convention on the English Wikipedia is to refer to de facto independent (self-declared) states by their own names rather than the countries from which they had separated from.
Somalia vs Somaliland naming conventions disruption had been a perennial problem on Wikipedia for as long as I can remember. Now, wrt the Puntland–Somaliland dispute, maybe Somalia and Somaliland could both be mentioned jointly in the Sanaag and Sool infoboxes, as a compromise. It doesn't necessarily need to be either or, all or nothing, etc. But that discussion needs to, well, exist. It needs to have the foundation to exist. A foundation which WP:BATTLEGROUND editing work very much against. El_C 01:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is two cases of edit warring on two article in a couple of days. Not sure I would jump to a topic ban just yet, although I understand if that is how it goes. Their last (and only) block was by EdJohnston in August of last year for 72 hours for similar. Being that this is in such a short period of time, and I think their intentions are good (although their execution is horrible), I would be more inclined to issue a strong block, one week, standard admin action, then go to a topic ban if this continues (3rd strike). I don't think this is a matter of someone who is inclined to be disruptive, but rather, someone who gets something in their mind and won't let it go; a habit they need to break. They also need to read WP:BRD, ie: if you are the one trying to introduce new material, YOU are the one that needs to go to the talk page after you are reverted, then build consensus. Or accept you don't have consensus. In other words, take your own advice.[32] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Those are two very valid points, I had missed the prior warning. I have to admit, I'm a bit warmer to the idea of a topic ban now, particularly give the limited scope. The warning was appropriate in that episode was not the most egregious violation of edit warring, but the same problem was going on, a fundamental misunderstanding (or flat out ignoring) of WP:BRD. Again, I'm not against the topic ban so much I like trying to be less aggressive, but you do make a strong case for a tban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I hate to admit it, but I'm coming down on the side of a TBAN. The chronic edit warring is pretty clearly disruptive, and it's gone on for long enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BritishToff[edit]

Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing as a standard admin action. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 BritishToff[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Pokelova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
BritishToff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 16:44, 3 April 2022 Deliberate deadnaming
  2. 16:46, 3 April 2022 Deliberate misgendering
  3. 17:04, 3 April 2022 Disruptive edits on transgender topics
  4. 17:16, 3 April 2022 Disruptive edits on transgender topics
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 23:46, 21 March 2022 Previously alerted to Gender and sexuality sanctions
  2. 02:03, 24 March 2022 Previously blocked for disruptive editing
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABritishToff&type=revision&diff=1080881862&oldid=1080869102

Discussion concerning BritishToff[edit]

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 BritishToff[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning BritishToff[edit]

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

David Gerard[edit]

Not a violation. Everyone seems to be on the same page now, so closing without action. I do recommend discussing the source's suitability (reliability) at the proper venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 David Gerard[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 17:45, 4 April 2022‎ previously removed this source here and reverted here making this the first revert
  2. 19:18, 4 April 2022 Second reflexive revert within 2 hours of the first
  3. Refused to self-revert
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, here
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I know David is a popular person around these parts, I know his crusade against sources he finds subpar to have varying levels of support. But Benny Morris is very obviously among the five best sources for Palestinian right of return and calling him "extremist" or "fringe" is either over the line or nudging up against the line of a BLP violation. Im sure he will say things like "white nationalist blog", but Morris was responding to somebody else in the same forum his views were attacked, and if Morris were to write his views on a soiled piece of toilet paper and sign his name to it that would still be a usable source here. Regardless, that is a question for the talk page or RSN, neither of which Mr Gerard has seen fit to consult. Instead, as per the usual MO, edit warring to WP:RGW without paying even the tiniest bit of attention to what it is he is removing. This is a clear 1RR violation, one in which the editor has refused to self-revert, and it should be met with a block or topic ban

Dennis, I call it a revert because it was David who previously removed it and had it restored. I dont know how one can claim they can repeat an edit they've previously made and had reverted anything other than a revert. nableezy - 14:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, for the record, and for why the removal of the is improper, there is now in our article a direct quote to Morris, "who had just attacked the Jewish community", which is not in what is now the only source cited (this interview in Haaretz). The quote is from the now expunged source, making David's edit an issue of source falsification in which we claim a quote is available in a source which does not contain it. Making this just the latest example of this editor recklessly and carelessly removing things they have not even pretended to look at. nableezy - 15:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I dont intend to engage in the silliness about arguing whether or not Benny Morris is a reliable source, since that is an abjectly absurd argument to have, but this is a simple issue of counting. Can David remove something, be reverted, and then come back some months later to remove it again and that not be a revert? Or is an editor periodically returning to make the same edit that has previously been contested a revert? I think it obvious given his removal in October that the first removal yesterday was a revert and his second removal yesterday his second revert. nableezy - 15:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newyorkbrad could you please explain how this repetition of this previous removal is not a revert? Genuinely curious as to how that is possible, because there are a number of edits Ive made 6 months ago I could repeat if they are no longer reverts. nableezy - 16:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newyorkbrad normally I would agree with you 6 months is plenty long to ignore, except for the fact that it is David repeating his own edit. If this had been removed by some other person back in October then sure calling it a revert would be a stretch. But when David repeats his own edit, an edit that was reverted, I dont see how one can claim that is not a revert. You are essentially, if this is to be carried out with any consistency, allowing users to periodically return with a new first-movers advantage to push their view through edit-warring. As far as a "better source", there is no better source for Morris' own views than Morris himself, even if he is writing in a less than reputable publication. I agree it should be discussed on the talk page, a place David has never found himself. nableezy - 16:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um the two reverts I am listing here are two hours apart, not 6 months apart. I feel like I am in crazy town here. nableezy - 16:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jayron32 if that is the definition decided here then fine, but then expect any repeated edit I make 6 months after the last time it was attempted to be claimed to be an "edit" and not a "revert". You are opening things up to all sorts of gaming here by restoring a first-movers advantage to somebody who just waits some period of time to return their contested edits. As far as the claim of "hunting through someone's editing history, trying to play "gotcha" over edits half a year apart", a the edit in question from October is in the last fifteen edits of that page, and b. I saw it at the time and raised it here then, with David at the time seeming to acknowledge his error in removing it here and here. I didnt have to hunt through anything, I just had to remember the last time he pulled this crap. nableezy - 17:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So let me get this straight, "After a 6 month difference, I think we can consider this a normal edit." only applies in this specific instance with this specific editor? That isnt a definition of anything, it is just how the interpretation this one specific instance, never to be referenced again as though it applies in any other situation with the exact same sequence? nableezy - 17:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No Jayron, I am not twisting anything at all by quoting you. By saying I will accept the precedent established that an edit repeated after six months is not a revert I am not announcing an intent to game the system. Odd for somebody to write WP:AGF as often as it appears in your comments to then repeatedly assume my bad faith. If an edit six months apart is not a revert by an admin then I will expect that same determination for edits six months apart by anybody else. Unless you really would like to more formally declare that admins are indeed covered by a "rules for thee but not for me" policy. nableezy - 17:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not this one admin said this one time, it would be if a consensus here finds that an edit repeated after 6 months is not a revert, then I would expect that consensus to stand for future such edits. Here we have David making an edit, being reverted, then re-doing his edit 6 months later. With multiple admins claiming that the intervening six months makes it so that this restoring of his preferred version is not a revert. If that is the case for David it should be the case for everybody else. This game of we dont establish precedents and I wont be held accountable for my positions in the future very obviously leads to an unfair and unjust system in which different users are treated in different ways for objectively the same actions. Do you really feel that is acceptable? I do not. So yes, if the consensus of this discussion is that 6 months time wipes away the status of revert for repeating ones edit then I will expect that same treatment. Obviously since I am not one of the anointed ones with the bit I may not get that treatment, but I sure as hell will be referencing the hypocrisy of such a decision if it does not hold. You cant just say for David returning after six months negates any status of a revert but for me it would be gaming. That is unfair and unjust and it is not sealioning to say so. We are all supposed to follow the same rules of the road here. You cant say well David didnt blow a red light for six months so this first rolling stop is not going to be counted against him, but for others (me) no such deference will be given. nableezy - 18:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Dennis, I appreciate your kind tone (and Floqs and NYB for that matter), and I am fine with that honestly, I just find it to be opening things up to game-playing, but so long as there is consistency in that definition of a revert for all of us then Im cool with it. nableezy - 19:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified


Discussion concerning David Gerard[edit]

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 David Gerard[edit]

This appears from the diffs provided to be a second revert within six months, not within 24 hours. Literally the ARBPIA ruling that Nableezy links says: Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours. There is no case to answer here.

The source removed was from the white nationalist blog American Thinker. Although it hasn't been formally deprecated, I think it's jawdroppingly obvious that it's the sort of source that absolutely shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. Here's an RSN discussion from 2018 setting out its issues, for example. This shouldn't even be a difficult call.

Even if Morris is a great source, that doesn't mean every instance of him saying things is a suitable source for Wikipedia use.

I note also that Nableezy is already constructing a conspiracy theory as to why his action here will fail, in the course of raising the action.

In any case, we have the RS. If the quote isn't in that, remove the quote, don't put back the obviously terrible source - David Gerard (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kyohyi[edit]

Completely uninvolved in terms of this dispute. I'm just seeing some rather confounding comments by admins. What is a revert is defined in policy, policy says to revert is to undo another editor's actions. It does not give a time frame in which this has to happen. If enforcing admins wish to include a time frame then they should be modifying the existing sanction, or seek to change policy language. But to characterize the first revert on April 4th as a non-revert has no standing in policy. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The policy language is clear, to revert is to undo another editor's actions. Period. That's policy, as documented in WP: EW. Do these removals undo someone else's actions? Obviously they do, since wikipedia articles and content are non-existant until someone creates them. So someone added this, and David Gerard removed it. That's a revert. It doesn't get much more explicit than this. (Using the undo button is obviously more explicit than this)--Kyohyi (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point I am making is that the look back time is irrelevant to how policy defines a revert. That content exists on Wikipedia indicative of someone having added it. Removing that content is always going to be a revert regardless of when the content was added. That is because any removal is always an undoing of what someone else added. And a revert is an undo of another editor's actions. Policy is clear on this. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whether or not you choose to block the editor, or issue a warning, or do something else is your prerogative. Whether or not something is a revert is documented in policy. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nobody is playing word games. What is a revert, as well as it's exceptions are spelled out in our edit warring policy. Whether or not a violation is worthy of a sanction is different from whether or not something was a violation in the first place. Something that is a minor violation, but doesn't warrant a sanction, can come to warrant a sanction if continued over a prolonged period of time. Something that isn't a violation at all should not.--Kyohyi (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning David Gerard[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Not sure I would call the first diff a "revert", since it was added Oct of 2021 [33]. David first removed the source just before that latest addition, also in October [34]. David does seem to have an obvious problem with https://www.americanthinker.com, although I'm not sure if that is withing the remit of WP:AE. I think it all boils down to whether you call that first edit a "revert" or not, and (again) since the edit was removing material that was inserted many months ago, I'm not sure. At the very least, it does seem against the spirit of 1RR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand your frustration nableezy, hence why I said it felt like it was against the spirit of the policy, but it is within policy. Floquenbeam sums it up better than I did, below. The first "reinstatement" (if we call it that) really wasn't a revert. There isn't a specific time that must pass before reinstating a prior edit isn't really a revert, but I'm pretty sure 6 months qualifies. That means, from a technical perspective, we have one edit and 2 hours later, one revert, even if he does gain first mover advantage via 1RR. But in the end, there is no violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not a comment on David's actions but it is important to remember that RSOPINION exists and thus regardless of the quality of the source, as long as it is not on a BLP, there is a potential to use that otherwise nonRS, but editors should discuss the expertness of the writer and whether the view merits DUE inclusion. Which is all stuff to debate on talk pages. --Masem (t) 15:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No violation. In lieu of further reverts, please discuss use of this source on the talkpage. If this person's point of view is notable enough to include, shouldn't there be a better source for what his view is? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Nableezy:Thank you for your question. It may not be entirely clear how far back in an article-history one needs to look in evaluating whether an edit constitutes a "revert" in wiki-speak, but a look-back period of six months seems excessive to me. Even if others disagree and consider that there was a technical violation here, its borderline nature would still militate against enforcement action on this report. As I mentioned above, the substantive issue here should be resolved by finding one or more additional sources of better quality, if available. This should be discussed on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm with NYB here. No violation. The text of the arbitration sanction says "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict." While I would think that reverts that were close to, but slightly outside of 24 hours, might be "gaming the system", and could warrant something, reverts made 6 months apart in no way represents a violation here. I'm much more concerned that someone is hunting through someone's editing history, trying to play "gotcha" over edits half a year apart... --Jayron32 16:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Nableezy: What I am saying is that your characterization of two edits separated by 6 months do not constitute a revert. The 17:45 edit is not a revert under any normal understanding of the term. After a 6 month difference, I think we can consider this a normal edit. The only revert is then the 19:18 edit. That is the first edit I would consider a revert for the purposes of XRR. --Jayron32 16:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not "defining" anything for any other purpose, nor establishing any rules here. Rules get decided only by community consensus, and if you want to start a discussion elsewhere to establish consensus to establish parameters (up to and including no time limit), then feel free to have that discussion elsewhere. We have no guidance on the matter, so we're left with assessing the situation on our own, and deciding what is the best way forward, with only WP:AGF and other similar rules as our guidance. With the lens of "we have no rules on this" and "I don't see evidence of bad-faith acting here", I'm considering his first edit on the day in question a normal edit. This is not a rule, and if you came in here tomorrow with another person in a different situation, the evidence may point in a different direction. That would include statements that the person intended ahead of time to test the limits of admins patience by deliberately making two such edits 6 months apart, knowing ahead of time that this conversation had occurred. Every situation is unique, and needs to be assessed on its own merits. If you want a rule, do the work of establishing a new rule. Don't make claims that "one time this one decision was made, so it's now a rule". That's not how rules get made. --Jayron32 17:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No, and I must say Nableezy, this is becoming a sealion level of WP:BLUDGEON, but I will try one last time to avert your deliberate twisting of my words. A facile description of a situation, absence of context, is not a good way of solving problems. Context matters, and simply saying there are two hypothetical situations where edits were made 6 months apart does not make the rest of the context around those situations the same. It rarely is. If faced with another case of such a situation, maybe the decision would go differently. For example, if the person in question announced ahead of time they had intended to "make 6 months after the last time it was attempted to be claimed to be an "edit" and not a "revert"." that is context for making a decision that would make that case different from this case. See, in this case, we have no such intent to game the system. We merely have these edits, and have to make sense of what to do about them. In this case, we have nothing more than these edits, and your characterization of them. With all due respect, I tend to ignore anyone's characterization. I look at the diffs. The dates and times of the diffs lead me to the conclusion that this is not a violation. If you have other diffs that act as evidence to change my opinion on the matter, please provide them, if you just have more assertions and your own characterizations, I've seen enough of those, TYVM, and I consider this my final analysis of the situation. --Jayron32 17:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This is not a court of law, we don't establish precedent. We apply the principles of behavior at Wikipedia the best we can to allow smooth operation of the encyclopedia. Don't try to read rules from these discussions. I'm not a king. I am not more important than you, or David, or anyone else. I am providing my opinion on this matter. My opinion, insofar as any decision is made on this matter based on it, only counts for this discussion here. If you want to make a rule, there are ways to do that at Wikipedia, but "This one admin said this one time..." is not rulemaking. --Jayron32 17:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Kyohyi Let me reiterate what NYB said, "It may not be entirely clear how far back in an article-history one needs to look in evaluating whether an edit constitutes a "revert" in wiki-speak, but a look-back period of six months seems excessive to me. Even if others disagree and consider that there was a technical violation here, its borderline nature would still militate against enforcement action on this report." If other admins clearly disagree with us, I'm perfectly willing to abide by consensus here, and if there is consensus that NYB and I are out of order, I will abide by that consensus. What we have is, in my perspective, a lack of guidance from the rules, which is to say that the rules are silent on the matter. What you interpret as "the rules don't say there's a limit, so the limit must go back forever", I interpret as "the rules don't say there's a limit, so we have no guidance and are working blind here". When I don't have such clear rules, I fall back on more core principles, including WP:AGF. When I see a borderline or ambiguous case, as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, I lean towards AGF. That's my statement on the matter. --Jayron32 17:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Context is always relevant, the notion that a "revert" in the spirit of "enabling a good editing environment" needs to be assessed, in context. Under your limitless revert, an edit could have been made in 2006, undone in 2014, reinstated in 2019, and undone again in 2022, and now we're supposed to block that editor? I'm going to be honest with you, and this is just me, I can't remember anything I was doing 6 months ago; much less any specific edits I may have made to one Wikipedia article. Is this a revert? I don't know. So I need to go with WP:AGF here. --Jayron32 17:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This isn't a place to play games with language. This is a place to decide whether or not to block someone for something they did. If the language I used gets in your way of understanding that, simply rewrite everything I already said, but replace any time I made you think I said "this isn't a revert" instead with the language "this revert is not worth counting for 1RR in this case". The end result is exactly the same, and if that doesn't get you hung up on the language here, Kyohyi, it's all the same to me. --Jayron32 18:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While I don't think I'd actually actively do anything different than Dennis, Brad, or Jayron here, because it's a little fuzzy, I do understand Nableezy's frustration. I've noticed for a while - with no suggested resolution - that there is a tension between BRD and 1RR. If we assume David's first removal of the link was bold, then he violated BRD when he reverted Nableezy's revert. But there's currently no sanction for doing that. 1RR in fact incentivizes breaking BRD. So no matter how we define David's first edit to the page today - bold or revert - the second edit broke either 1RR or BRD, but Nableezy is trapped and has to accept the edit as the new status quo while discussion goes on. And if the discussion results in no consensus, David's edit somehow becomes the de facto new default. 1RR definitely creates a first-mover advantage, which in most other areas of WP we tend to try to avoid. This is reason #46 I seldom get involved in AE, because so often it relies on gamesmanship, and rewarding the person who plays the game better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reasoned Inquiry[edit]

No AE-enforcement action needed at this time, though Reasoned Inquiry is cautioned that dominating talk page conversations, per WP:BLUDGEON, is frowned upon, and may lead to behavioral sanctions in the future. --Jayron32 12:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Reasoned Inquiry[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Reasoned Inquiry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. [35] 3 April 2022 Does not heed WP:DROPTHESTICK
  2. [36] 3 April 2022 Does not heed hint of WP:AE
  3. [37] 3 April 2022 Does not heed hint of WP:AE
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • [38] Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Reasoned Inquiry: You were not uncivil. You were just doing WP:PUSH. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39] tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion concerning Reasoned Inquiry[edit]

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 Reasoned Inquiry[edit]

I'll try to keep this statement as lean as possible. I see a big misunderstanding of my conduct in the electromagnetic hypersensitivity talk page surrounding this AE action.

My intention was certainly not to indulge in argumentation. I used the talk page solely for the purpose of engaging discussion about the substance of my position. My position was entirely misrepresented over the course of the discussion and my activity in the talk page represents my failed attempts to correct this view with my interlocutors. I use reason/logic to clarify misunderstandings generally because it seems to be the ideal way of making that happen. I intend no antagonism with this; I simply have a style that relies on it, hence my handle name.

Blatant misrepresentations are demonstrated with invocations of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. This standard is unclear outside the implication that "EHS has a scientific basis" is a part of my claim. It is not a part of my claim and I further rule it out specifically here:

[40]

Here are the responses from @tgeorgescu and @Alexbrn that appeared after this comment, implying my claim meets criteria as an exceptional claim in some way:

[41] [42] [43] [44]

My position is that science has not cast a judgment against EHS[45] [46] and that's the only basis for my proposed edit. So I do not understand why my position was not considered as such.

This brings me to the subject of consensus, which I felt was far from clear cut due to these circumstances. This was the spirit of the message I intended to convey to @Meters, (albeit I did not express it well). I did not mean to dismiss @Meters' point, although I see how I might have accidentally allowed that to happen. Generally, I agree with the points they made.

I hope this message helps. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allow me to add my views on WP:TALKDONTREVERT: "Editors with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than those who are less than civil to others." I have poor social and negotiation skills since this essentially comes with the territory of having autism spectrum disorder. Having been put in opposition to being "less than civil" tells me Wikipedia might understand my nature as being uncivil. I try very hard to be fair with representing other views accurately and respond in kind. None of this is challenged by the specifics of the AE action (with the possible exception of my response to @Meters, partly because my message was poorly expressed, and partly because I thought their first-time appearance very late into the discussion meant they might not have been aware of certain details, which does not convey in a standalone diff). By all appearances, I communicate in a style editors do not want since the minor mistakes I make as a newcomer to Wikipedia take the spotlight over the clear misrepresentations from @Tgeorgescu and @Alexbrn. I write long messages -while rooted in concise language- so that I am not misunderstood; but it happens anyway. I have no idea what I'm supposed to learn from this AE action outside the basic instruction not to pursue this anymore, as though there were some general assumption I want to violate the policies/guidelines/etcetera (and would attempt this in the future by reopening discussion). I do not have this intent and I would like to know why my conduct is being seen as a potential problem. There is more I could discuss; but I do not want to bother the admins with additional long messages. I hope this message helps me. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tgeorgescu This is the first anyone in that discussion has mentioned WP:PUSH, which I've never seen before now. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Reasoned Inquiry[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Reasoned Inquiry has not edited the article Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. (They are autoconfirmed, so not prevented from editing it.) They're certainly argumentative on the talkpage, and the sheer mass of their posts is more of a problem than Tgeorgescu's three diffs above, in my opinion. Being unimpressed by hints of AE is no wikicrime. (Just brushing off Meters's very reasonable point[47] is not a good look, though). But I don't see any of it as rising to a discretionary sanction. Why doesn't one of you guys just close the thread with a note about the (obvious) consensus? If RI then starts another long argument about a similar wording change, WP:BLUDGEON may come into play. Bishonen | tålk 21:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • I agree with Bishonen's analysis. The talkpage discussion has been closed, so hopefully the matter is now resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC at Azov Battalion[edit]

Declined malformed. Elinruby, this is inadequate and malformed. It doesn't look like you've put that much effort into this report, like much of a summary, the users involved, key diffs, and so on. I've given you a logged warning due to spillover from this dispute just yesterday, and I'm sorry to say, but this does not inspire confidence. Worse still, when the careless (not just inexperience) nature of this report was brought up, your responses had been just confounding (diff). And also just plain wrong, because not only is Redrose64 an admin, but her knowledge of these editorial procedures is unrivalled. Please do better because a WP:TBAN is pretty much imminent for anything else. Newcomers can only be given allowances to a point. Competence is required, most especially for WP:ACDS matters. El_C 23:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 RfC at Azov Battalion[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
[[User:RfC at Azov Battalion|RfC at  Azov Battalion]] ([[User talk:RfC at Azov Battalion|talk]] · [[Special:Contribs/RfC at Azov Battalion|contribs]] · [[Special:DeletedContributions/RfC at Azov Battalion|deleted contribs]] · [[Special:Log/RfC at Azov Battalion|logs]] · filter log · [[Special:Block/RfC at Azov Battalion|block user]] · block log)

Search CT alerts: [((fullurl:User talk:RfC at Azov Battalion|action=history&tagfilter=contentious+topics+alert)) in user talk history] • in system log

RfC close as no consensus

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

Section as it stands: [48]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

.

Not seeking sanctions, just closure

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Not seeking sanctions at the moment but there has been a revert war on an RfC as people were voting on it. This may be due to a previous refusal to discuss but the bigger point right now is that everyone involved seems to agree.that the RfC needs to be closed and started over.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Not seeking sanctions, just closure

Discussion concerning RfC at Azov Battalion[edit]

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 RfC at Azov Battalion[edit]

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

Explanation (sort of) here. I don't think AE lets administrators close RFCs as an arbcom enforcement action, so it's unclear what is being requested here. See the list of things you can request via AE at the top of the page. If you're requesting action against a user you need to specify the user and why. I would assume that this page falls under the Eastern Europe DS, though. --Aquillion (talk) 22:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning RfC at Azov Battalion[edit]

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

Anonimu[edit]

Indef TBAN from ARBEE. Thanks, My very best wishes for the summary. Volunteer Marek, triage, please! El_C 01:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Anonimu[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Anonimu (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
Eastern Europe
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

User:Anonimu has both been extremely WP:TENDENTIOUS in their edits to articles related to the Russia-Ukraine war, and extremely uncivil, uncooperative and insulting as well.

For the record, Anonimu is still under a 1RR restriction, a civility parole and an admonition to "behave impeccably" [49]; although this restriction was imposed quite some time ago as a condition of removal of their indefinite ban from Wikipedia, it was never lifted and still applies. Anonimu acknowledges that it still applies in this edit summary although they claim that these restriction only apply to "Balkans" and not "Russia". There is no indication anywhere that this is the case. The original restrictions apply to ALL of their editing.

Anonimu has violated all three of these restrictions, and even if one regards these restrictions as "stale" on account of their vintage, their behavior is still sanction worthy. Indeed, this seems to be a reversion to exactly the same kind of behavior (both in terms of civility and POV/WP:TEND) that led them to get indefinitely blocked back then.

The most vexatious issue is Anonimu repeatedly referring to my edits as vandalism:

  1. First instance
  2. and then more seriously here - also accuses me of using "fake descriptions". To be clear, there are two photos there and I did mislabel label one as from Bucha instead of Mariupol. Anonimu could have simply corrected that or pointed it out. But this wasn't the gist of the dispute - they wished to remove that both of these are attributed to Russia by RS. --- I then asked Anonimu not to refer to my edits as vandalism [50]. First time.
  3. He ignores my query, doubles down referring to me as a "vandal" personally --- I again ask him to stop [51]. Second time.
  4. In response he starts a talk page section with header which again calls me a vandal. It's becoming obvious that he's purposefully using "vandal" as a way to antagonize and insult (WP:BATTLEGROUND) --- I again ask him to stop accusing me of vandalism, and point him to the relevant policy about it, WP:NORESVAND. Third time.
  5. Anonimu doubles down on the accusation (edit summary is straight up personal attack) --- I ask them again [52]. Fourth time
  6. They respond by repeating the attack. --- I removed their attack from header [53] and ask them (again!) to stop [54]. Fifth time. Someone else chimes in [55] also telling Anonimu to cut it out.
  7. Does it again and accuses the other user of being my sockpuppet (lol)
  8. Anonimu restores section header. Yet another user collapses the section and then informs them [56] as to how their offensive headings violate policy. This is at least Sixth time Anonimu was told their comments are inappropriate.
  9. They respond with more! User:Mathglot also explains to Anonimu what is and isn't vandalism [57]: "these four edits constitute repeated accusations of vandalism against another editor, at the wrong venue, and without supporting evidence." and asks them to "most especially, please refrain from accusations of vandalism at the article Talk page. A pattern of unfounded accusations may be seen as WP:DISRUPTIVE, or a personal attack". Seventh time Anonimu was told to cut it out. We're wayyyy past WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory here. See also this assessment by Mathglot. The previous user, User:Chuckstablers complains to Anonimu about the accusations of sockpuppetry [58] [59] and [60]
  10. Anonimu responds by repeating the personal attacks --- it's explained to them again - Eight time - why these are problematic [61] [62]
  11. Also Anonimu continues to refer to my edits as "vandalism", and restores the personal attacks to the section header [63] that Mathglot changed to remove them. --- I also ask for the Ninth time for him to stop calling my edits vandalism [64]
  12. Yup, he responds by doing it again. it's pretty clear that this isn't just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but just straight up TAUNTing.
  13. And more. Repeats false accusations. It's almost like he wants to make sure that I see him insulting me. --- TENTH warning from me here (and here
  14. Yup, he does it again and even uncollapses the section [65]

And here we are. I've been about as patient as it is humanely possible here with Anonimu. Ten warnings, from myself and other users. Each one seems to only embolden him.

Anonimu's edits to article space have likewise been problematic. On War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine their edits generally try to deny, whitewash or minimize Russian war crimes reported on in reliable sources:

  • Removing well sourced info [66] (more of the same [67], [68] [69])
  • Typical edits [70] where he adds "according to Ukrainian authorities" to anything that makes Russia look bad, EVEN IF sources report it at face value (CNN in this case). More of the same [71] [72] [73] (replaces "human rights groups", which is what source says, with "Ukrainian authorities"), [74] [75] [76]
  • Restores text to lede against consensus [77] (trying to "bothsides it"). Then edit wars about it (violating 1RR which he is subject to) [78]. And again [79]. And again [80]. And again [81]
  • More 1RR violations [82], [83] with new flimsy pretext [84] (text not backed by source)
  • WP:TEND [85] because apparently because Russian soldiers killed NOT JUST civilians but also some soldiers, then it wasn't a war crime.
  • Removes well sourced text because "it fails verification", meaning, he didn't check it himself [86]. Inserts whitewashing language such as "apparently dead bodies". Yeah, "apparently" they were dead. This is a subtle pushing of the conspiracy theory being pushed on pro-Putin social media that the massacre was staged by Ukrainians with crisis actors. He re-inserts the conspiracy theory here (although attributed)
  • [87] (not actually "per source"), [88] (more conspiracy theory insinuations), [89] (false pretext - source mentions two beheadings, it's just that one was "partially beheaded", so he changes it to singular)

Note that's there's likely a dozen or so 1RR violations in the above, in addition to WP:TEND and WP:NPA violations.

There's even more at Kramatorsk railway station attack

  • Inserting the conspiracy theory that Ukraine bombed its own station [90]. And again [91]
  • Pretends that who the attacker is is disputed out there among reliable sources [92]

Volunteer Marek 00:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. [93] Indef ban
  2. [94] ArbCom ban on top of 1 year ban.

Yes, both of these are very old. But these were the reasons he was placed under 1RR restriction and civility parole as conditions of removing the indef ban [95]. The restrictions were never removed.

As mentioned above Anonimu recognizes the restrictions are still in place but likes to pretend they only apply to the Balkans. This is not true. And in fact, their original indef ban was over edits to the topic area of Balkans AND Russia.

Volunteer Marek 00:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Like I said above, I'm out of patience here. Four different editors have tried to explain to him why their behavior is problematic. The response is just WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and escalation in incivility and battleground. And that's NOT EVEN considering the WP:TEND content of their edits. While I don't think their indefinite ban should be restored (although it's exactly the same problem that led to it) a topic ban from anything Eastern Europe and especially Russia related is a minimum here.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[97]


Discussion concerning Anonimu[edit]

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 Anonimu[edit]

Statement by My very best wishes[edit]

I also noticed that recent editing by Anonimu in this subject area was very problematic. Some diffs:

  1. [98] - Anonimu believes that bombing pregnant women in a hospital was not a war crime
  2. [99] - Anonimu believes that mass bombing of civilians in Mariupol was not a war crime, even though it was described a "humanitarian catastrophe" by International Committee of the Red Cross in text he removes
  3. [100] (edit summary by Anonimu: "source mentions not reports, but rumors heard by locals") - This is a misrepresentation of the source by Anonimu. The article in Haaretz [101] tells about reports by eyewitnesses, not rumors.
  4. [102] (edit summary by Anonimu: "rv vandalism ..."). Here, Anonimu includes to the lead of the page that "Ukrainian authorities have been accused of ... indiscriminate shelling on civilian areas" with a reference to this. No, the body of page (and the source) do not include any credible claims that Ukrainian authorities indiscriminately shell their own civilians. My very best wishes (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. [103] - Anonimu believes that use of cluster munitions is legal, even though Human Rights Watch found that it was not (in the text Anonimu deleted in this diff)

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Anonimu[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Volunteer Marek, you are well over the 500-word limit (over 1,600), please trim with that baseline in mind. Also, please sign + timestamp at the end of your statement. Thanks. El_C 00:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Veverve[edit]

There's been a lot of ideas as to solutions, and we all agree on the problem. At the end of the day, I think the best solution is to institute an indefinite topic ban for all topics relating to "Russia", broadly construed, for Veverve. This includes talk pages or discussions anywhere on the Wiki, subject to the usual exceptions (appeals). The scope was kind of tricky, as we aren't trying to overshoot the mark, yet it's unfair to have the scope too narrow or confusing as to invite more AE discussions as to what is and isn't a violation. I think there is a clear consensus that Russia in general is the primary problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 Veverve[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Veverve (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
Eastern_Europe#General_restriction
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 23:40, 29 March 2022, 14:05, 30 March 2022, 04:21, 2 April 2022, 21:31, 3 April 2022, 17:17, 5 April 2022, 02:22, 6 April 2022 - sustained edit-warring on page Russian_fascism_(ideology), immediately after coming from a block for edit-warring on the same page. In last edit summaries user claims consensus to delete this page by making it a redirect. I do not see an obvious consensus anywhere. An AfD about this page was closed as "no consensus" on March 18 [104].
  2. [105],[106] (please check their edit summaries) - the user repeatedly removes Category:Russian fascism from a page about Neo-fascist essay What Russia should do with Ukraine. This essay advocates extermination of Ukrainian people in context of the ongoing War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. And it is described as such on the page: "The article calls for the full destruction of Ukraine as a state and the Ukrainian national identity ref" in the lead. It also say that "According to Euractiv, Sergeitsev [author of the essay] is "one of the ideologists of modern Russian fascism" ref". The irony of this? The category was already there, I inserted it by mistake. But such edits show the bias of Veverve and their readiness to edit war even about categorization of pages as belonging to Category:Russian fascism when they obviously belong to such category.
  3. [107] - Veverve objects to using Category:Russian fascism on a number of pages (such as page in the previous diff #2), and instead of discussing why the category would be applicable to specific pages (as I suggested [108]), demands that I must self-revert on all such pages or he will submit an ANI request about me. This is a highly confrontational approach.
  4. [109] - misleading edit summary by Veverve. No, Z symbol removed by Veverve is very much relevant to the subject, this is like removing swastika from a page about Nazi. But he removes it again: [110], and again [111]. This is modus operandi of Veverve: just declare something to be unrelated to the subject and remove over the objections by other multiple contributors.
  5. [112] - misleading edit summary. Veverve removes not just views by Dzhokhar Dudayev (which are relevant), but views by well known academic historian Timothy D. Snyder
  6. (edit summary) - is that an adequate explanation for removal?
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. [113] block for edit-warring on page Russian_fascism_(ideology)
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  • As a note of order, I now restored the page based on comments by admins below. I also commented on article talk page about it: [114] My very best wishes (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With regard to categories (diff #3), my typical response would be that Black Hundreds, for example, should be included to the category based on their description in book Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements or in another book, but this is beyond the point. The point is the confrontational approach by Veverve to resolving content disputes: the refusal to discuss the essence of disagreements and demanding to self-revert immediately on all pages or "I will report you to ANI". The report to ANI would result only in wasting time by contributors in this case.

  • If a TBAN to be issued here, I think this should be a TBAN from anything related to Russian nationalism or fascism or any wider topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Veverve[edit]

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 Veverve[edit]

1. What you call edit-warring is either: a) enforcing the consensus at Talk:Russian fascism (ideology)#Scope of the article, and I was not the only one doing it by revertingyour edits as HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith reverted you; or b) disagreeing on the content of the page which does not constitute edit-warring. I told you on the article's talk page that there was a consensus and that another uninvolved user had seen there was a consensus. The consensus was also seen by a second uninvolved user at ANM.
My article-ban was from 17 March 2022 to 24 March 2022. All your examples are from more than 5 days after the end of the ban, so I do not see how you can say I had contend disputes immediately after coming from a block for edit-warring on the same page.
I opened an ANI on 1 April 2022 concerning this page and a dispute with another user, Tsans2. On 2 April the user was topic-banned, and I received no sanction or accusation for edit-warring at this ANI, meaning I was not considered by anyone as edit-warring (i.e. no WP:BOOMERANG as should have happened if I was doing what you are accusing me of). This topic-ban was supported by Deepfriedokra, who had previously imposed a one-week article-ban of this article to both me and Tsans2.


2. and 3. As for the second and third point, you are emphasising the content dispute aspect, while I was protesting against you trying to make controversial changes. As I stated on you talk page, most of your additions did not meet WP:CATDEF. And some (probably most if I remember correctly) of the articles to which you added those tags make no mention of fascism; I gave you two examples at your talk page (Russian world, Third Rome). Another example is adding this category to Category:Antisemitism in the Soviet Union which is highly contestable. I have the right to ask you to follow WP:BRD and WP:QUO when a policy is not respected; I feel in no way can this behaviour be considered a highly confrontational approach.

Veverve (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dennis Brown: since there was no consensus at the AfD, as I told My very best wishes, my reasoning was that there was no WP:CONLEVEL, as WP:NOCONSENSUS seems treated differently in the same policy page (I pointed out WP:CCC and WP:BUREAUCRACY in my comment). Veverve (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dennis Brown: that I may have misinterpreted one or more policies, I admit. However, what POV are you accusing me of pushing? Veverve (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dennis Brown: I would like to point out that my argument about CCC and CONLEVEL were made 6 April 2022, 1 month after the AfD; and they were not made after you gave an explanation on them.
While I was previously given the argument that the soft deletion was not to be done due to the AfD result, other users have also been given this argument and have also changed the article into a redirect, in good faith, in the name of what they perceived as enforcing a legitimate consensus from the talk page. Besides, I am not the one who turned this article into a redirect in the first place. I am not invoking a WP:SHEEP editing on my part, but the user My very best wishes wants to make those actions as if they were outlandish and especially made by me.
While those elements do not make my actions automatically excusable, I hope they provide a bigger picture of the situation. Veverve (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note that My very best wishes (MVBW) has changed their complaint to try, even here, to POV-push adding the Z (military symbol) and the Ribbon of Saint George as symbols of fascism in Russia without any source; this is despite having accepted the letter "Z" was not a fascist symbol according to the only sources once given in the article supposedly supporting this claim. MVBW is also trying to blame me for not agreeing on their scope of the article at the time, which by a 2 vs 1 was not following MVBW's opinion; MVBW's view being that the article should be a collection of claims of Russia under Vladimir Putin being fascist or compared to fascists. I have justified myself concerning Danilov's opinion on the article's talk page; the opinion to me is not DUE and the statement it supports is half a FICTREF. Dudayev's opinion is from an interview and therefore is a primary source and given weight arbitrarily. Those new accusations are either once again content dispute material, or an user trying to justify WP:OR. Veverve (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Dhawangupta[edit]

@Dennis Brown: I think you should take WP:ATD into consideration. There is no need of another AfD to overturn a previous AfD. The discussion on talk page happened for weeks and it was concluded that Wikipedia is better off without this article. The clear consensus was also noted by arbitrator+admin Xeno on WP:AN.[115]

Since this report largely depend on that particular point that has been already resolved, I don't consider this report as anything more than WP:FORUMSHOPPING to find another resolution instead of describing on talk page that why this POV cruft is needed or if there is any academic coverage about it. Dhawangupta (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dennis Brown: With that logic, the whole issue is now moot because "Russian fascism (ideology)" was redirected and "Fascism in Russia" became article after Vevere requested on RM/TR.[116] I believe his efforts were sincere and he was being helpful. Dhawangupta (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Levivich[edit]

Just want to note Veverve's recent editing in this topic area, including a group of RfDs, plus their retirement message, plus more editing afterwards. Sorry I'm on mobile and don't have time for diffs, but it's all in their contribs from today. I would suggest the scope of the tban include fascism and EE, not just "Russian fascism" as that's too narrow IMO. Levivich 17:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Veverve[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Veverve, why exactly are you (and Czello and HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith) trying to soft delete an article that went to AFD and was closed as "no consensus".[117]. AFD is considered a global consensus, unlike a talk page which is a local consensus, as it attracts input from all over the Wiki. It would seem to be that if you want it to be deleted, you would take it to AFD again. I mean, you didn't even bother to have a well advertised RFC, you just got a few people together on a talk page and decided the AFD was "wrong". There are plenty of issues with the article (as the AFD pointed out), but you can't overturn global consensus with local consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm seeing textbook tendentious editing from Veverve here. You can't just quote BRD or only give it lip service, then point your finger at the other guy. I will look around more, but seriously, this may warrant a topic ban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No consensus defaults to KEEP under all circumstances at AFD, and always has, as that is the default state of an article. The only real difference between a no consensus and keep decision is that it is considered acceptable to bring a no consensus article back to AFD after a period of time, 3 to 6 months. For all intent and purposes, the status quo was "keep", and the AFD showed there was NO consensus to delete it. Been that way since I started in 2006. And please stay in your own section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let me add, your quoting CCC (consensus can change) two weeks after the AFD is making the case that you need to be topic banned. You seem blinded by your POV here and reaching for any straw to grab onto. You're quoting policy you don't understand, and instead of learning policy, you are trying to find some policy that fits your preconceived ideas. I don't think you need to be editing in EE areas, your POV is overriding good judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dhawangupta ATD has no bearing here. The Arbitrator didn't take action as an admin, and their opinions don't carry more weight anyway. Local discussions don't override a recent AFD. Had it been a well advertised RFC (thus global) or actual advertised and tagged merge discussion, that might be different, but it wasn't. Your arguments here are moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging Deepfriedokra who made the last block and is more familiar with the case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Deepfriedokra, just trying to be nice, because incompetence might happen in good faith, unlike agenda, uh, servitude. But that's right, we don't have special insight into someone's soul. In that sense, mitigating factors for DE can only go so far, with the effectiveness of the enforcement action serving as the driving imperative. El_C 13:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oh, Veverve I see my block did not deter you from further disruption. Not sure if we need just a TBAN enforced by a partial block on Russian_fascism_(ideology) or a TBAN on Eastern Europe entire. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @El C: is it WP:CIR or is it in the service of some agenda? Quien sabe. Or some other reason? There's a Roger Zelazny quote I won't bother to look up that would apply. The reason is irrelevant. Stopping the disruption is what we seek. (noting "retired" on user page) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wot Firefly sed --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK with any broader than the one article topic ban. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My instinct would be a partial block + TBAN from Russian fascism (ideology), with a clear warning that should the same disruption "leak" elsewhere in any way, broader sanctions will be swiftly imposed. firefly ( t · c ) 13:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I'm clear, a topic ban only on Russian Facism specifically, broadly construed, as well as a partial block from the single article/talk? That is a lot narrower than all of EE but does make sense and I could support that. Not sure how necessary the partial block would be if there is a tban in place, but it can't hurt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thinking on it just a minute more, this would have to be a little broader, covering Russism, Russian nationalism and more. If making it that narrow, might be better to just make it all of Russia, or Russian politics and philosophy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could happily support something along those lines - "Russian politics/political philosophy, broadly construed"? firefly ( t · c ) 14:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I think about it, I'm still a bit worried the narrowness will cause him to trip up unintentionally, or perhaps intentionally thinking there was plausible deniability, ie: editing the current Russian war, which is getting close. I think if we are going to narrow it smaller than EE, it may need to just be "Russia", broadly construed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, we don't want ambiguity if we can help it. "Russia, broadly construed" looks good. firefly ( t · c ) 11:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support TB for Russia broadly construed. Doug Weller talk 10:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reading through all of this, it seems the most appropriate response here is a topic ban from all Eastern Europe topics, per WP:ARBEE. I would also support any lesser included topic bans if it is felt that a more narrow scope is sufficient. --Jayron32 13:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More