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 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331

Johnpacklambert[edit]

Johnpacklambert blocked 1 month for violating the topic ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Johnpacklambert[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Guerillero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Johnpacklambert (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/Conduct in deletion-related editing#Johnpacklambert topic banned
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 19 August 2022 Johnpacklambert requests that Nythar "have a look at" an article that may be PRODable. Since the message from Nythar mentions PROD in the proceding message this is an unambiguous request to proxy for Johnpacklambert. This is in a gray area and was reported on my talk page while I was away, so I wanted to bring this behavior here for further discussion with other admins.
@Dennis Brown and Firefly: Any thoughts on the block time? I was thinking a month, the max time for a first violation. We are just coming off of the case where Johnpacklambert was informed that they should stay away from deletions. I would personally like to send a clear message that arbcom topic bans are not to be trifled with. There is also an extensive history of community topic ban violations that make me skeptical that a softer approach will be taken seriously --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Johnpacklambert[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 Johnpacklambert[edit]

  • I am very sorry about this. I did not think this would be a violation. I thought I was OK in pointing out to people other articles they might want to look at. I was not trying to suggest anything but reviewing the article. I was not trying to propose any action. I am very sorry about this. I will avoid pointing people to look at any specific article in the future. I see now that this was not the best action on my part. I am very sorry about it. I see now this set of actions was unwise on my part. I was not trying to do anything but point out to the person other articles they might want to look over. I should have thought about this more and avoided it. I am very, very sorry. I was not trying to be disruptive, and did not realize this would be so problematic. I will not do it again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really was trying to develop a congenial atmosphere with another editor. I realize now I should have found a different approach. I am very, very, very, very sorry about this. I understand now that this was out of line and unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am really sincerly sorry about this. I see now that I should not have mentioned any specific pages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about the scope of the topic ban. It realted to categories. Someone told me that I should avoid CfD. I am wondering though, since most of CfD (categories for discussion) is not about deletion but renaming, is the ban for any CfD, or only that related to deletion. What is even the best place to ask this?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not participated in CfD. Another editor suggested to me that maybe CfD would in some cases be acceptable, and I am asking about it. This desire to punish people for even trying to get understanding and guidance is very, very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am asking the question again, because others urged me to ask it. I only had one person respond before, so I was trying to ensure this was actually a broad opinion. I do not like being attacked for trying to get clarity. That is a very frustrating process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the fact that totally not understanding the scope of a previous ban and getting a block is used to try and justify extreme harshness for this mistake is not justified. Last December I really did think that mentioning people on my talk page in ways that did not directly discuss my topic ban but who were under my topic ban was OK, as long as I did it without mentioning them in relation to anything related to the topic ban. That was a total misunderstanding on my part. I have avoided any mention since then, even when the issues had absolute nothing to do with the topic ban. This was a very different issue, because this topic ban is mainly focused on behavior. So it bans a clear set of actions. I was not thinking how my action was a related sub-set action. I am very sorry for that. Very, very sorry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not trying to violate the ban. I was trying to be collegial and add to positive interaction of Wikipedia, while also trying to avoid anything that would run afoul of the topic ban. I clearly misjudged the matter, but I was trying not to, and trying to not say anything that would actually directly relate to deletion. I was really trying to have positive communications with another editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the imposing of the ban I was told that if a discussion could directly result in a deletion I should stay away from it, but if it was a more general discussion I could participate in it. I thought that if I did not mention deletion at all, nor directly than the person for his deletion actions, I would be safe. Clearly I misunderstood some things, and for that I am very sorry. The fact that an editor has used this as a chance to engage in character assassination against me and attacking my integrity is very, very disturbing. I am an honest and sincere person. I have scrupulously tried to abide by the restrictions that have been placed on me. The viciousness against me is truly uncalled for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

Clear violation, should result in a block. nableezy - 00:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get Dennis on length, but I think that time has passed us by. There comes a point when these tailor made bans that somebody keeps coming right up to the edge to, and then seeks clarification on what that edge is so they can inch ever so slightly closer, transforms in to something wider, and that point came with the full topic ban from ArbCom. That there was significant support for a site ban should have been enough to let any editor know that they should not keep trying to find where exactly the line is that they may not cross, that they should stay the hell away from the line entirely. The ARCA, while it shouldnt be blockable in itself, is just more of the same. Stay away from anything remotely related to deletion. Dont even edit Lana Del Rey because the del key is short for "deletion". And if at this point you dont get that, then you need to be shown with escalating blocks, up and until indefinitely. nableezy - 14:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay[edit]

If you're going to be blocked? it should be for no more then one week. Because of the t-ban, you're going to be under extra scrutiny. Best bet? walk away entirely from anything to do with 'deletions'. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A month block, for a mistake? That's too harsh, IMHO. These types of blocks are suppose to be "preventative" in nature, not "punitive". GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]

I believe Johnpacklambert when he says that he is sorry and that he honestly did not know that what he was doing was a violation of the ArbCom order. That isn't an excuse, but a problem. We apparently have an editor who doesn't understand the restrictions, maybe because he isn't capable of understanding or isn't trying to understand. I don't know what should be done, but I don't think that the usual pattern of escalating sanctions will be effective. I believe his statement, and that is a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shibbolethink[edit]

Unfortunately, I do think this probably qualifies as a violation of the "spirit" of JPL's TBAN, if not the actual letter. I've been following this user's saga from the periphery, just as a lurker on the litany of ANI threads. I haven't really interacted with them otherwise.

emphasis mine
[JPL is] banned from taking the following actions: (1) participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed; (2) proposing an article for deletion ("PRODing"), but not contesting a proposed deletion ("de-PRODing"); and (3) turning an article into a redirect...
The meaning of "broadly construed"
as described by former arbitrator SirFozzie
Broadly construed means that one shouldn't attempt to "nibble around the edges", so to speak. If there's problems in topic area A, we don't want people to move on to "related topic B" and continuing. If there's doubt, don't do it, and get clarification first.

One of the things I think we should all consider on AE threads is "Is there a better course of action the user could have followed, in good faith, to exercise the impulse they felt? If so, what would it have been?" In this case, JPL could have gotten clarification from an admin if the talk page comment would have run afoul of their TBAN. They could have posted about the page's actual issues (e.g. notability, etc) on a noticeboard or Wikiproject page, without juxtaposing it directly next to someone else talking about a PROD. etc. etc.

As to the length or severity of this violation of a TBAN, though, I think some of the suggested durations are a bit harsh, aren't they? One month, for posting "Another article you may want to have a look at it Giacomo Serra (sport shooter)."? I, like Robert McClenon, believe Johnpacklambert when he says that he is sorry and that he honestly did not know that what he was doing was a violation of the ArbCom order. But I also believe it's not something that requires a month-long block. 48 hours? 1 week maybe?

I know it typically isn't the purview of commenting non-admins to discuss the length of such blocks, and they should be escalating in nature. But I would appeal to empathy. The user clearly did not intend to violate the TBAN, and it is also clearly a grey area that we all think is worth talking about.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 14:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Floq[edit]

Do not believe JPL when he expresses remorse. Or, at least, do not assume that remorse correlates with a reduced likelihood of violating the ban in the future. I was suckered into believing how distraught he claimed to be during a previous block situation, and tricked into intervening which, in retrospect, likely saved JPL from a community ban at that time. I suggest imposing as long a block as uninvolved admins are willing to place. JPL is a timesink, and I imagine he has wasted more than a hundred person-hours of other people's time over the last half year, and probably more than half of that time wasting is due to my previous intervention preventing a community ban. I'm sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Johnpacklambert[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Clearly a violation. I would note, this is a new sanction, yet the tone of the comment seems to be that he knew that he was skirting his restriction. I would like to hear Johnpacklambert's take on it before having an opinion on sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, obviously a one month block is within our authority. I wouldn't argue against it, but if I was acting alone, I would be more inclined to block for a week or two, depending on previous block history. Had the circumstances been different, I would have warned or done a 24 hour block for first time. I tend to take JPL's pleas with a grain of salt, but it is a first time breach. "Setting an example" is kind of tricky, and always ends up meaning "punishing one person more to dissuade others". That has some value, but raises the question of equal treatment. But again, I don't have a strong argument against a one month block. To Johnpacklambert, you can ask Arb for clarification, but to me, CfD would definitely be off-limits, and clearly be under "broadly construed". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we have Johnpacklambert leaving a somewhat cryptic message on the talk page of someone who had just nominated a bunch of PRODs, and then pointing them to another article to "have a look at". Despite not mentioning PROD or deletion in any of their messages, it seems clear to me that Johnpacklambert's intent was to find someone to proxy for them, which certainly violates the spirit if not the letter of their topic ban. firefly ( t · c ) 07:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guerillero - Agreed. Given that the relevant case was closed less than a month ago (20 days exactly!), I find it unlikely that Johnpacklambert could be unaware of the seriousness of the topic ban. If TBANs are to be truly effective, we must take just as dim a view of pushing just over the boundaries or dragging uninvolved editors in to proxy as we do of bright-line violations. Support a one month block for the reasons you outline. firefly ( t · c ) 11:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't behavior I like to see; I struggle to interpret this as a good faith error, and can't see any mitigating circumstances. JPL has been a noticeboard frequent flyer, and I echo Guerillero's desire to set a hard boundary here. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    While a merge discussion at CfD, where deletion isn't on the table, may technically be outside the scope of the TBAN, I would echo Ealdgyth's advice that JPL ought to pretend deletion doesn't exist on Wikipedia. No CFD, no RFD, no new page patrol, nothing. Just go write content.
    Tide rolls, I do not believe we are authorized to place indefinite blocks as part of arbitration enforcement: 1 year is the maximum we can do. In any case, I would prefer to start with a month. JPL's conduct has been a problem for a while, but penalizing him for behavior that ARBCOM already sanctioned him for does not sit well with me. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur that it's an unambiguous violation. I don't really object to a month-long block, but since their two last TBAN violation blocks were both reversed within days, I think a shorter one (maybe two weeks?) that actually sticks might also do the trick. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Seraphimblade: "Reversed" perhaps wasn't the best wording – my underlying point is that the previous sanctions were both listed within days (the second one within 24 hours), so a block that actually lasts two weeks would still be a significant escalation. But I really don't feel strongly about this one way or another, I just wanted to put the thought out there. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm in agreement ... and I think a month is a good start. We've been down this road before with the "I didn't think it was a violation" and the groveling apologies, but ... at this point, I'm not sure I believe the groveling. JLP, some advice. When you get back from this block, do not think about deletion, just pretend it does not exist on wikipedia. If someone else discusses it - ignore it and do not reply. This applies to anything connected with deletion - CfD/PROD/AfD/MfD... and all noticeboard/talk page/anything discussions that TOUCH any of those processes or are philosophical discussions of deletion or anything else. You have repeatedly shown that .. (in the most charitable view) you cannot judge the edge-cases well ... so the only safe thing for you to do is utterly ignore the concept of deletion on wikipedia. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert, in answer to your question regarding categories, if you need a clarification about the scope of a topic ban imposed directly by ArbCom, the logical place to request such clarification would be at the ArbCom amendment/clarification request board. That said, yes, I believe this was clear boundary pushing, and in this case, stepping over it. In the context of a thread about PRODded articles, "take a look at this article" is a crystal clear "wink wink" request to PROD that one too. I would also note that the above two sanctions noted by Blablubbs were not actually reversed; they were just shortened in length. That clearly has not been effective, so I would support a month-long block, with a clear understanding that any more boundary testing may result in something more severe. The general idea of a topic ban is that one is to stay well clear of said topic, not constantly try to step right up to its border. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading the previous comments, I was going to refrain from commenting. As well as my respect for the admins commenting, my opinion would not be following the consensus so far. However, reading JPL's last post I cannot see their abiding by any topic ban that could be constructed. There is no easier concept to understand than avoid all XfD. They've had adequate explanation and more than adequate opportunity to comply. I have to propose that an indef block with some long period before appeal be enacted. Tiderolls 12:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde93: I understand where you're coming from. Please understand that I wasn't proposing a penalty; I was simply trying keep us from being back here in 60 to 90 days. Tiderolls 13:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a clear violation, and I agree with the others above that there are no mitigating circumstances here so we need to take it seriously, particularly given multiple arbitrators were in favour of a site ban based on the 5 year history of JPL failing to heed warnings and violating previous restrictions so I support a block for a month. @Johnpacklambert: regarding CfD, you asked that question on the proposed decision talk page and L235 gave you an unequivocal answer: CfDs and other XfDs are definitely covered (prohibited) by the topic ban. [1]. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gillcv[edit]

The consensus here is that the partial block which has already been applied is appropriate. Gillcv is warned that further disruptive editing may result in a topic ban from the pseudoscience and/or CAM areas, or other additional sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Gillcv[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Gillcv (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:ARBCAM WP:ARBPS
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. [2] 29 August 2022, 15:34 UTC—edit warring to reintroduce crappy POV source
  2. [3] 29 August 2022, 16:11 UTC—obstinate edit warring to reintroduce crappy POV source
  3. [4] 31 August 2022, 02:21 UTC—they still think they were right
  4. [5] 31 August 2022, 03:11 UTC—refuses to apologize, they think they were right
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

[6] 29 August 2022, 15:22 UTC

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

About from my own experience, I know that the therapy, applied correctly, is useful: sorry, that's not knowledge (Greek episteme), that's opinion (Greek doxa). It's just a testimonial. Wikipedia has no obligation to conflate a sincere statement with the scientific truth. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GoldenRing. You have misread the time. They were warned at 15:22 UTC, not 16:22 UTC. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gillcv: See law of holes. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[7]

Discussion concerning Gillcv[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 Gillcv[edit]

I the wikipedia entry "Cupping therapy" I introduced the following paragraph;

However, this is not the first situation when folk medicine is unjustly blamed by "scientific" medicine. The negative effects of suction cup therapy may also be due to improper handling of the suction cups. It is true that there are also negative effects of suction cup therapy, but which "scientifically" designed drug does not? But there are also scientific studies that rehabilitate this therapy.[1]

This paragraph was deleted twice. On the second re-introduction, in the motivation, I wrote that, from my own experience, I know that the therapy, applied correctly, is useful. The last deletion was motivated as follows: the source is not reliable. In other words, the author of the second deletion allows himself to make me a liar. In addition, without documenting himself, he says that the journal is not reliable! Here is the journal information: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-acupuncture-and-meridian-studies.

Gillcv (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu
Mi statement is what: is an opinion?! So, according to your knowledge of logic and language, is a testimony an opinion?
If it is not an opinion, then it is the testimony of many own experiences (with positive results).
quote @Tgeorgescu : Wikipedia has no obligation to conflate a sincere statement with the scientific truth. Well:
1) logic, again! This is not a statement is an affirmation.
2) This affirmation was not inserted in the body of the paragraph in the Wikipedia article, but in the motivation for reintroducing that paragraph.
3) The scientific truth is supported by the citation of an article from scientific journal (not crap!) Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies.
Finally, did you read something about this journal? There!
1) Quote: The Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies is a bimonthly, peer-reviewed, open access journal. (my emphasys).
2) Quote: It includes new a paradigm of integrative research, covering East and West, and traditional and modern medicine. (my emphasys).
3) Quote: The journal is indexed in MedLine/PubMed/Index Medicus, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, DOI/Crossref, Korea Citation Index(KCI), SHERPA/RoMEO, EZB, and Research Bible. Gillcv (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldenRing Nevertheless please read my statement and the reply to @tGeorgescu. Gillcv (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to continue this argument endlessly. Maybe only if you recommend me to the Dutch Commune Zwolle so that I can also receive some money. Gillcv (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Aboushanab, Tamer S.; AlSanad, Saud (June 2018). "Cupping Therapy: An Overview from a Modern Medicine Perspective". Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies. 11 (3): 83–87. doi:10.1016/j.jams.2018.02.001.

Statement by GoldenRing[edit]

As far as I can tell in the mishmash of timezones the site presents me with, the DS notification (at 16:22) comes after the diffs (15:34 and 16:11), so this request is not actionable no matter what the merits of it might be. On a very quick glance it looks like it would have merit, but pseudoscience is not my bag. @Gillcv: I'd take this as your warning to go careful. GoldenRing (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]

PS I'd close this myself but I forget what the propriety is of doing this kind of admin action where I don't actually hold the bit. GoldenRing (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: you are right, my bad. I'll go figure out how to get wiki to always give me times in UTC. GoldenRing (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Gillcv[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I have just seen this. I had already partial blocked Gillcv from Cupping therapy for disruptive editing - not as an AE action. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for discretionary sanctions, the article talk page isn't tagged with DS notice, although I don't think that is required. Not sure which area would be best, as tagging them isn't what I normally do. In all events, I think BK's block was the right move, under the right authority. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is disruptive and I agree with the partial block. The same end could be achieved with a topic ban. Hut 8.5 18:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MrLag525[edit]

Blocked indef by GeneralNotability as a regular admin action. El_C 18:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning MrLag525[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
MrLag525 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. MrLag525/sandbox (now deleted - both versions)
  2. Ad hominem against user issuing DS alert
  3. Statement of intent to continue aggressive POV-pushing attempts
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)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrLag525&oldid=1108136542


Additional comments by editor filing complaint
MrLag525 has made it crystal clear their goal is to aggressively push a pro-Trump POV, and have written two sandbox screeds to that effect, excoriating editors who would push back against them.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning MrLag525[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 MrLag525[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning MrLag525[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • AE should be saved for people who might actually be productive elsewhere given a topic ban. MrLag's contributions are solidly in the realm of WP:NOTHERE, and I have blocked them as such as a normal admin action. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Carter00000[edit]

Carter00000 is indefinitely topic banned from Xinjiang, broadly construed --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


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

Request concerning Carter00000[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Carter00000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

At WP:ITNC, the user has bludgeoned arguments for excluding any link to Uyghur genocide in the blurb, essentially resulting the same argument being restated about 8 times. These include:

  1. 08:41, 1 September 2022 The relevance of the bolded article is also in question, given the scope of the report and the fact that the report make no mention of genocide.
  2. 12:43, 1 September 2022 The word "genocide" does not appear anywhere in the report and the allegations don't come close to that either
  3. 13:29, 1 September 2022 I think that the link to the article is already questionable, given that the reports scope is on counter-terrorism strategies, while "Uyghur genocide" implies much more serious actions.
  4. 14:59, 1 September 2022 the scope of the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism related operations of the government, and makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all,
  5. 15:59, 1 September 2022 I would like to reiterate that the report makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all.
  6. 15:13, 2 September 2022 the scope defined in the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism & extremism related operations of the government, making no references to genocide, or include the word "genocide" at all. ... Given the above, it seem to be a significant exaggeration of the facts for the link featured in the blurb to be "Uyghur genocide".
  7. 16:55, 2 September 2022 Given that background information already exists in the report article as previously noted, suggest to remove the link to the now redundant Uyghur genocide article, as per my previous concerns on the accurate reflection and the fact that genocide in not alleged or mentioned in the report.
  8. 09:01, 3 September 2022 Given that background information exists in the bolded article, the link to the Uyghur genocide article is now redundant. Per my previous concerns on accurate reflection of the report contents, and the fact that no genocide is alleged or mentioned in the report, the link to the article makes the blurb WP:SYNTH, as it combines material in a way which is not reflected by the report. Furthermore the blurb is WP:SENSATIONALISM, as it effectively presents allgations of potential actions as a genocide, which is a very large escalation in magnitude.

After being cautioned about bludgeoning on their talk page and about beating a dead horse in the discussion itself, the user continued to bludgeon the discussion and then pinged a bunch of editors who were involved at a discussion on another page:

  1. 12:29, 4 September 2022‎ wall of text
  2. 16:07, 4 September 2022‎ pings to 5 editors
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 generalsanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see this diff.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff and diff

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe that the above shows that the editor has bludgeoned, has been warned about bludgeoning, and has no interest in stopping bludgeoning. I'd ask that the user be blocked under general sanctions for 72 hours for repeatedly bludgeoning at WP:ITNC with respect to the Uyghur genocide article. I believe this will allow time for the user to calm down and will prevent further disruption in this thread. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: In the past, the user has gone to WP:ERRORS when the ITNC discussion was briefly closed and again made the same sort of argument for why they didn't like the blurb in an effort to get it pulled (i.e. The scope defined in the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism and counter-extremism related operations of the government and makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all). A partial block from ITNC would likely just push the bludgeoning back to WP:ERRORS based off of the user's past behavior in the thread. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale for 72 hours is that it's the standard first-offense edit warring sanction; I think that bludgeoning is somewhat akin to talk page analogue of edit warring (i.e. using brute numbers of edits to try to get one's way). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: A topic ban would also work to prevent disruption and, given that the editor doesn't really edit articles in that topic area anyway, I don't have concerns about it unduly impacting the editor's editing. It might even be more narrowly tailored than the block. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Carter00000: Is there a reason you canvassed ITNC about this AE thread? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Carter00000[edit]

Statement by Carter00000[edit]

On the initial edits, I would like to note that the edits linked were made at different stages of the ITN nomination. I felt that given that the discussion had entered into new stages, it was reasonable to address the same concerns again, given that each stage was for a separate action.

I would like to note that I stopped making the above argument after being warned. The two subsequent edits made related to the nomination in general, and was to address issues with the process of the nomination, given the number of concerns raised by other editors. The concerns were cited to editors who had raised those issues in brackets, pinging them at the same time as a means to request their comments on the discussion. The pings to the five editors in the second comment was to request comments from all participants of a concurrent discussion on the subject on a different page. Carter00000 (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please find my clarifications on the points mentioned.
  • I would like to note that I don't edit much in ITN, with only occasional contributions. I have also mostly limited myself to a few comments for each nomination commented on in the past.
  • I have previously not made any edits relating to this DS topic, these were my first edits to this topic.
  • As per my previous comment, I would like to re-iterate that I did stop making the point which I was warned for, after I had been warned. My understanding is that sanctions are only imposed for continued disruption after being warned.
Given the reaction here at AE, it has been made clear that I have overstepped in a topic of contention, which should have been apparent to me given the topic DS. I would like to signal my willingness to take a step back, re-assess my actions, and to contribute appropriately to this topic area going forwards. Carter00000 (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra Please note that the previous cases relate to actions initiated by myself against the conduct of other editors which I felt was against policy.
In this case, my actions are in relation to content issues on an article. I feel that these issues are of a different nature, and that it is obvious that I would be more proactive in the former case.
I further note that this noticeboard is for enforcement of DS's on specific topics, so it seems unreasonable to constantly bring up my actions in other parts of WP not related to this topic area. Carter00000 (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra Noted on your further comments and understand your concern on my recidivism. FWIW, I do want to note again that upon being warned on the initial set of eight comments I made on the nomination, I did not bring up that point on the nomination again. I feel that this shows that I am in fact capable of heeding warnings. As explained earlier the subsequent posts I made were an attempt at summarizing other editors concerns on the nomination and to ask for further discussion on those concerns, which I felt was separate from my previous point. As per the above, I am similarly willing to re-assess my actions and to contribute appropriately to this topic area going forwards.
@InvadingInvader Noting that (1) this is our first interaction on WP and (2) you were not a participant in the main nomination, it is my opinion that your suggested sanction may be too extensive, given your limited background knowledge (as you yourself noted) on the situation.
I would like to emphasize again that this is the AE board. I note that I previously have not edited in the topic area of concern, nor have I received any sanction in the topic area (or received any sanctions at all). I feel that as a matter of due process, I should receive only a formal warning for this filing, given my limited and clean record in this topic area. As I have mentioned above, I am capable of heeding warnings and am willing to contribute appropriately to this topic area going forwards. Carter00000 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip[edit]

Whatever sanction that is deemed necessary, I'll support, ncluding a topic ban from WP:ITN/C for extraordinarily disruptive conduct, even after being asked to stop. Yes, I recognize I may have partially prompted this by closing the discussion here, but these closures are not atypical on ITN/C once a consensus is reached, as it had been, and the proper thing to do then is discuss any changes to the blurb at WP:ERRORS. Even when he is the sole voice of opposition, Carter00000 has been dominating the discussion both on WP:ERRORS and WP:ITN/C in a way that represents battleground mentality.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: My only other encounter with Carter00000 was on WP:ANI when he opened up two threads: once against Citobun and again against Alsoriano97. In the latter case, there was a great deal of suspicion regarding his own conduct. It seems he also opened up an ArbCom request which was also quickly shut down. I'm not sure if that means he also needs to be topic banned from WP:ANI and WP:RFAR, but it's clear he is overzealous and quick to instigate drama in areas where it would be more prudent to disengage and mediate. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to the declined ArbCom request to refresh my memory, and given what took place there, I now believe his disruptive conduct was and is such that an indef WP:NOTHERE block may be more appropriate.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown[edit]

After filing multiple Arb cases and ANI cases, I think it's time for a topic ban from ITN. This is just ridiculous. Since they dragged me to Arb (which was immediately declined for not having merit), I will comment in this section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by InvadingInvader[edit]

I have not had any direct interactions with Carter outside of this most recent debacle on Xinjiang, but I'm not hearing happy notes about this guy. I do think he frequently disrupts consensus, and if he/she/they had spent more time on Talk:2022 with regard to Xinjiang, I believe many arguments he would bring up would be redundant and unproductive.
Most people seem to be suggesting a TBAN or Block; my recommendation would be to TBAN Carter from Xinjiang permanently and a block of at least 9 months followed by a permanent "probation" period. He's caused problems before, but I'm one who believes in reform. If he's able to prove himself after he/she/they block to be a constructive editor who respects consensus, I think he could be an awesome contributor, but if more stuff pops up about him disrupting consensus, "playing Karen" and dragging people to arbitration, acting in a manner in which he demonstrates behavior contrary to WP:OWN, or anything else that would show he's WP:NOTHERE, the permablock may be needed. What I'm personally worried about is if he does get permablocked too early, he's gonna IP sock vandalize since a permablock could be interpreted by Carter that he can't go lower on Wikipedia, giving him motivation to have a grudge against us forever. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Carter00000[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Statement by Deepfriedokra A 72 hour block seems like a milder sanction than is usually doled out here. Would a WP:partial block of 72 hours duration for that page (WP:ITNC) not serve as well?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. Welp, I'll go one better as a partial block would not work. How 'bout a WP:TOPICBAN on anything to do with the Uyghur genocide, anywhere at all on Wikipedia, broadly construed, of three months indefinite duration persuaded by my colleagues.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Perhaps Carter can find a constructive way to contribute apart from that area. I'll support almost anything. I'm easy to get along with. 😀 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that it's the overall content here that is in question. Changing focus not withstanding. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @WaltCip: If I remember correctly, Carter00000 mostly edits mostly in the ITN area. Hast here been other disruption not about the Uyghur's? If so, that should be the focus of any TBAN. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think if we accept Cart0000's assurances and do not impose a TBAN now, we will just find ourselves back here again. Past experience with three ANI's and two ArbCom requests tells me Carter0000 just cannot recognize when to stop without more structure. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 72 hour block is going to do very little in my opinion. It appears that Carter has a bee in their bonnet about this issue outwith ITN (e.g. here) and therefore I think that a TBAN from the topic area of some duration is what we should be looking at. No real opinion on the duration, but I'd happily support DFO's suggestion of three months. firefly ( t · c ) 18:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is going to be a tban, it should be indef -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Carter0000 just cannot recognize when to stop without more structure opines DFO above - I tend to agree. And I also agree with my colleagues here that a TBAN should probably be indefinite - on further thought a definite TBAN can lead to it being "waited out" with little resultant change. firefly ( t · c ) 16:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think an indefinite TBAN is warranted given Deepfriedokra's valid concerns. Indefinite is not infinite--or the other way around, whatever it was. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support indef TBAN. Which is still permitted, though the new changes to AE, mercifully, may not encompass WP:GS (i.e. gonna suck, ARBCOM disconnect). El_C 16:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pranesh Ravikumar[edit]

Pranesh Ravikumar is topic banned indefinitely from the subjects of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Pranesh Ravikumar[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Pranesh Ravikumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBIPA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 04:17, 28 August 2022 Removes a reliably sourced addition claiming it's RGW. (1st revert)
  2. Follows it up with this intimidation/accusatory message to the editor who added it over what's essentially a comment dispute at this stage. Warned for disruption. They copypaste the warning message, claim that I'm hounding them and other things in retaliation (diff).
  3. 05:13, 30 August 2022 Removes it again. (2nd revert) Warned for edit warring.
  4. [13:28, 30 August 2022] (revdelled) Removes it again and replaces it with a cherrypicked copypaste while citing a different source. (3rd revert)
  5. [15:39, 30 August 2022] (revdelled) Same as above but this time they cite the real source. (4th revert) Warned for copyright violation.
  6. In the meantime we have a long winded discussion on my talk page which ends with them insisting on a personal standard that for "verification doesn't guarantee inclusion" to apply, one must present a refutation to the source.
  7. 13:10, 2 September 2022‎ Partial restoration of their addition which includes similar close paraphrasing (Compare with source) and without any attempts to gain consensus through a third opinion or an RFC for it. They are well aware of ONUS due to the above discussion but they simply dismiss the dispute by claiming that it "wasn't sensibly disputed". (5th revert)
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

Discussing something with them itself is a pain due to the fact that they just tend to double down whenever a mistake is pointed out, argue against straw men and it's ultimately fruitless when they just go IDHT. In addition note that this behavior may be motivated by the nature of the content itself, the initial addition reflected negatively on the Premiership of Narendra Modi which they first tried to remove and then tried to minimise/distract from by adding tangential material. They have also previously been blocked for POV pushing and warned for copyright violations.

Overall a particularly frustrating combination of uncollaborative combative behavior, edit warring, copyright violations and a general refusal and/or inability to understand and follow policies and guidelines. Tayi Arajakate Talk 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just lying. I didn't admit to anything, all I accepted was that there was minor error, a difference between "15 out of 16" and "16 out of 16". The content you were trying to remove is much more than that. Neither Libreravi nor TrangaBellam who introduced and restored the section seem to agree that it included "misrepresentation of sources, over-exaggeration, and exceptional claims". No one else supported your position, you clearly didn't have a consensus and you were arguing against things no one said. Case in point saying that "Claims like Indian government is operating a Gestapo would require peer-reviewed scholarly sources" (diff) when there was no mention of any gestapo in the addition.
And the objection against your addition is simple, that it deviates from the subject of the article. You can't wish that away by claiming that "there can be no sensible objection". Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding D4iNa4's statement, I'll stand by my messages at User talk:D4iNa4#September 2022, the evidence is linked in the messages themselves for anyone to see what's what.
I should point out though, the discussion had 5 editors who all opposed inclusion at the time when D4iNa4 decided to comment at 16:17, 3 September 2022 (after reinstating the disputed content) and pinged 4 different editor of their choice while seeking support for inclusion; not an RfC, 3O, Wikiproject or noticeboard. Even then I gave it quite a bit of latitude. It's also irrelevant whether those being canvassed are in good standing. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deepfriedokra, do you consider any of my messages to D4iNa4 unjustified? I try my best to discuss content disputes but it becomes a problem if all I get is a complete dismissal of policy based concerns and forceful insertion of disputed material without seeking appropriate venues of dispute resolution, which is something both Ravikumar and Di4Ni4 did and continue to do so.
For instance, Ravikumar's present response to something being undue or coatracking is that it's just JDL, earlier it was "not sensible", Di4Ni4 argument was an unfounded accusation of stonewalling and followed by a comment saying that there was no "actual explaination". Both of them tried to restore the material while the discussion was ongoing and largely against inclusion.Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark, to see what they think about this. I should also add, since both Ravikumar and Di4Ni4 keep bandying them around claiming that they support inclusion (as if it takes away from the conduct issues), as far as I can tell all they have said is that there may be scope for inclusion which is not something I even disagree with, rather my position is that it isn't due at the present state of the article. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deepfriedokra, I said "now you're just lying" because Ravikumar said "Tayi Arajakate admitted their edits involved misrepresentation of sources and over-exaggeration not supported by sources." What am I supposed to say if someone puts words in my mouth? And where's the evidence that I was stonewalling? This is not battleground behavior, throwing accusations over a content dispute is. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnuniq, fine, I understand. Wasn't my greatest moment. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • D4iNa4, 2 of those reverts are of copyrighted material and "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" (see WP:ONUS). It wasn't my responsibility to open the talk page discussion in the first place but on those who want to include it, yet I did. And yeah I'll stand by the message because you made a serious conduct accusation sans any evidence which is a personal attack and used it as a justification to restore content that was removed on policy based objections. This was your very first action in the dispute and you didn't even bother to join the talk page discussion until the material was removed again.
And just because something is sourced does not mean it has to included, the same policy linked above clearly states that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, this has already been stated in the discussion. It's ironic that you are talking about CIR and IDHT. This conduct pretty much mimics that of Ravikumar's. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And "Conflict between India and Pakistan" does have a lot to do with "Indian government", both also fall under ARBIPA. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]


Discussion concerning Pranesh Ravikumar[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 Pranesh Ravikumar[edit]

Why this report is being filed when the content dispute has been already resolved? I am saying this in the sense that there can be no sensible objection to the content that exists in the present version.

The content which I had removed included misrepresentation of sources, over-exaggeration, and exceptional claims.

But the content which I wrote was in fact expansion and was based on quality sources like Christophe Jaffrelot.

I admit I had to focus more on rewriting, but I haven't breached copyrights since.

Tayi Arajakate admitted their edits involved misrepresentation of sources and over-exaggeration not supported by sources.[9]

After this, I discussed reliably sourced content backed with multiple sources with Tayi Arajakte on their talk page, but only to see them failing to provide a sensible reason to remove the reliably sourced information. After nearly 3 days of discussion I restored the content.[10]

I was following WP:BRD here and gave every opportunity to Tayi Arajakte to provide a good explanation behind the removal of the content backed with quality sources. I also told Tayi Arajakte how they can justify the removal.

If the community was consulted over this content then I am sure it will favor my position that the reliably sourced content should not be removed. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Deepfriedokra: Depends on the claims that are being made but scholarly sources are more ideal supporting the text which is exceptional, though the dispute was not just about the use of news sources but also the misrepresentation of the existing sources. I had 3 DS alerts this year, 1 was about ARBIPA, 1 was about BLP and 1 was about South Asian social groups. But that is clearly not indicative of any 'disruption' because alerts are notifications, not warnings, the message box of DS alert clearly notes "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Seraphimblade: I wanted to address the reverts and warning on my talk page this is why I made the message on user's talk page to address all this together but from next time I will ensure addressing content-related issues on the talk page of the article. I am not brushing off the copyright violation but stating how it could be avoided. Isn't it more important to show how one has recognised what went wrong and try to avoid making the same mistake next time? I had a reading of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE and I promise not to violate copyrights again. You should see Talk:Premiership of Narendra Modi#Use of investigative agencies where Tayi Arajakte is aggressively relying on his WP:JDL-based explanations to get rid of the content reliably sourced to the best available source of this subject after edit warring to remove it here without gaining consensus. At least 3 far more experienced users (including 2 admins) have agreed with my position. You shouldn't be topic banning a user who is on the correct side in this dispute. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC) was[reply]
  • @Deepfriedokra: You can trust me with another chance. I read the new inputs provided here, especially that of Vanamonde93. Once again I am reassuring you that I will be more careful and the problems that have been highlighted about my editing with regard to handling content dispute and copyrights won't emerge again because I am capable to avoid any further issues with my editing. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deepfriedokra: It could be because I got reported for the first time but I can avoid any issues with my editing from occurring again. I edit a good number of articles related to India where I have been productive. I would reiterate that you can trust me with another chance. Thanks Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Seraphimblade and Deepfriedokra: The report was filed nearly 2 weeks ago and I have been able to bring constructive edits in this topic area since. The sanction would seem punitive. Two more admins have commented here of which one had no comment on sanctioning me and one admin said I should be at least warned. This shows that it is not urgent to topic ban me. I have provided my assurances with full understanding not to engage in any form of disruption again and explained how I will avoid the issues from reoccurring. I am just saying I should be given one last chance failing which I won't be opposed to any sanction. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnuniq: I would insist that I am sincere with the assurances I have made here and I am already showing extra caution with my editing and avoiding any disruption. I am assuring you that the issues won't be reoccurring again. I hope you will give me one last chance. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by D4iNa4[edit]

Making my statement here because of 2 frivolous warnings I received from Tayi Arajakate right after I made my comment on talk page.

First warning falsely claims that I violated WP:NPA because of the word "WP:STONEWALLING" I used here, followed by the false claim of having a "rough consensus", despite no consensus is developed in less than 2 hours for removing reliably sourced content. No evidence of WP:NPA violation was ever provided.

Second warning falsely claims that I violated WP:CANVASSING by notifying the long term contributors in good standing who have edited this article for years.

Either this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior or a WP:CIR issue, or a combination of both. You can't go around spamming frivolous warnings just to get discourage your opponent in a content dispute. Admins need to take a look at this misconduct of Tayi Arajakte. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tayi Arajakte adds in response to my comment above that "I'll stand by my messages at User talk:D4iNa4#September 2022", and this is after being already told how they are wrong with their battleground mentality. This shows there is not only a competence issue with Tayi Arajakte but also IDHT. You don't hold high ground when you have yourself made 3 reverts[11][12][13] to remove reliably sourced content just before you are starting the discussion on talk page.[14] D4iNa4 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deepfriedokra: "Conflict between India and Pakistan". Though it has nothing to do with this particular subject. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TrangaBellam[edit]

It is ridiculous that Tayi —who is one of the most competent and cooperative editors about Indian topics— is being considered for a TBan. That too, based on flimsy evidence from someone who is under an indefinite AE sanction (since 2018) and has since commited less than 500 edits. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93[edit]

(I had intended to sit this one out *sigh*). I read the section of Jaffrelot's book that's under dispute. That source is indeed the best on the topic that I am aware of. It constitutes three substantial paragraphs discussing how the administration of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has used its investigative agencies to intimidate and/or harass political opponents. The section begins with a passing mention of a historical instance when a politician of the opposing party used the same tactics. If I were interested in genuinely improving that section, I would summarize what the source had to say about the Modi administration. Instead, PraneshRavikumar has decided to lead with the single sentence that's critical of a different politician. This was after he first tried blanking the section. His edit-summary was dreadful, too. I can't help but believe PR has an axe to grind here, and would benefit from some time away from this dispute. A logged warning is the minimum I'd recommend: South Asian politics requires more collaboration and less belligerence, and his attitude toward the copyvio situation was...cavalier. I see no substantive evidence here against Tayi Arajakate. The templated warning wasn't necessary; no attacks were made; but I don't think highly of D4iNa4's choice to jump right into an edit-war after 2+ years of not touching the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark[edit]

I haven't followed all this carefully (RL busyness) but I don't think a tban for Tayi Arajakate is a good idea. No comment on Pranesh Ravikumar. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TylerBurden[edit]

I think a topic ban is reasonable here, poor behaviour went on for far too long and only seems to have turned into remorse now that consequenses look likely. The topic area is complicated enough without editing like this and Pranesh Ravikumar seems to have a POV that is strong enough to get in the way of constructively editing the topic. --TylerBurden (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Pranesh Ravikumar[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Since when do we require peer reviewed scholarly sources? What we require is content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking."-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like Pranesh Ravikumar needs a TBAN from ARBPIA. Notice they have three(?) DS alerts. Will await further input. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Still waiting for more input. Noting @Seraphimblade:'s comment. Is Pranesh Ravikumar's counter argument sufficient? However, I now wonder if Tayi Arajakte does not need a TBAN, based on D4iNa4's statement. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pranesh Ravikumar's comment on my talk is germane here -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like enough battle behavior to go around. I will say that, "Now you're just lying," falls below my expectations for the conduct of members of the Community. So, I'd like another admin to unravel this knot of naughtiness. Maybe TBANs for Pranesh Ravikumar and Tayi Arajakat? Yes, Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark will offer the needed insight. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @D4iNa4: Are you under an indefinite AE sanction? For what area? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Vanamonde93, for bringing light where there was darkness. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So, with that, the false trails of the red herrings have been cleared away and I am back to my original impression-- that Pranesh Ravikumar needs "some time away from the subject area" . I apologize to @Tayi Arajakate: to whom the false trail had led. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I do not find Pranesh Ravikumar's assurances very reassuring. It is a pity this awakening of awareness did not occur sooner. Assuming the TBAN is enacted, we can hope this new-found awareness will help them appeal it in the future. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noted Pranesh Ravikumar's latest and am not fully persuaded to go with just a warning unless @Seraphimblade: is in agreement. (Or any admin who has not yet opined in this section.) Though other admins have commented, they commented as regular users, and not in the result section. Vanamonde93 felt a warning is a minimal response to these problems and did not oppose a TBAN. Frankly, being on one's best behavior for a couple of weeks is a good thing, but is it good enough? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Johnuniq. You are the tie-beaker in my mental deadlock. TylerBurden has summed up my feelings. Tayi Arajakate's contrition, while belated, is noted and appreciated. Pranesh Ravikumar's belated contrition is noted. While belated, it offers hope for removal of the TBAN further along. A TBAN from WP:ARBIPA areas of indefinite duration (not infinite) and appealable in six months. (It's a big encyclopedia, and you might find something you enjoy that is less contentious.) And please do not go a long period of time w/o appealing unless it is your wish to eschew this area for a long period of time. On the other hand, please don't assume the TBAN is expired after a length of time. Best. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not impressed with Pranesh Ravikumar here. I'm not sure why they brought the content discussion to a user talk page rather than the article talk page; that's generally unproductive. And I'm even less impressed with repeated copyright violations, and then characterizing that with a brushoff I admit I had to focus more on rewriting.... I'm inclined to agree with a topic ban here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems, then, that there are no further objections to resolving this with the aforementioned topic ban against Pranesh Ravikumar. Unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects, I will close as such. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Deepfriedokra, I'm similarly not terribly convinced, as I should think one might be on one's best behavior while an AE request regarding that behavior is open. Of course, I've seen people unable to manage even that, but that's pretty minimal. Still, I suppose some improvement is better than none. If I were to agree to a warning, it would be a formal logged warning, with a clear understanding that any more trouble is almost certain to result in sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having read through the comments above, particularly those of Vanamonde93, I support the topic ban of Pranesh Ravikumar with no other action.
    @Tayi Arajakate: Regarding "now you're just lying", the policies are WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If you are unable or unwilling to comply with those policies you should not work in topics under discretionary sanctions. If someone puts words in your mouth, you politely but firmly say that the claim [brief outline here] is not correct—you said nothing like that. You might also ask the person to strike their comment as it was not correct. If a polite request to do that does not lead to what you regard as a desirable outcome, you might try one more time by politely but firmly repeating your request on the person's talk. Their response or lack of response will be available for others to see if a report such as this subsequently occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku[edit]

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.

Trickipaedia[edit]

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 Trickipaedia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Venkat TL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Trickipaedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups, WP:ARBIPA, WP:NEWBLPBAN
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Special:Diff/1107338973 29 August 2022, Trickipaedia removed caste related biography information from an Indian politician's page. The info was reliably sourced where the politician has explicitly self identified himself with the caste.
  2. Special:Diff/1110902128 removed the same again (edit warring) without completing discussion. (I have not reverted his second edit, so far)
  3. Special:Diff/1110424602 same disruption on other articles.

It seems Trickipaedia has taken it upon himself to purge Wikipedia of caste related information. When asked about what Wikipedia policy approves of his actions, I was called a promoter of casteism (which I take as a personal attack), in a message on my user talk Special:Diff/1110904786 and was asked to "stop casteism". (I am neither a caste warrior, nor caste promoter etc). Responding to my question, Special:Diff/1110778705/1110904555 he pointed me to WP:GS/CASTE, even though that page nowhere says anything about purging caste info from articles.

I have not checked his past contributions to gauge the extent of this disruption, so admins should check and revert them. I am making this request to the admins to put an end to his purging and disruption of information and personal attacks when challenged.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Special:Diff/1110924214
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I am not sure where you are coming from and your intentions behind this bowdlerizing of encyclopedic information from Biographies. Some people wrongly believe that by censoring any mention of caste will simply abolish it. Just as some people in USA believe that preventing kids from learning about slavery, will stop racism. It doesn't. No you cannot do it by deleting history from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not for caste activism. Let me give you an analogy of this situation related to your edits. 44th US President Barak Obama, when he says he is black, he is not promoting racism or inviting racism. Neither are Wiki users promoting racism when they write it in his bio. Sisodia has genuine reasons in discussing his caste with the newspaper. Similarly Wikipedia documents his political positions as he is a public servant. (Deputy Chief Minister) an executive government post. --Venkat TL (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Trickipaedia

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 Trickipaedia

Exactly what is the "charge" and what is the proposed punishment? What Venkat TL is doing here is bullying by unnecessarily dragging me to some sort of penal noticeboard. I have not vandalised any page or acted in bad faith in any article edit ever. And the other bit about Sonia Gandhi that somebody mentioned, can be referenced through thousands of scholarly books (go to books.google.com) , including her authoritative biography. So I have no idea why adding her real name before immigrating to India, is a problem. Is every Indian person's Wikipedia page supposed to mention his "caste", an outmoded and divisive distinction? There has to be some relevance to the article. Doesn't the GS/CASTE policy mention that "explicitly including caste associations" can be a ground for sanctions? So, it should be Venkat TL who should be sanctioned for including it.

Caste is a sensitive matter and I do not see why somebody wants to sanction someone for removing "caste" of a living Indian politician. Have I committed a grave sin? This is the norm that many others follow and tell others. I did not invent it; I noted others saying that caste affiliations are discouraged unless relevant.

In any case, I think the right thing would have been to send me a message about why including caste for every Indian politician/person is important and inviting me to a talk page discussion on Sisodia's talk page about why his caste must be mentioned there. Instead, it has turned into an ego war where the complainant wants to feel some sort of gleeful sense of victory and vanquishing for getting me "sanctioned"—a practice some editors engage in but is actually very bad for the Project where many people genuinely want to contribute. Honestly, the admins would be wise to not turn something so trivial into negativity. If everybody here agrees that caste must be mentioned for Sisodia and other Indians, then just say it. Why "sanction" me for doing what I think is reasonable. Why are we applying a different standard for Indian politicians when we don't mention "race" for Western politicians? If there is anyone here who needs sanctioning then it is Venkat TL who is obviously abusing this forum which is used for serious matters and not basic content dispute. I rest my case and will not read or reply any further.--Trickipaedia (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Trickipaedia (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Trickipaedia

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Edits like this (in opposition to the source clearly given), this additional removal of Rajput, and while not critical, adding unsourced BLP info in the IPA area (just before the DS alert by DW), all make me think they don't need to be in the IPA area. Their other edits to technical articles seem ok on the surface, but there seems to be a desire to Right Great Wrongs in regard to castes. This isn't conducive to collaboration. The disruption is new and limited to just a couple of edits at this time, but still, I would need to hear from Trickipaedia to get an idea where they expect to go from here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trickipaedia, if your goal was to demonstrate why sanctions aren't necessary, you failed spectacularly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we could do a tban on anything related to the caste system in India, and that would be a narrow but adequate sanction that should remove disruption without keeping them from being able to edit in the area. Just not anything caste related. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extorc[edit]

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 Extorc

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Venkat TL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Extorc (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:NEWBLPBAN, WP:ARBIPA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
On Popular Front of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  1. 23 September 2022 Multiple BLP violations of WP:SUSPECT was wrongly restored. Extremely controversial content based on primary sources was wrongly restored.
  2. 23 September 2022 Despite warning on user talk and Article talk to not restore the contentious and poorly sourced material, went ahead to violate WP:BLP once again with edit warring.
    Since the above 2 diffs involve large amount of text, you can refer to these smaller diffs, Where I removed the content, but the same was restored by Extorc in above mass reverts. Special:Diff/1111743592/1111744176, Special:Diff/1111744533/1111744672, Special:Diff/1111758739/1111759127 among others.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
As mentioned here Special:Diff/1111873135, Extorc believes that if arrests of a person have occured the person can be named on Wikipedia articles.
The article is controversial and Extorc was repeatedly asked by me to be mindful of WP:BLP yet he proceeded to repeatedly add it into the article. Many of the additions were originally added by Extorc (e.g. Special:Diff/1089577061), so I believe this user needs a timeout until he agrees not to violate WP:SUSPECT and shows understanding of WP:BLP. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Extorc's response makes clear his motivations to edit war and restore the policy violations. I believe his plan was to take this to WP:ANEW. He claims I removed content "without providing any meaningful explanation". As if the long discussion and explanation by me, on the talk page dont even exist. Rest of the diffs are attempts at deflection. --Venkat TL (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Extorc

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 Extorc

Venkat TL appears to be using "BLP" as an exemption for his content removal of over 30,000 bytes of content by providing misleading edit summaries[17][18] and using horrible sources such as Instagram.com.[19] . If Venkat TL wants to rewrite some sentences or remove the names then he needs to mention that but he is using "BLP" as improper justification for removing more than 30,000 bytes and that is WP:DE.

On talk page, nobody has bought the claims of Venkat TL so far. See Talk:Popular Front of India#Recent removals.

This misuse and misrepresentation of WP:BLP is a heavily prevalent from Venkat TL. This is totally evident from the very recent 4RR violation he did just yesterday on Raju Srivastav (I edited and watchlisted this article before so I know[20]) and he is already going through a report on WP:ANEW (permalink) for it.

On Raju Srivastav, he charged the subject "for his hypocrisy",[21] and defended this BLP violation on talk page[22] even after being told several times about the violation.

He was warned on his talk page by admin Liz for the misconduct.[23] On ANEW, admin Bbb23 told Venkat TL that "Venkat TL's claim of a BLP exemption for edit-warring is at least procedurally invalid",[24] but Venkat TL kept trying to prove himself that he correct (see WP:IDHT).[25]

Not even 1 day was elapsed and Venkat TL is already misusing "BLP" to get rid of over 30,000 bytes of content without providing any meaningful explanation. The last block of Venkat TL on July 2022 for edit warring was also over the same edit warring by using BLP as justification.[26]

I find Venkat TL to be unfit to edit in this area, be it about the subjects that involve BLPs or South Asia. >>> Extorc.talk 15:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Extorc

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

Screendeemer[edit]

Screendeemer blocked and locked as an LTA. Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Request concerning Screendeemer[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tamzin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Screendeemer (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:GENSEX
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 21:19, 25 August 2022 Precursor #1 to the main dispute: First attempt to insert a mention of the artist nicknamed "Chris Chan" onto a DAB page in a manner inconsistent with MOS:DAB, as an end-run around longstanding consensus at Talk:Kiwi Farms and at AN and DRV to not host mainspace content about her.
  2. 17:02, 22 September 2022 Precursor #2: Creating a redirect to Kiwi Farms for a work by Chris Chan, even though the work is not mentioned at the target.
  3. 01:02, 30 September 2022deleted revision Beginning of main dispute: Creating an article on non-notable YouTuber Chris Chann just to flesh out the coming DAB.
  4. 01:14, 30 September 2022 Creating Chris Chan (disambiguation) with, in the "see also", a link to Kiwi Farms, which only mentions Chris Chan in a cited headline, never in prose.
  5. 01:18, 30 September 2022 Refining the link to CWCki, making the connection clearer between the name "Chris Chan" and the intentionally-unnamed person in the section CWCki redirects to.
  6. 01:57, 30 September 2022deleted revision Contesting deletion of Chris Chann: ... seems to be a bogus attempt at removing an actual article for whatever perceived reason.
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

This reads to me as a transparent attempt to game the system. Given Screendeemer's strong interest in Kiwi Farms and participation on the article's talkpage as recently as 22 September, while this matter was being discussed there, it seems very unlikely that they are unware that there is a strong consensus not to have mainspace content about the artist nicknamed Chris Chan. If they were unaware, we would see that by them attempting to add a mention to the article, and it being reverted, or them attempting to create an article on her (or requesting a relevant title's unsalting). Their awareness is also evidenced by a pattern of edits that would make no sense except as an attempt to game the system. Why create a disambiguation page for "Chris Chan" featuring three people not referred to as Chris Chan? Why first create an article a completely non-notable person with a similar name? It also seems unlikely that they created Sonichu comic without first attempting to create Sonichu, from which they would have become aware of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 11 § Sonichu.

This is gaming the system, plain and simple, in an attempt to abuse redirects and DAB pages to create a link between the name "Chris Chan" and the Kiwi Farms article.

Screendeemer also has a history of controversial GENSEX redirect creations: Milked for laughs → Kiwi Farms; Virgin with rage → Incel; Gamergate and Gamergaters → Misogyny [27] [28].

Jurisdictional note: Kiwi Farms' activities are the subject of a gender-related dispute or controversy, and Chris Chan, a trans woman, is an associated person.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

Discussion concerning Screendeemer[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 Screendeemer[edit]

Statement by Sideswipe9th[edit]

Just wanted to point out as it may make the rest of this thread somewhat moot, that at 11:52 UTC, Screendeemer was blocked as a compromised account, and at 12:06 UTC, they were additionally globally locked for being a LTA. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Screendeemer[edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Apparently Chris Chann (double n) is a skateboarder and YouTuber. However, given that the links in the report confirm Screendeemer's interest in Kiwi Farms and the Chris Chan (single n and aka CWC) who is the target of harassment by followers of that website, it is very reasonable to conclude that Screendeemer is doing what they can to ensure Wikipedia contributes to the harassment. If that is Screendeemer's purpose, they should be indefinitely blocked. However, there may be some doubt (perhaps it's just lack of maturity or whatever). Accordingly, I propose an indefinite topic ban although wording to specify the bounds of a ban needs to be determined. Would it be "all gender and sexuality topics" or perhaps something more focused on Kiwi Farms and Chan? Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, per Black Kite, I am being naive. My instinct tells me that an indefinite block is the right approach although that would have to be an admin action (not AE). I'm happy to do that and I'm happy for anyone else to do it, but now that we're here, I might wait a while for more views. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's obvious what they're doing, and in my opinion an indefinite block is required for editors who pull stunts like this. Black Kite (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jargo Nautilus[edit]

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 Jargo Nautilus

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Jargo Nautilus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBEE
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 12 September 2022 "Clearly, both of you are trying to push some kind of an agenda" & "both of you guys came into this discussion without sources and without a good reason, so you decided to start this fake debate over nothing in order to waste everyone's time."
  2. 12 September 2022 Re above diff, editor asked to be WP:CIVIL and avoid casting WP:ASPERSIONS about other editors.

Response to this request "Notice that this entire discussion has basically been a SOAPBOX on behalf of you and Gitz" & "You made a survey in order to push your changes". I did not start the RFC and my first edit to the page, here was made after the RFC had started, so this accusation is completely false in my case, @Gitz6666: may speak for themselves. followed by "Nope, I accused you guys of trying to push a POV without sources...The problem is that both of you, especially Gitz, took it upon yourselves to escalate this ridiculous discussion into an entire RfC, which was unwarranted. We don't need RfCs over something as trivial as what you guys are discussing." Again, completely false accusation as already stated.

  1. 14 September 2022 Editor asked to "Please mind WP:PA, WP:CIV and WP:TALK. Please also read WP:BLUDGEON." Gitz may comment on this as it their talk page warning.
  2. 14 September 2022 Request on user talk page to focus on content and not on editors.

Here I state that the RFC has a proper RFCbefore and editor Gitz also explains why the RFC was appropriate and the response was Bludgeon 1 & Bludgeon 2 and continued in similar vein with further misconceived allegations about the appropriateness of the RFC process as mentioned in my additional comments below and leading to the following request on the user talk page to desist.

  1. 16 September 2022 Editor asked not to WP:BLUDGEON.
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)


Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In response to comments made by myself and another editor at their talk page, editor in both cases did not respond, deleted the comment and requested that no further comments be made at their talk page. A simple glance over the contents of Talk:Donetsk People's Republic#RfC on the legal status of the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples’ Republics suffices to show the extent of WP:BLUDGEON. Not only are editors comments a significant proportion of total comments, a large proportion of the material consists of unsupported opinion and unnecessary repetition of points made previously. At a very late stage in the RFC, editor has taken to asserting that the RFC is ill-posed, biased, inappropriate, wrong, etc and after the conversation starting here ("I am confident that any "proceedings" that you launch will be thoroughly ignored by the administrators. There is already at least one other user on this talk page who has had enough of your shenanigans."), I gave up and filed this request for enforcement.

@Jargo Nautilus: The number of times that you yourself, SelfStudier, and various other editors have launched personal attacks against myself and other editors is too many to count. Diffs please and I have been participating in an RfC, and SelfStudier has been behaving disruptively throughout its duration, Some of SelfStudier's comments over at Talk:DPR have been particularly disruptive, but I've refrained from deleting any of his comments at Talk:DPR again, diffs please.
@El C: Apologies for the substandard report, note to self to do better.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Jargo Nautilus

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 Jargo Nautilus

I believe that this arbitration discussion is unnecessary. I have been participating in an RfC, and SelfStudier has been behaving disruptively throughout its duration. I feel no need to present any arguments. The facts speak for themselves. If the administrators have any questions, they can talk to me in person on my Talk Page or via email. Everything that has occurred is clearly on display over at Talk:Donetsk People's Republic, so it is unnecessary to repeat any of that content here. Thank you for reading this, and I wish you good health. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]


If I may, I will ping some users whom I think could be relevant to this discussion. - @Mzajac: - @Vanilla Wizard:

Extended content

Re: Mellk --> Bear in mind that the more random different things you cite, the more work that the admins have to do. When admins look at disruptive behaviour, they first look at what is happening right now in the current conversation, and they care less about whatever random issues are cited. The fact of the matter is that you've decided to barge into this discussion that has nothing to do with you, and you've started making accusations against me that have nothing to do with the core topic that is being discussed. If anything, your behaviour is disruptive. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra - Mellk is talking about both me and another user called "Colinmcdermott". Colin wrote a comment on Talk:Russia that was critical of the other editors there. I replied to this comment (I subsequently deleted my own comments). A little while later, an editor deleted the entire talk section that Colin had started. I objected to this because I didn't think it was fair that some editors could pick and choose which comments to delete from other editors. For example, if other users are allowed to delete mine and Colin's comments over at Talk:Russia, then does that make me allowed to delete some of SelfStudier's comments over at Talk:Donetsk_People's_Republic? Indeed, I've deleted SelfStudier's comments at my own talk page, but that's because I'm under the impression that I'm allowed to do that, because it's my own talk page. Some of SelfStudier's comments over at Talk:DPR have been particularly disruptive, but I've refrained from deleting any of his comments at Talk:DPR.Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C - Thanks for your comments. I will try and heed your advice. My speaking style is usually polite, but considering the context, my comments were especially heated. In general, this entire discussion area is infuriating on a regular basis. I definitely need to meditate and breathe more so that I can write in a more calm and collected manner. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk - The number of times that you yourself, SelfStudier, and various other editors have launched personal attacks against myself and other editors is too many to count. My own policy is to not delete ANY comments of other users, no matter how much I dislike them, with the caveat that I delete comments whenever I want at my own user page exclusively. Long story short, unless you can prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a certain comment warrants deletion, then I would highly recommend against doing it, because there will probably be someone who is opposed to that deletion. Furthermore, deletion is very unhelpful for dispute resolution since it only serves to make the opponent even more angry and upset than they already were beforehand. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk - You have made personal attacks against me on multiple occasions, to differing levels of severity. I'm not going to cite them because I have no interest in charging you, but I will advise you that the perception of a personal attack can be subjective. For example, you have accused me of making threats in situations when I was actually talking to myself and not to anyone else in particular. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk - This discussion is clearly going nowhere, and we've already talked about this before. Your interpretation of that talk section is entirely inaccurate. And you need to take into account the fact that most of the talk section has been occupied by conversations between myself and another user, which have been entirely civil. Indeed, that other user even went so far as to praise me for being civil after you wrote some scathing commentary about me that was off-topic in that thread. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the comment from the other user at my talk page wherein he praises me for being civil. Diff Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mellk - I got exactly what I wanted. I asked any Russians passing by to talk to me so I could see if they were completely under Putin's mind control or still had some agency left. Clearly, one person replied to me, and he is someone of Russian ancestry who holds pro-Russian views. Even though some of his commentary was a bit extreme, he did seemingly demonstrate an understanding of human values that are somewhat similar to my own. The caveat is that this person lives in the United States, so I'm still yet to have a similar discussion with a Russian living in Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C - The evidence of Mellk's personal attacks against me are self-evident in his own comments and citations. Indeed, both SelfStudier and Mellk seem to have a habit of citing evidence that makes both their opponent and themself look equally bad. Mellk's first attack against me occurred when he commented on my talk page. Instead of leaving a warning in a new section, he chose to leave the warning in a pre-existing section, and then he went on a rant in a series of subsequent edits about how he was justified in doing this due to an alleged problem with the pre-existing talk section. I don't even need to cite him doing this before because he's been doing this again right in this very thread. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C - Usually, warnings should be left in a new talk section. Generally speaking, I don't appreciate warnings anyway, so I've deleted some of the warnings that I've recently received from SelfStudier and Gitz that felt particularly hostile, threatening, and unwarranted. However, the way that Mellk left a warning on my talk page was particularly inappropriate because he took it upon himself to disrupt a pre-existing conversation between myself and another user, and he started threatening me there. Effectively, I don't regard Mellk's initial comment to be an official warning because he presented it in an inappropriate manner. I regard Mellk's initial comment as a blatant threat, as opposed to a "thinly-veiled" threat, whatever that's supposed to mean. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C - Here is the first edit 1 wherein Mellk leaves a warning in my talk page not in a new section but instead in a pre-existing section. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:El C - In both the first citation (above) and this second citation 2, Mellk alludes to an alleged previous indefinite block that I received, allegedly over the "harassment" policy. For starters, this means that Mellk has been combing through my account's archives from up to two years into the past (indeed, the indef block occurred around November 2020, from what I recall). But, crucially, I will also point out that Mellk is mistaken about the reason for that indef block. At the time, I had been involved in an ANI case against myself, ironically wherein I had deleted another user's comment at an article's talk page on the basis of it being a personal attack. Simultaneously, I accidentally "outed" one of my friends from another website, and one of the administrators who was overseeing my case saw this action and decided to deus ex machina my case on the charge of "outing". I was inactive for months after that, but I eventually became unblocked with the help of my friend whom I had allegedly outed. He came to my defence and explained that I was being friendly, and that no malice had been intended. As such, I was unblocked. And, therefore, I was never indef blocked on the basis of harassment, unless you count the mistaken charge of outing as harassment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Chipmunkdavis - I don't think anyone wants to read that wall of text, Bob. I need to have a sleep now... How long have I been talking in this discussion? I'm losing focus. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Chipmunkdavis - You don't have to unpack my entire life, Frank. I could easily do the same for you, combing through your entire edit history. You've said and done quite a lot things that I view as aggressive and offensive. But aside from that, maybe you need to let go of your ego a little, as do I. If I'm treating Wikipedia as a battlefield, well, apparently, so are you. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Chipmunkdavis - I have autism. I'm used to having each and every word that comes out of my mouth be scrutinized, because I'm apparently never talking in the "correct" way. But I will point out that nothing that you yourself have ever said is immune from criticism. So, you should be careful about accusing others of what can be easily interpreted about yourself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:54, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz - I appreciate your comments. While I concede that I have a tendency to ramble and go off-topic, I believe that it is also problematic when people do things without a sufficient explanation. So, I'd rather have things be explained in 1000 words rather than in none at all (obviously, brevity is best). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Chipmunkdavis - It is interesting that you seem to interpret the truth as a threat. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

@User:El C - I struck through part of the other user's comment because it misquoted another user as saying something that he didn't.

In terms of the comments that I made towards HiLo, I believe that he made some racist edits back in 2014, which is why I commented in the archive (although I have discovered subsequently that I'm not supposed to edit archives). What HiLo did was to essentially completely revert a non-native English speaker's edits on the grounds of being poorly worded, even though the actual content was non-objectionable. I told HiLo that it was completely within his abilities as a native English speaker to copy-edit the text to improve it, rather than to delete everything that the user has contributed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User: Deepfriedokra - I believe that I am capable of editing in this area. However, I might be too invested in getting the "correct" outcome. At the end of the day, more and more people are ignoring Wikipedia, so it is becoming less and less important. Somebody else might come and rectify the information that I've neglected. It doesn't really matter. I recall that Russia was trying to ban Wikipedia outright, so it might not matter at all at the end of the day. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been absent from Wikipedia for several-months-long intervals, and no effects have been shown, whether positive or negative. My own life has never improved because of Wikipedia, and I don't believe that anyone else's life has either. When I have left Wikipedia, I have not felt that much was missing, except for maybe a few of the comrades I met along the way, that's it. So, I probably do have a battleground mentality, but that's more of a heat in the moment thing. At the end of the day, this entire website is largely inconsequential, so I'm not sure why I care so much about rectifying information aside from my autism. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:El C - Here are the relevant diffs, as I've posted them on my own user talk page.

This is the edit that I perceived as racist from User:HiLo48: [30]. He writes, in the edit summaries of the Russia article, Reverted. Sloppy English and POV additions. Take it to the talk page please., and he completely wipes out the edits made by User:Aleksd. Ostensibly, HiLo48 had cited two reasons for doing this, i.e. "sloppy English" and "POV additions". HiLo48 subsequently wipes out Aleksd's edits a second time, writing NO!! This may be justified, but not in that form. Please DISCUSS on the Talk page. Refusal to do so equates to vandalism, -- [31] -- wherein he makes reference to his previous edit summary, and he accuses Aleksd of vandalism.

In this Talk:Russia comment [32], HiLo48 writes, And perhaps you could seek some help with your English expression. As you have written your addition so far its just not acceptable..

In terms of language backgrounds, HiLo48 claims to be a native English speaker whereas Aleksd claims to be Eastern European. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes - To clarify, I have a "bias" against the Russian Federation regime, not against "Russians" in general. Indeed, my perspective on global affairs is generally very fair. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@User:El C - I am currently being harassed -- unprovoked, mind you -- by some random other Wikipedian whom, to my knowledge, I have never interacted with before. Please do something about this, thank you. [33] [34] Note: I have engaged with them, although I have attempted to be civil. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^From what I can tell, the other user seems to believe that I am "bigoted" against Russians, due to the section on my talk page titled "Russians are mafia. Change my mind.", written on September 3, 2022. However, they seem to have missed the section higher up on the page titled "Public statement: Russians who are suffering under the Russian Federation regime, I am on your side", written on August 1, 2022. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mellk

Unfortunately this editor has an issue with battleground behavior and despite various warnings, is unable to understand this. This as a result has caused disruption. On Talk:Russia, a user created a new section simply for personal attacks and casting aspersions; when this was removed by multiple users per TPG, JN kept restoring it[35][36] and made a new subsection about how he and the other user was being censored[37][38] and again making more walls of text on the talk page[39]. Then he makes a new section on his own talk page about how "Russians are mafia" and makes a vague threat related to this "censorship"[40], then again continues to restore the original personal attacks and the walls of text he made on Talk:Russia[41][42] and then continues on with personal attacks[43] and using the other user's talk page as his soapbox where he again makes personal attacks against "orcs" and "Ruzzkies" "censoring" him[44][45]. Still he continues to restore the text on Talk:Russia after another user removes it[46][47]. Again continues attacking editors on talk pages ("See you in Hell!")[48]. When I ask him to stop with any further personal attacks, he states that he has "no idea" what "Ruzzkies" means which he used earlier and then states "orc" is not a slur because it refers to Russian military only[49] and so when I ask him why he used it, he says it is because the other editors who he deems supports Russian war narrative is an "honorary soldier".[50] Mellk (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The diffs are from earlier in the month but gives some context and may be subject to standard administrative action.

Also, @Jargo Nautilus: please respond in your own section. Mellk (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jargo Nautilus: I have not made any personal attacks against you. I asked you to stop making personal attacks but you rejected this and tried to justify the comments you made, for example referring to other editors as "orcs" because they are an "honorary soldier", as mentioned earlier. Mellk (talk) 22:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jargo Nautilus: I asked you to not make vague threats. You wrote: Don't delete my comments or things will get messy[51]. I do not see how asking you to not make such comments is a personal attack, even if you did not mean to direct it at anyone. I was referring to your comments, not you personally. Mellk (talk) 22:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jargo Nautilus: You made a new section on your talk page saying "Russians are mafia" and asking if they have any humanity left. I asked you not to do this because it was inappropriate, even on your own talk page. Mellk (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jargo Nautilus: What I did was check the block log. Mellk (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: If you are referring to the editor who originally made the personal attacks on Talk:Russia whose comment JN kept restoring, then Colinmcdermott (who was blocked not long before that for personal attacks regarding the same article). I am not sure if deleting those comments was the best move, but I do not think JN's response (by making various kinds of personal attacks and walls of text) was appropriate here. Mellk (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deepfriedokra: While I was not involved in the removal of comments in Talk:Russia, just wondering, could the original comment have been removed per WP:TPO, specifically "removing harmful posts" which mentions personal attacks? As well as being off-topic. Since I would imagine accusing other editors of working in troll factories would count as one.[52] Or it should have been collapsed. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Oh god. Ok. There are FIVE diffs provided in the Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it. ONLY ONE of these diffs is an edit (a talk page comment) by the person who this report is about. The other FOUR are OTHER people ... just saying stuff. This diff is from the filer and, hilariously enough, it's level of of "incivility" is probably HIGHER than that that can be found in the one diff out of the five above that is from the subject.

This is about as spurious as a request can get. Volunteer Marek 20:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

I do think that the sort of thing in the first diff needs to be discouraged a bit more strongly than it currently is; part of the reason so many WP:ACDS areas are so difficult to edit is because having WP:ASPERSIONS like that flung around without consequence encourages other editors to either retaliate (if they disagree) or to say similar things and generally treat others as bad-faith editors (if they agree), contributing to a broader WP:BATTLEGROUND / non-WP:AGF atmosphere. But clearly a single diff like that is insufficient to go straight to WP:AE - if we removed people for that there would be almost nobody left in WP:ACDS topic areas at all. Also, links to warnings are generally only useful if they show someone was informed that they were doing something wrong and then kept doing it afterwards. The key point is to establish that they're not listening and that this can't be settled by lesser means. Showing yourself warning them after the diff of their being aspersion-y, without showing any other problems after that, doesn't establish anything beyond the fact that you think their actions are bad, which is already self-evident from the fact that you're taking them to AE. --Aquillion (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gitz6666

The main problem with Jargo Nautilus's contribution is the uncontainable flood of comments that they pour into the talk pages. That behaviour can be seen in Talk:Donetsk People's Republic: from 2 to 16 September, they made 91 edits to the RfC that I started; I'm quite talkative myself and I made 23 edits overall to that RfC. But see also Talk:Russian separatist forces in Donbas: from 13 August to 3 September they made 42 edits to the RM I started. I made 25 edits and I apologise for that: it's way too much. But JN's way of contributing to the discussion drags you into endless and unproductive back-and-forth, and I wouldn't have made my 23+25 comments if it wasn't for their 91+42, so I'm sensitive to the problem: it's a waste of time, is frustrating and it also makes it more difficult for other editors to join the discussion. Also Talk:International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic shows the problem: from 2 August onwards, Michael Z stops replying to JN, but they continue to discuss in solitude for days and days building impassable walls of text. Obviously most of their comments are off-topic and WP:SOAPBOX, they have difficulties in complying with WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM and a tendency to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. I don't know if this is sanctionable behaviour and I have no difficulty in AGF in this case, as I don't see any mean intentions, but it's objectively disruptive and is a problem that needs to be addressed somehow, either by the admins or by JN themselves. Final note: occasionally JN falls short of civility: [53] [54]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes JN's willingness to discuss disagreements is actually part of the problem. Discussion is a working method here rather than a goal in itself. Willingness to discuss without willingness to compromise and build a consensus can be acceptable and even commendable in real life and on social media, but in Wikipedia is called WP:SEALIONING and is often seen as disruptive. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chipmunkdavis

Talkpage interjections by JN disruptive, with talkpages treated as a place of polemic (eg. User talk:Jargo Nautilus). This is tricky to show clearly in 20 diffs, as it's a deluge of individual comments. They necro discussions and use talkpages for personal commentary (and sometimes add commentary to articles). Here is the start of 1,200 words starting with "I don't have any material/sources about this, just my thoughts". A related issue is adding a continuous serious of comments. The 1,200 words included that initial edit and five others. The edit history of this arbitration page is an example.

These personal opinions bludgeon conversations, see here where an RfC went from this to being doubled in length with off-topic opinion. Their opinion sometimes shifts into pure invective.

Most problematically, edits are seen as a battleground-style crusade [55][56][57]. They edit and move other people's comments. They leave passive agressive instructions/threats ([58][59][60][61][62]) and engage in direct harassment [63][64][65] (even editing archives). They address me with what seem to be dismissive nicknames they won't explain, and explicitly declare opponents.

I stress again this is a hard pattern to show through a small selection of diffs. These long series of entirely unsourced personal opinion edits end up on every talkpage, flooding edit histories, watchlists, and of course actual discussions. This issues are not limited to WP:ARBEE, but ARBEE covers a large component of the recent disruption. CMD (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC) shortened CMD (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that two new odd nicknames and more passive aggressive threats have been added to this very case since my original comment. CMD (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El_C That comment referred to this edit partially striking through someone else's edit because they found that part to be inaccurate. CMD (talk) 08:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@El C: No preference on scope so long as it hits the problematic topic, but whatever the scope it really needs to come with a clear warning against further unsubstantiated commentary on other editors. CMD (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

I do not see any serious reason for sanctioning Jargo Nautilus. Here is why.

  1. None of their recent edits in article main space appear problematic.
  2. Their edits on article talk pages do look excessive, occasionally strange and usually unsourced. However, making comments based on a personal expertise or even personal opinion on the subject is allowed on article talk pages. A lot of people do it, especially during RfC (and a lot of comments by Jargo Nautilus are related to RfC). Does he crosses the line of Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process? Not in my opinion, or may be only on one page.
  3. Some of their comments on user talk pages are cryptic, but I do not see them as sufficiently offensive to warrant any immediate sanctions per WP:NPA. My very best wishes (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I do agree that user Jargo Nautilus has an anti-Russian bias strong views [66], but his willingness of discuss disagreements is actually a good thing, not a reason for sanctions, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if his behavior on talk pages is problematic, this is something related to modern Russia, not to "modern armed conflicts". My very best wishes (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanilla Wizard

I have mixed feelings here. This AE filing does a poor job at demonstrating issues with JN's behavior, but other comments from other editors demonstrate serious concerns. I recommend they take all of Deepfriedokra's advice. As a fellow autistic Wikipedian I +1 everything they said. If they do receive a TBAN, I prefer a temporary to an indef. If they can drop the battleground mentality then they should be fine to contribute to pages about geopolitics in the future.

My advice for JN is as follows:

  1. Be more cautious about publishing edits that read more as political commentary than as contributions to building an encyclopedia. It's okay to briefly state your views on your user page, but don't use your talk page as a blog.
  2. Don't view the encyclopedia as a battleground where pro <x> and anti <x> editors clash, lest you risk a WP:NOTHERE indef. Everyone has a set of biases, but we're not here to "fight for our side." And you definitely shouldn't declare enemies. Seriously. Don't do that.
  3. Don't edit or strike other editors' comments. An exception could be if they get indeffed as a sockpuppet account. Other than that, if you want someone to edit their comments, ask them if they'd be willing to do it themselves.
  4. Calling other editors by funny nicknames isn't inherently a problem, but if they ask you not to do that, then don't continue.
  5. Be cautious about generating walls of text, especially in RFCs as this can make it much harder for whoever closes the discussion to parse through it. This one isn't as serious of an issue as the others IMO. I do it too. I'm bad at keeping things concise. I'm rambling right now, even. But try your best to notice when your messages are getting excessively long.
  6. Most importantly: know when to take a wikibreak! I used to have unmanageable stress that made me a much more irritable person. I started editing when I was a teenager with an undiagnosed and untreated anxiety disorder. I completely sympathize and empathize. If you're feeling stressed, it's okay to just log out. It's okay to disappear for an entire month if that's what it takes. Do whatever you need to do to destress. Edits you make under stress are much more likely to be regrettable.

In summary: I think JN can continue to be a productive editor, but they really need to have WP:BATTLEGROUND in mind going forward. A TBAN from articles related to current military conflicts could be acceptable if it lasts roughly 6 months to a year, but I wouldn't endorse an indefinite one.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:20, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jargo Nautilus

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Jargo Nautilus, I sampled some of Mellk's diffs randomly ("random" though they may be), and your style is way too abrasive and vitriolic and polemical. Perhaps the other side is acting similarly, I don't know as no evidence has been provided to show that — but the point is that you need to dial it back considerably.
  • So please use article talk pages calmly and dispassionately, and above all else, targeted to specifics. If there are broader problems with a page or a set of pages, this (or WP:AN / WP:ANI) would be the venue for you to present these (Volunteer Marek knows what I'm talking about there *wink*). So to sum up: you need to communicate any concerns without the WP:BATTLEGROUND, and you need to do so in a targeted way as well as in the appropriate venue. El_C 18:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargo Nautilus, thanks, I appreciate that. Please make sure you follow through on that. I realize that these are, to put it delicately, challenging times, but allowances for that can only extend to a point. Also, did you ever review the WP:ASPERSIONS page? When you say that Mellk has engaged in personal attacks without evidence of these, that is an aspersion par excellence. Because it just hangs there, unproven. So either provide evidence, or it shouldn't be mentioned at all. Please also keep in mind that this is not a quasi-criminal procedure, and in case, my sense is that warnings might suffice here. And probably no need to escalate these to logged warnings at this point, either (unless I missed something especially egregious). El_C 23:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargo Nautilus, sorry, but that is not evidence. What is required are quotes and the WP:DIFFs associated with these. El_C 23:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargo Nautilus, a warning from an uninvolved admin is not the same as a warning from an editor who is party to the dispute. Because a warning from an admin could be enforced with sanctions if ignored. You are free to remove any and all warnings (or anything at all) from your user talk page. You can even blank your talk page entirely, if you want. You are not required to keep those displayed, whether issued by an admin or not. All a removal indicates is that you're aware of and have read them. El_C 23:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargo Nautilus, I don't know where you've gotten that impression concerning warnings and formalism, but there is no such requirement. Thus, there's nothing inherently problematic with the placement of that comment/warning. El_C 23:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargo Nautilus, I'm having a difficult time following what you're saying, but your block log is a matter of public record (these are listed at the top of any user's contributions page). So no combing needed to infer that. It's literally a click away. El_C 00:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargo Nautilus, you were blocked on the basis of harassment. That's because WP:OUTING is a component of the WP:HARASSMENT policy. Which is to say, even if it was later rescinded, that was the original basis (at that time). El_C 00:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chipmunkdavis, you are at nearly double the word and diff limit. Please condense. Thanks. El_C 01:39, 17 September 2022
  • Jargo Nautilus, per Chipmunkdavis' evidence, you are WP:BLUDGEONING to excess to the point of it having the effect of a filibuster. You need to be more concise and as a general principle base your comments on pertinent sources (i.e. avoid contravening WP:NOTAFORUM). And what's with repeatedly calling CMD Jones? What even is that? Well, whatever it is, it's weird (as in it makes no sense) and inappropriate.
CMD, for your part, it's kinda ridiculous that you tell Jargo Nautilus to "not edit others' comments" (diff), when that edit corrected the link of Talk:Russa#Add Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2022, to the lead into Talk:Russia#Add Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2022, to the lead (diff). That is not only allowed, but is in fact encouraged. El_C 03:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Strike: My mistake, that was Jargo Nautilus' own comment. I have no idea what edit CMD is referring to there. El_C 03:38, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargo Nautilus, I asked you directly above to collapse comments that others responded to rather than remove the text outright — why have you not done so? You've also not responded to the matter of calling CMD all those names (Jones, Bob, Frank), including twice in this very complaint. Now you've accused someone of "racist comments," yet again with zero evidence. Above (way above), I asked you whether you've reviewed the WP:ASPERSIONS page, a question which you never answered (I don't think). But I presume you didn't review it since you're still continuing to do it. As for misquotes, again, correct those (or anything) in your own comment. You have no right to intrude on someone else's comment like that.
For the last time, you need to stop levelling accusations against other editors without evidence (i.e. aspersions). That is sanctionable misconduct. At this point, I'm just about ready to close this report with an indef WP:TBAN from WP:ARBEE. If any admin objects, please let me know. I'll wait 24 hours before doing so, in any case. El_C 18:45, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After discussing the matter at some length with Jargo Nautilus (here), I'm now open to narrowing the topic ban to modern armed conflicts, broadly construed, within the overall region that ARBEE encompasses. Thoughts? El_C 15:14, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jargo Nautilus, you are over your limit on words, and I think we've heard enough. The short answer is, your behavior in that one diff is below expectations, and you need to stop that. Personally, I'm not inclined to do more than informally warn you about that at this time. I would also add that while I agreed your comment shouldn't have been reverted out, you are getting close to being in WP:FORUM territory. We aren't here to see if Russians believe Putin or not. Go to a blog or forum for that. We are here to build an encyclopedia. I'm going to pass on closing this, but that is pretty much how I would close it. Pull back on the attitude, and stop treating the talk page as a forum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More