Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive290

Loganmac

Loganmac blocked for 72 hours for a violation of their topic ban. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:29, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Loganmac

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bakkster Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Scope of standard topic ban

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

User appears to be continuing the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that resulted in original ban, but this request is made with respect to existing sanction and topic ban.

Per suggestion, added the direct link to the original topic ban.
@Loganmac: I appreciate the reply. My understanding of the use of "broadly construed" in topic bans would place sexual assault allegations, court cases regarding transgender rights, and any article of any person associated with the topics under the ban. I agree there's other, further reaching ways to "broadly construe" the relation (this edit including a sexual assault allegation of Bill Clinton, for instance), but I thought the above 4 were close enough to that line to deserve arbitration clarification. Per WP:BROADLY: "If there's doubt, don't do it, and get clarification first" and "if there is any plausible dispute over whether DS applies in a specific case, that is normally taken to mean that it does". Bakkster Man (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Loganmac

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Loganmac

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

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

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

3. I fail to see the relevance into the vote resulting in Delete. Shortly after this vote, this person got her own article (Jessica Yaniv). Like I mention in my vote, my edit related to Canadian law and the human rights implications of this case (see her case at the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, which was mentioned by the person that nominated it for deletion the general consensus in discussions elsewhere has been that, at best, this story might warrant some minimal coverage at the page for the BC Human Rights Tribunal. [5]). She would then lose this case and was admonished for using human rights law as a "weapon" to "penalize" marginalized women with a racial animus and for filing in such a volume for financial gain. As can be seen from my edit history, I have numerous edits in human rights topics, including for example an extensive and well sourced rewrite of Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo [6][7]. I have edits on Guantanamo Bay prisoners, could the fact that these people uphold Sharia Law, an anti-trans ideology, be then construed as me editing gender related articles? I have edits on Julian Assange, a person previously accused of rape[8], and associated with Chelsea Manning, a trans whistleblower... I hope by giving these three examples you see how my topic ban could apply to virtually anything. I have absolutely no editing in main space articles of Yaniv. Loganmac (talk) 06:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This enforcement request mentions an update of these sanctions "These sanctions have since been replaced with the similar umbrella sanctions Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality". While as far as I can remember, I haven't been made aware of this update in my Talk page, all of the above mentioned edits except 1., a WP:MINOR title addition, were made before the cited update opened and closed.

Since the enforcement request mentions my recent request at ANI and potential WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, I'd like to apologize if my intention of bringing an user's behaviour to the attention of admins was taken as disruptive. I had no intention of appearing to have a grudge with anyone. The reverting complaint wasn't uniquely mine [10] and was not a personal edit dispute as explained in my request. It stemmed from worries of potential WP:UNCIVIL behaviour. The enforcement requester here, Bakkster Man, agreed it's poor form to rollback an edit with "The WP:ONUS is for you to get bloody consensus", and then not make a reasonable effort to engage in that consensus building[11] My ANI request only stemmed from my 2 attempts of letting the editor know on his Talk page being immediately reverted. Since then I collaborated with editors with my addition suggestion in the talk page, which most agreed was needed in the article, and most of my suggestion have made it to the article[12] thanks to the help of several editors, including Bakkster Man and RandomCanadian, who I still applaud for their mission of fighting misinformation regardless.

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

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

Statement by Shibbolethink

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

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

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

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

Statement by Jorm

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

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

Statement by Newimpartial

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

[13] [14] [15]

were made to a page where the Gender-related sanctions template was visible and where the editor should have known that the discussion was, in fact, part of a gender-related dispute. If Loganmac did not in fact understand this, it suggests a WP:CIR issue at a very minimum. Newimpartial (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Loganmac

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

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

Belteshazzar

Belteshazzar blocked indefinitely as a normal administrative action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Belteshazzar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ApLundell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

(Many of Belteshazzar's edit-warring edits are to Bates Method, I don't think it's a coincidence that this user's recent edits are to the article about the Bates Method's most prominent proponent besides Bates himself.)

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

However, I don't think we need to seriously consider the possibility that Belteshazzar was unaware of Macfadden in this context. Macfadden was a major proponent of a pseudo-scientific medical technique called the Bates Method and the Bates Method seems to be Belteshazzar's primary area of interest. He has been blocked more than once specifically for his edits about the Bates Method.

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

I've notified the user here : [25]

Discussion concerning Belteshazzar

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Belteshazzar

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

I don't think anyone until now had actually pointed out WP:BMB to me. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by Guy Macon

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

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

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

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

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

[ Correction:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re "a year or indef seem to be the correct escalation" below, does anyone reading this actually think that if Belteshazzar is blocked for a year they won't immediately resume editing pages related to the Bates Method as soon as it expires? Is there the slightest hint that they will ever be willing to accept WP:BMB? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Shibbolethink

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

Statement by Psychologist Guy

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

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

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

Statement by Roxy

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Belteshazzar

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

This seems to be the only diff that crosses the line --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 13:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: I am willing to accept that I am feeling overly narrow today. If these are violations, a year or indef seem to be the correct escalation --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 16:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I very much disagree with Guerillero in this instance. Both Macfadden and Bates are primarily notable as CAM proponents, bringing their articles in their entirety within the scope of the topic ban, so all of these edits are violations. It seems that Belteshazzar has no intent of obeying the topic ban and believes (quite incorrectly) that they can violate it if their edits are "good" or "uncontroversial", and seems to be either unable or unwilling to understand that a topic ban means to never edit about these subjects at all. Unless I'm convinced that this will change, I'm minded to indef as a regular admin action at this point, else a six month or one year AE block would be in order as the next escalation point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Belteshazzar, let me be very clear. Do you now clearly understand that you must completely stop editing and discussing these articles, regardless of whether your edits are "good", "uncontroversial", or anything else? No fixing typos, no tweaks in wording, no nothing. Take them off your watchlist and don't visit them, nor any like them. Is that clear to you? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the acknowledgement above, I would at this point go with a six month AE block, but with the warning that if this were to happen again the next one will almost certainly be indefinite. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As shown by Hut 8.5, Belteshazzar has already started editing the topic area again after agreeing to quit doing it, and so is clearly not going to stop. Given this, I'd favor an indefinite block, and will do so unless someone shortly objects. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only possible argument I see that that would state in Belteshazzar's favor is that, at least for Macfadden, the topic is not crystal-clearly in "alternate medicine", as it doesn't call out this term on the page, nor does the usual aspect of where alternative medicine's theories are debunked or criticized by scientific evidence. However, we generally put the onus on the topic-banned editor to understand what "broadly" is scoped to mean and to stay far far away from anything that even may touch or overlap, of which Macfadden's article does clearly touch even if not explicit it is alternative medicine. So fully agree this is a violation of the topic ban. --Masem (t) 16:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Guy Macon: Completely valid point and thus definitely in the topic ban area without question. --Masem (t) 19:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree these are violations. The edits on Bernarr Macfadden relate to a section which says that the subject advised people to avoid mainstream medicine and that he promoted fringe medical ideas. Even if the article as a whole doesn't fall under alternative medicine that bit clearly does. William Bates (physician) unambiguously falls under the scope of the sanction. Belteshazzar did revert some of the edits in question but only after this enforcement request was filed [41] and subsequently fixed a typo in the same article [42] so it doesn't look like they're leaving the topic alone. Hut 8.5 18:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shibbolethink‎

Declined, content dispute with no need for arbitration enfrocement at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Shibbolethink‎

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Geogene (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Shibbolethink's statements here, This was an inappropriate report, and the user should take responsibility for bringing a content dispute to ArbE. As shown in my diffs, I was very happy to add disclaimers, context, etc. to my RfC. I was very happy to work with the editor, and add context to my claims. seems inconsistent with their statements before this was filed, Okay, I'm sorry to have upset you. If you'd like to report me to ANI or ArbE, be my guest. I don't believe I've done what you've just accused me of at all....EDIT SUMMARY: that's just like, your opinion, man.... [46]. Disclaimers, to make BLP and OR okay? We don't use disclaimers for that.

Which quote here do you suppose is more representative of S.'s behavior out in the field? Instead of arguing about venue, why haven't they produced sources to remedy the BLP violation? Could it be because those sources they'd need for their preferred content don't exist?

~~Shibbolethink is now editing the comments I've cited to change their meaning, in violation of WP:REDACT [47].~~

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[48]

Discussion concerning Shibbolethink

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Shibbolethink

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

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

From my perspective:

I note ongoing discussion at Talk:DRASTIC about whether it's fair to describe group as "conspiracy theorists."
14:29, 24 June 2021 I agree in spirit with editor who describes group as such, but couldn't find solid sources which say it directly. Only as WP:SUMMARY.
14:29, 24 June 2021 when editor provides source that's closer to home, I propose we wait for consensus or start RfC to resolve ambiguity.
18:16, 24 June 2021 I start RfC.
19:32, 24 June 2021 Geogene accuses me of BLP violations for "grossly misinterpret[ing]" sources.
19:41, 24 June 2021 I say I'm happy to add disclaimers demonstrating where I'm engaging in uncontroversial primary sourcing and where I'm just quoting RSes. I add that clarification to my original !vote statement (20:47, 24 June 2021 & 20:59, 24 June 2021)
20:53, 24 June 2021 I also tell Geogene they should bring the dispute to the relevant noticeboards if they're confident I'm violating policy, as per WP:ASPERSIONS: "Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page." I admit I was probably too hasty to reference ARBE/ANI, but I had forgotten WP:DRN existed. I think the actual appropriate place to escalate would've been WP:BLPN so I should have emphasized that more. However, very strong language that I should "delete [my] claims" made me act a little rash myself. (meaning what, the entire RfC? All the evidence I had gathered? Unclear)

I think this is the latest in a long line of casting WP:ASPERSIONS for Geogene.

Here are other examples of same and similar conduct from them:

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

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

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

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

I would ask Geogene, for the sake of not wasting everyone's time, and not clogging up admin time, would you consider withdrawing this and posting instead to WP:BLPN? Thanks.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 01:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC) It was worth a try.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 01:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~re: WP:REDACT, just added the strikethrough/underline[50]. Doesn't really matter since you're citing diffs anyway. The diffs don't change when I update the !vote.~~ I updated the warning as per Berchanhimez's astute reasoning. WP:PRIMARY is indeed the more applicable WP:PAG.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 05:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

re: My very best wishes:

I closed the discussion as per your exact comment that I should close it [51]. I already reopened at the request of Isaidnoway on my talk page [52]. As I said elsewhere, I love the discussion, I just don't think that RfC is the proper place for it.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC) (edited 23:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@My very best wishes: I waited until the RfC had a pretty clear consensus of what people were comfortable with. Then I edited the page. When it became clear that the conclusion was controversial, I stopped editing and am currently waiting for the RfC to resolve before doing anything else. This is exactly what is prescribed on the WP:RFC page. In my original RfC, I included A) the change I wanted to make, B) what the page already said without my change, C) a mix of A and B, and D) a slightly less controversial way of saying A? How is this not a neutral set of options?

Admittedly, I should have made clear the question was about the wording "conspiracy theorists" and not arguing about what it should say if it's not "conspiracy theorists." But hindsight is 20/20. It looks like we may end up needing a new discussion or, annoyingly, a second RfC to resolve that discrepancy. That is my burden to bear, but I hardly think it amounts to a violation of WP:PAG. It's sub-optimal RFC creation. I'll do better next time. Or, you can write it next time!

We cannot judge the RfC I created based on developments that have occurred since, and pretend that I should have somehow predicted these. "Amateur researchers" is the status quo. It is what existed prior to the RFC. And I want to be very clear, I have made only extremely minimal, non-substantial edits to the original RfC text:

1. to emphasize which was the wording pre-RfC

2. to make clear that the article does not have a clear lead/body distinction.

Why indict me for making good faith efforts to build consensus for a controversial change before making it? Isn't that how wiki is supposed to work? --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC) (edited 23:32, 29 June 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Notifying other involved editors

Notifying all users who edited the article/talk page in the past 72 hours:

Notified: User:SaltySaltyTears. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User:Zoozaz1. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User:JohnFromPinckney. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User:JPxG. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User:RandomCanadian. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User:Francesco espo. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User:Guy Macon. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User:Novem Linguae. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Terjen

Shibbolethink are showing a pattern of disruptive behavior. They recently dragged Normchou to AE for a TBAN, despite having been edit warring themselves to permanently insert an unsourced POV claim of scientific consensus into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, showing disregard for core policies:

Verifiability requires such unsourced claims to not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source with the burden to provide sourcing being on the editor that wants to insert the claim. Moreover, WP:RS/AC sets the bar high for claiming academic consensus, including explicitly requiring any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. This guideline has been repeatedly referenced in the discussions on Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 involving this editor, yet blatantly ignored. They are well aware of the requirement for reliable sourcing and are quick to demand MEDRS from others. Terjen (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admins should note it was Shibbolethink who requested/encouraged ArbE after admitting to original research when listing examples of the conspiracies supposedly proposed by the group, opinioning that they "argues for unproven conspiracy theories". [53] Terjen (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The target is a small group with some publicly known members such as Gilles Demaneuf [54][55], bringing this issue into BLPGROUP territory. BLP also applies to talk pages. Terjen (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Terjen (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shibbolethink spend much of their long response arguing NOTTHEM. Accusing the filer of ASPERSIONS does not excuse their behavior.[56] Terjen (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now Wikilawyering they're exempt from OR on the talk page[57] - BLP disagrees. Terjen (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakkster Man: The P&G violations of Shibbolethink demonstrate disruptive behavior, but you are right there also is apparent tendentious editing. Terjen (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MjolnirPants

I'd just like to note that none of the OP's diffs actually seem to constitute a BLP violation. The notions spread by DRASTIC are widely called "conspiracy theories" and there are sources referring to DRASTIC as "conspiracy theorists".

I'll also note that Terjen has been shown multiple reliable sources stating that the scientific consensus is that the lab leak is unlikely, and in light of that, their claims here look to be made entirely in bad faith. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Berchanhimez

Diff 1: starting an RfC. While BLP violations are prohibited on talk pages, it should be commended whenever someone starts a complete RfC - including all potentially viable outcomes as options - as it makes discussion much smoother. There's also no BLP issue here - the people involved are by definition anonymous and numerous - and as such there is no identifiable BLP that is being "smeared". Not to mention that as MPants brought up there are sources available, even if not directly included in the diff.
Diff 2: Not out of context at all - used the same quotation directly from the article. There's a page somewhere (maybe an essay) that explains why the rest of that quote is useless - someone's rebuttal to potentially negative information is expected and is not to be taken to mean the information is false.
Diff 3: Providing explanation of sources that is in line with those sources is not "original research". It's actually encouraged for people to provide explanation of why quotes are relevant to a discussion - and you're claiming that this user is wrong to do so?
Diff 4: Shibbolethink shouldn't have called this original research. This is a prime example of using an organization's published statements about themselves to potentially include in a WP article as attributed statements of an organization. I think that whole section is unnecessary as the rest of the sources clearly show they are considered conspiracy theorists by a vast majority of reliable sources, but there's no harm in including information that may be relevant. This also helps show the reasoning used by reliable sources to come to their conclusions, which is an important editorial consideration in some cases.

Conclusion: this is obviously a retaliatory filing after a user was topic banned (correctly and with consensus among uninvolved admins here), and just a plain disruptive enforcement request, and while I'm not sure if the OP's actions in the topic area are overall disruptive, the filing of this request highly suggests that it is perhaps the OP that should be considered for a topic ban. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zoozaz1

I'm not going to say much here nor get into the conduct of various editors, but the alleged BLP violation is simply groundless. The crux of this dispute is that the reliable sources in question state that the group is labelled as one of conspiracy theorists (by, in some cases, other reliable sources) rather than explicitly stating that it is a group of conspiracy theorists, but an editorial discussion over how best to present that slight nuance in the article can by no means be considered a BLP violation. Zoozaz1 talk 23:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOMERANG statement by RandomCanadian

The OP's diff are not proof of anything but a good faith discussion on the talk page. While we're at it, maybe a bit of boomerang throwing at the OP (both for this frivolous report and for previous disruption in the topic area) might be warranted: including their dismissal of well sourced statements, dubious claims of rollback abuse, and using popular press sources to argue about scientific topics. Not all of this is limited to the COVID area (see for example the dubious harassment and claims of off-wiki coordination at User_talk:Rp2006#Off-wiki_communications, the immediate threat to go to DR at Talk:Pit_bull#"so_there's_a_risk_that_the_scientific_literature_on_pit_bulls_has_been_influenced_by_money", ...). That looks like a possible case of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude (along with this dubious report). I'm not sure it amounts to enough to warrant a topic ban at this stage, although it suggests, at the very least, a stern warning. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:28, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This needs a close before we get further muddying of the waters by tendentious near-SPAs. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Novem Linguae

As far as I can tell, Shibbolethink has never edited the assertion that DRASTIC is conspiracy theorists into the article DRASTIC. Another editor added that, and then it was amicably removed by myself and another editor as part of the normal editing/polishing/iteration process. Then Shibbolethink started an RFC on the issue, and presented good arguments that DRASTIC is conspiracy theorists. Shibbolethink's arguments are decent. He presents a CNET source and quote that calls DRASTIC conspiracy theorists: This unorthodox approach has seen them branded by scientists and researchers as maniacs, thugs and conspiracy theorists., and he presents other convincing evidence. I am a bit baffled as to exactly what is a BLP violation here. Talking about what sources are saying about an organization on a talk page is not a BLP violation, and shows a misunderstanding of our BLP policies. This may be a case of WP:CRYBLP. If I may speak frankly, I believe this AE is yet another "origins of COVID-19" timesink. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hob Gadling

Content dispute. It is a ridiculous waste of time to drag it here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hyperion35

While I am not involved in this specific issue on this specific page, I would like to point out that this is not the first time that Geogene has engaged in uncivil, battleground behavior, and it is not the first time that they have demonstrated an attitude of trying to "win" an argument.

Here Geogene attempts to explain to me, in a very condescending manner, what my argument supposedly was in my previous comment, after I had already replied once to tell them that I was not saying what they were claiming I had said. So I made the mistake of trying to tell them, for a third time, that I was not saying that, and I asked them to please stop putting words in my mouth and to strike their previous comment. My specific statement was when someone says "you misunderstood what I said", your response should not be to immediately tell me what I said which seemed like a reasonable suggestion.

This was Geogene's reply to my request: No, I won't, because I'm not wrong. Learn to lose your arguments more gracefully, and I must say that it was a rather refreshing experience to lose an argument over the meaning of my own comment.

I do not believe that this is an editor who is capable of collaborative editing with others, full stop. I do not know what prompted their actions, but most people grow out of this behavior by adolescence. As I said when I attempted to discuss and resolve this on Geogene's talk page, Think about it, how was that supposed to end, with me stepping back and saying "yeah, you're right, that's really what I meant"? This isn't a content dispute or a matter of different opinions, this is an editor who is fundamentally incapable of playing with others. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bakkster Man

Regarding the original allegation, I don't see how attempting to build consensus on a page can be considered 'disruptive'. At least, prior to said consensus being reached and the user refusing to abide by it. I think there's a worthwhile question to answer that this case depends on: Does BLP apply to a group of partially-pseudonymous people? More specifically: if we refer to some of the group (who are pseudonymous) with RS as 'conspiracy theorists', should the claim be removed if those going by real names and associated with the group are not accurately described that way?

This accusation appears to be WP:TE. Particularly the request to take to ANI/ARE. This is most simply explained by the frustration of users editing COVID-related articles frequently being accused of these kinds of misbehavior. After enough instances of trying to discuss with those throwing accusations, it's just easier and less draining to tell users who feel strongly to file an official claim. And, in many cases, let WP:BOOMERANG apply.

@Terjen: I find it strange to accuse a user of disruptive behavior for filing an AR/E, when said AR/E was approved and enforced, without a sanction for Shibbolethink for any form of disruption. That says admins already looked over his behavior and not only found no fault, but concurred that his complaint was worthwhile and improved the encyclopedia. Bakkster Man (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XOR'easter

This seems like an escalation of a content dispute that can only serve to make that content dispute more difficult to resolve. I'd say that's pretty much the exact opposite of what we need when the content dispute involves legitimate subtleties that could take very careful phrasing to address (see the comment just above). XOR'easter (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

The following just had happen:

Shibbolethink opened an RfC on a page: [58]
Shibbolethink modified the text under discussion during the standing RfC [59]
Shibbolethink closed the RfC they started [60], instead of just withdrawing it or whatever (the RFC questions were changed twice after people already voted for the previous set of questions [61]).
All of that had happen during this active AE case about them.

@Shibbolethink. I suggested to withdraw your RfC (after the questions were changed and you re-edited the text on the page anyway), not to close it with a premature "consensus" whatever that might be. But you can still self-revert your closing and leave this to uninvolved admins to resolve. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC) @Shibbolethink. OK, great.My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, I think this is a tainted RfC because: (a) the phrases posted by Shibbolethink on the RfC were re-edited multiple times by Shibbolethink without waiting for the RfC outcome, and (b) the text of the RfC was changed two times when some participants have already voted.

Saying that, people changed RfC questions for a good reason. There is a troubling pattern of misusing RfCs (not only that one) in the project. Here is how. Someone with a strong view on a subject posts several loaded versions of text, all of which fit his or her POV. Unsuspecting people who usually do not edit the subject come and vote. One of the versions prevails, and the POV becomes a legitimate "consensus" version of the page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KristinaLu

To my understanding, the following Diff from June 24th could be a potential violation of BLP: [[[62]]] What we see is a level of zeal from an editor to insert a particular phrase, "conspiracy theorists", into the very lede of the article. Shibboleth's argument here is not that "somewhere in the article is should be mentioned that DRASTIC have been called conspiracy theorists". Rather, that "we" (meaning the wikipedia editors authoring the article) should refer to the group as conspiracy theorists.

From what I can ascertain, none of the sources provided themselves call this group conspiracy theorists. Further, for Wikipedia to ever justify referring to a group as such, there would need to be general agreement between available sources that this group were conspiracy theorists. [Even as it stands now, it appears the article is serving as a platform to spread gossip; this tiny stub article includes a singular source that someone somewhere (unnamed) called the group a name.]

Why this becomes of very high ethical concern is that we easily find sources making claims like this one [[63]], that members of the DRASTIC team are "cutting-edge scientists at prestigious research institutes". Clearly, anyone with Shibbolethink's ability to access academic databases can easily inform themself that members of this group have published peer-reviewed articles, have careers in research, etc. While I always try to assume good faith, it seems hard to imagine that he attempted to rally other editors to brand the group as "conspiracy theorists" innocently without being well aware that the group in question both consisted of and has consistently collaborated with mainstream experts in their respective fields.

Branding researchers with whom one disagrees as "conspiracy theorists" undermines the process of open inquiry itself. Unless several secondary sources can be produced (dating on or before the 24th of June) that all directly claim DRASTIC are either conspiracy theorists or are explicitly involved in promoting conspiracy theories, it seems that at the very least the spirit of the BLP guidelines have been flagrantly ignored. While BLP is used less often for groups, this is a relatively small group. Crucially, among those members whose identities are public are the published experts whose reputations could suffer should Wikipedia be used to create a feedback loop.

As a current or future researcher himself (from what I can gather), Shibbolethink should be well aware of the protocols of proper citation, taking a neutral tone, as well as basic ethics in research. These things are quite similar between wikipedia and graduate school. Any future PI or graduate advisor would take him to task seriously for conduct like this. It would appear that in other words, he's no dummy. He absolutely knows better.KristinaLu (talk) 05:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shibbolethink

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

This is a content dispute, and those are not settled at AE, but by consensus discussion. That is already underway via the now-open RfC. I see no need for any administrative action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eatcha

Eatcha is topic banned from the subjects of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan for one month. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:57, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Eatcha

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

13:15, 16 June 2021 They create a section with three lines on the article The Wire (India) dedicated to a breaking news item. The addition is solely based on police accounts, is editorialised and uses a number of low quality sources. I condense this addition, remove the low quality sources and move it under a section.
15:17, 16 June 2021 They immediately revert it and start a discussion in Talk:The Wire (India) § White washing. In the discussion, I explain WP:ONUS to them and the issues related to due weight and presentation in their version. But they just end up ignoring all of it and being stuck on what sources should be considered RSes. I eventually end up removing their addition citing onus.
18:09, 16 June 2021 They immediately revert it and leave a template on my talk page. I reply to it again mentioning that the onus is on them to achieve consensus for inclusion and that communication is necessary. Their addition is removed again later by a different editor which prompts them to comment on 21:18, 16 June 2021 that they will start an RfC when they get time.

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Special:Diff/1028963604

Discussion concerning Eatcha

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Eatcha

On my actions at Uttar Pradesh Police

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

On my actions at The Wire (India)

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgement/apology for BRD

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

clear commitment to refrain from violation of WP:BRD

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

lines of a statement explaining why your previous actions were wrong

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

clarifying how you will deal with editing disputes in the future

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

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

Eatcha's response to Drmies

Why I didn't respond?

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

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

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

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

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

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

— w:The Sunday Guardian, article link

Statement by zzuuzz

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Eatcha

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

Eatcha's response here doesn't address edit warring. In both cases, Eatcha broke with WP:BRD. Unless there is both acknowledgment of their past edit warring and a clear commitment to refrain from doing so again, a topic ban appears to be appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:27, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eatcha, by a clear commitment to refrain from doing so again, I meant something more along the lines of a statement explaining why your previous actions were wrong and clarifying how you will deal with editing disputes in the future, not rote repetition of my suggestion. If you can make a convincing promise to engage more productively, then I think a logged warning is perhaps all that is needed at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eatcha, why did you not respond to the long post on the talk page about that Yadavisation? If you want to play here, and play in difficult areas, you will have to at least pretend to be collaborative. I'm about to go look at some other edits, but this is pretty troubling, especially since now I don't have much of a choice but to accept the analysis by User:Tayi Arajakate, which (from a few spot checks) seems pretty accurate, meaning it's quite damning. And really, it is NOT OK to drop socking accusations without any kind of evidence. Drmies (talk) 16:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, wondering if you find the above answer to your request convincing? In any case, this should probably have some type of closure to it, logged warning or otherwise. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seraphimblade, I'm concerned by the amount of prompting it took to get a reasonable answer, and, ironically by the inclusion of a promise to not edit the site. The latter honestly seems like an attempt to avoid a formal sanction, but is complicated by the fact that the pledged self-imposed sanction is longer than what I would have considered suggesting, but in the event that it's not an attempt to game the system, the length would be enough to satisfy the standard offer. Thus, I'm thinking that it may be appropriate to enforce a shorter tban (say, 1 month), and Eatcha can choose when they wish to return to editing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:56, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that being reasonable. Hopefully that will be the end of it; if not we'll know that something more stringent is needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srijanx22

Editors involved are reminded to refrain from edit warring. No other action taken. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Srijanx22

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Srijanx22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

@Rosguill: there is absolutely no academic dispute regarding the result of the Battle of Saragarhi. The result is almost a textbook example of you don't need to cite that the sky is blue (even though there is a citation). There was a battle involving 21 Indian soldiers versus thousands of Afghan tribesmen. The Indian soldiers were all killed defending an outpost, which was captured by the attackers. There can be no conceivable challenge to that result, how could anyone think it was anything other than an Afghan victory? The only way it has been challenged is by using quotes that refer to a totally different battle that occured several days later. The lead, infobox and text of the article all make it clear exactly which battle is being referred to, giving the exact date, and the respective strengths of each army. Also the use of terms such as "Pyrrhic victory" is specifically deprecated per WP:MILMOS#INFOBOX. FDW777 (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[64]

Discussion concerning Srijanx22

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Srijanx22

It is a no-brainer that Indian Defence Review is not more credible than Bloomsbury Publishing, not by a long shot. It was already agreed last year on WP:RSN that Indian Defence Review is not reliable for battles involving India.[65] And when [indiandefencereview.com/spotlights/rezang-la-stands-out/0/ the article in question] is written by an ex military man using the in-house publisher then it should be already obvious.

Overall, this is a content dispute but FWD777 is trying to make a WP:POINT after making 3 reverts in less than 24 hours to add back disputed parameter and providing superficial edit summaries. When that failed, he appears to be misusing this board for winning the content dispute. For a name, see this edit summary where he falsely claims that "Indian victory" is being added. I have already backed my edits on talk page, proving the fact that the multiple fights are all related to this subject as the article already says and I did it before this report was filed.[66] But FWD777 has misrepresented sources on the talk page and refused to read them carefully. This edit by him on talk page tells enough that he admits he is wrong about his claims. Srijanx22 (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Srijanx22

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

Looking at the page history prior to the most recent dispute, I'm hard pressed to identify any stable status quo for the infobox result parameter: prior to the currernt edit war between "Afghan victory", "Indian victory" and blank, it was some variation of "British victory" or "Afghan Pyrrhic victory". Thus, while the edit warring by everyone involved was excessive and poor form, the ambiguity of the stable status quo is a mitigating factor, and at this point the page has been fully protected so I don't think further sanctions are necessary. As a side note, the RSN discussion Srijanx22 linked only has one editor opining about Indian Defense Review as far as I can tell, and falls short of establishing a consensus regarding that source's suitability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FDW777, my sense is that it's pretty clear where the disagreement comes from; academic RS call the battle a pyrrhic victory for the Afghan forces, which can potentially be interpreted as either a victory or a defeat, particularly given that we have a consensus against including qualifiers like "pyrrhic", with the waters further muddied by what appears to be a tendency in popular Indian historiography to lionize the Battle at of Sargarhi, and to present it as a victory in the context of following battles. Now, as regards the content, I'm sympathetic to your arguments and believe you have made a stronger case. However, the edits in opposition to your position are not at this time, in my view, sufficiently disruptive or tendentious to justify sanctions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree with Rosguill. No one looks great here, but I think the underlying issue is a content dispute, and hopefully that can be sorted out while the page is protected. If those involved can't come to agreement, utilize dispute resolution more and the revert button less. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that apart from some edit warring this looks like a content dispute, and the edit warring has been resolved without the use of discretionary sanctions. Hut 8.5 14:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by 3Kingdoms

Appeal declined. Johnuniq (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

Administrator imposing the sanction: Newslinger (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [69]

Statement by 3Kingdoms

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

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

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

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

Statement by Newslinger

Statement by Nableezy

You'd think that after all these edit-warring blocks and bans one would actually maybe read our policy on edit warring and not continue with the oh so misplaced condescending 3RR is 3RR if you 2r than (sic) you didn't break it. Really don't see the point of their comments. Until this user internalizes our policies on edit-warring he should be restricted from editing. IMO the correct restriction here is a site ban for persistent edit-warring and disruptive editing, but removing restrictions is rather the wrong direction to be taking. nableezy - 23:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by 3Kingdoms

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

Result of the appeal by 3Kingdoms

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

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

Popsmokes38

Popsmokes38 is indefinitely topic banned from biographies of living persons. Johnuniq (talk) 03:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Popsmokes38

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Popsmokes38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

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

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

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)

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Popsmokes38

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Popsmokes38

Statement by Peaceray

Popsmokes38 has edit warred, flagrantly violated BLP on Bilawal Bhutto Zardari by posting WP:OR statements unsubstantiated or partially substantiated by citations, & disregarded the MOS. Examples include: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, & 6. I asked Popsmokes38 twice to discuss on the talk page to no avail. On 6 July, FDW777 placed a discretionary sanctions alert here. This editor also called me a paid agent during a BLPVIO revert in this edit summary. Peaceray (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Popsmokes38

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

Many of these edits took place before the editor was made aware of discretionary sanctions on 6 July. That said, several took place afterwards, and still consisted of edit warring to reinsert material already objected to on BLP grounds and entirely inappropriate for placement in a BLP. I am also very concerned by this editor's complete lack of talk page communication on these issues. Popsmokes38 has already been blocked 36 hours for BLP violations, but I believe that a BLP topic ban is also in order. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:18, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to an indef block, either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:22, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the total, continuing lack of talk page engagement, I think that an indef block is appropriate, followed by a conditional unblock with restrictions imposed based on how they respond, bearing in mind that their edits thus far betray concerning attitudes vis-a-vis both BLP and India-Pakistan. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible this person hasn't discovered talk pages yet, and may not have noticed such a short block. I think an indef from article space might be a good step, in case they discover article talk pages before they discover their own user talk. —valereee (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with the suggested indef block given the total lack of engagement and the fact this behaviour is continuing. They've been left 32 talk page messages, if they haven't noticed any of them then that's their fault. Hut 8.5 17:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Popsmokes38, created 2 March 2021, has 213 edits, all on articles (no talk page comments). This report with no response, combined with this 20 July 2021 edit, makes an indefinite block as an admin-action appropriate. Or, an AE sanction of an indefinite BLP topic ban could be applied. Let's bring this to a close so I'm happy for anyone to act as they believe is appropriate, or I will close with an indef BLP topic ban in around 24 hours. Johnuniq (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TuffStuffMcG

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 TuffStuffMcG

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

Aspersions against editors
- 10:07, 28 July 2021 at Talk:The Babylon Bee: entirely unsupported (and absurd) speculation about editors' motives
- 13:06, 13 March 2021 at Talk:Gab (social network): aspersions against editors at RSN (suggesting they determine reliability based on whether they agree with sources' positions)
- 16:44, 3 March 2021‎ at Talk:Enrique Tarrio: "editors conveniently neglected to update his profile to match"
- 14:22 and 15:00, 23 January 2021 at Talk:Parler

Editing suggestions based on original research and/or poor sourcing
- Talk:Parler/Archive 3#Parler offline (April 2021)
- Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 6#Writing (March 2021): more denigration of the RS policy and pushing of their own opinions, and a good example of egging on a new user (who was later blocked for harassment and PAs)
- Talk:Enrique Tarrio/Archive 1#Tarrio Chairman position (March 2021): describing RS as "propaganda", OR
- 21:04, 11 March 2021 at Talk:Gab (social network): NOTFORUM/POV-pushing based on what they apparently think sources should say about Gab, while acknowledging that it is unsupported
- 14:07 and 14:24, 15 February 2021 at Talk:Parler
- 14:35, 31 January 2021 at Talk:Proud Boys
- 23:54, 19 January 2021 at Talk:Proud Boys (WP:DAILYMAIL)
- Talk:Parler/Archive 3#01/20/21 site updates (January 2021)

Soapboxing
- 23:43, 15 January 2021 at Talk:Parler: soapboaxing about "collusion" by the tech industry against Parler
- Talk:Proud Boys/Archive 5#Kutner is not a reliable source (November 2020)

Other editors asking them to stop
- 16:24, 16 March 2021, Talk:Proud Boys, from me: "I have to admit I am becoming frustrated with you continuously using talk pages to opine on how the sources don't reflect your personal point of view, as it often serves to encourage newer editors who don't understand policy particularly well, who seem to think that articles ought to present a false balance. It also is often unclear to me whether you are just musing on how you think things ought to be, or actually trying to make a policy-based point that editors ought to respond to. This case is a good example."
- 22:22, 11 March 2021 from Jorm and 23:40 from me at Talk:Gab (social network), acknowledged by TuffStuffMcG: "will do, I apologize for the non-actionable opinion expressed and recognize this is not a forum"
- 20:05, 20 January 2021‎ from me at Talk:Parler: "You know that we can't add observations like this without a reliable, independent source."
- 14:53, 14 November 2020‎ from Slatersteven at their talk page: "Please read wp:or and wp:soap."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

TuffStuffMcG almost exclusively edits talk pages of AP2 articles. Their comments are sometimes actionable, sourced suggestions, but far too often they are not: instead, they regularly comment solely to provide their own personal opinions and commentary on the subject or on Wikipedia policies they disagree with (regularly scare-quoting "reliable" in "reliable sources", for example: [70], [71]). Their comments occasionally (and recently) include unsupported aspersions about the motives of those editing these articles. They also regularly reply to SPAs who frequently appear at the talk pages of political articles, and encourage their various conspiracy theories about biased Wikipedia editors—which is absolutely the last thing the editors of these articles need, as we are already targeted enough by such editors without Wikipedians lending credence to their claims. In the particular case of their edits to The Babylon Bee today, TuffStuffMcG is echoing conspiracy theories pushed by the Bee's executive staff ([72]), who watch the article talk page and have in the past targeted their large Twitter following at me, resulting in pretty significant harassment and threats (more background at User talk:GorillaWarfare/Archive 20#Seth Dillon). A Wikipedian lending credence to these theories is pouring fuel on that fire.

This is not an acute issue, as you can see by the dates on the diffs, but rather a long-running one that pops up regularly even after several editors have asked them to cut it out, and even after they've said they would. They are not enormously active, so although the time range in this report is fairly broad, I have only included diffs from their past 500 edits (not even—I stopped somewhere around 300 I think, as I was approaching the diff limit). I happen to see it often because either by strange coincidence or intentionally, TuffStuffMcG's edits overlap dramatically with articles I edit. I have a pretty specific interest in articles about American far-right groups and websites associated with the same, so it could well be that a shared interest in those topics explains why TuffStuffMcG shows up on so many of the articles I actively edit: Enrique Tarrio and the Proud Boys, Parler, Epik (company), Gab (social network), etc. (also see editor interaction analyser). But them recently showing up at The Babylon Bee (a conservative site to be sure, but not often described as far-right) and Kevin Paffrath (no connection to the far right, and an article I only began editing after stumbling across it myself) makes me wonder. It's a little startling to open up their last 500 contributions and see, with rare exception, a strict subset of the articles at User:GorillaWarfare#An incomplete list of my other work:.

I'm not really sure what the best remedy would be here. Like I said above, their talk page comments in this topic area can be useful when they are well-sourced, and I have had positive interactions with this editor. But the issues I detail above really need to stop, and repeated requests from editors have clearly not made any impact. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, Johnuniq, and HighInBC: My concern here is that TuffStuffMcG has continued this behavior despite repeated and regular warnings by several users, and despite acknowledging that they know talk pages are not for forum-y comments. Their comment at this enforcement request makes no indication that they intend to change their behavior, but rather demonstrates the exact same issues: once again scare-quoting "reliable", and making unevidenced suggestions that their colleagues here are "organized partisans... actively manipulat[ing] articles" or "single-minded Jacobins who more eager to purge good sources that deviate from orthodoxy and push a specific narrative".

If they have concerns with our reliable sourcing policy, or the consensus on the reliability of a specific source, they should be discussing this at WP:VPP, WP:RSN, etc.—and they know this. But they have never done so, instead preferring to make jabs at policies and the editing community at large on various talk pages (and here!) without actually engaging in efforts to change anything. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[73]

Discussion concerning TuffStuffMcG

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 TuffStuffMcG

The user asked why a popular satire site has such a large section about fact checking. My comment, absent any sources truly, echoes well reported critical comments by Larry Sanger, one of the founders of Wikipedia and also the CEO of the Bee.

Independent, Daily Mail, Fox News catalogue this. Not the best sources to be sure, but thats part of the issue. My comments tend to overlap other editor comments because the same editors focus on anything politically controversial. Objectivity has been eliminated from many major "reliable" publications and good, defensible articles sometimes come from writers using semi-reliable press.

I don't add bad sources to articles, and stay in the talk pages mostly to talk about sourcing issues. Wikipedia has an edit formula, it is well known and understood at this point, and used by organized partisans to actively manipulate articles.

Many editors are fair, including Gorilla usually, but many are single-minded Jacobins who more eager to purge good sources that deviate from orthodoxy and push a specific narrative.

I respect Wikipedia and it's mission. Do what you need to do, I do tend to engage on forum stuff from time to time, but never malicious or targeted, and I never edit war or vandalize articles.

I'm sorry, I was waiting for the next thing to say. Criticism by editors here has been mostly justified, except for Jorm. I respect your decision. I wasn't trying to be disruptive, but I see how it has been interpreted in that way and understand that people can be disruptive without being malicious. I will try to do better and double check my words to avoid forum stuff. Please move this to the appropriate area (it felt odd to respond to my self)TuffStuffMcG (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jorm

I do not believe that this user is here to improve the encyclopedia. They are single-minded in their attempts to white wash and insert propaganda. They should have an AP2 topic ban.--Jorm (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WaltCip

Apart from admitting outright in their statement above to taking a battleground approach to editing already contentious articles in the realm of AP2, the failure to get a clue here and their continued tendentious editing behavior (with the more-than-coincidental correlation with the aforementioned list of articles GW has worked on) leads me to believe that sanctions are needed, up to and including a straight-out indef.--WaltCip-(talk) 14:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by slatersteven

I left the warning a year ago, but it seems to be an ongoing issue. Their post here sums it all up, it's very much a POV pushing bit of soapboxing (and a clear statement of wp:nothere in relation to article talk pages) that makes no effort to address THEIR actions. They will continue to be a time sink.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TuffStuffMcG

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

TuffStuffMcG, from I do tend to engage on forum stuff I'm wondering if maybe you don't realize that article talk pages are specifically not a place to treat as a forum, per WP:TALKNO? That is, if you think an article talk page is at least partially for discussing the article subject itself or other editors' ability to be neutral w/re that article, this may be why you're ending up here. An article talk page is for discussing, generally or specifically, improvements to that article, period. Anything other than that, including commentary about what you or Larry Sanger perceive as other editors' motivations in editing the article, is not what article talk pages are for. —valereee (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, been over 4 days since @TuffStuffMcG has edited. They're a sporadic editor, so maybe a ping will work. —valereee (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TuffStuffMcG: Shortly after posting your initial statement here, you posted this comment which added five pointless links to dubious sites rejoicing in Larry Sanger's latest thoughts. That is not helpful (and by the way, please ask at WP:HELPDESK about how to format comments like that). You should pledge to avoid AP2 comments unless really focused on actionable proposals to improve the article, or face an indefinite topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Special:Contributions/TuffStuffMcG shows the user has a total of 17 edits in the last three months (May–July). That consists of one comment on this page and 16 comments on AP2 talk pages. That shows two problems. First, there might be no further timely response here making it difficult to defer a decision. Second, given a sample of some of their comments, it is unlikely that their work in AP2 is helpful. I don't think this should be left open much longer and I think something should happen. I would be happy for someone to close this with an indefinite topic ban, or, if a more gentle path is wanted at this stage and if invited by admins here, I could leave a version of my above comment at their talk along with a warning that I would issue a tban if further dubious comments occur. Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Currently on the fence about taking action here. I will says that I do recognize that this user is probably not malicious, though maliciousness is not needed for disruption. I do think that a greater understanding of the limits of article talk page use is needed to avoid losing access to them in this area. If such an understanding can be gained and demonstrated has yet to be determined by me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:53, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]