Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive312

USaamo

USaamo's topic ban expanded to cover all of WP:ARBIPA, appealable no sooner than six months from now _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:21, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning USaamo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it: "Topic ban from wars between India and Pakistan".[1]

30 September: Violates the topic ban by removing content about "sub-nationalities of Pakistan, with Bengalis seceding from Pakistan after the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971", the same page (Bangladesh Liberation War) about which he was warned back in 2020 for topic ban violation.[2]
6 October: Same as above.

Apart from 2 of these diffs, he has also violated his topic ban on August 2020,[3] and also on May 2022.[4] Both times he was clarified that the topic ban is broadly construed.

I hadn't reported either violation, only asked him to back off, but both times he was not understanding how he is violating the topic ban.

When he violated it last week, I reported at User talk:EdJohnston#Continued topic ban violation by USaamo, where he again failed to accept the topic ban violation. WP:IDHT again.

Few weeks ago, I already provided my comment just above at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_Aman.kumar.goel that why USaamo needs a broader topic ban himself, given his long-term inability to edit in this area. These recent topic ban violations just prove it further. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic ban from "Topic ban from wars between India and Pakistan" in July 2020.[5]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts): See his comments just above at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Bookku

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@RegentsPark: A topic ban violation is a topic ban violation. Why a warning? This is USaamo's 4th topic ban violation since he has been topic banned. He deliberately violated the topic ban on 6th October even after being told about it. You can take a look at his response here. He is still not accepting his topic ban violation and assuming bad faith with his WP:BATTLEy response. I still recommend extending topic ban or a block for violation at minimum. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm, EdJohnston, and RegentsPark: After "highly" regretting the edit wars here, USaamo has initiated a meaningless edit war on Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault [6][7] to reduce !vote of another editor in the RfC. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: With this falsification of evidence, you are complying with a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior for which you were already warned by WP:ARBCOM during Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics#Vice regent warned.

Contrary to your false claims, this report was filed not after "getting into content disputes" but a number of topic ban violations by USaamo because he is refusing to understand the definition of his topic ban.

The content was added by a sock months ago. Not to mention the sources are weak and even cite unreliable ones. I made many attempts to describe USaamo a few times on his talk page but he was ignoring it.[8] To claim that "Aman.kumar.goel's edits violated policy" and "Usaamo modified the article text to match the sources", is absurd because it was already made clear to USaamo that Pakistan is not a regional power and it has been already extensively discussed but he ignored all inputs and continued to edit war, just like he did on 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault and is now edit warring at Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault.

This edit is not a revert, neither this edit is any BLP violation or undue.

If you seriously thought that these diffs are going to divert from USaamo's behavior then your behavior is even more concerning. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [9]

Discussion concerning USaamo

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 USaamo

A useless report and yet another attempt to drag me to AE to frustrate me out. I suggest AE should have a preliminary scrutiny for reports to be formally accepted for proceedings here. It will not only save their time but will also protect users from being dragged into baseless and frivolous reports.
AKG already filed a complaint against me with the enforcing admin EdJohnston who viewed in there that I assume this is a political issue and not military issue. [10] It should have been over for him after this clarification but he still chooses to edit war with me and went on to revert me and that too with a misleading summary.[11] I didn't want edit war so I haven't reverted him back rather alerted admin [12] and waited for a couple of days for his response and since no further response came so I assumed his previous reply to be his view and went ahead with reverting AKG which he at once reverted back and started edit warring. [13] The content I removed was totally undue POV pushing based on original research. As to whether topic ban applies to it or not, I sought clarification from admin which he actually did and I very much intend to abide by my topic ban. For previous allegations of violation, I've already replied in an above report to AKG where he showed up and my answer is still the same to that extent. [14]
His another undue addition of similar pattern to 2022 Pakistan floods was also reverted by me and subsequent edit warring by him and other relatively new accounts to add it back was also reverted by other editors. [15] [16]
I requested a warning for these shenanigans by AKG and behaviour suggesting Wikihounding me and up with a battleground mentality but now it seems like he's so desperate to get me topic banned from ARBIPA and has dragged me uselessly to here, so I ask for proper action against him for this behaviour which doesn't belong here. USaamo ^(t@lk) 17:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update (Please allow it if it gets past 500 words)
Swarm, first of all edit war is highly regretted. Although there was no 3RR violation but it shouldn't have happened anyway from my side. I straightforwardly accepted it in my unblock request as well if it was a necessary administrative action, what else do you think I would have done. Rest it happened from both sides if you see the edit histories of those articles [17] and as Seraphimblade said in above report that it takes two to make an edit war. Aman.kumar.goel is still edit warring on Pakistan article [18] to remove the sourced content that has been there for years with misleading summaries without any effort to build consensus which has been totally disregarded in this report. I reverted him because there has already been a consensus when dispute arised in 2016. Now if he wants to remove it, onus is on him to build a new consensus on article talk but instead he kept on reverting me and other users and editwarred. In one of his summary he linked a 2018 discussion from another article as overriding consensus but that actually ended with no result and went to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and there too, editors arrived at no new consensus so how is it due to use that discussion to remove sourced content.
Also it's wrong to say there was no effort to build consensus from my side. I was very much on Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault trying to explain my edits and previously too I had 14,000 words long discussions including an RfC for these edits which I mistakenly called formal consensus instead of informal consensus. But it's clearly mistaken to say that I'm trying to present the incident as ploy in Wikivoice while I have said this in talkpage discussions repeatedly that incident did happen and was unfortunate but it's the later developments after coming of audioleaks where both were discussing to use it as a ploy to extort money and it's from here that it took a turn when according to girl the one who was her saviour in the incident was charged by girl herself for blackmailing and the guy also blamed her for same. It's all pretty much sourced and I explained it all in length in previous discussions at talk but that's an edit dispute either require DRN or mediation as offered by User:Robert McClenon in a report above which I welcomed.
EdJohnston there has been no balatant or intentional topic ban violations from my side and I very much intend to abide by my topic ban and not appealing it for almost two and a half years while I was eligible after 6 months shows my resolve to stay away from topic. As to the reported violation on Two-nation theory, I did not revert after I was reverted for second time and in my responses on your talkpage while I explained my side, I kept on saying I'm seeking further clarification and same I said in earlier response in this report as well. Had there been a more explicit response by you earlier, it won't have to come here as I already ceased my editing from article even before this report.
Vanamonde93 while I did assume from EdJohnston's reply but before and after that I still sought clarification if you see my responses at his talkpage and here in this report. I earlier believed that topic of wars between India-Pakistan only include the direct wars(which is quite obvious from wording as the dispute which brought these sanctions was about 1965 war) and really didn't know that it does include all military conflicts between India-Pakistan until it was further elaborated by EdJohnston after Kashmir Files comment. As to Two Nation Theory while there is a mention of war but context was political as RegentsPark said, Hut 8.5 explained and EdJohnston assumed it was political issue. My edits on Kashmir Files and Two Nation Theory were not meant to be disruptive nor do meant intentional or balatant violation so requesting good faith. I believe it's pretty much excessive to get me sanctioned from ARBIPA or from all the pages that give any mention of war when I'm up on abiding the already enforced topic ban, maybe it's better to make its wording more elaborative. USaamo ^(t@lk) 19:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really intended no edit war from start but somehow I was dragged into it as some editors with no prior editing history at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault (but significant interaction history with OP[19]) showed up and reverted me one after one but I shouldn't have involved in edit-warring from my side which I highly regret, perhaps I should have been more patient in the process. As to the new edit-warring allegations brought up by Aman.kumar.goel on behalf of one of those editors, I only meant to improve the RfC discussion at talkpage as I filed for RfC close after editors suggested for convenience of the closer and gathered relevant responses as the discussions have been quite long and messy over there per WP:TPG. As to the moving one of comment below I wasn't sure that RfC can be restarted after template was removed month prior and the editor who started it also viewed about summing it up month ago. I even asked about it from other editor whose comment was being moved. USaamo ^(t@lk) 17:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:, @Swarm:, @RegentsPark:, @Hut 8.5: I showed my resolve to abide by topic ban and regretted edit-warring from my side but still if it's necessary to sanction me and that will make Wikipedia better, fair enough. But there's an important note at the top of this AE which states:

If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it.

I don't understand even after highlighting the problematic behaviour of the OP from edit-warring to POV pushing, see VR's statement and report below for further illustration, there's not a single word from Admins, not even mere warning against him. Best of luck for AE's neutrality! USaamo ^(t@lk) 09:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Inline with Fowler&fowler's observation about "exceptionally deliberate and deep-rooted pro-India-POV, and by that I mean a pro-India slant that is nowhere to be found in the scholarly consensus. It was so deliberate and so pervasive that I was left aghast" at Two-Nation Theory article, here are some of the OP's main edits that contributed to this POV pushing. [20] [21] [22] [23] USaamo ^(t@lk) 19:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I recommend not expanding this to "pages that mention an India-Pakistan war"; that's a recipe for wikilawyering, and giving opponents a chance to play Gotcha. Is there a reason to prevent Usaamo from editing Henry Kissinger? If Usaamo is skirting the edge of the ban, I recommend broadening to an Indo-Pakistani conflict TBAN, or enforcing the ban with escalating blocks. If there's confusion about the edges of a TBAN, Usaamo ought to be aware that asking is better than assuming the TBAN doesn't apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KoA, your statement is an egregious misreading of what I've written, as I have nowhere argued that the ban as it exists is unclear, only that the proposed revised scope is. Please re-read what I've written. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KoA

Vanamonde, I was curious to dig a little after seeing your comments, and your thoughts would directly contradict the topic ban. Here was EdJohnston's close After a discussion at the user's talk page I am proceeding with an indefinite topic ban of USaamo from all wars between India and Pakistan. This ban includes any page anywhere in Wikipedia including talk pages and noticeboards.[24]

That's not to comment on the merits of this request at all, but I am wary of DS sanctions being undermined by those claiming the DS are being weaponized, playing gotcha, etc. when the broadly construed boundaries of those sanctions were already laid out. This topic ban was pretty clear as day, and broadly construed sanctions like that are done for a reason. If someone is pushing the boundaries, that is on the topic banned person regardless of if they are being WP:HOUNDed or not. KoA (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I was quoted above (correctly) as having offered to mediate a dispute. I will only mediate any dispute between editors who are free to edit in the area in question. I will instruct the editors not to edit the article in question, but the editors must be in good standing to edit. The editor to whom I made that offer has been topic-banned, so that that offer is moot. I am again willing to try to mediate another dispute, but only if there are no topic-bans. So I was probably pinged above merely as a courtesy note. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vice_regent

IMO, admins should not levy any sanctions until the behavior of all users in this dispute has been examined. There is a pattern of behavior of Aman.kumar.goel getting into content disputes and then using this board to have their opponents sanctioned. In fact, Black Kite observed this pattern earlier: "I note that the person who is edit-warring with Bringtar is the filer [Aman.kumar.goel], and I also note that the filer has brought multiple previous AE cases to try to remove their ideological opponents from the subject area". Same thing happened here. Swarm notes below Usaamo edit-warred at Pakistan; so did Aman.kumar.goel ([25][26][27]), and neither of the users made a single comment on the article's talk page while continuing to revert the other. And, at first look, Aman.kumar.goel's edits violated policy because the multiple citations([28][29]) immediately after the changed text (assuming they have been quoted correctly) actually call Pakistan a "regional power". I have no opinion on whether Pakistan is a regional power, but it seems Usaamo modified the article text to match the sources cited, while Aman Kumar Goel did the opposite.VR _talk 20:50, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consider also the behavior of CapnJackSp; it was their report of edit warring after which Swarm blocked Usaamo. In that report CapnJackSp pointed out that Usaamo reverted 4 times between 15:22 12 Oct and 11:26, 14 Oct (45 hours). Yet CapnJackSp themselves reverted 3 times[30][31][32] between 8:24 12 Oct and 7:37 14 Oct (47 hours). More recently, they added text to the lead[33] that is not just undue but also a possible BLP vio.VR _talk 23:29, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston can you clarify if the topic ban would ban Usaamo from editing all articles related to Pakistan, or only those at the intersection of India, Pakistan and Afghanistan? I ask because I was going through their contributions and find they've created good uncontroversial Pakistan-related content, such as Dosso case, Mera Jism Meri Marzi, Mela Loot Liya etc. Is it possible to carve something that would allow them to continue to be productive on non-controversial articles relating to Pakistan? VR _talk 05:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An example would be to restrict them to 1RR or 0RR in the ARBIPA area (since a recurring issue is edit-warring).VR _talk 01:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Oriental Aristocrat

AKG's own conduct is questionable and they seem to be a serial disruptor. Let's take for example this revert they made. They call other's edit as disruptive editing without assuming good faith and make a revert that removes large chunks of long-standing text without giving any reason. I see that a WP:BOOMERANG is in offing as they clearly show a behavior of someone who's WP:NOTHERE. Oriental Aristocrat (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fowler&fowler

I don't know anything about U Saamo, but I have just edited the lead of Two-nation theory and disabused it of its exceptionally deliberate and deep-rooted pro-India-POV, and by that I mean a pro-India slant that is nowhere to be found in the scholarly consensus. It was so deliberate and so pervasive that I was left aghast. Whatever U Saamo's antecedents maybe, removing POV from a toxic Wikipedia article should not be considered a violation of a topic ban. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning USaamo

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

@Aman.kumar.goel: I haven't looked at the earlier diffs (probably stale) but the two diffs you've provided seem like a stretch re the topic ban. Yes, there is a reference to a war but the context is not war related. Regardless, USaamo, you need to be careful because "broadly construed" is a very wide net and is subjective in interpretation. I suggest closing this with a warning to be more careful. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the recent edit war at Pakistan I think some sort of sanction is necessary (though neither USaamo nor AKG bothered to take their case to the talk page, from what Vanamonde says above, AKG read the consensus correctly). While an all topics from ARBIPA may be excessive, I'll support it with an "appealable in six months" slapped on. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Bangladesh Liberation War is in scope for the topic ban, although the conflict was mainly between Pakistan and what's now Bangladesh the war saw extensive Indian intervention against Pakistan in the closing stages, and judging from our article the Indians basically won the war by overwhelming the Pakistani forces in Bangladesh. The edits in question removed content which mentioned the war in passing and doesn't deal with any aspect of the Indian intervention. Also one of them took place after this edit from the admin who imposed the sanction. I suspect EdJohnston might have missed the fact that the edits related to the Bangladesh Liberation War but USaamo might not have realised that. I suggest a warning to stay away from that topic. Hut 8.5 18:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that USaamo's edits have been causing concern since at least 2020 I am not optimistic that a reminder or warning will be sufficient. My impression is that USaamo is willing to follow very precise rules. So I would modify my previous topic ban from wars between India and Pakistan by adding a ban from all articles that mention any wars between India and Pakistan. This would exclude him from editing the Two-nation theory. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of User:Swarm's observation below about USaamo's behavior at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault, I propose that User:USaamo be banned from all topics covered by WP:ARBIPA. As Swarm observes, "There is both history and a clear pattern of current disruption in AE topic areas". USaamo's responses to this AE complaint do not suggest he is mellowing out or becoming more interested in achieving consensus with others. EdJohnston (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary, EdJohnston. There is already a standard explained at WP:TBAN that explains how TBANS are apply in situations where an article is not inherently about the subject but covers or mentions the subject in a lesser way. However that is not even the case here, so I'm not sure why we're so hung up on it. The violation is unambiguous; the editor is directly removing a mention of a war fought between India and Pakistan from the article. It is not a case of them simply editing an article that happens to mention such a war. I think most of the time maybe we would factor in that this is a minor violation on a tangentially-related article and cut someone a break, but I reviewed this user's conduct at 2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault earlier today in response to an AN3 report and I got the impression that they are completely out of control. They were basically trying to forcibly reframe the article to state, as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, that the attack was staged by the victim. They edit warred over this in spite of a unanimous and specifically articulated local consensus objecting to the change based on verifiability, synth and RS grounds. They outright falsely claimed that they were enforcing a formal consensus and that they were not to be reverted without consensus, and continued to do so even after a warning. They were also edit warring over at Pakistan quite disruptively as well. I blocked them for disruptive editing before even seeing this report. There is both history and a clear pattern of current disruption in AE topic areas. This should be actioned. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’d be fine with expanding the TBAN as proposed, given the unapologetic unblock request I don’t think this user is moving in the right direction. I think this is a textbook case of why we have these sanctions in place to begin with. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 14:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't find User:USaamo's response above to be convincing, I'm planning to go ahead within 24 hours and widen their topic ban to all of WP:ARBIPA. If admins disagree please let me know. The topic ban would be indefinite but could be appealed in six months. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Nidhiki05

Toa Nidhiki05 is indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 American politics --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Toa Nidhiki05

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FormalDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP: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

03:57, 27 October 2022 – Not assuming good faith and casting aspersions by telling other editors they'd be better off on a fringe wiki.
15:30, 28 October 2022 – "But given how utterly divorced from reality your argumentation has been, this doesn't surprise me. I'll once again advise you to head to RationalWiki, where your hyperpartisan arguments and information will be accepted readily with open arms."
01:14, 28 October 2022 – "I am going to hastily dismiss your "facts" because they aren't that. Bite me. Take your partisan talking points to RationalWiki or somewhere else where they will be respected."
15:22, 28 October 2022 – Another WP:PA.
00:47, 27 October 2022 – Insulting others with ad hominems.
01:43, 27 October 2022 – Accusing others of "ridiculous political tirades".
03:10 27 October 2022 – "There's no point in having discussion with a brick wall that is dogmatically shouting partisan talking points like they are the be-all, end all of reality."
16:21, 29 October 2022 – Making a WP:PA in their edit summary.
17:35, 29 October 2022 – Calling the ACLU a "left-wing think tank".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

07:28, 1 June 2022 – Previous block for personal attacks in AP.
16:30, 28 April 2021 – Previous block for edit warring in AP.

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

Toa Nidhiki05's participation in these two discussions (Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Voter rights in the body and Talk:Republican Party (United States) § Add a wikilink at the top of the Voting rights section) amounts to nothing less than disruptive editing and has the effect of stonewalling their progress. There is seemingly no condition under which they would accept this edit resulting from the second dispute, regardless of any baseis in Wikipedia policies or guidelines, and which appears to already have a rough consensus in favor of it. ––FormalDude (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More issues

Now Toa has followed me to a page they've never edited before in order to oppose an unrelated RfC I recently opened. ––FormalDude (talk) 15:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- They submitted a RPP to try to get Republican_Party_(United_States) fully protected and restored to their preferred version.
- In the middle of an ongoing discussion about whether an RfC should be started, Toa went ahead and started an RfC themselves at the talk page of the article that they're blocked from editing. They didn't take any WP:RFCBEFORE steps to work with other editors on drafting the RfC.

––FormalDude (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with BlackKite. Toa shows a pattern of behavior that is not compatible with editing in AP2. Another article that they've stonewalled discussions on recently is Talk:Karine Jean-Pierre § Stolen elections, back in the spotlight where they refused to accept existing consensus on the reliability of sources. They added "election denier" categories to Barbara Boxer and Bennie Thompson. They consistently cast aspersions on other editors. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

12:31, 30 October 2022

Discussion concerning Toa Nidhiki05

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 Toa Nidhiki05

What a ludicrous report. There’s no consensus for this edit (numerous others have rejected it), as others have noted, and more importantly it isn’t backed up. I should be a bit nicer, but frankly my patience for regurgitation of base hyperpartisan talking points (which both FormalDude and Viriditas have insisted on making}} to justify inflammatory and unproductive edits is minimal. Repeated claims like “this is a fact” while citing to left-wing think tanks are not what I’d consider to be productive discussions. What's abundantly clear is that FormalDude either does not understand that partisan think tanks are not reputable sources of fact, or he doesn't care. And now it’s clear that, rather than actually present quality referencing or engaging, FormalDude just wants to remove me. This case should be summarily closed and returned to the talk page.

For some examples of what's been going on on the page, which includes less-than-polite discussion from both sides.

The Four Deuces noted that FormalDude's claim that all of his sources are objective and none are opinions is untrue; the Washington Post piece was an opinion piece, and another (from Robert Griffin) is from an author whose entire background is working with hyperpartisan partisan organizations like the Center for American Progress. Would we cite the Heritage Foundation to establish that Democrats are bad? No, we wouldn't.
Viriditas making the ludicrous, hyperpartisan claim that "Voter suppression is a policy position of the Republican Party", then making a statement so ridiculous ("The Republican Party is a far right, anti-democratic, authoritarian, pro-Russia political party that believes that one person, one vote should be repealed by a constitutional amendment. They receive much of their funding from the Koch Network, a collection of American oligarchs in the oil, gas, armaments, and industrial sectors who believe that corporations, not individual citizens, should direct the political future of the United States. They wish to rebuild and remake America in the image of authoritarian regimes like Hungary and the Russian Federation. Their primary political positions for achieving these stated goals involves anti-democratic behavior and policymaking that opposes labor unions, Social Security, supporting voter suppression and privatization, and placing impenetrable barriers to popular and social democracy.") that I suggested RationalWiki as a better outlet.
Viriditas making a hypertpartisan political rant ("So when the majority of Republicans openly tell journalists why they don’t want most Americans to vote, and then help pass hundreds of voter suppression bills throughout the country based on the Koch-financed philosophy of economist James M. Buchanan who was against majority-based voting and advocated a constitutional amendment overturning one person one vote—you’re actually telling me that when the evidence is documented, historically demonstrable, and has dark money funding sources tied directly to the GOP donors, you’re going to sit there with a straight face and say "voter suppression is not the official policy of the GOP"? I’m sorry, but there is no higher standard of evidence. Voter suppression is the official policy position of the GOP. Those are the facts."), which I described as such.
FormalDude repeatedly mischaracterizing arguments made by Jayron32, including making incorrect claims about things Jayron32 said.
FormalDude said that "SCOTUS has been killing the VRA softly for decades anyways" and implied that's why we should reject all court cases that don't indicate voter suppression. I told him to "Leave the partisan talking points out of this", to which he responded by cursing at me.
FormalDude declared in bad faith that Springee was not reading the discussion - a remark that was frankly quite rude, given Springee's long and detailed arguments.
FormalDude declared I "just make shit up about sources you don't like" and that I "have to resort to red herrings when you don't have any legitimate counterarguments", a clear violation of WP:AGF
Viriditas asked if I " have a Q drop to attend to" - literally accusing me of believing a conspiracy theory about a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles. If that's not bad faith and inflammatory, I don't know what is.

All of this because some editors object to a hyperlink in a subheading. It's clear this discussion has become heated, but FormalDude's report here is simply not helpful. At all. I urge people to actually look at the edits FormalDude has posted and see what they are responses to. We're here to build an encyclopedia - not to regurgitate the opinions of left-wing think tanks as if they are the light and truth and all that is good and beautiful in the world. We would not use the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute or Prager University to claim that Democrats have bad policy, nor should we. All I ask is the same thing be applied both ways.

Toa Nidhiki05 12:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify on RationalWiki: it’s a valuable resource in rejecting pseudoscience. Its page on the GOP is also kind of laughably bad, like Viriditas’s remarks. Toa Nidhiki05 15:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty rich of Valjean to complain about templating when he spuriously templated my talk page for no reason. Maybe provocations like this can be stopped, and instead a discussion can be held on the talk page instead of attempting to ram through edits. Toa Nidhiki05 17:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awarding barnstars to admins who vote the way you like seems to be in exceptionally bad taste. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the arbitration remarks - and having cooled down a bit - I can't disagree that my primary issue in this topic area is reverting too often. I imagine this is frustrating for everyone involved. That being said, I have a long history of work in the AP2 area; my barstars include creating the 2010 United States state legislative elections article (a series I should continue), policing the Center for Immigration Studies and John Tanton articles (where racist trolls repeatedly attempt to whitewash ties to white nationalists and eugenicists), and "Herculean labours nominating ancient, ill-sourced articles on non-notable political parties and groups for deletion". I also engage in the creation of electoral maps, routine cleanup, and policing the addition of entries on endorsements, and all sorts of routine anti-vandalism efforts across a field where this is a frequent issue. If the issue here is edit warring, wouldn't a 1RR or 0RR sanction (with exceptions for vandalism) be more appropriate? This would enable me to continue the things widely regarded as productive, while cutting out the problem area. Toa Nidhiki05 01:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're free to believe whatever you want, Vanamonde93, but the complaint as presented is not an actually accurate depiction of this discussion. It's the depiction of FormalDude, who also has a vested interest in the dispute; he's reverted four times as well since introducing the material ([34] [35] [36] [37]), to the point where he's trying to shut down an RfC despite three other editors telling him that's not a cool thing to do. And as for behavior, I'm pretty sure accusing another editor (me) of believing in a conspiracy theory about a cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles (which Viriditas did earlier is the worst thing anyone has done here - it's a beyond-the-pale personal attack. Stuff like this is why I got angry - unjustifiably so - and lost my cool. That's on me. I agree the warnings were utterly unnecessary, and a knee-jerk reaction to the same thing happening to me. Shouldn't have happened, won't happen again. Toa Nidhiki05 02:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to FormalDude - Thie RfC was started at the behest of other editors, who suggested it would be a good idea. Multiple other users said it should be started, and anyone could do it - I chose to do so because nobody else did, and this should resolve this issue permanently, meaning an end to this lengthy discussion. I fail to see how this is disruptive, and several other editors seem to agree - in fact, already several other editors who had not previously engaged in the discussion already have. That's a good thing! Toa Nidhiki05 02:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, I would recommend you read MOS:WEASEL. Wikipedia policy tends to point against broad, unsupported claims like "widely regarded as", especially when sources don't support them - so narrowing it to what the source does say is common-sense. The reason I did not include the claim about "voters" is that it's rather vague; "voters" is, broadly, too large a group of people. It's akin to saying that "people" like something, whereas "celebrities and activists" is more specific. If you disagree, you are welcome to change or modify it, or to discuss it on the talk page, and I'd invite you to do so. I'll also note that the source says negative things about Abrams that I did not add - it says, for example, that Republican critics regard her as divisive (who would have imagined that political opponents regard their political opponent in negative terms?), that some Democrats are uncomfortable with her personal ambition, and that some Black Democrats dislike her "disruptive" influence on the Democratic establishment in Georgia. I didn't add any of these to the article of lead - in fact, I didn't add anything negative about Abrams at all in my edit! I did not make this edit to prove that "'ordinary people' didn't credit Abrams" - in fact, I didn't make this edit to prove anything. I made the edit because the existing content was unsupported by the sources listed. I would invite you to assume good faith in the future rather than casting aspersions or assuming you can read my mind. Toa Nidhiki05 13:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Black Kite, I'd invite you to discuss this on the Talk:Stacey Abrams page, or to edit it yourself; if you feel so strongly that "voters" should be included, add it back! I personally think that's too broad of a claim, but that's something that can be discussed.

I do want to mention something else, however you make repeated notes of "inserting negative content into a BLP" - be more specific here. My edits on the page have, indeed, primarily revolved around the 2018 election, which Abrams regards as stolen. My edits have primarily focused on removing overly flowery language that characterizes her claims as objective truth (something that election law experts and journalists roundly reject - they generally regard voter suppression in the election as not having impacted the result) and updating information (including the status of lawsuits, all of which have finished their course). This is, in fact, "negative content" (although there is no rule, of course, that BLPs can only discuss positive aspects of public figures), but it's also the defining part of her personal public image - her claims of a stolen election have been the subject of, among other things, dozens of public appearances and speeches, her advocacy group Fair Fight, and the film All In: The Fight for Democracy, among other things. I've made a total of 21 edits to the page this year, three of which are reverts. My edits have been generally well-regarded; for example, after SPECIFICO removed content I added about Fair Fight's finances, this content was promptly added back by Endwise. I regard our interactions on the page previously to be fairly positive and to have resulted in a page that fairly accurately reflects the situation (for example, including Richard Hasan's takes on both Abrams's claims and how Kemp managed the election), so I'm disappointed you seem unhappy. I'm more surprised that you've not once brought this up. You have never gone to my talk page to discuss this, and in fact you've only discussed on the Stacey Abrams talk page once this year, for a situation I was not involved in. If the work I've done is so objectionable, it would have been helpful to either bring it up to me directly or discuss if on the talk page. Toa Nidhiki05 13:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick response to SPECIFICO - I don’t believe I’ve engaged in any edit warring on the Stacey Abrams article, and I’m extensively discussing it on the talk page while there are probably a dozen or so reverts going around on main over the last few days. This is an extremely contentious discussion, apparently, and I trying hard to keep my cool on the talk page. In the last 24 hours, however, SPEFICIO is at 3 reverts ([38] [39] [40]). I find it a bit frustrating to be accused of edit warring by someone who is more involved than myself. Toa Nidhiki05 22:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some more context: Generalrelative, another user involved in the dispute there and who has commented here, is also at 3 reverts, and 4 or 5 over the last two days ([41] [42] [43] [44]). Once again, I think the situation on these pages is fairly volatile, and I'll do my best to bring the volume down. Toa Nidhiki05 00:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite, I am not edit warring and I would suggest you retract that statement. I have reverted exactly once on the Stacey Abrams page in the last 3 days - in fact, I've only edited the page 4 times this month, far less than the dozens of edits (many of them reverts) by other involved editors. The one revert I have made in the last three days was this edit, which reverted an addition by Generalrelative that synthesized reliable sources. This violates Wikipedia policy; you can't combine multiple sources to make a claim that neither makes. I did not revert Generalrelative's subsequent edit, as the content cited ("widely attributed") is reflected in the source itself; this corrected the issue I had, an example of a productive exchange that benefits the encyclopedia. The other edit you cite was not a revert; it was correcting a factual mistake and reflecting what the New York Times source actually says ("Celebrities, activists and voters across Georgia credited Ms. Abrams with moving past her loss). You are an experienced editor, surely you would agree that it is against Wikipedia policy to cite claims that sources don't make, to selectively cite only specific parts of what sources say, or to combine multiple sources to make a claim that neither makes?

Additionally, I will once again note that Black Kite has not engaged in this discussion at all, either on Talk:Stacey Abrams or the BLP noticeboard thread, where I have engaged - and am engaging in - lengthy discussions on the page and policy in general. Toa Nidhiki05 13:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, SPECIFICO, there's no policy that says BLPs can only present subjects in a positive light, especially for a subject as serious as election denial. Toa Nidhiki05 22:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

The edits that Toa responded to were outrageous suggestions, so their edits calling them that was an accurate response. For example, in the first example presented,[45] Toa was responding to a proposal that the lead for Republican Party (United States) should be changed to begin, "The Republican Party is a far right, anti-democratic, authoritarian, pro-Russia political party that believes that one person, one vote should be repealed by a constitutional amendment." (Viriditas 03:32, 27 October 2022)

While Viriditas may have been expressing a valid opinion that would be acceptable in some fora, obviously the tone and emphasis would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. Even for articles about far right parties, the phrasing is more nuanced.

Viriditas was trolling and Toa's replies should be seen in that context. There should be some way to stop that so that discussions remain constructive. While there's a vague line between legitimate edit proposals and trolling, Viriditas has crossed it and their edits should have been included in this report.

Incidentally, RationalWiki is not a "fringe website," but a respected source that debunks pseudoscience and its supporters.

TFD (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

With the 2022 US mid-term elections just days away & the possibility of Trump becoming the 2024 Republican presidential nominee? Perhaps, administrators should keep a closer eye on the aforementioned discussion at the Republican Party's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Letting administrators know. I've advised Toa 'not' to edit Abrams' page & to concentrate on that BLP's talkpage, instead. I understand how frustrating these things can be & so I believe a gentler approach is best. GoodDay (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW - Abrams' discussion has moved to the WP:BLPN board. GoodDay (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend administrators hold off from any decision, until after November 8, 2022. The US is in the last week of its mid-terms campaign & emotions can get heightened. Again patients & a gentle approach is best. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO:, The decision is up to the administrators, not me. They will decide on what is best. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andrevan

I am involved in some of the disputes with this user but I must agree they are not consistently civil and frequently make borderline or outright personal attacks. "Two wrongs don't make a right." This user frequently violates WP:AGF and makes statements questioning the impartiality or competence of editors. This user exhibits an WP:OWNership mentality about their articles that they patrol or contribute to about politics, frequently reverting without discussion with an edit warrior mentality. Their rationales are often terse such as "not an improvement" or no reason given. This user should be sanctioned. Andre🚐 16:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User is a perennial violator of Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars [46] [47] Andre🚐 17:53, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User also misuses dispute tags [48] [49] Andre🚐 18:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must agree that a topic ban is the best course of action given their continued mode of collaboration on Talk:Stacey Abrams even while this AE report is open. Instead of showing remorse or contrition they have doubled-down and are engaged in a negotiation as to whether a 1RR restriction is better than a topic ban. It's about collaboration. A topic ban seems merited. Andre🚐 19:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

The line The Republican Party is a far right, anti-democratic, authoritarian, pro-Russia political party that believes that one person, one vote should be repealed by a constitutional amendment was not a serious proposal, and the person who said that said as much. That said, talk pages are for discussing the topic of the article, not bantering back and forth and seeing which one can make the silliest argument with a straight face. That this generated an equivalently absurd response reminds me of the adage on playing stupid games. Suggest closing this with a reminder to all parties what the purpose of a talk page is. nableezy - 16:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the comments in the diffs are pretty far out there, the ACLU is certainly not a left-wing think tank, law review journals are yes student run but the more widely cited of them are certainly reliable. And there may be reason TB the user per BK below, but I dont see it in the diffs presented here, which all read like par for the course for AP2. nableezy - 17:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The edit-warring while at AE is mind-bogglingly lacking in awareness. Thats 1, 2, 3 reverts just outside of 24 hours, a few days after the edit-war in the same article on October 25. Certainly not the only user edit-warring, but the please do not edit war edit summaries while edit-warring is a bit too rich. How do yall not get the process here, edit is disagreed on stop and get consensus on the talk page. In the highly likely event that the people edit-warring cannot reach a consensus, open an RFC. In the highly likely event that the users involved do not agree on the consensus of the RFC, request a formal closure. Rinse and repeat. Edit-warring has always been a topic-bannable offense, doing it while at AE is just asking for it. nableezy - 17:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I am not a regular editor in the AP2 area, but I am not going to post in the uninvolved admin section here either as I have argued with T05 before over their obviously POV editing. I have noted them having serious problems with Democratic female politicians of colour (see their very extensive edits to shoehorn anything negative into Ilhan Omar, Stacey Abrams and Karine Jean-Pierre - the latter article being one that they were blocked for personal attacks on other editors in June this year). Oddly, that problem doesn't extend to Republican female politicians (i.e. Mayra Flores ). A significant number of their other edits are bludgeoning debates, and not really caring about NPA whilst they're doing it [50]. A significant number of their edits are reverts, or have been reverted themselves, which suggests that they are not following WP:BRD. It is probably time that an AP2 ban arrived at this editor's door. Black Kite (talk) 16:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The persistent edit-warring on the Republican Party article whilst this AE was open suggests very strongly that a topic-ban is definitely required. Black Kite (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More issues

Even during an AE report, TN05 is again shoehorning negative information into Stacey Abrams which the citation doesn't support. In this edit, they change "her efforts have been widely credited with boosting voter turnout in Georgia" to "her efforts have been credited by celebrities and Democratic activists..." despite the actual source saying, quite clearly, "Celebrities, activists and voters credited Ms. Abrams...". This bit of semantics is done, of course, to give the idea that "ordinary people" didn't credit Abrams. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Nidhiki05 I am very familiar with WP:WEASEL, thanks. However, my ability to AGF only stretches so far. When someone who has persistently inserted negative material into a particular BLP in the past makes a wording change to that BLP which may make some readers believe something different from what the source actually says, it is unsurprising that I would assume that has been done deliberately. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And still ...

... edit-warring to get the most negative slant possible on the same BLP. [51] [52]. Black Kite (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Nidhiki05 Not really - I'm pretty sure anyone who looks at the history of the above-mentioned politicians can see exactly what you are trying to do. After all, it's not difficult. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

I'm certainly involved in this debate. I think it would be best if everyone toned things down a few notches. Personalizing these debates isn't helpful and neither are the over the top comments that can come across as trolling. Tongue in cheek the best thing to do would be lock the page until after the 2022 elections in just over a week. Springee (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do think some of the reverts should be seen in context. Until very recently there was not a consensus for the changes various editors are making. What we have is a conflict between Toa enforcing what they, rightly saw as a NOCON state of the discussion, and other editors deciding they were right in "winning" an edit war because there were more "supports" vs "opposes". Those supporting the change should have just waited until it was a clear CONSENSUS. That doesn't excuse excessive reverting but an editor who restores a new, disputed change without consensus is also violating policy. Toa needs to tone it down but those who were restoring when consensus hadn't been established should also note their own part in escalating this issue. Springee (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, I think you might not be giving the 1RR restriction enough of a chance. You are correct, such a restriction doesn't prevent one from going to the talk page and saying, "You're a jerk Dent. A complete kneebiter." However, since the ability to actually change the article in question is curtailed it ends up creating two positives. First, no edit warring. Second, it does force one to think more carefully about one's arguments. Sure, you can try to bludgeon the discussion but others can simply ignore you since you can't "revert to win". If I'm frustrated with your newest edit, I revert it. You say I'm wrong and revert my edit and that's it. All I can do is plead my case. If my case isn't good I'm not likely to convince others. The intent of any sanction should be to pick the smallest one that fixes the problem. Hence, we have single page blocks now instead of block or no block. If is warned about civility and gets a 1RR block the message should be clear. I'm sure any ANI complaint after that would be happy to throw on an AP2 if things are still an issue. However, if the 1RR is sufficient and gets Toa to spend more effort on the quality of their arguments, or at least keeping things from being personal, is that sufficient?

Toa, I will say, from my own experience, you should always avoid trying to personalize things in any way. Yeah, we all know that calling someone as idiot is not OK. Calling their arguments stupid is also a bad idea since it tends to escalate emotion. Another one which I have some trouble with but can be very powerful... don't use too many words, don't reply to everything (I'm sure some of the editors I've debated are snickering right now). But really, you will actually be more effective at making your point if you slow down and think it out rather than argue too much. I'm certain some will think that is rich coming from me but I'm comparing me to older me :D Springee (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean, I'm not sure about the optics of chastising Toa for edit warring then engaging in the edit war yourself [53]. We now have an open RfC related to a change to the article (your edit represents the new vs the stable version). The RfC is currently 7:9 so nothing that could be called a consensus yet you restored the disputed material with an edit summary that doesn't really address the problem. Springee (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

Toa keeps accusing other editors in a personal attack fashion of being partisan, but their own argumentation chooses partisan talking points and spin over what RS say. We are supposed to prioritize the latter, including wording. Toa is forgetting a founding principle here. "Verifiability, not truth" reminds us that personal opinions about what is "true" do not trump what RS tell us. We apply this every single day when we insist on writing "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life" (which redirects to Anti-abortion movements). We do not adopt the deceptive talking points of those who advocate fringe positions. When RS describe the abortion stance of conservatives, they often say "anti-abortion", and so should we.

The GOP talking points and spin are that their voter suppression methods are for the sake of "election security" (based on Trump's big lie of a stolen election). When they close polling places in minority areas, forcing people who don't even own a car to travel long distances to vote in white areas, that's voter suppression, and RS call the GOP's methods "suppression". The GOP knows that minorities tend to vote for Democrats, and that there are fewer registered Republicans than Democrats. If they can make it harder for legitimate, registered, minority voters to vote, they have a better chance at winning, so they do all they can to make it much harder for them to vote. They use myriad methods: gerrymandering, closing polling stations in minority districts, limiting voting hours, voter intimidation, rejecting ballots, and purging voter rolls based on last names that sound minority. The GOP makes minorities jump through hoops not required of their privileged, white, elitist base.

We have articles about this, but Toa opposes we even wikilink to our properly-sourced articles. That's a problem. That's what started this mess. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Toa is continuing their edit warring right now. Also templating the regulars with spurious warnings. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jayron32

I was notified on my user talk informing me I was involved in this case. I am merely posting that I confirm I received the notification. I have nothing further to add. --Jayron 32 09:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Toa Nidhiki05 is continuing to edit-war on Stacey Abrams. Also, I would have thought their talk page access would have been included in the block on Republican Party (United States). SPECIFICO talk 11:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Stacey Abrams: TN wrote above I'll do my best to bring the volume down. Meanwhile, it feels like he's been trolling me on my user talk page here. And he's continuing to deny the BLP problem on the article talk page. If there's a TBAN, it should perhaps be a ban from BLP in addition to AP. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: That can't be serious -- proposing that the stalemate, prolonged BLP disparagement and negative framing continue on talk/article/noticeboard pages so that our readers land on it when looking for information about election candidates and their positions? This matter needs to be wrapped up as promptly as possible. SPECIFICO talk 21:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Generalrelative

Just piping up to say that while there's nothing sancionable in this exchange on Talk:Stacey Abrams, it doesn't bode well if what we're witnessing is Toa Nidhiki05 on their best behavior. Generalrelative (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Toa Nidhiki05

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

I p-blocked Toa Nidhiki05 from Republican Party (United States) for a week due to the edit warring today and the last few days. I haven't digged into the diffs from the talk page enough to comment on the wider issue --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing eight blocks or partial blocks all related to US politics (admittedly over a lengthy period, but some are recent); evidence of personal attacks; bludgeoning; and edit-warring, including during this request. I can't help but think this editor needs to take a break from the topic. There's bad behavior from other editors too, but I see nothing exculpatory to TN5. My inclination is toward an indefinite AmPol TBAN, appealable in six months. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Toa Nidhiki, the primary problem I'm seeing isn't edit-warring, it's a battleground attitude, of which edit-warring is only one aspect. It's being rude and dismissive of other editors, it's sending them warnings and notices that are thoroughly unnecessary, it's engaging in personal attacks, and it's basically failing to collaborate. You're not the only offender here, but in the complaint as presented you're by far the worst. And if you want to be a productive contributor in this area, this attitude needs recalibration. A 1RR restriction doesn't require that. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first thing I noticed here is that Toa keeps posting edit warring warning templates on their opponents. That's hardly becoming in an editor who violated 3RR at Republican Party (United States) on 21 October and knocked up against the rule with three reverts once on 25 October, and once again on 29-30 October. That's 10 reverts in a few days. And yet, today they warned Andrevan and warned Valjean with the "Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing" 3RR template. I'd call that harrassment, considering that Andrevan and Valjean have each made a grand total of one revert at Republican Party (United States) this month. Toa has made no secret of the retaliatory nature of their template on Valjean's page, neither in their commentary above ("Pretty rich of Valjean to complain about templating when he spuriously templated my talk page for no reason") nor in this edit. Since Valjean templated Toa (after Toa had made three reverts to the article in less than 24 hours), Toa apparently considers it only fair to template Valjean, (after Valjean has made one revert to the article in a month). And Andrevan also. Going back through the article history for October to check this, I kept seeing more reverts by Toa. Reverting seems to be their favored mode of editing. It's almost funny to see them exhorting everybody else to "Please do not edit war" here. This is one example of their aggressive and tendentious editing. Guerillero's partial block from Republican Party (United States) is certainly well-motivated, but I believe the problem is larger. I agree with Vanamonde that this is a case for an indef topic ban from American politics, a topic that appears to bring out the worst in this editor. Toa, as for your commentary above, did you notice how the other editors on this page provide diffs so admins can read the evidence for themselves and see its context? It would be helpful if you did that too. Bishonen | tålk 19:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: I did it as a temporary measure to control the immediate disruption. Admins should not see it as standing in the way of any larger restrictions to control disruption within the wider topic area. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with those above that an indefinite TBAN from post-1992 American politics is warranted - the constant sniping at others and edit warring (while 'warning' others for supposedly doing the same thing) is the last thing an already contentious area needs. firefly ( t · c ) 13:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the TBAN as proposed. Taking the violations at face value, even factoring in the context, it easily rises to the level of a TBAN from the contentious topic area. Iff someone wants to bring a report with evidence about the other editor’s conduct, we can cross that bridge when we come to it. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saucysalsa30

Saucysalsa30 topic-banned from Kurds and Kurdistan for six months

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 Saucysalsa30

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Saucysalsa30 (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 or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan

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

18:37, 29 October 2022: Revert 1.
21:58, 29 October 2022: Revert 2.
23:01, 29 October 2022: Revert 3.
03:09, 27 October 2022: Talk page comments that may run afoul of WP:BLP.

As explained in full at BLP/N, Saucysalsa30 reverted three times in less than 24 hours to accuse Vermont Democrat Peter Galbraith (who sought the gubernatorial nomination in 2016) of singlehandedly concocting ("his claim of") additional Iraqi chemical attacks on Kurdish civilians following the end of the Iran–Iraq War (during Galbraith's tenure on the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations), but "Despite Galbraith's claim, physicians from the United Nations, International Red Cross, and Turkey did not find any evidence of chemically inflicted wounds." Saucysalsa30's reverts actively removed the subject's direct response to this accusation and incorrectly portrayed Galbraith as the only source for the chemical attacks reported. Absent a consensus on whether (and how) to include criticism of Galbraith's report, I believe that the material should be excluded per our BLP policy, as I explained on the talk page—not edit warred in over and over and over again.

Meanwhile, at Talk:Peter Galbraith (albeit prior to being notified of the AP2 sanctions), Saucysalsa30 made additional unsourced claims that Galbraith acted as a "controversial politician making a claim and attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially", which heightened my BLP concerns. Furthermore, Saucysalsa30 incorrectly labelled my own edits to the article as "vandalism" and "disruptive editing."

To me, this behavior is unacceptable in any article that falls within a DS topic area. And, while I drafted this as an AP2 complaint, I doubt that the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area benefits by having an editor who incorrectly states that only 100 people died in the Halabja massacre (which is not consistent with declassified Iraqi military intelligence documents), or that the Anfal campaign was "made up" by Kanan Makiya (citing a source that directly, repeatedly contradicts this assertion).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

18:09, 29 November 2020: Blocked 60 hours by Drmies for edit warring following a BOOMERANG at WP:AN3.

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, as well as these diffs: [54], [55].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff.

Saucysalsa30 incorrectly states that this diff constitutes a formal warning to stop WP:HOUNDING him from EvergreenFir. However, the note, which does not mention HOUNDING, concerned a dispute at just one article (Racism in the Arab world), whereas "Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia." Furthermore, the context is very different from what Saucysalsa30 describes: At the exact same timestamp (23:41, 31 January 2021) EvergreenFir left identical warning messages on both of our talk pages ([56], [57]) advising both Saucysalsa30 and myself "to WP:DISENGAGE either from that page or from interactions with that editor." Saucysalsa30 responded to EvergreenFir's message with a lengthy tirade accusing me of "slander," prompting EvergreenFir to post a second, more forceful warning at User talk:Saucysalsa30 at 05:39, 1 February 2021. It seems evident that Saucysalsa30 frequently misstates or exaggerates what diffs (and other sources) say—something that was recently noted by several editors at ANI. For example, Praxidicae referred to Saucysalsa30's "greatly exaggerated claims," while Drmies pointed out: "That diff doesn't say what you want it to say. It's really simple. ... And you are either willfully misrepresenting me or you don't get it."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While irrelevant to Saucysalsa30's disruptive editing at Peter Galbraith, the claim that Qahramani44 or I edit-warred to reinstate a WP:COPYVIO at Ba'athism in early 2021 is incorrect. In actuality, a COPYVIO was identified by Saucysalsa30, Qahramani44 rewrote the text, and Berrely incorrectly stated that the issue had not been resolved. However, Berrely quickly corrected his mistake: "Qahramani44, apologies, I was looking at the edit summary of the previous diff and got confused. I have reinstated the edit." Berrely's self-revert should have been the end of it, but Saucysalsa30 continued to incorrectly insist that "Berrely: You were right the first time, as the content still contains some copyright violation," citing this as justification for additional reverts.
As this thread makes clear, EvergreenFir did not consider Saucysalsa30 to be "on equal footing" with Qahramani44 and myself at the time.
Saucysalsa30's description of HandThatFeeds as an administrator is incorrect; the latter's userpage states "This user is not an administrator and has no desire to be one."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Saucysalsa30

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 Saucysalsa30

The last paragraph is false accusations and he had also hounded me on Anfal page, where he spent days bludgeoning and attacking multiple users when consensus and sourcing was against him. His first edit in that Talk page was to attack me with similar misrepresentations/insults, which I and others refuted him on such as this[58].

TheTimesAreAChanging made this request right after an edit with personal attacks and falsities about me, including the very first sentence[59]: "Saucysalsa30 has a reputation as a remarkably extreme pro-Iraqi Ba'th Party partisan editor". I have no such "reputation", this is a WP:PA violation.

While he's WP:HOUNDING/attacked me in the past and an admin gave him a formal warning to stop doing so, in this latest instance, TheTimesAreAChanging followed me to an article where he had no prior activity, and engaged me in his edit summaries. He noticed on 10/27 I had activity on Peter Galbraith [60] in which I fixed failed-verification/OR/BLP violations, and explained my changes in the Talk page with sources. His edit summaries comprised false accusations/attacks and OR, which I refuted in the Talk page.

Contrary to the claim, TheTimesAreAChanging started edit warring, with his first edit on the article being a partial revert, and made 3 reverts in less than 24 hours.

Revert1: 08:18, 29 October 2022: Partial revert of my edit with a false accusation/attacks in the edit summary
Revert2: 21:22, 29 October 2022: Full revert by TTAAC
Revert3: 22:45, 29 October 2022: Reverting all additions I made to the article

He did not bother to explain his changes in the Talk page, like I had, demonstrating an unwillingness to build consensus.

This accusation by TheTimes is false: Saucysalsa30 made additional unsourced claims that Galbraith acted as ... and he deliberately misrepresents it by leaving out the last part of the quote: ", already noted in this Talk page and article."[61] It's clear that TheTimes' didn't read Talk page and article before making this accusation. Galbraith's controversial relationship with and financial benefits from Iraqi Kurdish groups was discussed in two Talk page sections, and there's a section on the article about it.

TheTimes' other accusation is wrong. I never said Galbraith "singlehandedly concocted it", and his embellishment demonstrates the deceptiveness of his request. Galbraith drafted a bill making the claim he championed before the US government. Saying "his claim" is correct. Here is a definition of "claim". Galbraith made a statement that something was true, with the addition of not being proven, and introduced legislation in the US government.

TheTimesAreAChanging had been indefinitely blocked before on the topic of American politics[62] for disruptive editing and not gaining consensus, and in this case he did not seek consensus either. He was also blocked for violating the topic ban. He later requested for it to be lifted, and given his continued disruptive behavior on Peter Galbraith and other articles the the original topic ban was for, it appears justified to reinstate it. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In his addendum[63], TheTimesAreAChanging admits to being warned by EvergreenFir to WP:DISENGAGE from me yet has still hounded and engaged me on Wikipedia multiple times since then as I proved. In fact, he had hounded me in that very situation in which EvergreenFir had to intervene. On Jan 19-20, 2021, TheTimesAreAChanging and another editor Qahramani44 stalked me, immediately following an unrelated content dispute, over to Racism in the Arab world and Ba'athism where I had just a few days earlier fixed copyvio and other issues. TTAAC had no prior activity on the first article/Talk page, and only previously had a few sporadic unilateral reverts on the second. Qahramani44 had no prior edits on either article/Talk page. Here is my initial diff on Racism in the Arab world [64]. Qahramani44's first edit on the page [65] and TTAAC's first edit [66] came only after mine, and they made a number of Talk page comments directed at me and edit warring following that. EvergreenFir had to intervene, removing TTAAC's last Talk page comment and telling him to "Stop the bullshit". TTAAC defiantly reverted it[67] calling EvergreenFir's actions "wildly inappropriate". EvergreenFir re-reverted this[68] and temporarily protected the article.[69]

The story on Ba'athism is the same. I made my first edit [70]. TheTimesAreAChanging's edit[71] and Qahramani44's[72] stalked me to this article too, with more comments and edit warring to follow by them like in the other article. EvergreenFir intervened here too temporarily protecting the article[73] and EvergreenFir agreed with the copyvio I originally fixed when attempt to re-introduce it was made.[74]

Uninvolved editors have politely asked TTAAC to stop harassing me and other editors, such as [75][76][77][78] In one example, admin HandThatFeeds had to correct TTAAC's false charges against an editor multiple times: "Why are you using the “tenacious hacks” comment to rebut GregKaye’s statement that (sic) you are the first person to accuse them of tendentious editing? Are you not understanding the difference in those words and conflating their use of them with your accusation of their behavior?" and "I think you’re misreading GregKay’s statements. ... Nothing in those quotes is worthy of sanction."

In an attempt to defend himself in an ANI section about his conduct, he falsely accused me of making a real-world threat/crime in August 2022, claiming that I somehow know his address and sending him "fan mail" making a threat. He got the dates wrong in this ridiculous accusation too; his attacking me came in January 2021 (EvergreenFir intervention case), not March 2021 as he falsely states where I had only 2 unrelated edits[79][80], so his "during the height of our previous dispute" is a proven false statement. TTAAC's accusation was elevated to ArbCom by the admin Barkeep49[81][82][83][84], where it was presumably thrown out as a ludicrously false accusation. At this point, his false accusation about me making of real-world threat is an egregious WP:PA violation. (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note: Repeatedly, TheTimesAreAChanging casts false aspersions based on not understanding what words mean. Like his previously noted confusion about the word "claim", and his accusations refuted by HandThatFeeds, he doesn't know the definition of the word "slander", which he believes only means making legal threats[85], of which I've never done. Here's the definition: "the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation". Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [86]: There's still no defense from TheTimesAreAChanging has for the proven fact that he very deliberately stalked and attacked me and engaged in disruptive behavior on multiple instances, such as in January 2021, August 2022, and most recently in October 2022, as I proved above, among other occasions not detailed here.

TheTimesAreAChanging's stalking, false accusations, refusal to engage in consensus building and constructive Talk page discussion, and personal attacks on Peter Galbraith has already been proven since my first statement section[87]. His continued attempt at shifting blame instead of explaining his disruptive behavior is because he knows he did wrong. Let's recall the situation on Peter Galbraith happened because TheTimes chose to stalk and harass me in the first place.

TheTimesAreAChanging's latest claim is wrong. As I already provided above, EvergreenFir did take my side and reverted Qahramani44 for re-introducing a copyright violation [88]. Quoting EvergreenFir from Feb 1, 2021: "(Undid revision 1004094635 by Qahramani44 (talk) with tweaks. WP:STATUSQUO had copyvio issues. These two versions are very similar, but i tweaked it a bit. Qahramani44 you are party to this dispute and edit war. Please do not continue warring)" Berrely is not an admin and was an uninvolved editor who was misled by Qahramani44's erroneous statement. Yes, you are correct in that I fixed Berrely's misled error which he made on Jan 19[89]. EvergreenFir agreed with me that it was a copyright violation because on Feb 1, the end result on this whole situation was EvergreenFir removing the copyright vio, putting to rest Qahramani44's and TTAAC's disruption and Berrely's misled error.[90] EvergreenFir would not have done that if TTAAC's and Qahramani44's editing was not disruptive. I was correct in removing a copyright violation.

In that case, it's good that HandThatFeeds is not an admin. It means someone with no responsibility to do so proved in detail that TTAAC was making false accusations against a good editor with the ANI report, even telling TTAAC to "Just drop this diversion".[91] They weren't the only one, either. Admins didn't appear to bother with TTAAC's report because it was based on false representations and accusations, and no action was taken against GregKaye. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note 1 to @Acroterion and other admins: The above statement is now 500 words according to wordcounttools.com. Kindly requesting to go above 500 words to point out other disruptive editing and conduct and casting false aspersions by TheTimesAreAChanging on Peter Galbraith and other articles he mentions such as Anfal campaign, and pointing out other recent misconduct against me personally like his ludicrous and self-disproving accusation of real-life threats in an ANI discussion on his disruptive editing and personal attacks? Also, I just noticed the below clarifying comment to ParadiseChronicle had been moved here, which it wasn't here originally.) Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

(Note 2 to admins: With this 'addendum'[92] added by TheTimesAreAChanging, he has increased his request to 708 words, far past the 500 word limit, when copying everything under "Request concerning Saucysalsa30" to the end of the added content. Like proven of his other accusations, these are likewise deceitful misrepresentations and fluff). Even if we go with the "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy" and under, it's still 623 words. Only if we omit the diffs and other information critical to the statement, it gets close to 500). Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note 3 to @Acroterion: Thanks for your response. In addition to demonstrating I was hounded/harassed on 2 separate articles in the case EvergreenFir had to intervene in the first place, I took the opportunity to point out a false accusation that TheTimesAreAChanging made against me in August 2022 that I made real-world threat/crime against him. He's yet to receive consequence for this excessive WP:PA violation) Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears my Note 3 practically overlapped with Acroterion's, so I missed their response before publishing. Regarding [93], thanks for clearing that up. This would mean that other than the Peter Galbraith issue, which I've demonstrated TTAAC hounded me on, none of his other charges are relevant seeing as they had already been brought up by TTAAC in relevant ANI sections. I refuted his misrepresentations in any case. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note 4 to @Acroterion: Re [94]: With Barkeep49's input (thanks Barkeep!)[95], it appears ArbCom hadn't considered it in the first place, not being at their level of action. Even if it is put aside despite the gravity of such a lie (one that could carry legal charges against me given the false accusation describes criminal offense) and severe WP:PA violation this false accusation entails, it is still evidence of extreme dishonesty. For clarification and follow-up, would you suggest that I report the false accusation to ANI given it wasn't taken up at ArbCom's level after all? Thanks.) Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note 5 re @Paradise Chronicle: Unfortunately, Paradise Chronicle is also guilty of WP:HOUNDING me on Peter Galbraith, with their only edit there[96] being made right after I had activity on the page, within a few hours of this AE request being created[97], and in less than 2 hours of my first response on this AE request.[98]. PC is wrong in saying "no-one opposed it" about the change he mentions in his statement, seeing how I kindly asked for Buidhe's approval[99] on their re-introducing poor content, and it didn't have better contextualization as P.C. claimed. Waiting on a response from buidhe and the hope that PC would fix their error, I didn't respond further. This was only one change of many made by PC on the article which were unilateral, and the others had no Talk discussion by PC regarding including or re-inclusion content. To give just a few of many examples of POV and/or unilateral edits on Anfal campaign (not including other articles PC makes edits on despite being formally warned on the topic of Kurds and Kurdistan:[100][101][102]. PC's warning[103] was for "Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future." It is unfortunate that PC has not heeded by these warnings as shown in this AE request and on Anfal campaign, and again, I am not mentioning other articles that PC edits on in this topic area in the same manner). Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note 6 to @Acroterion: Thanks for your response! I will take no further action then on that. I appreciate Barkeep49 having taken the initiative even if he had removed the whole ANI section which included other conduct violations by TTAAC. These kinds of personal attacks are not uncommon for TTAAC, as I gave a few diffs including in my first statement regarding the Peter Galbraith issue, the unacceptable insult "Saucysalsa30 has a reputation as a remarkably extreme pro-Iraqi Ba'th Party partisan editor". His last block[104] had also been for personal attacks, on a rare occasion that an editor had challenged his disruptive editing. There's other cases of him calling me a child and other insults for no good reason, but I'll keep it recent. I will note for clarity that TTAAC has already brought up all (refuted) accusations except the current Peter Galbraith matter before in ANI and other boards. In staying current, we have a case then just in the last week where he 1) hounded/harassed me, 2) made direct insults, 3) cast false aspersions, 4) disruptive editing including edit warring.) Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note 7 re[105] I was not the first to bring up old disagreements, but only did so because 1) I will address misrepresentations, personal attacks, and aspersions (most of the 'tendentiousness' here and on those articles), and 2) it demonstrates here that TTAAC is not a editor who suddenly came across me, but someone who has actively harassed me over a long period of time. There isn't such tendentiousness with other editors. In the two most recent instances as already proven: in the first, consensus, sourcing, neutrality were overwhelmingly on my side against TTAAC which he didn't take kindly, and in the second (Galbraith), I provided reliable, balanced sourcing and explanation (not a REDFLAG bibliographical note contradicted by any books/articles on the topic), pointed out OR+BLP violations that even TTAAC agreed with most, but I was still stalked and insulted in both cases because TTAAC didn't like that.) Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note 8 re:[106] Thanks for your response Swarm, but it appears there's a misunderstanding, as I didn't make a false claim. This[107] and telling him to "Stop the bullshit" by an admin or block for personal attacks isn't a false claim. If you're referring to HandThatFeeds, it's new to me that non-admins could have stylized usernames (I've only seen admins have those), so that was an error on my part, not a false claim, and does not change that an uninvolved editor repeatedly refuted TTAAC for making false accusations against GregKaye, as he does here. I proved and demonstrated multiple examples of stalking and harassment across multiple articles with diffs. This includes the most recent case on Peter Galbraith, which aside from the demonstrated hounding me a couple days after my edits on an article TTAAC had no prior activity, included blatant personal attacks and casting aspersions in edit summaries such as[108].

For the record in case this was missed earlier, I didn't "introduce" calling Galbraith a "liar" or a "conflict of interest" as TTAAC falsely claimed in this AE section and in this edit summary[109], which I'd disproven earlier here. I didn't add or edit anything related to the "Oil controversy" section, which describes Galbraith's conflict of interest and which has been there for over a decade, that TTAAC accuses me of in that edit summary. TTAAC is misleading with "controversial politician making a claim..." comment because I made that in the Talk page not the article as he implies, and there's a whole well-sourced section about it in the article. You can see me explain that clearly here[110], summarized with "This has already been talked about in a couple other Talk sections too and has been in the article and sourced since the 2000s.". Therefore, the premise laid out by TTAAC is false as I have not introduced such a matter as alleged. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 10:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RAN1

I'm only filing this statement since I DS-alerted Saucysalsa30 (in fact, my alert is the only one that appears in the DS tag search). I only became aware of Saucysalsa30's actions through TTAAC's BLP post. The post ran long, so I didn't look through any of the 10+ diffs in it, and assumed this was a recent development and that Saucysalsa30 hadn't been alerted before today. I researched the relevant citation, verified it and reverted Saucysalsa30 because they claimed the material failed verification before their edit summary war with TTAAC. I then alerted both them and TTAAC on the Kurds DS. I didn't think there would be a prior deleted notice if this was at BLPN, so I didn't see Saucysalsa30 had been alerted 3 months ago until after this AE section showed up in my watchlist. RAN1 (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RAN1 Just want to point out for the sake of balance that TheTimesAreAChanging received the same alert before from the same editor ParadiseChronicle on July 31. [111] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paradise Chronicle

As I have been mentioned I want to explain a bit. I gave the DS awareness note on Kurds and Kurdistan to both editors here and here as they appear to have an issue in the topic area and if only one knows about the DS the other editor might be surprised (blocked, TB'd) that there apply different rules for the topic area than in the "normal" wikipedia.

That said I believe the issue escalated into an ArbCom case per email in which case some Admins might be more familiar with the issue between the two.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the AE side for Kurds and Kurdistan. I also have noticed that Saucysalsa30 is rather doubtful of Kurdish victims during the Halabja chemical attack or during the Al Anfal campaign. For the Admins and also the reporting and discussing editors sake I'd say its more efficient to strongly warn (once more and a temporary block is in place) them for bludgeoning and disruptive editing as their numerous talk page edits are often of 1000s of bytes with a lot of text not really on the topic and to produce and read the diffs is rather a tiring work.

At Peter Galbraith they are number 1 Here and assembled a 30% share of added content in 3 days.

and at Al Anfal they are way off the top here with a ca. 2/3 share of added content in the entire existence of the article within less than 2 months. This is way more than all editors together in the top 10 combined.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Saucysalsa30, yes I meant to link to the talk pages. Talk page edits is what WP:BLUDGEON is about. To find your argument which is at best one or two lines within the several WP:WALLOFTEXTs doesn't help to find consensus. Read WP:WALLOFTEXT, its very descriptive of your talk page edits.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the last phrase of their answer to me, there is a good example for the editing of Saucysalsa30. Not an issue in the current discussion they bring an edit of me. For what, lack of consensus? I opened discussion on it the same day of my edit and no-one opposed it. The edit was on the existence and location of detention camps and the opened discussion included an invitation to reword the section. Saucysalsa30 answered in the discussion but didn't change anything. And now I have searched diffs and texted for probably about half an hour for an answer on 1 phrase in 1 of their WALLOFTEXT. Imagine dealing with several phrases in about 30 WALLOFTEXTS by Saucysalsa30.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone who reads the two edits above and doesn't know why I wrote it, I want to point out that my two edits above (not the first one) were an answer to this edit which Saucysalsa30 removed the same day.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this accusations of Saucysalsa30 are going to get an issue, let me know, but I am not going to invest time into answering to an edit that a few hours later gets withdrawn.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Saucysalsa30

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

@Saucysalsa30: A 1500+ word response is not even close to 500, and permission to exceed limits should be requested first, not ignored and blown through. Please reduce your comments to the required limits, or your comments may be truncated. Verbosity is not a virtue, and your history of talkpage discussions includes walls of text that are not appropriate in this venue. Acroterion (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Saucysalsa: yes, because they've replied. So can you, just keep it short and to the point, and please resist the temptation to gradually add back what you removed. Part of the complaint involves your tendency to bludgeon discussions, which will not be tolerated here. Acroterion (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless @Barkeep49: has anything that they can mention concerning the "fan mail" allegations, I'm going to set that aside as old news, now resolved, that was within the remit of the arbitrators, not this noticeboard. It does not appear to be directly germane to the issue at hand. Acroterion (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If T&S and arbitrators did not take action in August, it's not going to happen here. Acroterion (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would have liked to see arbcom take action in this case owing to the sensitive evidence but the general opinion of other arbs seemed to be that the incident did not rise to the level of ArbCom action. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Since private evidence can’t be submitted or considered here, the “fan mail” issue must be set aside. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Saucysalsa30's latest note: ANI is not an appropriate place to discuss anything that involves private information, and is for current, ongoing problems that require immediate attention, not things that happened in August. If the arbs declined to act, then the subject is closed, as it must be here. Please do not litigate that issue here or anywhere else, I am focused on conduct on the relevant topic areas. I am reviewing the other material, please resist the urge to enlarge on the dispute. Acroterion (talk) 12:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My general impression on reading through the extremely lengthy talkpage discussions and diffs is that there is a thread of WP:IDHT, which extends to this discussion, in which Saucysalsa is focused on portraying other editors as aggressors or rehashing old disagreements after being advised to stop. The sheer volume of words is indicative of a tendency to bludgeon discussions, even here. I can't say that either TTAAC or Saucysalsa30 have been shining examples of civility or righteous conduct, but I'm seeing a consistent thread of tendentiousness in Saucysalsa's overall conduct with respect to Iraqi attacks on Kurds and with respect to Galbraith. Acroterion (talk) 01:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saucysalsa's insistence on attacking the source of the complaint rather than responding to its substance, together with their tendentious behavior in the subject area and in this discussion, lead me to conclude that a topic ban, broadly construed, on Kurdistan-related topics is needed to deal with their consistent battleground conduct. This includes Peter Galbraith, Iraqi use of chemical weapons, and related matters. I'm setting the topic ban for six months. Acroterion (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read all that and reached the same conclusions as Acro. Report seems legitimate and actionable, and SS’s extreme bludgeoning is largely unrelated. Instead, they argue that they are a victim and they are being harassed by the OP, and falsely claim that OP has been warned for that. This was highly misleading, and the misleading, attacking, bludgeoning and disrupting of the process here appears to be a reflection of the problem. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

InverseZebra

InverseZebra blocked indef as a normal admin action. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning InverseZebra

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RAN1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

23:03, 11 November 2022 arguing off-topic with TheTranarchist.
01:06, 12 November 2022 ditto.
03:04, 12 November 2022 ditto with Newimpartial.

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, at 22:55, 30 July 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

TheTranarchist made a post on 4 October at Talk:LGB Alliance that includes Monque 2021, a book discussion that the author explicitly states is not a summary, and Simon 2021, a master's thesis which concludes with a section titled "A Polemic on [Gender Critical Feminists]". A month later, InverseZebra replied and complained about those sources, and Newimpartial then disputed the complaint.

After InverseZebra posted about Monque's use of the term TERF at 21:24, 11 November 2022, TheTranarchist made an off-topic post about the term at 22:39. InverseZebra then proceeded to make the first response, then the second response after TheTranarchist replied at 23:41, then the third after Newimpartial replied at 02:05 on 12 November.

@Shibbolethink: I filed this because I think this is actionable and don't think this is complicated. The ANI topic was not drawing in uninvolved admins to apply AE, so here we are. RAN1 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shibbolethink: I don't see the need to wait 20 hours for the topic ban to become closeable. RAN1 (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

InverseZebra has finally been indeffed, I agree with SideSwipe9th that this should be closed. RAN1 (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning InverseZebra

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 InverseZebra

Statement by Shibbolethink

See below, obvious content dispute is obvious. This is an inappropriate use of WP:AE. RAN1, you would be much better served by bringing these things to WP:3O or WP:DRN in the future.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RAN1, there are multiple proposals on the ANI thread which are clearly approaching consensus to do things to resolve obvious editor misconduct. I am not sure how this AE brings anything closer to resolution or consensus, rather than drawing the entire thing out further unnecessarily... — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Sideswipe9th, all 3 of these should be procedurally closed as moot and unnecessary. RAN1 should be advised to be more selective about which things they bring to AE. (and that such behavior can, in some instances, be construed as WP:FORUMSHOPping — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 23:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th

InverseZebra has just been indeffed by RickinBaltimore ([112]). Can all three of these discussions be closed as moot please, as there doesn't seem to be a reason for them to be here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Considering that the subject editor is indeffed, and CBANs and TBANs are under consideration at ANI, this report is totally unnecessary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning InverseZebra

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

TheTranarchist

No action, report withdrawn by OP without endorsements. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:35, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning TheTranarchist

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RAN1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

~~22:39, 11 November 2022 starting an off-topic argument with InverseZebra.~~
~~23:41, 11 November 2022 continuing that argument.~~

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, at 21:39, 23 January 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

TheTranarchist made a post on 4 October at Talk:LGB Alliance that includes Monque 2021, a book discussion that the author explicitly states is not a summary, and Simon 2021, a master's thesis which concludes with a section titled "A Polemic on [Gender Critical Feminists]". A month later, InverseZebra replied and complained about those sources, and Newimpartial then disputed the complaint.

After InverseZebra posted about Monque's use of the term TERF at 21:24, 11 November 2022, TheTranarchist posted the above diffs, starting and sustaining an off-topic argument with InverseZebra and Newimpartial.

@LokiTheLiar: InverseZebra clearly wasn't here to edit an encyclopedia, and that's exactly why I filed this. There was nothing InverseZebra posted there that would improve the content. TheTranarchist could have posted: Still haven't seen a single real reason not to include it. Still a peer-reviewed source last I checked, and that would have done it. Instead they posted a page of text that turned the topic into a forum thread. RAN1 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took the time to find Monque 2021 and read through it, and I'm withdrawing this. RAN1 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning TheTranarchist

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 TheTranarchist

Statement by (username)

Statement by DanielRigal

I don't think it is really correct to describe that first diff as "starting an off-topic argument" as the argument is already in progress. Furthermore, I suspect that InverseZebra, who is rapidly sliding towards either an indef or a topic ban here, may be being intentionally disruptive and trying to provoke such responses. Of course, it would have been better if TheTranarchist hadn't risen to it but I can't help but sympathise with her for doing so. I don't think any sanction or action is required other than maybe advising her to try not to feed those who show signs of troll-like behaviour. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statment by Loki

I think this filing should be discarded as obviously frivolous. Even if everything the filer claimed were true, it's not a violation of discretionary sanctions to argue about the content of a page on its talk page. The argument in question was about whether a source used a slur or not; it's relevant in that context whether "TERF" is a slur. Loki (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

How can starting an "off-topic argument" be a violation of discretionary sanctions involving the subject? That seems rather contradictory. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XOR'easter

I don't see any way the first diff can really be construed as starting an argument. Nor is the argument so "off-topic" as to have devolved into a forum thread unrelated to the task of writing an encyclopedia article; it's an argument about whether or not to include a source. Perhaps it's veering off into obviously unproductive territory, but the most serious action I could justify would be hatting a chunk of the Talk page. This whole filing, if not frivolous, seems at least misguided. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

InverseZebra, the one TheTranarchist is responding to, was using their argument that they personally feel that TERF is a slur as a justification for content decisions (fairly sweeping ones, since they seem to have been arguing for the exclusion of any source that uses the term regardless of quality - a circular argument since it would mean that any sources people could present to illustrate its clearly widespread academic usage would then be dismissed for using it. Anyone even slightly familiar with the topic area would know that the term is extremely common in high-quality academic publications and InverseZebra's argument was therefore absurd.) But regardless of how you feel about InverseZebra's argument, once they made it their justification for content decisions, the subject was no longer an off-topic argument; when you make something the foundation of your arguments for article content it is on-topic. Is your argument that TheTranarchist was bound to simply accept every assertion InverseZebra made without question? If you think it shouldn't have been brought up at all, then your ire should focus on InverseZebra - I do agree that it was a weak enough argument on their part to strain good faith. But once they've presented that as an argument for excluding a source, even a weak and questionable one, it's obviously fair to respond to it. And even with all that said, brief off-topic digressions wouldn't be an AE concern anyway; if they were we would have no editors left. --Aquillion (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning TheTranarchist

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

Let's close this with no action, especially since it's been withdrawn. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial

No action, report withdrawn without endorsements. OP is advised to reflect on this situation and the feedback they’ve received prior to submitting new AE requests. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Newimpartial

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RAN1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

22:55, 4 November 2022 claiming that because editors cannot use original interpretations of primary sources in article content, they cannot use interpretation to determine whether a primary source is used in the article, contrary to policy at WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.
17:53, 5 November 2022 ditto, it is simply not the job of editors to determine whether a reliable source has {{tq|properly sourced itself}} ~~and also accusing InverseZebra of POV axe-grinding~~. Amended 01:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
~~17:22, 7 November 2022 ditto, claiming that examining peer-reviewed sources is out-of-scope on talk pages.~~
~~02:05, 12 November 2022 arguing off-topic with InverseZebra.~~

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)

Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, at 22:55, 30 July 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

TheTranarchist made a post on 4 October at Talk:LGB Alliance that includes Monque 2021, a book discussion that the author explicitly states is not a summary, and Simon 2021, a master's thesis which concludes with a section titled "A Polemic on [Gender Critical Feminists]". A month later, InverseZebra replied and complained about those sources, and Newimpartial then disputed the complaint.

Newimpartial's response includes the above diffs. They consistently insisted that any editor review of the sources was OR and therefore inappropriate, disrupting discussion and prompting an off-topic argument between TheTranarchist and InverseZebra, to which they became a party in the last diff.

@Newimpartial: I take issue with bringing up OR to defend primary research when it says to be careful about misuse. It becomes a conduct issue when you repeatedly insist that primary sources are undebatable because OR. RAN1 (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: That's what I got out of [e]ditors are not really supposed to factor in their original interpretations of primary sources in determining article content and the like. We can only repeat what others said in the content, but that isn't true for deciding whether to repeat them. RAN1 (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)<\[reply]

I took the time to find Monque 2021 and read through it, and I'm withdrawing this. RAN1 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Newimpartial

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 Newimpartial

This filing seems more than a little bit bizarre. I would not have thought that my argument, that the editor in question was engaged in original interpretation (in fact, misinterpretation) of a WP:PRIMARY source, would be sufficiently controversial as to lead to an AE filing. Clearly I have been seeking attention in the wrong ways all these years, when all I had to do was to make this obvious argument. :p Newimpartial (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RAN1, your statement that I consistently insisted that any editor review of the sources was OR and therefore inappropriate is simply inaccurate. Also, if anyone had any issues with my conduct at Talk:LGB Alliance they had every opportunity to raise those issues at my own Talk. I don't understand why you felt this filing (or the one against TheTranarchist) was remotely necessary. It looks to me like some ridiculous impulse towards BOTHSIDESism - and the "other side" that was crusading in Talk:LGB Alliance in the first place has sonce been indef-blocked as a result of the ANI filing. Newimpartial (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And RAN1, I did not repeatedly insist that primary sources are undebatable because OR. Please strike your unfounded allegation. My position throughout that discussion was that each source must be reliable for the claim for which it is cited, and that no reasonable argument had been made that the piece in question was reliable for the purpose for which it was used (namely, that at least one scholarly article referred to the Alliance as "anti-trans"). Newimpartial (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your latest comment, RAN1, I did say that, but I also specified The slight of hand you are doing between fact and opinion - essentially, accusing sources of being biased in service of your own biases - isn't based on WP policy and really ought to be ignored in determining article content, then Advocating the removal of content cited to academic sources because an editor happens to disagree with said content is simply not how Wikipedia works and subsequently the following:

The statement in mainspace for which the Monque source is currently used (as one of two sources) is, The LGB Alliance has been described ... by articles in two scholarly journals as "trans-exclusionary". The idea that the article in question is not appropriate for this attributed statement in mainspace reads like special pleading not based in any of the WP:UPPERCASE to which you have gesticulated in this conversation.

Your accusation that I repeatedly insist that primary sources are undebatable because OR is not, I think, bourne out by the actual discussion as it transpired. Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shibbolethink

I got the hell out of this space a few months ago due to how much disruption is present, but I would overall consider myself "uninvolved" in this dispute and do not remember how Newimpartial felt about any of the old disputes and don't think it's particularly important to look. I have an inkling that they and I have disagreed a few times in the past. I have never heard of RAN1 before.

Regardless of that, this seems overall to be an extremely clear content dispute and thus inappropriate for AE. Nothing here is particularly actionable from an AE perspective. OP should be admonished for bringing an obvious content dispute to AE, and directed to pursue much more appropriate avenues like WP:3O, WP:RFCs, and WP:DRN in the future. This is a waste of everyone's time here. User:RAN1, if I were you, I would actually strongly consider withdrawing this.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

see this ANI discussion where several editors tell RAN1 filing here at AE is a bad idea. They were right. — Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 22:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statment by Loki

Just like above, I think this filing should be discarded as obviously frivolous. Even if everything the filer claimed were true, it's not a violation of discretionary sanctions to argue about the content of a page on its talk page. Loki (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanielRigal

I'm struggling to see what Newimpartial has done wrong except maybe allow themself to get slightly more wound up by an argumentative and disruptive editor than is advisable. I can't see how that is sanctionable. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Hard smelly trout for RAN1 for this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red-tailed hawk

Ordinarily, a master's thesis is not considered reliable, though some might be if they are particularly influential and widely cited in their field (like A Symbolic Analysis of Relay and Switching Circuits). But frankly I don't see evidence that the master's thesis that the filer notes as being one of these. While the existence of the thesis technically defeats WP:OR claims, it doesn't defeat issues related to WP:NPOV (since we only care about things written about in reliable sources under that policy). That being said, I have no idea what this thesis has to do with actions by Newimpartial, who does not appear to have made any contentious edits that cite that thesis.

If you want something to examine about Newimpartial's recent history, I would point to a clear case where they inserted a BLP violation into an article on a journalist rather than following WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, but I don't think that alone is sufficient to warrant an AE complaint since they're not edit warring the BLP violation back into the article. It seems reasonable to close this thread without action. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: I stated that I have no idea what this thesis has to do with actions by Newimpartial, who does not appear to have made any contentious edits that cite that thesis (emphasis added). Like you, I find it quite odd that it's being brought up in this thread by the filer. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Colin

Remember when mobile phones had buttons and you could get an accidental call from a handbag. Muffled noise and then it cuts out. This filing makes about as much sense. Trout required. -- Colin°^Talk 19:24, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XOR'easter

I do not think the description of the diffs provided above accurately reflects Newimpartial's argument, and I see nothing sanctionable in the complaint. XOR'easter (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

This is a content / policy dispute. You cannot drag people to AE for disagreements over policy unless their position is so clearly out of line as to break the presumption of good faith, which is plainly not the case here - the arguments that someone is using an WP:OR interpretation to decide whether to include or exclude content (and that policy forbids this), or that we are not allowed to second-guess our source's sources on a case-by-case basis, are extremely common ones. --Aquillion (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Newimpartial

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

Let's close this one also. The OP should think carefully about the feedback provided, both above and in the ANI thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colnago2253

Blocked indef as a normal admin action. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Colnago2253

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Anita5192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Colnago2253 (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/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions

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

November 15, 2022 Persistent posts of pseudoscience. This user has been warned several times.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[113]

Discussion concerning Colnago2253

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 Colnago2253

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Colnago2253

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

Indeffed as a normal administrative action as not here to improve the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tys90

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 Tys90

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Mako001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:55, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tys90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa#Amendment (November 2021)

Fairly straightforward case here. New SPA goes around changing "Somaliland" to "Somalia" or removing it entirely, including in cases where the subject's name actually includes "Somaliland". Continued despite 4 standard warnings, a DS alert and a non-templated comment that their edits weren't acceptable (see their talkpage). Scored a 31hr block, but this probably needs to be upgraded to an indef AE block under DS:

User talk:Tys90 large number of warnings and such
19 November 2022 Jumping straight in, second edit involved removing several instances to Somalialand with the edit summary "Fixed typo"
19 November 2022 same again
19 November 2022 DS warning given
19 November 2022 Edits after DS warning
19 November 2022 Additional disruption after DS warning

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Not applicable

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 area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 19 November 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Tys90

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 Tys90

Statement by Ad Orientem

The respondent was last warned on the 19th instant. They were blocked for 31 hrs on the same day. I would likely have indeffed them as NOTHERE had I been the responding admin on the 19th. But that's water under the bridge. They have not edited in the roughly nine days since their block expired. If they resume their disruptive behavior the correct venue is WP:AIV or WP:ANI. As an uninvolved admin I urge the committee to summarily decline this requested case. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tys90

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

Tys90 is currently blocked but should respond above once the block expires. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a few more days, but I think this is an easy indef DE block -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]