Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Weighing scales

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Requests for arbitration


Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Eastern Europe

Clarification request closed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Mhawk10 at 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
Eastern Europe arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Mhawk10

The decision enables discretionary sanctions on topics relating to Eastern Europe and the Balkans, broadly construed. To what extent does the scope of the case apply to events that occur within Russia and Kazakhstan and locales within Russia and Kazakhstan on the basis of their geographical location?

Russia is a transcontinental country spanning Europe and Asia, and only part of the country is within Eastern Europe. Read in the most narrow way, only the geographic portion of Russia that is within Eastern Europe would fall under the scope of the discretionary sanctions (no part of Russia is in the Balkans, so that part of discretionary sanctions is moot). Given that there is a bit of uncertainty regarding the borders between Europe and Asia within Russia, and that part of Russia (such as Vladivostok) is clearly not in what is generally considered to be in Europe. As such, this leaves open the question of whether EE applies to events that take place within the Russian Federation based on the lack of clarity surrounding the Europe-Asia border. Is all of Russia considered to be part of Eastern Europe for the purpose of these sanctions, or only the part of Russia that is within Eastern Europe? And, if only the part of Russia in Eastern Europe is considered to be within the scope of the discretionary sanctions, where does Eastern Europe stop? And, would events that are of national importance to the Russian Federation that occurred in Asian Russia (such as the poisoning of Alexei Navalny within the scope of WP:EEWP:ARBEE?

Additionally, there are parts of western Kazakhstan that are generally considered to be within Europe, though I imagine that the remedy relating locus of the case's particular dispute was not intended to capture portions of the Atyrau Region or West Kazakhstan Region. Does "Eastern Europe" for the purpose of this decision include the portion of Kazakhstan that is considered to be within Europe, or no portion of Kazakhstan at all? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an inquiry for a broader understanding, with the giving alerts, talk pages notices, etc. in mind. I was a bit surprised when I didn't see a talk page notice on the Poisoning of Alexei Navalny page even though there is one on the Alexei Navalny page. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the facts at this AN thread, I think that some users (like me) would benefit from knowing whether the topic of Crimean Tatars within the Soviet Union (for example) is within the scope of WP:EEWP:ARBEE. I don't think it's entirely abstract at this point. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
altered WP:EE links to WP:ARBEE Cabayi (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@L235: I think your definition is reasonable and I'd appreciate clarification along those lines. However, if the arbitration committee would prefer to see an active dispute relating to the scope before adopting a definition, that is the committee's prerogative, and I will respect that decision while keeping this ARCA as a base for future discussions that may arise. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

How about the Soviet satellite state of East Germany? Additional illustration - Greece and the European part of Turkey. This might be confusing to the young (born in 2000 +) - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

If my memory serves me correctly? The countries in Europe that were under Soviet influence or control, were described as "Eastern European countries", as being behind the "Iron Curtain". The East (Communist) vs West (Democracy), etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Eastern Europe: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Is there an actual issue at the moment where this would clarification would have an impact or is it an inquiry for a broader understanding (such as editors who might need an alert, talk pages where the notice would appear, etc)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talkcontribs) 21:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also don't see a one size fits all answer here and the AN thread linked as a reason why an answer is needed doesn't strike me as a particularly great place to weigh in either. The best I can offer is that at least some parts of Russian topics will fall with-in the scope of EE. Do all parts? That's what I'm not ready to say today, as maybe yes, maybe no. I would need more input from the community than this ARCA has achieved for me to say. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My understanding of the original disputes that led to this particular discretionary sanctions regime is that the disputes were more along ethnic lines within certain parts of Europe. The various situations presented in the original request for clarification all seem to be edge cases, and would be probably best dealt with on the individual merits of a known conflict or dispute as it arises; the particulars of geographical location would be but one factor in determining whether this discretionary sanctions regime applies. For example, ethnic disputes involving Kazakhstan would probably be lumped under "Central Asia" and not "Eastern Europe (let's ignore for a moment what does and doesn't have a DS regime presently). In contrast, my instinct would be to lump anything Russia-related under Eastern Europe given the likely cultural basis for a dispute. But, I should emphasize again that I don't see a good one-size-fits-all answer here. Maxim(talk) 17:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Crimea is in Eastern Europe, so editing conflicts related to that region (and to go along with Maxim's line of reasoning, ethnic-related conflicts in particular) would fall under the Eastern Europe DS regime. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is this a generational/cultural thing requiring memories pre-dating the fall of the wall (1989)? Eastern Europe is the former Soviet Union and its satellite states east of the Iron Curtain. Cabayi (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm still thinking this over but the response here suggests that a clarification by motion (instead of a routine archiving of this ARCA) would be appropriate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 06:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have reviewed the case and can agree to define "Eastern Europe", for the purposes of the DS remedy, as the former Soviet Union and its satellite states east of the Iron Curtain. But my sense is that steam has gone out here – I doubt there's appetite for clarification by motion. @Red-tailed hawk, would it be satisfactory to close this ARCA and file a new one if needed in the future? Make sure to link this ARCA and discussion in future ARCAs so that future committees have a jumping-off point. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:37, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is this actually causing problems? Do we have any examples of misunderstandings that are leading to sanctions being actioned or not actioned based on this misunderstanding, or are we simply looking at the hypothetical on the terminology. It's a "broadly construed" topic for a reason - because there is some grey area in terminology, and I'd rather we didn't get bogged down in minutiae when it's not causing any actual problems. WormTT(talk) 11:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification request: Gender and sexuality

Clarification request closed and archived. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Sideswipe9th at 21:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
Gender and sexuality arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


Statement by Sideswipe9th

I'd like to request clarification on the title, and scope of the Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions please. There appears to be a disconnect between the title of the case, and the text of the remedy. The title of the case implies that this case covers all edits relating to both gender and sexuality, however the text of the remedy states that the scope is limited to [disputes] regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender (remedy 1), and any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force (remedy 2). While there is considerable overlap between the various communities under the LGBT+ umbrella, with many individuals belonging to more than community, by a plain reading of the text, neither of the two active remedies in the case involve sexuality.

My requests for clarification are;

  • Are edits relating to sexuality within the scope of the Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions, if those edits are in relation to a person who is not trans or non-binary?
  • If edits relating to sexuality are within the scope, can the text of the remedy be amended to make this clearer?
  • If edits relating to sexuality are not within the scope, can the name of the case be amended to make this clearer?

Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm. I'm confused by both MJL and BDD's comments. Per MJL, the text for a GENSEX {{ds/talk notice}} states The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them, which by a plain reading implies that the sanctions are limited in scope to edits relating only to trans or non-binary people. However BDD said the answer to my first question, which was asking if the GENSEX d/s covers edits relating to sexuality of a person who is not trans or non-binary, is yes.
Both of these things cannot simultaneously be true. Either the GENSEX sanctions cover disruptive sexuality edits which are not about trans or non-binary people, or they do not. Consider the following two examples, based off of a discussion MJL and I just had on the Wikipedia Discord:
  • User:DisruptiveEditor makes a series of disruptive edits to Homosexuality and its related talk page. The exact specifics don't matter, except that the edits do not involve any content about trans or non-binary people or related issues. The edits are solely about homosexuality. Are these edits within scope of these sanctions?
  • User:TotallyNotASock writes a draft article on Aromantic Asexuality (note, two separate pages linked there), within which they are subtly POV pushing in a way that disagrees with what sources actually say on that concept. On the talk page they have being rude, and accusing anyone who challenges the content of bias. Within that page, there is no content relating to trans or non-binary people. Are those edits within the scope of these sanctions?
I don't really have any concrete thoughts on whether or not this is best handled by ARCA, or a new case. I do have a slight fear over the later potentially resulting in a lesser scope or removal of the sanctions, in such a way that it could embolden future disruptive editors, but I think that's just my own internal anxiety. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Primefac, I don't think homosexuality has stopped being a contentious subject. There's a bunch of pushback right now, across the world, on various LGBT+ rights.
Why do I feel that the current sanctions cover edits relating to only trans and/or non-binary individuals? Because that is what the plain of the text at the case states; Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, and Gender and sexuality discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender. The second quotation explicitly limits the scope to edits involving trans and/or non-binary people, and the first implicitly does so by a plain reading of the phrase gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
As for why I'm asking for this clarification, in the text of the current case, the word sexuality appears in the text eight times. In all eight of those occurrences, it is present because it is part of the title. Nowhere else in the shell case is sexuality mentioned. This is also true for the current text of both GamerGate and Manning naming dispute cases, where all 8 uses of the word sexuality are in describing the effects of the current shell case. The only case involved in this tree that actually mentions sexuality, is the now largely repealed Sexology, where one editor was topic banned from human sexuality, and standard discretionary sanctions seemed to apply through a very broad definition of the word paraphilia.
Perhaps I'm mistaken in how I'm reading this, and I hope I am because as per Aquillion the plain reading of the text does not appear to fit within the scope of how the sanctions are actually used at AE. If I am, I'd appreciate it greatly if any editor could point out where, outside of the title, it is stated that the Gender and sexuality sanctions apply to the topic of sexuality where that topic does not intersect with gender, because I just cannot see it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And just in case it's not clear, I'd like to state clearly that in no way do I want to weaken or undermine the current sanctions or how they are used in practice. I would like to see them strengthened, by more clearly defining what content they cover. An implied meaning via the phrase gender-related dispute doesn't really achieve this, because even reasonable people can have disagreements on what exactly is or is not a gender-related dispute, and unreasonable people could use the ambiguity to try and wikilawyer for why the sanctions do not apply to a given page. For a related example of this ambiguity in practice leading to wikilawyering, read the initial comments by Maneesh in the Maneesh AE case.
My ideal solution would either be rephrasing the text at the Standard discretionary sanctions section, or adding a second sanction:
  • Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. becomes Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to both; any gender-related dispute or controversy, or any sexuality-related dispute or controversy, and their associated people. Changes in bold.
  • Or add Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any sexuality-related dispute or controversy and associated people.
That way it is more clear that the gender and sexuality sanctions cover both gender, and sexuality as separate topics in their own right, and not just at their intersection points. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I'd prefer the course of action that's the least hassle on the community. If there's a rough consensus that the GENSEX sanctions currently cover sexuality related edits distinct from gender, then my preferred course would be that a simple tweak to the language of the existing sanctions, just to clarify their already existing scope. If there's rough consensus that the sanctions do not currently cover sexuality related edits distinct from gender, then I mildly prefer Barkeep's proposed plan as I kinda prefer the structure that's inherent ARC over the multitude of forms a discussion at AN could take, but either plan works well. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Seren Dept

I believe the scope notes you refer to are preceded by this, the active remedy, which is much more broad:

  • ...with the following sole remedy: "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people."

I think the elements you're referring to specifically are there just to be clear about situations from preceding cases or clarification requests. At the time of GamerGate there had already been several fraught cases and I think the committee decided that participants would move these fights to other similar topics or that similar conflicts would appear later.

Seren_Dept 00:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh my bad, I focused on the idea that the scope was limited by the specific inclusions in the motion, but it's true that sexuality isn't mentioned at all in the active remedy. I'd construe most disputes about sexuality as being related to gender, but I can see that's arguable, and anyway it's not me making the decisions. Seren_Dept 17:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Firefly

I think whether this needs a case depends on the nature of the request - is it clerical or substantive:

  • "This case / discretionary sanctions regime has an inaccurate name which is causing confusion"
    • Fix: change the name/shortcut by motion.
  • "This discretionary sanctions regime doesn't adequately cover the topic(s) where disruption exists, and should be expanded"
    • Fix: file a case noting the disruption that isn't covered by the DS regime; one of the options available to the arbitrators would be to expand it.

I realise this may be stating the obvious, but I think it's important that we clearly define what the actual issue is here. I do not know enough about the topic to offer an opinion there unfortunately. firefly ( t · c ) 08:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

I think it is extremely clear that the gender and sexuality case applies to gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people as described at WP:GENSEX; that was roughly the scope of the Gamergate discretionary sanctions that it replaced, and nothing, at any point in the discussion or outcome of that transfer, suggested that the intent was to narrow the scope of the sanctions. In fact, the entire reason it was done by motion was simply to rename the sanctions specifically to reflect that broad scope. It has also been repeatedly and continuously used under that broader scope since then without anyone objecting; see eg:

...and many more besides; I stopped there, but basically every AE discussion I could find that fell under GENSEX would not fall under the narrow scope implied by the bit above. The four listed points are a mere poorly-worded addition to the existing scope and should be fixed by motion. It absolutely does not require a full case, and the suggestion that it does is a terrible idea because entertaining the possibility that the gensex DSes have ever not applied to any gender-related dispute or controversy would effectively throw the vast majority of WP:GENSEX AE actions taken in the time since the Gamergate sanctions were renamed into doubt. --Aquillion (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MJL

This case was so named after a community comment on the matter as to where the discretionary sanctions originally authorized by GamerGate should be located. It was decided to relocate the sanctions authorization into a new shell case. If you want to see the extensive conversation about the case name, I would defer to the discussion that happened post-announcement (where this ground was previously tread).
For the record, there used to be Arbcom discretionary sanctions on sexuality authorized through Sexology, but they were repealed in 2017 for being redundant with GamerGate. There's a lot of history here.
Unless given evidence to the contrary, I'm pretty sure most of the concerns raised in this request are just hypothetical. I don't think many people are confused about the scope of these sanctions since templates like {{Ds/talk notice|topic=pa}} make it pretty clear what's exactly covered.
That isn't to say I wouldn't like to see a full case on the matter... A wider evaluation may be sorely needed for GENSEX, but I've pretty much gave up on the topic area some time ago. –MJLTalk 23:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: For the record, GENSEX doesn't just cover gender minorities; men and Women both can fall under gender-related disputes or controversies. –MJLTalk 04:12, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fully align with Kevin's thoughts on the matter here for what it's worth. Face-smile.svgMJLTalk 04:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Homosexuality, sexual orientation, and all of sexuality, are "gender-related disputes or controversies" IMO. Levivich😃 17:18, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Gender and sexuality: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Gender and sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I have some opinions about the answers to the questions posed here. But I can't help but wonder if rather than giving the answers here if a case, similar to PIA4, might not be better in arriving at the right answer for the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would also support the alternative path that L235 suggests below where the community comes to some consensus and we change the remedy based on that community consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The four numbered items at the amended remedy are "preserve[d] previous clarifications", not the entire scope of the topic. So yes to the first question. I thought the language as is is clear, but if a tweak is needed, fine. --BDD (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Concur with BDD. Primefac (talk) 11:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sideswipe9th, maybe I am missing some context, but at what point did homosexuality stop being a contentious subject? The world has certainly come a long way in the last century, but it is still very much a problem to be homosexual in very many places in the world. Why do you feel that only "non-binary and transgender" individuals are included under this DS umbrella? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As the motion explicitly states, points #1-4 are intended to preserve previous clarifications through various ARCAs at the new case. However, it is apparent from this request that there is a degree of confusion about (a) whether disputes related to sexuality are considered to be covered, and (b) if not, then whether they ought to be covered. I personally think the answer to (a) is "many, but not all, and it's arguable", and (b) is "it'd take a review case or a community request to establish that need". If there is community desire to establish everything related to sexuality as covered by DS, I would suggest the following path:
  1. A community discussion requests that ArbCom authorize sexuality-related DS, or directly authorizes sexuality-related community-authorized discretionary sanctions, per Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community sanctions
  2. ArbCom adopts a motion to change the Remedy 1 wording from any gender-related dispute or controversy to any dispute or controversy related to gender or sexuality, and supersedes the community GS if needed.
The alternative would be a review case as suggested by @Barkeep49. (or, a better alternative if nothing is really broken, is to do nothing.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No community member seems to have actively requested a review case, so from my perspective, ArbCom's role here is done unless the community requests expanding the scope. I will therefore ask the clerks to close this request in about 24 hours. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification request: American politics 2

Initiated by Interstellarity at 15:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

  • [diff of notification Username]
  • [diff of notification Username]

Statement by Interstellarity

The Watergate scandal article seems to be covered for the AP2 sanction, but it was placed before the date was changed from 1932 to 1992. I am hoping that someone can clarify if the sanction should be removed.

Statement by Thryduulf

Are the sanctions still required? The talk page is extremely quiet and a glance at the article history shows nothing that the pending changes isn't handling and might even be handled better by standard semi protection. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Existing sanctions placed before the date change remain in effect. See the motion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Thryduulf: this is anexample of why I support the proposed change in DSREFORM to allow any admin to remove page restrictions after a year. But I will note that as the sanctioning admin is no longer an administrator, you would be free to modify it if you wish under current DS rules. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (edit conflict) with the above, but agreed (though technically this is a page restriction, not a sanction, but the motion still keeps it in force). Primefac (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I concur with Barkeep in full. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Barkeep's answer to the question is completely accurate. I appreciate there is a possibility that the page restriction is not the right one though. WormTT(talk) 07:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing

Initiated by Red-tailed hawk at 18:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Request for Comment, as amended by Amendment (September 2022)


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request


Statement by Red-tailed hawk

I am asking that a decision of Valereee to strike question #7 from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Requests for comment/Article creation at scale be overturned and Question 7 be restored for discussion. The proposal would create a new speedy deletion criterion, A12, as follows:

A12: No reliably sourced indication of importance (mass-created articles).

This criterion applies to any mass-created article that does not have a reliably sourced indication of importance. This would apply to any mass-created article that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is a lower standard than notability. If the sourced claim's importance or significance is unclear, you can improve the article yourself, propose deletion, or list the article at articles for deletion.

After discussing with Valereee on the talk page of the RfC, Valeree clarified that the reason for the solution being out-of-scope was not that the principle that "all mass-created articles must have a reliable sourced indication of important" is out-of-scope, agreeing that the proposals:

All mass-created articles must have a reliably sourced indication of importance. This will be enforced by some method determined in the future

and

all mass-created articles must have a reliably sourced indication of importance. Mass-creating articles without doing so is considered disruptive editing

would appear to be in-scope for this RfC (though Valereee expressed concerns about the ability of the latter to attain consensus). The rationale for striking Question #7 and not the other two without an enforcement mechanism was that the particular solution to the problems posed by creation of articles at scale involves deletion is focused primarily on creating a new criterion for speedy deletion and doesn't feel like it's something that is keeping bad articles from being mass created. That being said, RfC Rule#2 notes that [t]he sole purpose of this RfC is to determine consensus about policy going forward surrounding creation of articles at scale and to form consensus on those solutions, and I frankly fail to see why the moderator would restrict the ability to propose a policy solution relating to the creation of articles at scale on the sole basis that doing so directly involves deletion of articles. This leaves the option of floating the general principle without an enforcement mechanism (which leaves it vulnerable to criticism that the proposal lacks an enforcement mechanism) or the option of treating this through the lens of user misconduct (which I'm not sure is the best way to handle this), but it bars us from discussion what I believe is the best way to deal with mass-created articles that violate the central principle. The discussion had involved several editors, both in support and opposition, before it was closed by the moderator.

As the arbitration decision, as amended in September 2022, states that [a]ny appeals of a moderator decision may only be made to the Arbitration Committee at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, I ask that ArbCom provide final clarity by either overturning the moderator's action to re-open the close or explicitly affirm the decision of the moderator that the proposal would be appropriate for discussion at what the moderator terms the RfC on AfD. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Valereee

The question of RTH's that I hatted was primarily about creating a new CSD. I think this is better handled at the second RfC. I do understand there's a blurry line between the two RfCs, but my feeling is that the question of deletion processes for dealing with problematic mass creation is better handled at the second RfC, after we've discovered whether the community can come up with a solution to problematic mass creation itself. Or even a definition of problematic mass creation. I believe until we can answer those questions, discussing deletion is probably spinning our wheels.

Statement by Rhododendrites

This seems overcomplicated for what is ultimately: does a proposal deal with creating articles? Go ahead and propose it. Does it deal with deleting articles? Wait for the next RfC. Yes, all of them are going to be connected, which is why we're having both and not stopping at the end of this RfC. The collapsing by Valereee seems like an example of exactly why someone has been given the ability to moderate the discussion IMO. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I find myself agreeing with Valereee and Rhododendrites on this matter; the first RFC is to find and develop solutions to issues surrounding article creation at scale, with the second to be on article deletions at scale. Creating a new CSD category pretty clearly falls into the latter camp. Primefac (talk) 20:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with V, R, and PF in this matter. --Izno (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agree. This issue belongs in the next RfC. Cabayi (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This was amended to allow for two RfCs and gives the mods discretion about how to sequence that. I see no reason to think that this decision falls outside a reasonable use of that discretionary power. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motions

Return of permissions

Return of permissions

The Return of permissions procedure is amended to read as follows:

Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the advanced permissions will normally be reinstated if a satisfactory explanation is provided or and the issues are satisfactorily resolved. If the editor in question requests it, or If the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances.

In cases where an administrator account was compromised, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" and whether the account has been appropriately secured before restoring permissions. Factors used to make this determination include: whether the administrator used a strong password on both their Wikipedia account and associated email account (such as by using a password manager); whether the administrator had reused passwords across Wikipedia or the associated email account and other systems; and how the account was compromised; and whether two factor authentication is being used. If the Committee determines the administrator failed to secure their account adequately or is failing to take reasonable measures to secure their account going forward, the administrator will not be resysopped automatically. In particular, the Arbitration Committee generally will not resysop administrators who failed to use adequate password security practices, such as by reusing their Wikipedia or associated email account passwords on other websites.

Unless otherwise provided by the committee, the administrator may regain their administrative permissions through a successful request for adminship.

Furthermore, the Level II procedure is amended to add:

6. If the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances, provided that the editor in question requests it; failing that, the removal is final. As with a Level I desysop, an administrator desysopped in this manner may still run for adminship again.

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Arbitrator voting

Support
  1. As proposer, with thanks to Barkeep, Salvio, and Kevin for wording. See my comment below for a full explanation of the changes, which serves as my reasoning as well. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose
  1. I cannot support this change simply because of this line "In particular, the Arbitration Committee generally will not resysop administrators who failed to use adequate password security practices, such as by reusing their Wikipedia or associated email account passwords on other websites." I have seen a lot of account compromised over the years, leading to emergency desysops - and by and large, I have felt that the administrator in question has simply not realised the security mistakes they have made. I am all for education and improving our administrator account security, but I am not for setting out a guideline stating that we will "generally" be punishing individuals who make mistakes. I would much rather review on a case by case basis. If the individual cannot recognise and will not learn from the mistake, then sure, but if they accept their mistake and update their security, I have no issue with "generally" returning the tools.
    On a wider note, we have hundreds of administrators, all with different levels of technical online ability, each of which has dedicated a large portion of their lives to the encyclopedia. I will not be part of a culture who black balls these hard workers simply for not understanding what they're doing wrong. WormTT(talk) 08:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. The current language already gives leeway to deal with extraordinary cases where an admin is especially sloppy or repeatedly hacked. BEANS is really a factor here, but I'll also add that we don't need any more incentives for admins to be targeted by bad actors (i.e., if you pull it off, maybe you can get them desysopped too!). --BDD (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. I'm generally in agreement with Worm That Turned. I don't think less-than-ideal security practices ought to be a bright-line offense; there's too much nuance involved, and a rule that we would generally not resysop is draconian. Maxim(talk) 13:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abstain
Comments

Three big changes: first, I've implemented Salvio's suggestion with some elaboration, and have moved that clause to the Level II procedure instead. The sentence seemed to imply that we open a case to review a compromised account. But we don't, that is just way too much bureaucracy. The discussions have to be private anyway, so the structure of a case isn't necessary. Current practice is that we talk to the compromised admin via email, get their story, do our fact finding, then vote on a private motion. That's how we do basically all private stuff, so no need to specify the modus operandi there. Second, I have clarified that we will still open cases for Level II desysops by simply adding that as point 6. I have used the wording "final", rather than Salvio's "permanent", since one may still RfA again. Third, I have added a clause noting that the Committee will generally not resysop for password security failures. To me, that is key. This in my mind is basically our final warning to admins to get their passwords in order. We raised the issue years ago, and things still haven't been solved. But in the interest of fairness, I think we need to put the admins on notice before we just start pulling hacked permissions. I am also open to sending some sort of mass message to communicate this change. As much as I wish there was a technical solution, the WMF is not known for its speed in implementing technical fixes. Thus we need a social solution. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't have any strong feelings about this topic. If the arbs whose concerns were the impetus to start this discussion like this I stand prepared to support it. if this isn't it, I am prepared to support something else. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can support the general direction that we're going. I would like to make it much more explicit that the major issue we are seeing is password reuse and that we will treat that differently going forward – either through ArbCom action or by community action saying we need to take it more seriously (my preferred route). I do not think the removal of the safety valve of a full case is wise; it's not causing any problems and if a desysopped user really does think they want a full case I would support holding one. I do not think we need to add 2FA to this list. I do not think we need to add "or is failing to take reasonable measures to secure their account going forward" to the procedure; that's not what's broken. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's not what was broken here though 2FA would have stopped the last compromise we had. I don't feel strongly on this but I think a reasonable assurance that measures are being taken to secure the account going forward is entirely compatiable with Admin policy of Wikipedia's policy on password strength requirements requires administrators to have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices (emphasis added). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sure. I just think that's implied. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return of permissions (alternate draft; not yet open to voting)

The Arbitration Committee's procedure titled "Return of permissions" is amended by appending the second paragraph with the following sentence: In particular, the Arbitration Committee generally will not resysop administrators who reused their Wikipedia or associated email account passwords on other websites.

Arbitrator discussion

  • This is my attempt to capture some behind the scenes discussion about this procedure. I'm not precious about any of it so if I've missed the mark in some way from arbs who'd like to see it changed, I hope they will refine the motion or offer their own. I will note that the motion I've proposed does include 2-factor authentication, but it is one criteria among many for whether or not to restore, which is a substantial difference from the previous committee communication that was later walked back. In other words no admin is being forced to use it, but if they choose to use it that decision will factor (positively) in the decision about returning tools. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'll add some detail here. A good portion of the Committee, me included, is unthrilled that administrator accounts keep getting breached because of lax password practices. The Committee has historically erred on the side of returning administrator tools to compromised accounts once administrators are confirmed to be in control of their account. But at least for me, going forward I intend to oppose restoration of permissions (absent compelling community input) on the basis that admins have had ample warning about password practices. Whatever we pass here, I want to make sure we're loud and clear about our changing approach, so that admins have one last chance to make sure they have a strong password, that they're not reusing, and that otherwise conforms to best password security practices. I'm particularly interested in what the community thinks here, especially as to what extent we should weigh password security practices, and in what general situations the community believes we should not return the administrator toolkit, thus forcing the editor to run for adminship again if they want the tools back. Please remember WP:BEANS in your answers, since we're not trying to create an instructional guide for our trolls. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't want this discussion to be about 2FA, but understand that it probably will. The Committee has not forgotten the opposition to 2FA expressed in 2019, and is not requiring 2FA, nor do I want to. Even without using 2FA, your account can be uncrackable. However, if you don't use 2FA, you better be conforming to best password security practices. That, in my view, is the bare minimum. The admin tools are more powerful in the wrong hands than people give them credit for (WP:BEANS). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 18:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't think this motion is "loud and clear" about the change you're outlining Eek. I would suggest if that's the goal - and I suspect you're not the only arb to feel this way - that we would need another motion - perhaps as a complement, perhaps as an alternative - that would communicate the Committee's new view on this topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As a note, the present wording of WP:RETURN is as a result of a 2019 motion that came after some 6 administrator accounts were compromised (see footnote therein). While any one compromise from an administrator might be a single for that administrator, that administrators continue not to secure their accounts is basically a failure to uphold WP:SECUREADMIN. --Izno (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Legoktm, the current policy is 10 characters for certain permissions holders. Which, to be honest, is also an abysmal minimum. (I am also not particularly certain how that is enforced? When the administrator right is added, how does MediaWiki check? :)
    I am not sure how an audit would be run except at the login step, seeing as the storage of passwords is industry standard (salt + hash). This only (to me) feasibly catches the short passwords and the most common passwords. We might get lucky catching others on the pwned lists, but since we require a user name and not an email to login, I foresee this as being minimal. Still, better something than nothing?
    The RFC TNT mentions is WP:Security review RfC, from 2015. There is an earlier one from 2011, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Account security. Gosh, do the beginnings of those RFCs look familiar. That makes 4 times this has come up, including 2019 (when Arbcom last modified WP:RETURN) and 2022 (now). While I agree that it would be draconian for Arbcom to desysop someone for the first time, our continuing issues with it indicate to me that might be necessary. It's been over a decade, folks. Izno (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just throwing some spaghetti at the wall: what if there were a rule saying "if an admin gets compromised and there's public evidence of password reuse, they have to re-RfA"? Enterprisey (talk!) 01:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is what the alternative motion that we voted on said. Desysop, and the community can decide whether Staxringold deserves to retain the permissions. Izno (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The case in hand was covered by the existing wording. There's little point changing the wording unless the committee is willing to enforce its own stated position which has been in place for years. I'm still thinking on the change but the wording "appropriate personal security practices" says what needs to be said in an enduring way. Specifying what those practices are sets a fairly short "best before" date to the advice. Cabayi (talk) 08:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Follow up to TNT's pointer to HIBP. The site has a NotifyMe option so you'll be informed if it's found that your email is caught in a data breach in the future. Cabayi (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I do think we need to leave 2FA out of this. While I use 2FA on my email accounts associated with WP, I will not ask anybody to use the 2FA method currently implemented by WMF, and do not use it on WP, except where explicitly required by WMF. Consistent with my position in the recent restoration discussion, I support the strictist enforcement of conditions for restoration of admin status after an account compromise that the committee will endorse. - Donald Albury 22:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am not aware of any changes to the 2FA system, meaning that it is not robust with regards to lost tokens. In those cases, manual intervention by T&S (I think?) and they were not in a position for all admins to flip that bit. Given that not all admins trust WMF either, I believe pushing for 2FA is a non-starter. Regarding strengthening of passwords, that's something I support and have supported for a long time. Yes, password re-use is the biggest problem, but our password requirements are pitiful and should be updated as a technical change. WormTT(talk) 08:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community discussion

  • In an ideal world, 2FA would be a requirement for all administrators. I appreciate that many do not agree, and given the current implementation of two-factor authentication perhaps this is for the best. I would however urge ArbCom to make enabling 2FA a requirement for returning sysop permissions to a previously compromised account — I think this would be a fair middle ground. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agreed. We cannot audit passwords or password manager use - we can check that 2FA is on. For restoring tools to a previously compromised account we absolutely should be doing this. firefly ( t · c ) 18:09, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Firefly: - I thought that it could only be known if they had a 2FA userright. Actual knowing if 2FA was being utilised/enabled was limited to Steward sight and not able to be shared? Nosebagbear (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Nosebagbear ahhh yes that is I believe true. Whether we want to go there (asking stews to check) is another matter I suppose. firefly ( t · c ) 18:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Firefly - they'd probably have to get a position from WMF Legal to adjudge whether they could hand it over. It would certainly count as private information (although not especially sensitive private data). There might be more to be said for having CUOS rights tied to it, with that information taken and handled purely privately. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Firefly: iirc password strength can be audited — T121186 ("Implement results of enwiki Security review RfC") was meant to regularly audit administrator passwords. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    phab:T265726 would be required to allow crats to audit if 2FA is on or not, currently only stewards and WMF may do so. — xaosflux Talk 18:58, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TheresNoTime Ah my apologies I’d forgotten about that task. It seems however that password audits for admins has yet to be implemented(?). firefly ( t · c ) 20:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Izno: agreed — compromises do happen, and given enough time and technical ability no account is entirely secure, but the unfortunate reality is that, for the majority of compromises, WP:SECUREADMIN is not being followed. It seems to be somewhat of an unenforced policy at this point — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While I am confident that I meet the password criteria for admins, I am very reticent in Eek's position. I don't believe that a single failure there is adjudged by community standards to be a failing on an equivalent standard to the other single-failures that would get the admin userright removed even where the admin apologised and acted to correct the issue going forwards. With regards to Tamzin's TNT's proposal, it's not unreasonable, but I would want it generally limited to cases where it is known that either the admin had not been meeting the minimum criteria, or had met them, and was compromised in a way that 2FA would have stopped (certain limited categories of keyloggers, password dumps etc) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The most common compromise vector we've seen would indeed be stopped by 2FA (though in the most recent case, perhaps not) — it's certainly not the "be all and end all" of account security, and has its own fairly significant drawbacks. It is, however, another layer to the account security best practices. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The motion seems fine as written. Eek, I'll agree to bite my tongue about 2FA (especially this implementation), but it's going to be difficult to hold steady if others are still lobbying for it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree the motion as written is good. Regarding 2FA, I use it* but I am opposed to requiring it until there are no technical, legal or economic barriers to every admin being able to use it. In the last discussion I was part of extant technical and economic barriers were noted that prevented some admins in wealthy countries in the global north from using 2FA, let alone those from less online parts of the world. I don't recall what the state of play is regarding legality. *Although I have had to temporarily disable it twice in the last few years, first for about 10 days when my second device was away being repaired and then for about a day when I replaced that device earlier this year. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Having your account be compromised is embarrassing enough (I speak from personal experience on this), I don't see value in doubling down and then punishing the person for their bad luck. Rather, if we're going to enforce password policies (e.g. must be 8 characters or longer), then we should enforce them equally. It would be relatively straightforward to have MediaWiki desysop any admin who logs in with a less-than-eight-character password, if that's what we want. Legoktm (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I do hope that if an admin account was compromised multiple times that they would lose adminship for good. --Rschen7754 01:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I also hope that a higher standard would be applied to users with rights beyond admin, especially those that can access private data. --Rschen7754 02:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In an ideal world (such as the one TNT refers to), the WMF would fully support 2FA software properly, and the software would be up to international standards. Asking an admin to say they have 2FA enabled is security theatre of the worst kind: absent being confirmed by a steward that it is, in fact, turned on, nobody on this project would be able to verify. (Stewards for whom this is the home wiki aren't supposed to carry out tasks related to this wiki.) And even if they verified at that time, it's just a step or two to turn it off. I'd much rather ask for a longer mandatory password that is enforced on all admin accounts, and regularly verified, with mandatory desysop if the account fails the verification, as Legoktm suggests. It's entirely reasonable to ask that an annual verification that admin accounts meet minimal password standards be carried out. But let's not go down the security theatre rabbit hole. Risker (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My point is poorly made without spilling some beans, so here goes — the vast majority of account compromises we see are the result of password reuse. This occurs when you use the same email and password here as you do at some other poorly secured website which then goes and gets hacked. Often, these credentials are leaked/sold/otherwise made available and attackers will just try the lot of them — sometimes they're lucky and get an admin account. 2FA in this case would prevent them from logging in. Something I suggested in the above task was routine auditing of passwords against known leaked credentials (something which https://haveibeenpwned.com offers), which would let us combat some of these common compromise vectors without using 2FA. I don't want to derail this discussion, but this feels like the enwiki security review RfC all over again — deciding to not take reasonable precautions to protect your account is not a valid excuse, yet it's quite clear we've made it one as our policy is unenforceable — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 03:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hard cases make bad law; I would not see a compelling reason to have a blanket policy that you might not find makes sense later. That said, anyone getting compromised twice probably needs to go back to RFA. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We'd achieve a lot more security by implementing technical best practices (many suggested above) rather than trying to regulate human behavior: long minimum lengths, checking against password breaches, throttling failed login attempts, disallowing reused passwords and common words/patterns, etc., and of course that includes 2FA. For example, see the NIST standards (summary); there are others, too. We don't need to create rules and then monitor humans for compliance with those rules, we can make compliance a technical requirement: as in, if your password isn't good enough, you can't log in at all. That'll save volunteers a lot of compliance/enforcement work. Whatever our password policies are, I support arbcom in sanctioning admins who repeatedly fail to comply, e.g. by desysop. Levivich (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Without spilling the beans (and tell me if there's no plausible way to answer this question without spilling) - what's the worst case scenario for an admin account compromised by a competent attacker who is hostile or indifferent to Wikipedia's integrity? Feel free to answer vaguely or qualitatively so as to not advertise a method. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    [...] there are plenty of things that +sysop allows that are irreparable, either in a PR sense, or unrepairable without a truly stupefying amount of work, or in a few cases literally so. Most of them we don't talk about. One of the most obvious, and one that we can talk about because it's already happened (before we had cascading protection, so it didn't require being an admin at the time), is to put a shock image on the main page disguised in such a way that it takes a long time to remove. [...]
    — Cryptic 16:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC), Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Accusing someone of being a sock in an RfA?

    I think I know some of the details involved, but don't feel like it would be a good idea to share more. See also mw:User:MZMcBride/Attacks#Privileged account, although that was written years ago so is somewhat outdated. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tazerdadog: I don't really think there is a way of answering that without potentially saying too much — I suppose if you consider what a rogue admin could carefully do without drawing attention to themselves, that's going to put you on the right track. The bottom line is a fair bit of damage to content, reputation, and the community. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 18:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tazerdadog worst case is probably along the lines of an identify takeover - compromising an admin account of a really-not-here admin, becoming "active" again - and then doing things that drive away readers or editors. The actual account owner might not even know this has occurred. There are certainly some annoying-to-fix technical BEANSy things, but I'm not going to go in to those - they can be fixed and are mostly a time-sink for other admins. — xaosflux Talk 18:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (edit conflict) We know from experience that most admin compromisers either use the tools to cause easily-undoable chaos or don't use them at all, so "what's the worst thing a compromised or rouge admin can do" may not be the right thing to think about. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Imo, the worst case scenario is very bad. We've honestly been quite lucky so far. But luck is no basis for security. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 19:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is no excuse in 2022 for an administrator having a weak password and not using 2FA and other basic security tools. I would consider a person who does not use proper modern security on an account granted advanced permissions (with access to all kinds of potentially damaging info) to be unworthy of the community's trust. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's not exactly what you are asking, but I would like to ask you to consider amending this clause: If the editor in question requests it, or if the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate, normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances. This is not what happens in most cases, especially when people are desysopped under level II procedures. It's a case where for a long time the letter of the law has not kept up with current practices. If I had to make a proposal, I'd put forth this one: If the editor in question requests it, or If the Committee determines that a routine reinstatement of permissions is not appropriate normal arbitration proceedings shall be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances, provided that the editor in question requests it; failing that, the removal is permanent. Salvio 20:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I like the idea of having the system require various features of strong passwords, a minimum number of characters, mixed case and or special characters. It doesn't directly address the reuse issue, except that someone who has been reusing passwords might now need a stronger one for Wikipedia. If we can set rules that require specific accounts to have 2FA, then I'm OK with doing so as a condition for return of userrights. If your account gets compromised then you have to deploy 2FA to get back the same level of trust. Most of our admins are not active as admins, it would be sensible to add a rule inactive and semi active admins whose accounts are compromised can request return of tools three months after regaining control of their account and returning to a fairly active status (100 edits per month). This removes the need to discuss reinstating tools for compromised semi active accounts until and unless they return to an active status. ϢereSpielChequers 04:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I like this idea, but instead of listing the requirements here I'd reference the standard provisions for admin activity so that they are always in sync. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requests for enforcement

Arbitration enforcement archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144
145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162
163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198
199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216
217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234
235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252
253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270
271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288
289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306
307308309310

Bookku

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 Bookku

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
USaamo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:30, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Bookku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBIPA or whichever applies
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Repeatedly blamed me for victim blaming in discussions despite my clarifications (1, 2)
  2. Told by User:Thinker78 about WP:BLPPUBLIC but still held a vague RfC blaming me for non-cooperation (3, 4)
  3. Editors commented in the RfC about suspects to be WP:PUBLICFIGURE but still not accepting it (5)
  4. Told about difference between WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:NBIO but still bent on otherwise (6, 7)
  5. Bludgeoning the process users told him to be concise but continues to create walls of texts making difficult for editors to have a say (8, 9)
  6. Calls himself a South Asian gender studies student but his editing mostly centred around pushing POV against one country and sometimes one community (10, 11)
  7. Accepted his POV in the topic area (12)
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)
  • Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict (diff, diff)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have previously worked with User:Bookku over Feminism related articles and was ready to discuss the additions to 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and expected him to assume good faith on my behalf but he made it quite a dispute. Since the start of discussion he continuously blamed me for victim blaming even though I clarified multiple times that I do not deny the happening of incident but there are other things that needs a inclusion for balancing the article and neutrality. He was not ready to accept the inclusion based on WP:BLPPUBLIC and making WP:OR and WP:SYNTH based arguments. He was also not ready to accept the other editor view who came on his notice to some project but held a vague RfC (as called by editors there) where most editors opined the suspects to be Public Figures for the purpose. He still did not accep their views and wilfully brings WP:NBIO to be criteria to include someone's name in the article which is criteria for a person to have separate article and was told about it. Bludgeoning the discussion by bringing irrelevant things to the discussion and creating walls of texts for which a couple of editors requested him to be concise but seems like he always does this as evident from his talkpage discussions. Although he calls himself South Asian gender studies student but his editing is mostly centred around pushing POV against a specific country and sometimes a community. He is even warned for shenanigans for an undue addition and singling out a specific country by User:TrangaBellam. He accepted his POV in his editing in the subject area contrary to Wikipedia is Not Advocacy and WP:NOTFORUM for which he was previously told as well. One more thing which is though a couple of years back happening but since we both were directly involved in a redirect discussion where I was called supporter of Pakistani deep state, promoting Armed Forces' narrative, wisher of soft censors by him.

In conclusion his behaviour seems like just lingering on the matter in an attempt to exhaust contributing editors by doing argument for the sake of argument, refusal to accept the other views and hell bent on resisting these changes and inability to understand the situation to follow policies and guidelines. USaamo (t@lk) 14:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Robert McClenon thanks for your mediation offer, you have my full cooperation. Appologies that my response got longer in last discussion but before that I tried to be as concise as possible. He kept on making long replies for which I reluctantly have to reply but still he said to me that I'm not co-operating and his concerns remain unaddressed. In last thread I just combined my responses from above in a single post as I was not in a mood to reply again and again. USaamo (t@lk) 10:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@User:Deepfriedokra since @User:Johnuniq himself saying that sources does say it, on Wikipedia content needs to be sourced. I believe its inclusion for reasons I explained here esp 2nd and 3rd point. In brief Police found the said audiotape from victim's associate phone as call recording which is quite likely. The same guy later turned to be the main accused as charged by her. Also audiotapes are not denied by any party and are admitted fact in proceedings since victim charged her associate on its basis and accused himself accepted the tapes reiterating it in his statement that victim wanted to extort money and I disagreed with her so she charged me.
Anyway AE is not a place to discuss content disagreements for which I've expressed my full cooperation to RM. But other than this dispute there are POV issues with Booku's editing as well which need some kind of action. For not accepting an RfC outcome I was partially topic banned from here two years back which I accept I was wrong and happened because of my inexperienced approach but I have no agenda of any sort. I would also like to mention observations of an experienced editor User:Fowler&fowler from an AN3 thread who worked alot for NPOV in ARBIPA area for a general reference. (13, 14, 15) USaamo (t@lk) 11:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aman.kumar.goel I have abided by my topic ban from articles of wars between India-Pakistan and I haven't even appealed it after two years for which I was eligible after 6 months because I don't want to edit in that area.(16) I edited The Kashmir Files once only thinking it to be a film article and had no further intention of editing it but when I was told by User:EdJohnston that the said page also cover my topic ban, I duly abided by it. You bringing that here seems to settle the left over scores against me like always. While you yourself have been the editor mostly up on nationalistic lines as noted by editors (17, 18) and your recent undue addition of similar pattern to 2022 Pakistan floods reverted by me and subsequent edit warring by relatively new accounts to add it reverted by other editors. (19, 20)
@User:Dennis Brown the said talk page has three discussions opened by Bookku and I remained as concise as possible in first two discussions but he kept on making long comments for which I reluctantly have to reply, still he said to me that I'm not co-operating and his concerns remain unaddressed. My response only got longer in last thread where I just combined my responses from above discussions in a single post as I was exhausted after seeing another long discussion by him. USaamo (t@lk) 13:44, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bookku, My body my choice and Mera Jism Meri Marzi was another case of WP:UNDUE from you since MJMM was an Urdu slogan with no history or usage outside Pakistan while Mbmc had a global usage where that was best suited. I explained that on talkpage before removal. And that redirect discussion was not a humorous essay but a serious discussion and there was no joke happening there. USaamo (t@lk) 10:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Inline with TarangaBellam's observation about Bookku's drafts; he started Draft:Pawri Ho Rahi Hai which was rejected at AFC and then he started RfC to determine the topic's notability against due process and as in his responses here too he stressed on RfCs to be the only way out(quite ironic of him since he's not accepting the RfC outcome in the ongoing dispute). I was not much opposed to the said draft but he wanted me to do it without discriminating between Pakistan India sources as South Asians only in discussion. In his article My body, my choice too he mentioned India Pakistan just as South Asia while mentioning all other countries with name. Well both Pakistan India comes in South Asia but they have distinct identities which comes first. Wikipedia policies and nationalities can't be simply ignored because he likes it this way.(21) USaamo (t@lk) 21:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff


Discussion concerning Bookku

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 Bookku

  • Requesting goodfaith. Pardon me for minor hiccups, spare for bad faith attacks on my talk page some of which I might not have replied. Over all I have been following WP policies to best of my understanding.
  • My re to TB. (1)
  • Previously covered a bio regarding Public spaces. Non–military mass sexual assault (Indian incidence draft pending for very old ref books) caught my editorial attention months before Pakistan incidence (2). Noted other global incidences @ Talk:M.S.A for later expansion.
  • Few other examples of my editorial neutrality: ( 3, 4, 5)
  • See time stamps of My body, my choice was started before USaamo's Mera Jism Meri Marzi. Mb,mc is global in nature not targeting Pakistan only. @ MJMM I added Indian feminist issues and USaamo and other Pakistani users removed reserving the article for Pakistan. Can provide many more editorial neutrality examples on request.
  • Dif cited by USaamo (6) itself is proof I am not personalizing but the case may be otherwise (7), In another cited case ( 8) I was in light-hearted passed comment with smiley at beginning to bring a point home (then didn't know One has to specifically note humor as humor, I request pardon for.) but that too did not intend to name/ target USaamo in any way. (I have other humor related drafts too.)

Assuring you all, I am very much here to build encyclopedia constructively. Pl. let me know any other/ more clarification needed. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Deepfriedokra First para in my user page is already clear, I can work in whatever area of cosmos available. While I put my agencies to utilization but I am not sure the description '..seeking to right great wrongs ..' fits me well in spite of POVs, since I don't believe WP is last resort.
  • I do have a long list of examples of my well sourced relevant and even very neutral content being deleted or declined and I have not made even any RfCs for most of them. This time too if it would not have been serious BLP violation (agreed of being BLP violation at least 4 users by now) I would not have taken to this length. In spite BLP rules would have allowed me to delete directly or create RfC for direct deletion I am going to great length to seek mediation and best possible accommodation.
  • You are admins, your decisions I would surely respect and accept. The concern is this time itself a user selectively clubbed multiple bad faith attacks and came here asking for admonishment of mine. You admonish me next time some one like them will have more authentic admonishment to add in their list and corner me. WP political realms can do very well without my contributions. How many nonBLP consistent contributors WP has on women's rights front?
  • Even if some content is believed to be WP:Undue why it can not go through content dispute resolution mechanism at respective talk pages and needs to be personalized and brought to this forum in this fashion is not entirely clear to me.
  • Your admonishments are not an issue, the users keep finding it easy unquestioned route to personalise issues in stead of preferring talk page resolutions of content disputes, concerns me more.
  • You all are experienced admins you must have gone through all such discussions earlier too, it is all for you to decide. I will respect and accept whatever you decide. Thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Deepfriedokra I read through Aman.kumar.goel. For some one like me academically sourced edits like this ( 9) giving all sides can be example of ideal neutrality. But when narrative of every side gets affected, people tend to trade some strange adverse charges. Why all those content disputes can't go through RfCs ? rather than clubbing all strange misrepresentations and corner or oust uncomfortable neutral user.
    • Why don't we have a condition every one bringing up charges over here prove neutrality of respective strangely charging users first. I know that inconvenient won't happen here.
    • Is not that usual Wiki gaming. I understand admins too have to grow and live through same environment and systems. And I would understand whatever your decision you take. As of now I bow out. Many thanks Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @El C, The whole thing is simple content disputes and 'we don't like it' so 'we will take ARE shortcut' attitude of some users. If you do not agree with me I will take 72 hours break on my own. This is primarily case of a BLP policy violation in plain sight. Other 4 users seem to classify it as BLP policy violation 1a, 1b, 2 (This user says ".. still fails BLP on other grounds .."). If proper BLP protocol would have been followed, I would not have needed to write a single sentence. See time stamp @ Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard I said ".. It is close call. .. I am seeking guidance in writing briefly and systematically the way it happens in DRN ..".
Bookku (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also while I am very much following protocol mentioned WP:DDE guideline the accusing side seem to miserably fail the protocol mentioned in the guideline. Bookku (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Reply with details 2
Statement by Bookku (2)
  • This is additional subsection for ease of navigation and reading.
  • [Humor] In Textbook case things seem going on lines, where mob ready to WP:BLUDGEON even a dead horse alleging WP:BLUDGEON. Group of triggered pupils in the school pressuring their hall monitors to clip the wings of fellow student alleging the student has flaws in completion of assignments (he simply writes what we don't like!) hence that student's behaviour ought to be considered bad and punished for. Every one would not understand such parallel or may not like it they might call names bully more, that is fate of that student. They can also take this opportunity to say that this user even does not understand Wikipedia is not forum or standup comedy stage and trail show must reach to it's decided **logical end. :) End of humor note.
  • If this ARE is the ultimate forum for content decisions then why not officially acknowledge that. And when big pile of charges is being brought by multiple users against a single one that single one need to get reasonable time to provide response at least for mental satisfaction.


  • Following is more for my own mental satisfaction and record.


  • I have already submitted whatever closing admins action would be I shall co operate constructively.
  • At times whether to respond back or not is quite catch-22. On one hand lectures being handed over to me being asked to be concise, to their long list now even funny charges being added, idk, intends to just mock me or subvert the system. Now usual content deletions of my sourced contributions like at even Non-vegetarian are being cited as great examples of my bad personal record. I am confused Idk whether to laugh or cry.
  • Here roughly 9 months before TB wrote to me ".. Love in Pakistan and Urdu Feminist Literature are fascinating (and valid) topics - if you need resources, give a ping. I will take up the article on forced conversion. .." But as soon as women's issues are covered at Public spaces their patriarchal structure and power on Wikipedia feels threatened.
  • Take google.com, books.google.com, scholar.google.com search for "Public spaces" "women" and various countries names including Pakistan, for many countries including Pakistan entire WP articles can be written and substantial part can be criticism, Let global women know why a sections dedicated to women issues in public spaces can not be there in Public spaces article and all women related issues are to be compulsively restricted to special for women articles. Why public spaces article can not be opened. Was there any restriction to begin with Pakistan and later adding others? Some one already covering those sources will naturally cover that. Show me existing article talk page RfC consensus against. Is that affecting male power structures on Wikipedia that I am being mansplained and dislodged. For that they bring me to ARE with repeating fake bad faith attacks of proven long duration sock accounts? (More details on request or visit later User:Bookku/ARE for updates)
  • One likes or not likes or not, as of this day 1969 Rabindra Sarobar Stadium en masse sexual violence controversy is first known on record non conflict time en masse sexual violence controversy with multiple reliable sources for notability. Idk why any one should be afraid that to be covered.
  • Examples after examples (17) like this one show my best possible editorial neutrality. With all humility I submit, if any one feels my content is not perfect then should have been discussed on article talk pages without resorting to personalization tactics.


  • I would request discussion closing admin to let me know if they want any specific content related clarifications from me for the baseless pile of them submitted by USaamo AKG and TB. Any detail logical scrutiny will prove most of that to be just frivolous much of it making mountains out of molehills intending to smear and hound for their own POVs being hurt in some way. As such I shall update my detail submission with detail study at User:Bookku/ARE as time permits me.
  • Last but not least, in any case, let me wish best luck to ongoing hounding and synchronized symphonies for times to come. I repeat I have already submitted whatever closing admins action would be I shall co operate constructively.

Bookku (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Own sign is updated with fresh to avoid bloating

Reply with details 3
Statement by Bookku (3)
  • The latest reply of T.B. 18 shows continuation of unnecessary diatribe proves their WP:IDONTLIKETHEM strategy, to respond or not is quite catch 22 to me. If I don't respond they shall continue take ARE forum and Admin confidence for granted, continue bypassing regular content dispute mechanism by making blatant misrepresentations here, not only for me but multitude of other users in times to come. If I respond admins will need to enter in detail content analysis and end up saying detail content analysis is not my job at this forum. This way TB and company seems to be manipulating and misusing ARE in plain sight.
  • Any ways topic is raised I address as brief as possible. If you do not want to take google search yourself, Ask @ WP:Reference desk/Humanities if they can find any other notable 'non conflict time en masse sexual violence controversy' before the Calcutta controversy. The day you find one, ignore my words and update the article Mass sexual assault for the same, I will be first to thank any one for any such efforts. If not then one ought to examine Calcutta controversy thoroughly and not just by selective reading. An autobiography or authorized biographies written by any one how those can be last word in themselves. How do you ignore what other reliable sources are saying just like that. The controversy had been covered by multiple reputable Indian print media and analysts. The quote TB is giving weight to, itself says, ".. and catcalls soon turned to more physical expressions and .. . Women too were allegedly molested.". Jyoti Basu's biography does not ignore controversy but includes it and you want to censor it?
  • Words 'alleged' and 'controversy' means this really happened as claimed or not we don't know. We Wikipedians can not sit on judgement, if reliable media and sources are covering it it has to be on Wikipedia. You are not supposed to sensor. Would you not consider what women parliamentarians said ?
  • ".. On 14th April 1969 members of Lok Sabha debated various incidences and situation in West Bengal. In respect to Rabindra Sarobar stadium incidence Congress leaders namely Sucheta Kripalani, Sharda Mukherji and A. K. Sen, former Law Minister, criticized unconstrained hooliganism at the Rabindra Sarobar stadium in which many women were molested and subjected to every forms of humiliation. .."
  • ".. The issue came again in Lok Sabha on 10 th December 1970 Ila Pal Chaudhari asked who was author of the Rabindra Sarovar incident? Jyotirmoy Basu said a High court judge has given lie to that. Ila Pal Choudhury responded back saying it is it is a heart-rending; women came to her crying; they showed their clothes which had been torn. Pal Chaudhari says, in reality, commission of inquiry headed by the High Court judge turned out to be a farce since it was not allowed to function freely, because witnesses and the lawyers including including Pal Chaudhari's own counsel were intimidated with grave threats as none will be left alive in their family if any one gives evidence. .." ~ Ila Pal Choudhury * Lok Sabha is India's parliament and person with similar name 'Jyotirmoy Basu' is parliamentarian of Jyoti Basu's party. You don't know Jyoti Basu was not chief minister but just home minister then. His then Chief Minister Atulya Ghosh himself publicly protested against own ministers and later resigned.
  • At least one contemporary leftist Calcutta newspaper too criticized incidence. Another leftist investigative journalist from another Indian state traveled to Calcutta plays down with words rapes not likely to have happened but agrees incidence of molestation likely to have taken place. Then other news papers including Indian Express with then reputable editor Frank Moraes, Reputable Bengali Journalist Barun Sengupta and at least one research paper of North Bengal university discusses the controversy. You are free to deny what you did not see yourself, how you can deny notability of controversy widely covered in contemporary media and books?
  • Do you want all those paragraphs and references at this forum itself or you will sincerely address the topic looking for old references including those you don't like and discussing at appropriate talk pages first.
It is whose mistake I had to type wall of text here itself. Will you blame me for providing logical credible presentation too?
  • I am not used to personalizing content disagreements in this way, though I do have more proofs against such questionable maneuvers. "I repeat, manipulation and misuse of this forum to oust unwanted content and contributors is quite frustrating. Problem is not me getting unfairly punished likelihood of other genuine users too may keep suffering concerns me much more." (Please read again 10000 times.)
Bookku (talk) 06:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by TB

Will make a statement in support of a logged warning. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Booku is essentially trying to right great wrongs - that is what I perceived of his rambling reply to RegentsPark's AC/DS alert, prodded by me. Such a political stance is not condemnable —much less, blockable— in itself and is the raison d'être of acclaimed Wiki-projects like Women In Red etc.
However, as the mindboggling edits on Public Space (diff-ed by Johnuniq), Drowning (link), and Tourism in Pakistan (link) show, Booku either does not understand our core content policies concerning DUEness of content or chooses to flout them intentionally. Besides, there are inane article creations like Superstitions in Sikh societies (check history) filled with dubious sources and dubious content derived from illogical synthesis. To compound things, their walls of text are mostly irrelevant to the issue at hand, makes for painful reading, and only serves to digress.
All in all, I think a good case is made for an indefinite TBan, at least from all topics connected to Pakistan, and women. Alongside a logged warning that any further shenanigan will extend the Topic Ban to include India. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rosguill, thanks for the query. I meant the latter option (union); not certain that my choice of punctuation was appropriate. The intersection won't work - see RegentsPark's evidence of strange drafts lying in his user-space.
I express my firm disagreement to Deepfriedokra's and Dennis Brown's idea of a time-limited TBan. This is not some garden-variety case of edit-warring to necessitate a cooling-off penalty! As RegentsPark — one of the few administrators who patrols S. Asian topics — notes, there is a borderline CIR issue at play and it is irrational to expect the problems to go away in a span of few months! Booku has been here for years and he has been made aware of these issue by multiple editors (see evidence by AKG). My proposed scope of topic ban is quite narrow and if Booku can edit competently in other areas, I won't oppose an appeal as and when it is filed. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Came across Booku's edits at Non-vegetarian and yet again, a fundamental disregard for NPOV, DUE etc. Much of those additions have been removed by others. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will add another (the last; please bear with me) evidence and expand in some detail, which exemplifies everything that is problematic with Booku's editing. Over the course of a few many edits, Booku added the following paragraph in wikivoice to Rabindra Sarobar Stadium:
Analysis

In the first quarter of 1968 at the Rabindra Sarobar Stadium, a scheduled musical night of large gathering, called 'Ashok Kumar Nite', failed to take place due to faulty amplifiers; mob went unruly, women attending the gathering were molested and sexually abused en masse. [...]

Now, what do the (three) cited sources say?
The first source is the (unofficial) mouthpiece of the political party, which governed the state during the incident. I won't rely on it for anything and even then, it contains a single (indirect) reference:

There is still an enquiry in progress on certain reported incidents in Rabindra Sarobar stadium in July when there was to be held what was called Ashok Kumar "nite", in aid of the reputed Bombay actor. Brassieres were alleged to be all over the place, as the whole show broke up in chaos.

The second source is a contemporary speech by Hem Barua, a legislator from an opposition party, belonging to another state (Assam). He taunts the Government of West Bengal to launch an enquiry on the incident, albeit to deflect from a discussion that centered on another issue (firing on workers who striked):

If you are so enthusiastic about holding inquiries [on the firing], why don't you hold an inquiry into the incident that happened in Rabindra Sarobar Stadium where women were made naked, women had to return home in a state of nakedness? Then what happened, Sir? After this discovery, a large quantity of torn sarees and torn brassiers were found there on the spot. The incident at the Rabindra Sarobar Stadium was a ghastly incident and I want to say that, instead of holding a parallel inquiry into the Cossipore firing incident, the State Government, if it is so enthusiastic about holding an inquiry, can hold an inquiry into the incident at the Rabindra Sarobar Stadium where women were humiliated and insulted. Even today I hear - this is my report; I do not know how far this is correct - that 30 women are missing because of this incident. Whatever that my be, that was a ghastly scene or a ghastly spectacle and I say that an inquiry should be held into it.

It shall be obvious to not rely on partisan political tirades, though they might be true.
Now comes the relatively-decent third source - a biography (albeit, official) of the-then Deputy Chief Minister by an academic:

The first major problem he had to deal with occurred in April 1969 and threatened to tarnish the reputation of his ministry. A musical soirée, Ashok Kumar Night, at Rabindra Sarobar stadium tumed ugly. The immediate cause of the audience's restiveness was faulty amplifiers. Boos and catcalls soon turned to more physical expressions and an angry audience started to throw chairs at the stage. Women too were allegedly molested.

The police, who were attacked with grenades, crackers and other missiles, were compelled to open fire and fifty people were injured. The media played up the incident and reported several deaths, claiming that corpses had been fished out of the adjoining lake. Maverick politician Raj Narain, ever willing to fish in troubled waters, issued an official statement saying that the police found two truckloads of women's undergarments. [compare with Hem Barua's speech.]

At the time, Basu was in New Delhi where a deputation of women belonging to the Jana Sangh came to meet him to protest against the incident. In reality, the audience had turned unruly and had completely ignored the police orders to stay calm. The police action was the only way to restore order. The United Front government ordered a judicial enquiry into the incident. By now the Congress Party, aided by the Centre, as well as some members of the ruling front itself, had begun efforts to dislodge the United Front government. Accusations of the misuse of government machinery were voiced and the United Front was accused of being dictatorial and non-cooperative. The Centre fanned the flames.

Do you see anything of this in the original paragraph, added by Booku despite the citation? I leave it to you to decide whether Booku is plainly incompetent or .... TrangaBellam (talk) 15:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is first known on record non conflict time en masse sexual violence controversy

Somebody ban this editor from anything that has to with women, please. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RegentsPark, Deepfriedokra, Johnuniq, and Dennis Brown:: This has been stale for over a week. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I became aware of the dispute over 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and of Bookku on 11 September, when Bookku posted to the DRN talk page asking for mediation; see Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Mediation_help_request_@_article_talk_page. The posts of both Bookku and USaamo are too long, didn't read in detail. Bookku was saying that they would be requesting assistance at DRN and at BLPN. I advised Bookku against forum shopping and said to file in one place. Bookku replied and said they would also need help from other pages. It appears that Bookku is running around in a panic and not helping things. Both Bookku and USaamo need to be civil and concise. I haven't researched the details of the article dispute. If there is a content dispute, I am willing to try to mediate, but will impose word limits and other restrictions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification

This may be a restatement of the obvious, but if a topic ban is imposed, I will not be mediating a dispute over an area where the subject is not permitted to edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Aman.kumar.goel

@Deepfriedokra and Johnuniq USaamo remains topic banned from conflicts related to India and Pakistan,[1] and has violated that topic ban as recently as May 2022.[2] USaamo treated allegations as facts on this diff and wrote it in wikivoice. That was a BLP violation. On talk page, USaamo tells Bookku to "be concise in discussions as your comments are bludgeoning the process by creating walls of text and are a cause of exhaustion for editors"[3] but USaamo himself wrote walls of texts.[4][5]

Topic ban of USaamo should be extended to cover whole ARBIPA.

Bookku is not understanding about the nature of their POV pushing. He has been already warned over WP:UNDUE, NotAForum, bludgeoning in the recent months. However, the activity of Bookku on Public Space,[6] and 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault[7][8] shows he has ignored these warnings and above message confirms great chances of similar disruption.

Bookku should be topic banned as well. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Replies from both editors, Bookku and USaamo, to my above comment reinforces my view that both of them need a topic ban to cover whole WP:ARBIPA. They simply don't see what is wrong with their own editing. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 22:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bookku

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Awaiting statement by TG. Noted Robert's statement. Hopefully, this can be resolved without AE action.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Willing to go with a logged warning per TG, and in hopes of dispute resolution with Robert. Unless someone has a better idea. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Bookku I'm afraid it is glaringly obvious you've brought a personal point of view and possibly an 0ff-Wiki agenda into the encyclopedia. Your latest post makes me feel that while you are capable of leaving that agenda out of your editing, you have at times chosen to include it. I'm willing to "admonish only" if it is clear you will cease and desist from the POV pushing moving forward. USaamo, it looks like your edits have been unfortunate as well. I echo what Johnuniq has said below. More concise and clear information is always useful. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TrangaBellam: I thought you would be arguing for a warning. Now I must reëvaluate. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Read it all, and I support Dennis Brown's short-duration (about 1 month) TBAN proposal. The intersection of Pakistan and women/feminism seems a good starting point. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TrangaBellam: Point taken. Will defer to my colleagues on indef vs time limited. The time limited seems a happy middle ground between a warning and an indef. @Bookku: If we go with short duration TBAN, please see it as a boon and an opportunity. If we must address this matter again, the result might be more than a indefinite duration TBAN, considering issues TG has raised. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I will ask my colleague El C to close this. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Bookku added a section on Pakistan at Public space (diff). That was totally WP:UNDUE in that article and indicative of someone seeking to right great wrongs. However, USaamo's edit at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault (diff) with claims of "alleged audiotapes" (with a handy dubious tag!) in the lead is worse (yes, the sources said that but don't add "dubious" material to the lead merely to repeat gossip—how likely is it that someone has an audio recording of a conversation showing criminal intent on their phone?). I would like to see if there is further commentary that might enlighten us regarding whether something stronger than a logged warning is needed. I agree that other editors need relief from walls of text. Johnuniq (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Couple of points: Aman.kumar.goel, does raise some interesting questions, that this may be the pot calling the kettle black, but more importantly, I want to point out that writing one or two TLDR comments is not the same thing as WP:BLUDGEONing (itself a subset of WP:DE), as bludgeoning is a pattern of doing so, usually in the same thread or topic. From what I see, this looks like someone trying to Right Great Wrongs, and while a logged warning is ok, I guess, I get the feeling we will be back here soon enough. This is where I differ from my compatriots, and think timed tbans can be effective, as a month off a subject but with the promise of being able to return may provide incentive. Dennis Brown - 13:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not going to formally weigh in on this case based on past interactions with editors party to it, but I do have a clarifying question: TrangaBellam, is your intended suggestion for a TBAN of the topical intersection of Pakistan and women, or of separate TBANs for topics pertaining to Pakistan and topics pertaining to women? signed, Rosguill talk 19:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I support some sort of topic ban. TrangaBellam brought Bookku to my attention and a look at their contributions shows a focus, not necessarily misplaced, on womens rights issues in India and Pakistan. However, the steamroller approach demonstrated in Public space, Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault, Draft:Hermeneutics of feminism in Sikhism, other declined drafts, and the rambling response to my templated notice are problematic and borderline WP:CIR. Perhaps a topic ban on topics related to women? A timed one like Dennis Brown is suggesting? That might give them some space to explore other topics, get comfortable with incremental editing, and then return to the gender area which appears to be of significant interest to them?--RegentsPark (comment) 23:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmm. On responding to an ECP edit request, I came cross this hard-to-figure-out discussion. I'm beginning to think that we may have a CIR issue.--RegentsPark (comment) 17:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • DFO asked me to close this, but I probably owe closure to WP:AE#Jargo Nautilus before any other report on this board. But I'll make 2 notes, a general one and one specific to this complaint.
First, the general one: my view on timed TBANs is that rarely, if ever, they're useful. Could this be that one rare exception? I suppose it's possible, but there would have to be a good reason.
My 2nd note that's specific to this complaint concerns its length. Which is to say: disregard for this board's 500-word limit rule. As it stands, USaamo and TrangaBellam each exceed it by more than double, while Bookku by over 4 times. So I don't know what to do about that at this point, as it's a bit late in the day. Still, if parties and reviewers really want fresh eyes on this, then I dunno, maybe work to collapse...? Good luck! El_C 14:23, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm going to close this with the narrowest of sanctions (Pakistan and feminism) appealable in six months. Will leave this open for a bit in case there are other views. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jargo Nautilus

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[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Jargo Nautilus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS 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)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.Here


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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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: [9]. 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, -- [10] -- wherein he makes reference to his previous edit summary, and he accuses Aleksd of vandalism.

In this Talk:Russia comment [11], 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[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[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. [12] [13] Note: I have engaged with them, although I have attempted to be civil. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[14][15] and made a new subsection about how he and the other user was being censored[16][17] and again making more walls of text on the talk page[18]. 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"[19], then again continues to restore the original personal attacks and the walls of text he made on Talk:Russia[20][21] and then continues on with personal attacks[22] and using the other user's talk page as his soapbox where he again makes personal attacks against "orcs" and "Ruzzkies" "censoring" him[23][24]. Still he continues to restore the text on Talk:Russia after another user removes it[25][26]. Again continues attacking editors on talk pages ("See you in Hell!")[27]. 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[28] 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".[29] Mellk (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
@Jargo Nautilus: I asked you to not make vague threats. You wrote: Don't delete my comments or things will get messy[30]. 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[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[reply]
@Jargo Nautilus: What I did was check the block log. Mellk (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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.[31] Or it should have been collapsed. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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: [32] [33]. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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 [34][35][36]. They edit and move other people's comments. They leave passive agressive instructions/threats ([37][38][39][40][41]) and engage in direct harassment [42][43][44] (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[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[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[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[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[reply]

P.S. I do agree that user Jargo Nautilus has an anti-Russian bias strong views [45], 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[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[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[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.
  • Concur with Volunteer Marek. Selfstudier, this is an exceptionally poor report. It's nearly at WP:BOOMERANG level, which honestly surprises me from an editor of your tenure in WP:ACDS topics. It isn't germane that you to provide your warnings concerning claims of personal attacks, aspersions, incivility, etc., rather you are expected to show those things themselves. It isn't reasonable to expect reviewers to connect your reactions to whatever actions prompted these. That is your burden. Two is too many steps. So you need to amend the diffs to reflect what those warnings were in response to. The first diff, while a bit subpar, doesn't seem that egregious. Which is all the direct evidence you have atm. El_C 21:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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[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[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[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[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[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[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[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[reply]
  • Jargo Nautilus, please never strike part of someone else's comment for accuracy or for any other reason. That is a big no-no. To an outside observer, it'll always look like it was done by the comment's author. If you have a correction, you've your own comments to quote and strike and do whatever with. Honestly, it's a little astonishing to me that you've been here for years, yet you do not realize how misleading and inappropriate doing that is. El_C 12:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
  • Jargo Nautilus, sorry, I intended to wrap this up myself, and I had an entire day in which to do so (which was plenty) before RL obligations took precedent. But then My very best wishes' Holocaust comment on your talk page, the edit summary more than anything, threw me on a loop (diff). It also coincided with an unrelated stressful on-wiki event (this one), which thankfully ended okay in the end. Anyway, now I don't know if I'll get a chance to be the one to give a closure of this report the attention it deserves. None of that is on you, obviously, it's just bad luck. El_C 16:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Same, I agree with VM, this seems a waste of time. As for Mellk's comment about JN restoring comments on the talk page, I tend to agree with JN there. It's fine if others disagree, but editing warring to remove comments was the wrong thing to do. There are going to be heated comments, leave it be unless it is vandalism. This is a textbook example of doing an AE report in the wrong way. Dennis Brown - 21:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 - 00:00, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grandmaster

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 Grandmaster

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Topic ban appeal

I would like to appeal my indefinite AA topic ban per this report: [46] by User:Armatura (now indef banned). I was reported for posting a link to a news site article in a talk page discussion. While I agree that the link that I posted was not a reliable source, I never used it in the article, nor did I propose to use it. But it was a poor choice, of which I regret. I understand that I should use better discretion when selecting sources, even if they are intended just for illustrative purposes. I promise not to make the same mistake again. Another reason for Tban was mentioning an IWPR reporter's Armenian nationality to demonstrate the usage of the discussed term in various countries and the reporter not being an Azerbaijani propaganda source. I understand that mentioning nationality during a dispute, even for good faith reasons, could potentially create a battleground atmosphere. As Rosguill advised, I should have just limited myself to pointing out that IWPR was not in cahoots with the Azerbaijani government. It was a mistake on my part that I promise never to repeat.

After my first appeal I was advised to take some time off (6 months at least) to edit other areas, which I did. [47]

In the last 6 months, in addition to various edits, I created two new articles: Fyodor Arturovich Keller, about a notable historical figure of the Russian revolution era, and Destroyed Russian military equipment exhibition, related to the war in Ukraine. The former became a DYK and was featured on Wikipedia main page. I have been a long time contributor to Wikipedia, I made more than 24,000 edits, and I contributed pretty much to every notable article about Azerbaijan, and created many new ones. Right before the ban, I created another DYK article, Lazar Bicherakhov, which was one of the most viewed hooks of March 2022, and largely rewrote the article about Gobustan State Historical and Cultural Reserve, which is a world heritage site, and was in a very bad shape. I think I could positively contribute to improving Azerbaijan related articles, as I did for many years, so I would like to ask the admins to lift the topic ban. Thank you very much. Grandmaster 14:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanctioning admin is User:Rosguill. I did not personally notify him. Sorry, I did not know that I had to personally notify him. I have notified him now. Grandmaster 18:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

El_C, thanks for letting me know. Grandmaster 19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Johnuniq, thanks for commenting. Regarding your question, I have not been sanctioned in the last 15 years, until this tban. Grandmaster 08:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion concerning Grandmaster

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 Grandmaster

Statement by (username)

Statement by Abrvagl

During my newbie days, Grandmaster suddenly stopped responding to the ongoing discussion, despite the fact that I pinged him several times. I only found out Grandmaster was Tbanned after another user explained me. That piqued my interest because it was new to me, so I began exploring the case.

I will be honest here, my first impression was that Grandmaster was targeted, because, as I understood from Grandmamster’s reply[48], same user filed number of reports on him in a short period of time. I didn't fully understand what warranted indefinite Tban at the time, but after reading the appeal, it became crystal clear to me, and I actually took some lessons learned from it. I believe that the fact that the individual understands what he did wrong may identicate that he has improved his behavior and addressed concerns. What I don't quite understand is which policy defines duration of the ban and this confuses my understanding. For example, a user, who assume the ethnicity of other editors and challenge RfC outcome based on ethnicity of participants, get a 2-month Tban [49], while other editor get an indefinite Tban for highlighting the reporter's ethnicity to prove the article is not Azerbaijani propaganda.

With regards to appeal, considering the fact that Grandmaster understood his mistake and given the points raised by Rosguill, I would opt for a trial period during which any battleground mentality from Grandmaster will result in an immediate Tban. I believe giving Grandmaster a trial Tban lift is a reasonable solution, because, as Rosguill suggested, how else can editor demonstrate that concerns regarding the A-A are addressed if he cannot contribute in that area? A b r v a g l (PingMe) 21:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Grandmaster

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Just a quick question: Grandmaster, who is the sanctioning admin and have you informed them about this appeal? El_C 17:44, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Grandmaster, thanks. Yes, it's required. Because it wouldn't make sense to evaluate the sanction imposed by said admin in absentia. El_C 18:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think that the request here addresses the issues that led to the report the ended in the ban, and if this request had been made by a relatively new account I would have no issues lifting the ban. My lingering concern is that Grandmaster, at the time they made the errors that led to the ban, had been actively editing Wikipedia for well over a decade, and the fact that they would still make such flimsy arguments suggests to me that these were not naive errors but rather intentional opportunism motivated by an entrenched battleground mentality. Grandmaster is clearly capable of doing good editing work outside of A-A, but the presentation of such work is neither here nor there as far as underlying battleground concerns go. I recognize that it is hard-to-impossible for an editor to produce evidence that would prove that such underlying concerns have been addressed, so I do feel bad about saying (!voting?) no at this time, but I can't say that I really see cause to lift the TBAN. signed, Rosguill talk 19:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If there has been no recent battling, well after this TBAN was imposed, I would feel safe unTBANNing.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I do not believe in the WP:ROPE principle which suggests that it is easy to reinstate a sanction (would that principle unleash a reformed editor or someone better able to POV push while avoiding sanctions?). Nevertheless, my quick look did not find a knock-out reason showing that the tban should be forever. Has Grandmaster been sanctioned before, other than the last block which was for edit warring in 2007? I'm on the fence given Rosguill's reluctance above but am inclined to unban. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would tend to agree with Deepfriedokra and Johnuniq here. Grandmaster has been around long enough to know that further misbehavior in this area will very likely lead to reinstatement of the sanctions (at minimum), and that third chances are a whole lot harder to get than second ones. I am not entirely without reluctance, but I would be inclined to give such a second chance. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daveout

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 Daveout

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Daveout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 17:07, 27 September 2022 "you're a pov-pushing liar who is not acting in good faith"
  2. 17:26, 27 September 2022 restoring the above when removed as a personal attack, saying "will not be censored this time. this was not a gratuitous, it's a statement of fact that everyone can see for themselves."
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 16:37, 8 September 2022 warned for personal attacks in the topic area
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

I really would rather not reporting this here, but this is a blatant personal attack, and then restored when removed. I think Daveout is the type of editor we need more of, and I say that as somebody who sees him as clearly being on a "pro-Israel" side of things, but he is reasonable and open to discussion and willing to compromise. But on topics that rile him up he goes wayyyy too far, and this is one such example.

re I can't tell a user that he is lying when he is patently lying??? WTF???, no, no you can not. Even if he were and that were an established fact. You can report him for disruptive or tendentious editing, but no you cannot say you're a pov-pushing liar who is not acting in good faith. You could probably call some statement a lie if you could prove it, but no, you may not call another editor a pov-pushing liar. nableezy - 18:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, as far as the pov-pushing bit, one should note that Daveout edited to insert two highly POV pieces, and only those links, the mirror image of what he claims is POV-pushing by others. Nobody said he is a liar or not editing in good faith or a pov-pusher. nableezy - 19:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dave, like I said, I dont even want to be here reporting you. But you just said your edit was a WP:POINT violation. If you think something is wrong then say it is wrong and then raise the issue at the appropriate noticeboard if discussion proves to be unfruitful. Do I agree with Selfstudier's addition to the EL page? I dont really have a problem with them. Do I think an external links section should only have links in support of one POV? Obviously not. The solution there is to add other appropriate links though. But heres the important part. You cant just insult somebody like that. You cant double down on it. I understand this topic can be emotional for some editors. But if you get so emotional about it that you are incapable of participating like an encyclopedia editor then you should recognize that and walk away. I think you are, usually, a good editor. I think you edit in good faith. But that doesnt excuse that kind of attack, and then to double down on it? I would gladly withdraw this report if you self-revert your re-insertion and commit to not personalizing disputes and not violating WP:NPA and WP:POINT. nableezy - 19:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daveout hasnt restored the offending remark since I again removed it, and that being the case I'd ask this just be closed with a warning on personalizing disputes and making personal attacks. nableezy - 23:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified nableezy - 17:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Discussion concerning Daveout

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 Daveout

(1) - (diff) I removed an external link and wrote the following summary: "rv, i think this should be discussed first. along with the other links"

(2) - (diff) To which Selfstudier replied "...the latest revert is free of any rationale, none was specified in the edit summary, just an unwarranted demand for discussion."

(3) - What is that if not a lie??? I can't tell a user that he is lying when he is patently lying??? WTF???

(4) - This is the *unwarranted* discussion that their referring to. The discussion, a good faith attempt to build consensus, was triggered by the fact that 3 external links were added to the Israel and apartheid article, all of them basically affirmed that there is an apartheid in Israel (which is a controversial matter and should be dealt with neutrality). The external links are as follow: "Inside Israeli Apartheid", The apartheid reports, DECONSTRUCTING ISRAEL'S APARTHEID AGAINST PALESTINIANS.

(5) - So look at the links and tell me that the discussion about neutrality is *unwarranted*, it's another L-I-E. There's no other name for it.


Nableezy I was trying to make a point about one-sided external links. (and by the way, the pro-Israel ones were promptly removed under neutrality concerns, oh the irony). I'll admit that maybe the way I did it wasn't so obvious. Anyway, as I later explained on talk I'm perfectly happy with no 'external links' section. Or it could have a balanced version. Making clear that I didn't want a section with pro-Israel links only.
Hypothetically speaking, if you consider that pov-pushing "less than neutral", do you agree that Selfstudier acted in a pov-pushing "less than neutral" manner? –Daveout(talk) 19:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Muboshgu: It was a comment on my perception of Ideological bias on Wikipedia, based on my own experience, I didn't mean to attack anyone. (do you have mind reading capabilities or are you failing to assume good faith?). I was indeed thinking about an event that I experienced, where I saw admins ignoring rules in order to vilify an allegedly conservative "free-speech" website. (I can provide diffs but I really don't want to get into that). And by the way I'm a Bernie suporter. –Daveout(talk) 18:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Daveout, as I said below, this was an "attack on our editors in general". I did not say that it was a personal attack on any specific user. But I am not violating WP:AGF by pointing out that "Cannot say bad things about Dems in wikipedia, unfortunately. Everything bad about their politicians is just conspiracy around here" is an uncivil remark. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I will never take back or apologize for saying that Wikipedia is biased in favor of establishment Democrats. This is a well known fact, a constructive criticism, not incivility, nor "a direct attack on editors in general". (I say this as a progressive Bernie supporter.) (Wanna permaban me for saying that? Fine. Just do it. It will just prove my point.)
  • I have a hard time being fake polite, and sometimes, I notice, people take my words harder than I intended. but I can try from now on, as a compromise, to force myself to sound softer even during disputes. For example, instead of saying "Selfstudier, You're a liar!", I can push my hardest to say things like "Selfstudier, sweetie, we're talking about this exact issue on talk, as I mentioned in the summary. I didn't explicitly wrote WP:BRD, WP:ONUS, WP:POV in there because I thought you were already well aware of those. But you clearly weren't, despite having over a decade of experience. It's thus obviously my fault for being so... cryptic. I'm really sorry. >.< "Daveout(talk) 18:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GizzyCatBella: You forgot to say that, as I made clear, I restored positive and uncontroversial edits only. In many instances, including votes, I acted in ways that would let Yaniv displeased since I'm less pro-Israel than him, and I have the receipts. But since you're so committed at reverting every Yaniv edit, you might be interested in restoring this edit describing Sara Netanyahu as a cow, since it was corrected by Yaniv. (along with other edits that introduced crass errors in articles, some carelessly reintroduced by yourself) –Daveout(talk) 17:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
("Collapsing. Sorry for bringing it up here. Please note but ignore it, admins.")
Extended content
It's fine Gizzy, just let the witch-hunt continue. I don't really care. Fun-facts that won't be mentioned here: (1) I once evoked the fifth pilar (WP:5P5) so a pro-Palestine user could vote in a split proposal, my rationale was: All his comments have been constructive and the 500 edits requirement is obviously meant to bar accounts created recently by bad faith actors, not editors who have been around for over a decade. (2) I once defended a pro-Palestine user here at AE on a complain brought forward by a "pro-Israel user", (3) I was probably the only "pro-Israel editor" to vote yes to the Israeli apartheid renaming. One of the most desired changes of the pro-Palestinian squad. So no, I'm not a puppet of a cabal headed by Mossad. And IceWhiz, NoCal and Yaniv aren't my overlords if that's what people are thinking. –Daveout(talk) 22:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

collapsing (ignore it please)

Extended content

Just noting - Reported user regularly restores edits of a banned user (Yaniv) and (their words) "I don't intend to stop". If you find this issue relevant to the case I’ll supply diff’s. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC) Actually, forget it. It’s an issue I believe, but it might be more suitable to discuss it elsewhere. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Daveout Yes, most of them were uncontroversial, correct. But I rather see you making your own edit of a similar nature than straight continually reverting and restoring edits of a banned user. To me, something isn't right here. But as I said, I don’t think now this minor issue is for this board. Sorry for bringing it up. Please note but ignore it (admins.). I’ll discuss it further with Daveout on other occasion if needed. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... and by the way, Yaniv's “cow” edit wasn’t restored by me -->[50] I rather pay attention to what I’m reverting. (The way you wrote your response sounded like a “cow” edit was resorted by me.) 😉 - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know it wasn't you, read carefully: "...you might be interested in restoring...". It was done by someone who also thinks all sock edits must be reverted no matter what, even the positive ones. I don't believe in that. –Daveout(talk) 21:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. We’ll talk about later, not here - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Daveout

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • RE: you're a pov-pushing liar who is not acting in good faith (diff) — yikes! El_C 17:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Daveout, a couple of things: 1. Please sign + timestamp any and all comments. 2. Attributing a possible error to a lie fails to exhibit good faith on your part. Also, even if you were able to somehow prove that it was a lie (singular), that does not mean that they are a liar (habitual). 3. Maybe tone down the the excessive bold (have mercy on our eyes) and other heated exclamations. Those do the opposite of of advancing your position, because they serve as distraction, one which does not come across as representing the dispassionate discourse expected for this topic area (and doubly so here, at WP:AE, where one's related conduct is placed under scrutiny). Thank you. El_C 18:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Clear personal attack and I don't see anything here which could possibly justify it. It seems to me that these editors just have different perspectives on this revert: Selfstudier pointed out that the edit summary doesn't contain a rationale for removing that specific link (which is true), and Daveout felt that a previous post on the talk page justified the removal. Neither is a wildly unreasonable perspective to have and certainly not justification for insulting people. Given the prior warning, and the fact that Daveout's comments here double down on the original comment, I think some sort of sanction or at least a stern logged warning would be appropriate. Hut 8.5 12:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We also have this newly made edit with incivility and an attack on our editors in general in the American politics arena. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Since it does not appear that this editor is improving their behavior much if at all, I would not be opposed to a topic ban, or more than one. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wow. This is a two for one deal? We have WP:NOTCOMPATIBLE and WP:INCIVIL behavior in American politics and Palestine-Israel. Doubling down on such behavior above? I think ArbCom wants us to tend away from indefinite TBANS, so one each for American politics and Israel-Palestine would be nice, but they were not DS alerted for American politics. So six months TBAN for Israel Palestine. However, I see a trend that makes me believe a site ban may become necessary. The general WP:BATTLEGROUND approach is the opposite of what is required in a collaborative work environment. As the behavior escalated, I think a warning will not be effective. If anyone wants a limited duration site-wide block from editing, that would be my second choice.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Time-limited sanctions are counter productive for anything other than petty vandalism or edit warring. I'm not up to date regarding Arbcom's latest effort to hamstring discretionary sanctions, but if there is any time that an indef topic ban was required, this is it. If that's now not permitted, I don't see why there would be less than a one-year tban. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for 1RR at Crisis pregnancy center

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 for 1RR at Crisis pregnancy center

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion#Motion: Abortion (September 2020)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is not a request for sanctions against any particular editor. Rather, per the instructions at the top of this page, it is a request that administrator(s) enact, as an administrator action authorized under the Abortion case DS, a WP:1RR page restriction at Crisis pregnancy center (not the talk page, just the page itself). As shown in the link above, there was previously a 1RR restriction at all pages in the topic area of the DS, that was lifted in 2020. Here, I'm requesting that it be added back on a single page, for at least a while, while there is a dispute that is being discussed on the article talk page, where there is an ongoing RfC and related discussion. A look at the page edit history shows no 3RR violations, but a significant amount of slow edit warring: [51]. Alternatively, I guess you could full protect the page. In any case, I think it would be helpful to keep the debate on the talk page, at least until the RfC is over. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tamzin's analysis is correct, and it's ok with me if the decision is against doing this. But I'll suggest that the knowledge of a 1RR restriction would have the effect of making editors think twice before making reverts, and that would be a good thing in the current context. It's not just about a need to tamp down on edit warring, but also a matter of refocusing attention onto talk while the issues are still being discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't help but to notice that things quieted down as soon as I made this request and posted at the article talk page that I had made it. I think it would be fine to have a 72-hour 1RR, but per Johnuniq, I'd recommend against having a BRD requirement. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was another revert today, and it looks like it was timed to avoid a 72-hour window: [52]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notified the editor who made that edit: [53], that I had commented on it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notification of this filing at article talk page
[54]

Discussion concerning Request for 1RR at Crisis pregnancy center

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 (username)

Result concerning Request for 1RR at Crisis pregnancy center

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • There's a lot of reverting, but it moves slow. In the past month of edits, a 24-hour 1RR would have prevented Pbritti's 2nd revert of the 7th, Goodtablemanners' 2nd revert of the 29th–30th, and that's it. Neither of those made it to a third revert, I'll note. So I'm not convinced a 24-hour 1RR would have a preventative effect. If there's an appropriate rememdy, I think it would be either a 72-hour 1RR or a BRD requirement, but I'm undecided on that "if". -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 22:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If a "refocus attention to discussions on the talk page" type sanction is needed, then I second Tamzin's BRD suggestion. firefly ( t · c ) 12:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 72-hour 1RR and a BRD requirement should not be overly onerous and may have a salutary effect on discussion and consensus building. The net result should be to make for a more collaborative work environment.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have a jaded view regarding topics like this. I would be happy to support a 72-hour 1RR and a BRD requirement as an experiment but essentially, like many other topics, the page will be edited by those seeking to promote opposing views regarding good and evil and for the dedicated editor, restrictions are just a nuisance to be worked around with tag teaming etc. What does "BRD" mean here? It sounds like an indefinite 1RR that applies to everyone, not just the person who did the first revert. I had to remind myself what would be involved in restrictions: see page restrictions. Johnuniq (talk) 02:21, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clean Copy

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 Clean Copy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Clean Copy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPS
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. [55] 4 October 2022—speaking of Anthroposophy, which he is banned from.
  2. [56] 15 September 2022—editing an article about Steiner's book, which he is banned from.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. [57] 18 March 2022, blocked 48 hours for breaching his topic ban.
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
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[58] 5 October 2022

Discussion concerning Clean Copy

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 Clean Copy

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Clean Copy

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Clean Copy, while I'll give a brief period to await a statement from you, these appear to be relatively straightforward violations of your topic ban. If you would care to provide an explanation, now would be the time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kheo17

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 Kheo17

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Kheo17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBAA2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  2. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  3. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  4. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  5. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  6. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  7. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  8. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  9. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
  10. 5 October 2022 restored "Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan" citation after being told why it's unreliable
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

Kheo17 continued to use the source Qərbi Azərbaycanın türk mənşəli toponimləri ("Toponyms of Turkic origin of Western Azerbaijan") after being warned of it's unreliability. The "Western Azerbaijan" in the title is actually referring to Armenia, and is an Azerbaijani irredentism source that is explaining how the names of every Armenian city and town are actually of Turkic/Azerbaijani origin. The book's author, Ibrahim Bayramov, co-wrote another book about how all of Armenia is Azerbaijan's rightful territory.

I explained to Kheo17 on his talk page why this source is unreliable, but he continued to restore it on several Armenian town articles regardless. I'm shocked that an editor who has been editing Armenia-Azerbaijan related articles for over a decade would not understand why a source claiming all of Armenia belongs to Azerbaijan is not acceptable. --Dallavid (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)