Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive290

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 Loganmac

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Bakkster Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Loganmac (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/GamerGate#Scope of standard topic ban

Diffs

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

1. 11 May 2021 Topic banned comment on person associated to gender-related dispute or controversy: Article describes her in the lede as a "British transgender activist", edits were made shortly after another user left a comment on user's talk page regarding her editing.
2. 7 July 2020 Topic banned comment on gender-related dispute or controversy: Expansion of a section titled "Sexual misconduct allegations against Malka and moderators exodus"
3. 8 August 2019 Topic banned comment on gender-related dispute or controversy: Voting keep on an AfD on an article about a controversy regarding genital waxing for a transgendered woman. AfD was resolved delete.
4. 17 July 2019 Topic banned comment on person associated to gender-related dispute or controversy: Change to article about a person banned from Twitter after an interaction with the transgender person named in the above AfD. Dispute, per the citation at the time, described as: "Shepherd, by her own admission, repeatedly misgendered Yaniv. She said she tweeted “at least I have a uterus you ugly fat man,” in response to one of Yaniv’s tweets making fun of Shepherd’s septate uterus."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Loganmac_topic-banned

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User filed at AN/I for a content dispute I was pinged to weigh in on. Another user mentioned the past sanctions given to Loganmac in the GamerGate case. The sanctions applied at the time stated: "Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed." These sanctions have since been replaced with the similar umbrella sanctions Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality sanctions: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people." Edits above appear to cross the line of the "broadly construed" topic ban. To my knowledge, the indefinite topic ban remains in effect. While the edits above are relatively old, topic bans aren't often apparent, and the editing hasn't been so pervasive as to raise flags until now.

User appears to be continuing the

• Per suggestion, added the direct link to the original topic ban.
• @
  WP:BROADLY: "If there's doubt, don't do it, and get clarification first" and "if there is any plausible dispute over whether DS applies in a specific case, that is normally taken to mean that it does". Bakkster Man (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

[1]

Discussion concerning Loganmac

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 Loganmac

Hello, thanks to User:Bakkster Man for giving me an avenue to explain this situation properly. My topic ban was instrued 6 years ago. Since then I haven't made any edit to GG related articles. In my 15 years as a Wikipedia editor, this has been my only sanction and I've intended to comply ever since. I will try to address the points Bakkster Man made here.

• 1. I have issues in regarding this person "associated with a gender-related controversy". At the time the controversy she was involved in was over her employment at Reddit, this controversy arised over her non-disclosure of her father's child rape conviction. The bulk of news coverage of this incident didn't mention her gender. [2][3]. As far as I understood my ban, it didn't forbid me from editing articles of transgender people, if the controversy itself was unrelated to their gender. If this is so, I apologize for not understanding the language of my ban. My one addition to her article was a title [4].

• 2. Again, this edit, in my opinion, doesn't involve a "gender-related" controversy. This edit involved a one paragraph description of an allegation of sexual misconduct, which in no way was considered contentious. As far as I understood, allegations of groping or indecency don't fall under the umbrella of gender.

• 3. I fail to see the relevance into the vote resulting in Delete. Shortly after this vote, this person got her own article (
  Guantanamo Bay prisoners, could the fact that these people uphold Sharia Law, an anti-trans ideology, be then construed as me editing gender related articles? I have edits on Julian Assange, a person previously accused of rape[8], and associated with Chelsea Manning, a trans whistleblower... I hope by giving these three examples you see how my topic ban could apply to virtually anything. I have absolutely no editing in main space articles of Yaniv. Loganmac (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• 4. See mostly above. Once seeing the Jessica Yaniv BC Human Rights case, I learned about Lindsay Shepherd, who did indeed have a Twitter brawl with Yaniv and was banned for this (she was quickly unbanned [9] After further review, we have unsuspended your account as it does not appear to be in violation of the Twitter Rules.). The cited diff in this article amounts to changing a sentence from "after comments about" to "after an exchange with" following
  WP:RS
  .

This enforcement request mentions an update of these sanctions "These sanctions have since been replaced with the similar umbrella sanctions

Since the enforcement request mentions my recent request at ANI and potential

Thanks for your time and apologies if I slightly surpassed a word limit. Loganmac (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jorm: I mention in point 1., if I misunderstood the broadness of my TP, I apologize and intend to comply with further sanctions if they're warranted. In these 6 years I have indeed tried to abstain from editing directly gender-related controversy topics. In the future I'll take the broadness of this TP in a more literal sense and will take this enforcement as an opportunity in clarifying its scope. Loganmac (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shibbolethink

I just wanted to make clear to any admins reading this, because it wasn't clear to me:

1. Indefinite TBAN was instituted in January 2015
2. Editor has been editing in the TBAN-relevant topic area as indicated in the diffs above, on and off since July of 2019, up to and including May of this year.

Personally, I think a short-to-medium term block is probably in order given the broad constraints of the TBAN. But I also don't know how these things are usually escalated from TBAN to block. Anyway, I think this is one of the most uncontroversial ArbEs there could be.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bakkster Man, I would suggest that you put the details of the TBAN in the section marked "Diffs of relevant sanctions." Just how I would structure it. Seems like a relevant sanction to me.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jorm

It is difficult for me to imagine a more obvious set of topic ban violations. Their continued nature, as well as LoganMac's comments about, tell me that they do not see that they are in the wrong, and will continue to violate the topic ban, regardless of sanction.--Jorm (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loganmac: I do not believe a single word you say. Either a) You knew exactly what you were doing when you broke your topic bans and assumed that you were going to be allowed to get away with it, or b) You did not actually read the sanctions applied to you, in which case you do not have the competence to edit Wikipedia. Which of those horns do you want to be gored upon? Jorm (talk) 20:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial

Just in case anyone thinks this is a stale issue, these edits from March

[13] [14] [15]

were made to a page where the Gender-related sanctions template was visible and where the editor should have known that the discussion was, in fact, part of a gender-related dispute. If Loganmac did not in fact understand this, it suggests a

• Aimee Challenor and Jessica Yaniv are quite frankly two of the most obvious examples of BLPs covered by the "gender-related controversies" topic ban that you could come up with, and it is surprising to see someone trying to claim otherwise. A sanction is clearly needed here, probably a short block (since this is evidently the first sanction for that restriction). Loganmac, it should not need to be said, but anyone with a "broadly construed" topic ban from gender-related controversies should not be editing BLPs about controversial transgender subjects (including Yaniv, Challenor), anything to do with #MeToo, etc. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I agree with GorillaWarfare, and find the "I didn't know" to be rather unconvincing. As this is the first violation, the block ought to be for somewhere in the 24-72 hour range, but this certainly needs to stop. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have little to add other than I also don't find it reasonable that they did not know that these areas were covered under the topic ban. These are unquestionably covered and if they did not realized that then
  WP:CIR is relevant. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 Belteshazzar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ApLundell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Belteshazzar (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

This user was topic banned from "Complimentary or Alternative Medicine, broadly construed"[16] and his appeal failed[17].

Diffs

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

This user was blocked twice for violating this topic ban. This week he just came off his second ban.

1. Since coming back from his 3 month block, seven out of eight of his article space edits are to a controversial advocate of alternative medicine. [18][19][20][21][22][23]

1. And one edit to the talk page of the article that he originally got in trouble over. [24]

Individually all these edits are pretty minor, but making them with a topic ban, right after coming back from a block, is pretty clearly a way of testing the limits of his topic ban, and signaling that he continues to edit in this area despite his blocks.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. May 2020 First block for edit warring on
   Bates Method and William Bates (physician)
   .
2. June 2020 Second block for edit warring on Bates Method and William Bates.
3. December 2020 Topic ban on Complementary and Alternative Medicine, broadly construed.
4. January 2021 1 month block for topic-ban violation
5. March 2021 3 month block for topic ban.

(Many of Belteshazzar's edit-warring edits are to

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on December 2020 by
  talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
  ).

(I apologize if I've filled out this form incorrectly. I don't normally do this. ApLundell (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

User:Masem makes the point that the article for Bernarr Macfadden is currently rather credulous and does not actually use the phrase "alternative medicine".

However, I don't think we need to seriously consider the possibility that Belteshazzar was unaware of Macfadden in this context. Macfadden was a major proponent of a pseudo-scientific medical technique called the

It stretches credulity to imagine that Belteshazzar was not aware of Macfadden's connection with alt medicine in general or the Bates Method in particular. ApLundell (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I see that he's made a spelling correction edit to the article since this discussion started. He's making it very clear that he believes that he's allowed to make edits in his ban area, so long as they're "good" edits. I'm certain it has been explained to him that topic bans don't work like that. ApLundell (talk)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I've notified the user here : [25]

Discussion concerning Belteshazzar

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 Belteshazzar

[26] Guy Macon's first two diffs were from well before I was topic banned. Belteshazzar (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone until now had actually pointed out

Regarding Psychologist Guy's statement "If I can remember correctly Belteshazzar was trying to remove the term "faddist". This user has always had a POV in trying to remove criticisms about those who have historically supported the Bates method." Before my topic ban, I did remove "physical culture faddist", but that was mainly to eliminate repetition of "physical culture" in that sentence. In general, no, I did not try to remove criticisms of Bates method proponents. I advocated for removing "ineffective" for reasons which I explained previously. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade Yes, I understand. I suppose I should take them off my watchlist, as seeing the recent activity was mainly what prompted me to edit or comment. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

The edits to Bernarr Macfadden were more than just edits "to a controversial advocate of alternative medicine". They are directly related to the specific area where Belteshazzar has been disruptive in the past (Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 72#Edits by Belteshazzar), which is promotion of the pseudoscientific Bates method. Macfadden is the author of:

• Strong eyes; how weak eyes may be strengthened and spectacles discarded.[27]
• Strengthening the eyes : a new course in scientific eye training in 28 lessons[28]

The most troubling aspect of this is the complete refusal to accept their topic ban. Again and again they have claimed that they are allowed to violate their topic ban as long as the violating edits are good edits:

"I explained in talk why my edit was good."[29]

" Again, I believe that edit was valid"[30]

[ Correction:

The first of the above two was from before the topic man but after multiple warnings. Here is the state of Belteshazzar's talk page at the time:[31]

The second was after being blocked for disruptive editing but before the topic ban. Here is the state of Belteshazzar's talk page at the time:[32]

So I was wrong about those two being about the topic ban -- they were about the disruptive editing that later led to the topic ban. I apologize for the error. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC) ][reply]

"It was just a bit of copy editing. Nothing controversial."[33]

"What was bad, controversial, or pov here? [3 edits to the Vision therapy article]"[34]

Two blocks have failed to convince them that the topic ban applies to all edits on the topic with no "good edit" exception. Nonetheless, they made the same argument yesterday:

"On Talk:William Bates (physician), I was only letting someone know that he got the date of Bates' disappearance wrong."[35]

All of this has been explained again and again to Belteshazzar (just read their talk page) and yet they continue to claim that there exists an "I am allowed to violate my topic ban if the edit is good" exception. They don't seem to be able to even remember that they are topic banned from Complementary and Alternative Medicine, broadly construed:

"And my edits to Bernarr Macfadden had nothing to do with eyesight, which is not even currently mentioned in the body of that article."[36]

--Guy Macon (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another "good edit" topic ban violation,[37] this one during an open AE case about previous topic ban violations. Bernarr Macfadden was a proponent of several forms of alternative medicine, including fasting to "exercise unqualified control over virtually all types of disease", Grape therapy to cure cancer, and of course Belteshazzar's favorite, hobby horse; the Bates method. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re "a year or indef seem to be the correct escalation" below, does anyone reading this actually think that if Belteshazzar is blocked for a year they won't immediately resume editing pages related to the Bates Method as soon as it expires? Is there the slightest hint that they will ever be willing to accept

WP:BMB? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Masem:, Re: "The only possible argument I see that that would state in Belteshazzar's favor is that, at least for Macfadden, the topic is not crystal-clearly in 'alternate medicine' ", a year ago[38] Belteshazzar added Category:Bates method to Bernarr Macfadden, so they clearly were aware of the connection. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shibbolethink

I have no familiarity with this user or the diffs here etc. Just editing to say while I was reading this out of curiosity, I went ahead and updated the section name to Belteshazzar 3 (Diff: [39]) so that when it archives, it doesn't get too confusing. I also updated the talk page notification (Diff:[40]). Please let me know if any of this was out of order and by all means feel free to revert.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Psychologist Guy

I believe that Belteshazzar should be indef blocked from Wikipedia, none of their edits have been productive. I have never seen a user have so many chances, ignore policies and everyone's advice and continue doing what they do. I reported this user 3 times I believe in the past at the admin board. There has been huge discussions on their talk-page and on the Bates method in the past, I am talking thousands and thousands of words it is all a waste of other users time. This user does not listen and only edits the same kind of content. I believe this account is a case of

I haven't fixed up the Bernarr Macfadden Wikipedia article yet it was on my to-do-list but Bernarr Macfadden was an alternative medicine activist and well known advocate of quackery. His books support fasting, hydrotherapy and orthopathy. The book "Naturopathic Physical Medicine", a textbook on naturopathy even lists Bernarr Macfadden as a naturopath. Macfadden was a proponent of the Bates method. Belteshazzar knows this because they edited material about it on the Bates method Wikipedia article, "In 1917, Bates teamed up with "'physical culture' faddist" Bernarr Macfadden on a "New Course of Eye Training" which was heavily advertised in the Physical Culture magazine". If I can remember correctly Belteshazzar was trying to remove the term "faddist". This user has always had a POV in trying to remove criticisms about those who have historically supported the Bates method.

So in short, Belteshazzar is well aware that Bernarr Macfadden had authored material supportive of the Bates method an alternative medicine. Macfadden was an advocate of alternative medicine and this user's edits are in violation (yet again) of their topic ban. And lets not forget Belteshazzar also edited the William Bates talk-page. They have been asked many times not to do this but they do not listen. Good faith cannot be assumed over and over. This negative behaviour is also soaking up time of productive editors of this website. Belteshazzar's talk-page has had 10 (!) users telling this user not to edit anything on the Bates method. You can't keep giving this user chances. I have seen users on this website banned for making one off foolish mistakes. This user doesn't not deserve another chance in my opinion, they have had too many chances and they blow it every-time. They have ignored advice from ten experience users and in total have been blocked for 31 hours, then 2 weeks, then 1 month and then 3 months. If they are blocked for 6 months or 1 year they will just come back and do it again. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Roxy

When I saw the first entry in the uninvolved admins section, I automatically did that thing dogs do with their heads when they cant quite believe what they are hearing. Anyway, for those not playing along at home, Diff1 and Diff2 show beltshazzar editing the bates method talk page today!! -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 09:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Belteshazzar

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

• This seems to be the only diff that crosses the line --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade: I am willing to accept that I am feeling overly narrow today. If these are violations, a year or indef seem to be the correct escalation --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I very much disagree with
  unwilling to understand that a topic ban means to never edit about these subjects at all. Unless I'm convinced that this will change, I'm minded to indef as a regular admin action at this point, else a six month or one year AE block would be in order as the next escalation point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Belteshazzar, let me be very clear. Do you now clearly understand that you must completely stop editing and discussing these articles, regardless of whether your edits are "good", "uncontroversial", or anything else? No fixing typos, no tweaks in wording, no nothing. Take them off your watchlist and don't visit them, nor any like them. Is that clear to you? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the acknowledgement above, I would at this point go with a six month AE block, but with the warning that if this were to happen again the next one will almost certainly be indefinite. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As shown by Hut 8.5, Belteshazzar has already started editing the topic area again after agreeing to quit doing it, and so is clearly not going to stop. Given this, I'd favor an indefinite block, and will do so unless someone shortly objects. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The only possible argument I see that that would state in Belteshazzar's favor is that, at least for Macfadden, the topic is not crystal-clearly in "alternate medicine", as it doesn't call out this term on the page, nor does the usual aspect of where alternative medicine's theories are debunked or criticized by scientific evidence. However, we generally put the onus on the topic-banned editor to understand what "broadly" is scoped to mean and to stay far far away from anything that even may touch or overlap, of which Macfadden's article does clearly touch even if not explicit it is alternative medicine. So fully agree this is a violation of the topic ban. --Masem (t) 16:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Guy Macon: Completely valid point and thus definitely in the topic ban area without question. --Masem (t) 19:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree these are violations. The edits on Bernarr Macfadden relate to a section which says that the subject advised people to avoid mainstream medicine and that he promoted fringe medical ideas. Even if the article as a whole doesn't fall under alternative medicine that bit clearly does. William Bates (physician) unambiguously falls under the scope of the sanction. Belteshazzar did revert some of the edits in question but only after this enforcement request was filed [41] and subsequently fixed a typo in the same article [42] so it doesn't look like they're leaving the topic alone. Hut 8.5 18:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that Belteshazzar is still making edits to the topic area even after agreeing to stop above [43] [44] I think a six month block is too lenient. Hut 8.5 10:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Shibbolethink‎

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Geogene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Shibbolethink‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19

Diffs

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

1. 00:26, 24 June 2021 S. acknowledges there is no source saying that DRASTIC are "promoting conspiracy theories explicitly," continues to push for article to say that in Wikivoice anyway.
2. 18:16, 24 June 2021 BLP violation: claiming that DRASTIC could be called conspiracy theorists in Wikivoice, no source in this diff.
3. 18:16, 24 June 2021 BLP violation: taking a specific, identified person's published comment out of context to claim that he calls himself a conspiracy theorist. The sources in this diff (El Pais, Vanity Fair, and CNET) do not support this interpretation, nor do they support calling the group conspiracy theorists in Wikivoice, as Shibbolethink favors.
4. 20:47, 24 June 2021 Trying to rationalize his BLP original research.
5. 19:41, 24 June 2021 Rationalizing his BLP original research, denies that he has violated BLP, invites me to file this AE request.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

When I brought this to Shibbolethink's talkpage, he accused me of WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:BLUDGEON, WP:WIN, and threatened to take me to AN/I, all in one diff [45].

Replying mainly to Bakkster Man: Naming specific members of a group and trying to "build a consensus" that they are conspiracy theorists based on an editor's original research and interpretation of their published work, while reliable sources are giving them positive coverage, is a BLP violation, whether it takes place on a Talk page or not, and whether the same content had formerly appeared in the article or not. Geogene (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[48]

Discussion concerning Shibbolethink

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 Shibbolethink

EDIT: In case this wasn't clear, as per several other editors who have weighed in, I don't believe any of my actions constitute a BLP violation.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This feels to me like a very clear cut case of bringing a content dispute to ARBE. But I suppose I asked for it. I would have preferred user report me to

From my perspective:

1. I note ongoing discussion at Talk:DRASTIC about whether it's fair to describe group as "conspiracy theorists."
2. 14:29, 24 June 2021 I agree in spirit with editor who describes group as such, but couldn't find solid sources which say it directly. Only as
   WP:SUMMARY
   .
3. 14:29, 24 June 2021 when editor provides source that's closer to home, I propose we wait for consensus or start RfC to resolve ambiguity.
4. 18:16, 24 June 2021 I start RfC.
5. 19:32, 24 June 2021 Geogene accuses me of BLP violations for "grossly misinterpret[ing]" sources.
6. 19:41, 24 June 2021 I say I'm happy to add disclaimers demonstrating where I'm engaging in uncontroversial primary sourcing and where I'm just quoting RSes. I add that clarification to my original !vote statement (20:47, 24 June 2021 & 20:59, 24 June 2021)
7. 20:53, 24 June 2021 I also tell Geogene they should bring the dispute to the relevant noticeboards if they're confident I'm violating policy, as per
   WP:BLPN
   so I should have emphasized that more. However, very strong language that I should "delete [my] claims" made me act a little rash myself. (meaning what, the entire RfC? All the evidence I had gathered? Unclear)

I think this is the latest in a long line of casting

1. 01:11, 18 June 2021 insinuates I "have a problem" with journalists.
2. 03:53, 2 June 2021 Accuses an entire wikiproject of canvassing because they're patrolling relevant pages.
3. 03:29, 2 June 2021 See above.
4. 01:20, 2 June 2021 See above.
5. 23:39, 1 June 2021 Accuses
   WP:MEATPUPPET
   simply because users are on same wikiproject and edit similar articles/talk pages.
6. 23:00, 1 June 2021 See above.
7. 03:02, 1 June 2021 Editor removes comments from other users they disagree with, even though it isn't user's talk page and broke no rules. Ironically, removal cited
   WP:ASPERSIONS
   .
8. 19:59, 1 June 2021 Editor gets admonished, agrees removal was probably wrong.
9. 16:08, 1 June 2021 Removes a warning as "trolling" even though it's about user's conduct.
10. 18:37, 28 May 2021
    WP:EWN
    . Don't threaten to try and silence people.
11. 15:47, 28 May 2021 Tries to cite rollback as silencing or intimidating another editor. Relevant diff is here. Arguably a legitimate use of rollback, though haven't examined the situation closely. Enough that it probably shouldn't be called "abuse."

Conclusion: This was an inappropriate report, and the user should take responsibility for bringing a content dispute to ArbE. As shown in my diffs, I was very happy to add disclaimers, context, etc. to my RfC. I was very happy to work with the editor, and add context to my claims. Which is why this feels to me like bludgeoning or threatening me with a "BLP violation" in order to get me to remove my RfC altogether.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC) (edited)--00:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Terjen: We covered this in the prior ArbE, see here.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC) & I'll discuss further on your talk page [49] to try and dispel some of this animosity between us.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 01:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Geogene: "all in one diff": "I would encourage you to re-read WP:ASPERSIONS. Not saying that's what you're doing, but saying if you try to use accusations like this as a WP:BLUDGEON to silence people you disagree with, then that would be a matter I would bring up to ANI or ARBE. Have a great day." I think that's extremely important context. Now I am accusing user of ASPERSIONS, because I think the proof of the pudding is in the tasting.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask

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 Eatcha

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Eatcha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions

Diffs

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

1. 13:15, 16 June 2021 They create a section with three lines on the article The Wire (India) dedicated to a breaking news item. The addition is solely based on police accounts, is editorialised and uses a number of low quality sources. I condense this addition, remove the low quality sources and move it under a section.
2. WP:ONUS
   to them and the issues related to due weight and presentation in their version. But they just end up ignoring all of it and being stuck on what sources should be considered RSes. I eventually end up removing their addition citing onus.
3. 18:09, 16 June 2021 They immediately revert it and leave a template on my talk page. I reply to it again mentioning that the onus is on them to achieve consensus for inclusion and that communication is necessary. Their addition is removed again later by a different editor which prompts them to comment on 21:18, 16 June 2021 that they will start an RfC when they get time.

Following this encounter, I decide to go through some of their other contributions and find a whole bunch of problematic editing, ironically in the article of Uttar Pradesh Police.

1. This entire section called "Corruption and misconduct" was created and filled by them between September 2020 and May 2021 and includes multiple violations of
   WP:BLPCRIME, in places non notable perpetrators and victims alike are named and in places they state in wiki-voice that a specific person committed a crime without there being a conviction. I had to cleanup the section in Special:Diff/1028876153
   .
2. I also left a message on their talk to which their reply on 21:12, 16 June 2021 is concerning where they state "I only care about trashing the police..."

1. 12:57, 22 May 2021 Addition of a section called "Yadavisation" in the article of Uttar Pradesh Police filled with original research and poor sourcing, which more or less says that the number of Yadavs (an ethnic/caste group) in the police has increased and that they are causing lawlessness and helping criminals.
2. 15:45, 24 May 2021 Restoration after first removal. They also template the person who had reverted them.
3. 21:15, 16 June 2021 Restoration after second removal. They also template the person who had reverted them. I remove the addition after this. Note that their restoration occurs after all our previous conversations regarding onus and communication. During this entire period since 22 May, they don't even bother to start a talk page discussion.
4. I create a section with a detailed explanation of the issues with the addition in Talk:Uttar Pradesh Police § "Yadavisation" and ping them there but it just seems to prompt them to start an RfC on 03:19, 17 June 2021 for the article of The Wire (India) which is essentially a complaint against me.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

• Given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the last twelve months, at 16:04, 14 August 2020.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Other than two articles above, I haven't checked their contributions on other articles. The editor has been on Wikipedia for a bit over an year now and still doesn't have a grasp of basic policies and proccesses, they either don't seem to read policies or they don't care about them. Their communication is just evasion and aggression, with accusations and inappropriate templating. The date and time in this report are in IST. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the SPI, it was inconclusive, you can see the discussion at User talk:Tayi Arajakate/OArchive. The "SP Eatcha" account is likely just the person behind this account who has been trolling around for some time now and is most likely unrelated. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1028963604

Discussion concerning Eatcha

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 Eatcha

On my actions at Uttar Pradesh Police

• Most of the contents at Uttar_Pradesh_Police#Corruption_and_misconduct are added by me.
• I've tried to use reliable sources and most of the time used the word "alleged". But there are only 2 sources in India considered reliable, we never discussed other sources.
• On Yadavisation of UP Police, see [my talk-page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eatcha&oldid=1028977450] and also [jstor https://www.jstor.org/action/doBasicSearch?Query=Yadavisation]. I accept that I should've used more sources from JSTOR search/google books rather than google search.

On my actions at The Wire (India)

• Read the last three sections at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Wire_(India)&oldid=1028946432
• Wikipedia lists 2 Indian news sources as reliable, both of them discuss the issue. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

-- Eatcha 05:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just created a Sock accountUser:‎SP Eatcha of me and reverted the accuser

• I've reported the account and ask for an
  WP:SPI check of the sock, me, the accuser(Tayi Arajakate) and User:Far from average. I'm sure it's one of us. -- Eatcha 06:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Also, note that User:Tayi Arajakate was caught socking, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pali Upadhyay/Archive.

Acknowledgement/apology for BRD

• I should have not violated
  WP:BRD. I accept/admit my mistake and apologize. -- Eatcha 05:03, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I commit to refrain from violation of
  WP:BRD again. ---- Eatcha 05:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I made a mistake by not using reliable sources and the reason I didn't used reliable sources is because I never checked the list.
• I also failed to open a RFC when I was asked to seek consensus for my additions and instated used the 3RR to make sure my edit was the final version, and when I finally opened the RFC, it was not neutral and was a list of edits of the accuser and why I think he was biased.
• "I only care about trashing the police...", I shouldn't have used these words. I still don't like the police but I will try to make sure that I don't use these kind of phrases again.
• I should have opened a thread when I was reverted for the second time on the article about discrimination in police departments. And used the sources from Academic journals instead of sources that are not considered reliable on Wikipedia.

clarifying how you will deal with editing disputes in the future

• I will make sure to open a neutral RFC when ever I suspect that another editor is biased.
• I will try to disengage, I acknowledge I did the opposite this time.
• I will ask for 3rd opinion and post on India related noticeboards if I feel that I am being reverted unjustly.
• I will not edit any article on Wikipedia for one year(until July 2022), I am taking a break form editing articles on English Wikipedia. There's no way I will break the policies again if I don't edit any article for a such a long time. Maybe it would be longer than the sanction I was about to receive, I am self-imposing the sanction for the good. I have an another account User:DNAFET, I won't use this account to circumvent the self imposed sanctions. You may block me indef, If I edit any article during this period of self-introspection.
• I sincerely seek your forgiveness and hope you decide to give me another chance.

-- Eatcha 19:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eatcha's response to Drmies

• Why I didn't respond?

>> I didn't wanted a second edit dispute with the accuser. And I was also more concentrated on the dispute at The Wire (India).

• "If you want to play here, and play in difficult areas, you will have to at least pretend to be collaborative."

>> I had no intention to challenge the removal, I could have searched for more sources (see the JSTOR links).

• And really, it is NOT OK to drop socking accusations without any kind of evidence.

>> I did not make any of it myself. I agree that I should have used the word "alleged" in some places and should have used articles from famous journals rather than "unreliable" Indian newspapers.

After a brief lull, Uttar Pradesh has plunged back into the realms of lawlessness and it is aggressive favouritism and unbridled casteism, better known as Yadavisation, in the police force that is responsible for the state of affairs.

— w:The Sunday Guardian, article link

Statement by zzuuzz

Just a quick note that the User:‎SP Eatcha account is a troll joe-job, as Tayi Arajakate suggests, and I wouldn't let it influence anything here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• zzuuzz I saw that--you found nothing relevant? There's two drive-by accounts that removed the content and I looked at them but found nothing useful. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Eatcha

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

• Eatcha's response here doesn't address edit warring. In both cases, Eatcha broke with
  WP:BRD. Unless there is both acknowledgment of their past edit warring and a clear commitment to refrain from doing so again, a topic ban appears to be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Eatcha, by a clear commitment to refrain from doing so again, I meant something more along the lines of a statement explaining why your previous actions were wrong and clarifying how you will deal with editing disputes in the future, not rote repetition of my suggestion. If you can make a convincing promise to engage more productively, then I think a logged warning is perhaps all that is needed at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Eatcha, why did you not respond to the long post on the talk page about that Yadavisation? If you want to play here, and play in difficult areas, you will have to at least pretend to be collaborative. I'm about to go look at some other edits, but this is pretty troubling, especially since now I don't have much of a choice but to accept the analysis by User:Tayi Arajakate, which (from a few spot checks) seems pretty accurate, meaning it's quite damning. And really, it is NOT OK to drop socking accusations without any kind of evidence. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rosguill, wondering if you find the above answer to your request convincing? In any case, this should probably have some type of closure to it, logged warning or otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Seraphimblade, I'm concerned by the amount of prompting it took to get a reasonable answer, and, ironically by the inclusion of a promise to not edit the site. The latter honestly seems like an attempt to avoid a formal sanction, but is complicated by the fact that the pledged self-imposed sanction is longer than what I would have considered suggesting, but in the event that it's not an attempt to game the system, the length would be enough to satisfy the standard offer. Thus, I'm thinking that it may be appropriate to enforce a shorter tban (say, 1 month), and Eatcha can choose when they wish to return to editing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see that being reasonable. Hopefully that will be the end of it; if not we'll know that something more stringent is needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Srijanx22

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions

Diffs

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

1. 17:20, 03 July 2021 Changes the result and removes peer-reviewed journal claiming to "update with a modern scholarly source", while using a truncated quote that when quoted in full refers to a different battle. See here for the full passage
2. 05:29, 05 July 2021 Blanks result field claiming there are concerns at talk page
3. 14:07, 05 July 2021 Same as second diff
4. 10:24, 06 July 2021 Same as second diff
5. 14:40, 05 July 2021 Claims a peer-reviewed journal is a "low-quality source", and provides quotes that are nothing to do with the article

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Cinderella157: has explained in depth at Talk:Battle of Saragarhi#Infobox that the subject of the article is the Battle of Saragarhi, quite obviously since that's the name of the article. This refers to a last stand battle where the 21 Sikh defenders fought to the death before being overwhelmed, and all 21 were killed and the attackers captured the outpost. There is no dispute whatsoever about the result, nor could there be since if all defenders are killed and an outpost captured, it's pretty cut and dried which side won and which side lost. The claimed dispute involves quotes such as "The officers and men bad now been under arms for 52 hours , and had actually been on their posts for 50 hours without a rest . The enemy who attacked Saragarhi and Fort Cavagoari were the Mamuzais , Ali Khels and Ali Sherzais", which is a quote that proves, well, absolutely nothing whatsoever.

@

WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. FDW777 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

[64]

Discussion concerning Srijanx22

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 Srijanx22

It is a no-brainer that Indian Defence Review is not more credible than

• Looking at the page history prior to the most recent dispute, I'm hard pressed to identify any stable status quo for the infobox result parameter: prior to the currernt edit war between "Afghan victory", "Indian victory" and blank, it was some variation of "British victory" or "Afghan Pyrrhic victory". Thus, while the edit warring by everyone involved was excessive and poor form, the ambiguity of the stable status quo is a mitigating factor, and at this point the page has been fully protected so I don't think further sanctions are necessary. As a side note, the RSN discussion Srijanx22 linked only has one editor opining about Indian Defense Review as far as I can tell, and falls short of establishing a consensus regarding that source's suitability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  FDW777, my sense is that it's pretty clear where the disagreement comes from; academic RS call the battle a pyrrhic victory for the Afghan forces, which can potentially be interpreted as either a victory or a defeat, particularly given that we have a consensus against including qualifiers like "pyrrhic", with the waters further muddied by what appears to be a tendency in popular Indian historiography to lionize the Battle at of Sargarhi, and to present it as a victory in the context of following battles. Now, as regards the content, I'm sympathetic to your arguments and believe you have made a stronger case. However, the edits in opposition to your position are not at this time, in my view, sufficiently disruptive or tendentious to justify sanctions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I would tend to agree with Rosguill. No one looks great here, but I think the underlying issue is a content dispute, and hopefully that can be sorted out while the page is protected. If those involved can't come to agreement, utilize
  dispute resolution more and the revert button less. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I agree that apart from some edit warring this looks like a content dispute, and the edit warring has been resolved without the use of discretionary sanctions. Hut 8.5 14:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

3Kingdoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

You are indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed.

      Topic ban on the subject of the Arab–Israeli conflict, imposed at
      [67], logged at
      [68]

Administrator imposing the sanction

Newslinger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[69]

Statement by 3Kingdoms

I did not handle the discussion with another user in the correct manner and instead engaged in edit-warring. I know that for this topic there is a 1rr which I intend to follow to the letter. While disagree with the topic ban, I did myself no favors and accept the ban. I think over the last week since I have come back to editing that I have not edit warred or lost my cool and argued with someone. Thus I would like to have this topic ban repealed. If you feel that a total repeal is not possible at the moment could it at least be reduced from being broadly construed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To defend myself no I have not been edit-warring. In fact on repeated occasions for all I asked for a talk Page. Regarding McMeekin the issue was resvoled in my favor by another editor. The one has to deal with numerous nonaccount users users changing. Finally the person who wrote this has argued with me in the past before and has potential bias. Thank you. 3Kingdoms (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I have to say it is a little funny that Aquillion's complaint is that I didn't break the 3rr and when I saw that I went past on a 1rr topic I repealed by myself without anyone requesting. 3RR is 3RR if you 2r than you didn't break it. Really don't see the point of their comments. As well if people feel that I should not have it repealed fully would it be possible for it to be downgraded to only applying to current events and persons on said topics, but allowed for Historical pages. Thanks 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never claimed it was an "entitlement" just that someone pointlessly brining it up who has argued with me in the past it pretty pointless. Also User:Nableezy complaining about "condescending" remarks is pretty rich. Also wanting to ban after you know not breaking the rules that warrant a sanction is pretty silly. Also I am not sure why GN mentioned an edit summary from before the topic ban, which I already admitted to being upset at said user and thus too head strong and have stopped doing said thing. Also I don't understand why you brought up AP2 when I not been editing pages like that since coming back. Finally I think it would be best for editors where there is potential for bad blood in the case of Aquillion and Nableezy that we follow the advice of Wiki and take a period of time avoiding to cool off. 3Kingdoms (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newslinger

Statement by Nableezy

You'd think that after all these edit-warring blocks and bans one would actually maybe read our policy on

• For context, this topic ban was for revert-warring and 1RR violations. When 3Kingdoms previously appealed this topic ban (closed without prejudice due to being incomplete), they got banned for violating another 1RR restriction just a few days later, a ban that they just returned from a week ago. Also note that (while not in violation of the 1RR / 3RR), 3kingdoms is currently engaged in edit wars on Settler colonialism, David Stannard, and Sean McMeekin; on Settler colonialism, they had to self-revert to avoid a 1RR violation, and had another revert that was just a few minutes over the 1-day limit. They have generally revert-warred heavily since returning from their ban for a 1RR violation. --Aquillion (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by 3Kingdoms

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

• I'm thinking that the TBAN should stay where it is. I took a look at 3Kingdoms's recent edit history based on Aquillion's comment, and Aquillion's right - 3Kingdoms is getting into minor edit wars in AP2 (another controversial topic area where DS are active). The attitude expressed in this edit summary also doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that they can follow our rules and expectations surrounding edit-warring. I think Dennis Brown had it right last time 3Kingdoms was here - the topic ban just moved the issues to a different area. If they can't behave well in other controversial topic areas, I'm not seeing a good reason to lift an existing ban from a controversial topic area. If folks really want to give them some rope, I could be persuaded to allow editing in this topic area subject to a 0RR restriction, but I don't have much confidence that it would work. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 3RR is not an entitlement. The recent low-intensity edit warring, while not rising to the level of requiring sanctions in itself, leaves me disinclined to accept this appeal. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Generally speaking, topic bans should remain in place until the editor can demonstrate their ability to edit productively in another topic area. This has not yet happened. – bradv^🍁 15:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be willing to give the ROPE with a 0RR restriction. Like GN I'm not sure it would work. —valereee (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Not yet. I would like to see a clean slate in other areas before lifting. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Popsmokes38

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Popsmokes38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

Diffs

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

1. 13:59, 29 June 2021 At Bilawal Bhutto Zardari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) adds a "Controversies" section that in addition to unreferenced negative commentary, cites several references that don't mention Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. You also have to wonder how the NSA having a recording of his mother talking about black bank accounts is of any direct relevance top an article about her son
2. 14:03, 29 June 2021 At same article, adds text describing the bites by stray dogs as an insanely massive amount of cases
3. 03:51, 5 July 2021 Changes use of surname to given name, claiming to have "fixed more spelling errors"
4. 04:05, 5 July 2021 Edit warring to repeat erroneous name change
5. 01:21, 14 July 2021 Restores badly referenced "Controversies" section
6. 01:53, 15 July 2021 Restores badly referenced "Controversies" section
7. 19:54, 15 July 2021 Restores badly referenced paragraph in "Controversies" section
8. 14:38, 24 June 2021 At Nawaz Sharif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), adds "convicted criminal" mention in the opening sentence before even mentioning he's a three time PM of Pakistan
9. 15:00, 24 June 2021 At same article, changes sentence in lead from Most of Sharif's wealth originates from his businesses in steel construction to Most of Sharif's wealth may originate from
   Money Laundering
   without a reference, and it's not mentioned in the body of the article either
10. 13:16, 29 June 2021 Edit warring to repeat previous changes
11. 13:21, 29 June 2021 Adds unreferenced claim of which is often a tactic used by money launderers so the money can't be traced back to them to try and insinuate criminal wrongdoing
12. 02:56, 6 July 2021 Edit warring to repeat previous changes

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

If

WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts

)

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor has never posted to an article talk page or a user talk page. Could probably be indef blocked as a standard admin action if someone doesn't see the need to discuss for days.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Popsmokes38

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 Popsmokes38

Statement by Peaceray

Popsmokes38 has edit warred, flagrantly violated BLP on

• Many of these edits took place before the editor was made aware of discretionary sanctions on 6 July. That said, several took place afterwards, and still consisted of edit warring to reinsert material already objected to on BLP grounds and entirely inappropriate for placement in a BLP. I am also very concerned by this editor's complete lack of talk page communication on these issues. Popsmokes38 has already been blocked 36 hours for BLP violations, but I believe that a BLP topic ban is also in order. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't object to an indef block, either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the total, continuing lack of talk page engagement, I think that an indef block is appropriate, followed by a conditional unblock with restrictions imposed based on how they respond, bearing in mind that their edits thus far betray concerning attitudes vis-a-vis both BLP and India-Pakistan. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It's possible this person hasn't discovered talk pages yet, and may not have noticed such a short block. I think an indef from article space might be a good step, in case they discover article talk pages before they discover their own user talk. —valereee (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd agree with the suggested indef block given the total lack of engagement and the fact this behaviour is continuing. They've been left 32 talk page messages, if they haven't noticed any of them then that's their fault. Hut 8.5 17:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Popsmokes38, created 2 March 2021, has 213 edits, all on articles (no talk page comments). This report with no response, combined with this 20 July 2021 edit, makes an indefinite block as an admin-action appropriate. Or, an AE sanction of an indefinite BLP topic ban could be applied. Let's bring this to a close so I'm happy for anyone to act as they believe is appropriate, or I will close with an indef BLP topic ban in around 24 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]