Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive321

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Drsmoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nishidani (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/Palestine-Israel articles

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

1. 15:49, 10 August 2023 "That is rubbish, a gross distortion, that's beginning to look deliberate."
2. 06:08, 9 August 2023 "an insidiously obscure allusion to private interests motivating the former's work"
3. 15:18, 6 August 2023 "It's extremnely embarrassing to have to tutor anyone in the abcs of how to read, write and quote."
4. 16:32, 1 August 2023"That innuendo in the title is the careless consequence of not thinking about, or even grasping, what the article writes up."
5. 10:37, 8 August 2023"Whoops, there I go again, making a classical allusion that no one will understand. (]Wilamowitz once berated Lachmann for treating the Iliad as if it were "ein übles Flickwerk", a 'wretched patchwork'. There's nothing epic about this article, as opposed to the epical length of the talk page discussion."
6. 09:30, 8 August 2023"Every day I talk for an hour, socially, with local tradesmen mates about how to fix things, any common piece of household technology. Mention some problem with the washer, or TV, or antennae, and they put their heads together and nut out one or two solutions. Some people at tables nearby use the occasions, as they listen in, to keep complaining about the cost of laundry, the taxes on televisions, the change in antennae frequency due to the incompetence of the group controlling transmissions."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 14:33, 14 April 2019 "banned for a week...they are misusing Wikipedia as a battleground and casting aspersions on others"
2. 19:48, 13 March 2017 "Nishidani clearly violated the consensus required sanction placed by the Committee on all ARBPIA articles."

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Edit:I want to note that I'm not seeking any sort of ban. What I would like, in fact, is for the bludgeoning and hostility to cease so that editors on the talk page can make progress.

Nishidani has been making personal attacks, assuming bad faith, and casting aspersions on the talk page of Zionism, race, and genetics. Nishidani has also been intensively bludgeoning discussion. Of the last 50 talk page edits, Nishidani has added 76% of the content. While many of these edits are meaningful, a large number are strictly WP:FORUM, off-topic, non-sequiturs, or comments on their own comments that have absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the discussion. Along with the personal attacks, the amount of noise and disruption caused by the WP:Forum talks and incessant bludgeoning has greatly increased the difficulty of organizing/working through information on the discussion page.

Another note, Nishidani was requested to stop bludgeoning by another editor a week ago. "you need to stop bludgeoning this discussion and leave room for other editors to participate."

The claims of "Stonewalling" have absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. In fact the opposite is true. After I spent hours writing a detailed, 18 point list of article issues, Nishidani's response was as follows: "I don't know whether there's any point in replying to your points."

Yesterday I posted two concrete examples of article issues, Nishidani's response was first "Don't invent stuff that in rebuttal and counterrebuttal will jam this article with useless argufying.", and then ""That is rubbish, a gross distortion, that's beginning to look deliberate." Nishidani completely refuses to engage with any argument they have no interest in, and then claims that the person who has been making the argument is "stonewalling", which is absurd and demonstrably false. I do AGF though, because the talk page is so incredibly, overwhelmingly, muddled, that it is very hard to follow who has said what where. And yes Iskandar323, when editors refuse to engage with your points, and then have the audacity to accuse the users making the points of "stonewalling", it is reasonable to conclude that there is an impasse and request additional comments.

Edit: Whoa, at no point whatsoever did I accuse ANYONE of being antisemitic or of attacking Israelis. Full stop. I am more than tired of his false claims that I am making "innuendo" or an "insidiously obscure allusion" or whatever hidden message Nishidani chooses to read into my edits. Drsmoo (talk) 04:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: Your reposting the link doesn't change the fact that I never accused anyone of being antisemitic or attacking Israelis. Full stop. Also, why are you linking to posts by Onceinawhile and attributing them to me? Drsmoo (talk) 05:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: I see I've gone well over 20 diffs. I wasn't aware of that rule, and over replied. I take umbrage at the repeated assertions that I'm transmitting "insidious" and "obscure allusion"(s). Drsmoo (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

21:27, 10 August 2023

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.

Josiah Ober recently published a very important book on the microfoundations of social order. In the overture he wrote that the ground on which our social intercourse is anchored consists of:-

'the self-conscious, deliberative use of reason as an instrument for the strategic pursuit of truth.'Josiah Ober, The Greeks and the Rational:The Discovery of Practical Reason, University of California Press 2022 ISBN 978-0-520-38017-2 p.1

The talk page from which Drsmoo's quotes are taken is intimidatingly long, and I apologize to Arbs that they are now obliged to read it. On it, I am responsible for 195,534 bytes. The evidence for my being severely sanctioned consists of 1184 bytes. Of which 801 (points 5 and 6) are immaterial (barrel-scraping). The gravamen of evidence consists of 380 bytes, ripped from context, but still technically, could be interpreted as indications that, in a dialogue imposed by WP:Consensus, I have lapsed in very rare moments from the strictest rules governing Wikipedia talk page dialogue. An editor must earnestly strive, whatever the differences, to find shared ground with those who disagree with them and not resort to snarky terminology, however frustrated by an intransigent stonewalling (that is what is going on, in my view) insouciant of all attempts to use logic and evidence to validate erratic claims. I take this obligation to engage very seriously. If someone disagrees on what I might think patently obvious, factual or logical, I will go to any length (unfortunately) to show at least why I think the refusal to find common ground in each instance is unreasoned. So we have 380 bytes of 195,335. If someone who is searching for a ban combs hard enough, they will find that there is fine grit for ridding Wikipedia of me in 0.194% of what I wrote there.Nishidani (talk) 12:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Drsmoo. I noticed from reading your latest diff that you quoted a statement of mine, whose meaning in context is clear, but 'garbled' (I plead fatigue). I've corrected it now. You may like to tweak your diff to allow arbs to read it as corrected. I have several diffs to show why that statement was truthful, going back to 8 July. But I will withhold them for the moment, unless they are requested.Nishidani (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

A further point. Scruple demanded I examine my edits for any evidence that might lend itself to the charge you are laying. I found one piece you missed. I used the word 'balderdash' in replying to Bobfrombrockley here. Bob might disagree, but I am under the impression our wiki relationship has been sufficiently productive and cordial to allow that kind of remonstrative exclamation. He's welcome to correct me if I err.Nishidani (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish, this is a personal attack - stating that my asking 'What's the problem?' bears a 'tone' you find offensive - by your own criterion, as is the inference that I have a ‘‘chronic ..aggressive disdain for other editors’. You are using the very language you find evidence for deploring in me. Nishidani (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I used the word ‘stonewalling’. I had in mind Drsmoo's repeating for an entire month, the same opinion, with variations, regardless of considerable efforts to disabuse him of his belief that evidence from researchers amounted to a disparaging attack on both the researchers ('genetic studies on Jews are 'Zionist' etc)and Israelis. He made this claim first here, then here, and here (the innuendo is that the very article is antisemitic). See also here, here,here, here, and here.

A full month later, he was still repeating it to Pharos, ignoring every disproof or request for evidence in the interim. Apparently it is I who bludgeons people. Nishidani (talk) 04:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Whoa? See here Nishidani (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I know Nishidani writes a lot of brilliant prose but they can be abrasive, and should rein it in. See here. This has a similar look - accusing their interlocutor of being too dense to understand what complexities lie within their expertise. That's bullying, and it's not appropriate. Andre🚐 02:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

To response to Nableezy: I did not seek to upbraid or sanction Nishidani. I simply attempted to engage with them on their objection, to which they questioned my literacy and competence in a way that was incivil. That is my concern and it is certainly repeated here. Andre🚐 20:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I just want to reiterate that I have great respect for logical debate. But Nishidani too frequently departs from the abstract nature of the discussion into the realm of accusation and of characterization of the opponent's ability to read, their ability to understand, and in dismissing others' views in an uncharitable and incivil way. It's quite reasonable to delve into a complex and rational argument and attack an opposing viewpoint, even aggressively. It is not reasonable to say something along the lines of, hey man you don't even seem to be able to read. The line being crossed is not one of tone. Nobody is being the tone police or punishing long-windedness. It's about crossing a line where you say I think you're being deliberately dense and I'm asking if something is wrong with you. Andre🚐 04:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no explanation above of how the diffs presented violate anything, neither any behavioural policy, far less CT sanctions. Mildly abrasive responses about people's editing are not personal attacks, and this has nothing to do with WP:ARBPIA restrictions. Given that this page is already under discussion at ANI, that would have been the place, if anywhere, to raise this rather low-level complaint. In the context of that discussion being ongoing, this filing has the taste of an attempted punitive/retributive action and if anything should boomerang as a waste of community time. Given that the OP is very actively and self-evidently stonewalling discussions on the page, the overall lack of respect for community time is becoming an issue. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: The second diff is not even on a CT page, but is simply the post on ANI, which is already visible to anyone who cares, and any administrator considering it sanctionable is already able to act upon it there. However, the burden for personal attacks is somewhat higher at ANI, as that is precisely the venue where editors got to lay their complaints, making it different from off-topic griping on an article talk page, because at ANI the topic is gripes. Per the first diff, I would say that "beginning to look deliberate" is an accurate characterization of many of your behaviours on the talk page, including your refusal to provide the feedback on what you think merits a POV tag - a bare minimum level of input about which you have been largely unforthcoming, e.g.: here, where instead editors have to follow you on the logically circuitous journey of you refusing to provide feedback, accusing others of failing to respond to your feedback and attacking you for it (and themselves being the problem), then declaring there is an impasse (here because you refuse to provide feedback), before concluding that the only way to get any feedback (in the absence of any from you) is via RFC. This was basically where I gave up on the discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Swarm, @Tamzin, @Black_Kite: FYI, the talk page has cooled off a lot recently, so it feels like the situation and overheating of tempers that led to ANI and this AE has already somewhat self-limited. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Before this turns into an ANI page, responders should keep their comments within their own sections. For the sake of good order, filer is subject of a complaint at ANI filed by Nishidani here. I do not see where any complaint has been raised by filer at Nishidani talk page? Atm, this appears a tit for tat filing and the charges without merit or at the very least any such charges can be leveled at least equally at the filer.Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Andre, seems odd to bring that up when Nishidani was indeed correct that you were misconstruing what he said, despite his repeated attempts to explain it. See here for you accepting how you had so blatantly misunderstood what he said, took offense based on your misunderstanding, and then attempted to upbraid him on the basis of that misunderstanding. So yeah, seems similar indeed. Nishidani attempts to explain his position, citing a plethora of sources, somebody takes offense to something that he didnt say, and then seeking to sanction them based on their misconstrual, purposeful or otherwise, of what he did say. nableezy - 13:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

To get this out of the way first, let me stipulate that a couple weeks ago I posted this: , but then quickly did this: , and said this: .

I've been thinking for a while about taking Nishidani to AE myself. I've held back, largely because Nishidani has been doing some very good content work on the page itself, and I didn't want to step on that. But I think those revisions are largely done now, and based upon Nishidani's repeated disruption of the article talk page, I'm inclined to think that either a page ban or a logged warning are warranted.

Here are diffs of my own, all from the article talk page:

• "It's extremnely embarrassing to have to tutor anyone in the abcs of how to read, write and quote."
• , "Proposing titles that suggest different articles is pointless." In a discussion by multiple other editors brainstorming in good faith about a possible page rename, where Nishidani alone is repeatedly trying to shut the discussion down.
• "Have you read Alice in Wonderland? Just wondering."
• After accusing me and other editors of "That innuendo in the title is the careless consequence of not thinking about, or even grasping, what the article writes up", he claims that he is merely exercising "a right to reason with the editor concerned."
• It's everyone else's fault, not his.
• "If you can't grasp the point, fine."
• Sarcasm.
• "Frankly, Bob, that's balderdash".

Nishidani is an experienced editor, and he knows that there are two Contentious Topics in effect (the other one is Race and Intelligence), and being "right" on the content issues is no excuse. I don't mind a one-off loss of temper, but this is a chronic pattern, and the aggressive disdain for other editors is getting in the way of finding consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It does look like things have quieted down a bit, although I suspect that it is because of concern about what could happen here. I'm OK with formal warnings, if that's what the admins decide, but the warnings need to be both firm and logged. And the warned editors need to know beyond any doubt that any slip-up in which the warning is forgotten will be a ticket back to here for a more severe sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Nishidani has a unique communication style, which doesn’t work for everyone, but for many of us brings a thought provoking, fresh and enjoyable editing environment. Not least because the vast majority of his edits and talk comments are thorough and source-based, and one almost always learns something new from reading them. Drsmoo has a very different style, often making short comments with thematic claims and rarely with specific evidence. Wikipedia has many editors of both types, and it is natural that these two extremes will struggle to see eye-to-eye.

I do think Drsmoo should have held the same lens up to his own comments in this month-long article discussion before opening this thread. For example, each of these four statements from earlier in the same discussion seem materially more abrasive that the diffs he provided: The entire article is… synthd together to push a POV. // And this is why the article is WP:SYNTH, first comes the opinion, and then search for keywords in Google scholar to try to support it… then slop it into the article; rinse, repeat.. // article is a collection of cherry picked sources WP:SYNTHd together to push a POV narrative // Were you sitting there pressing refresh and waiting to undo? If so, this takes tag-teaming to a new level. (the second sentence of this last one was struck through after I pointed it out).

Uninvolved editors are better placed than me to judge the merits of the competing claims (per Tryptofish and Swarm’s reference to the earlier ANI thread claiming stonewalling by Drsmoo). What is clear though is that only one of the two parties to these two disagreements has so far shown signs of introspection, reflection and consideration for the other’s perspective. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Concerning Drsmoo's second diff, "insidiously obscure allusion to private interests motivating the former’s work", that was 100% Drsmoo's own fault. Twice Drsmoo claimed that Onceinawhile and SelfStudier are not allowed to remove tags due to a "conflict of interest". Nishidani reasonably assumed that a highly experienced editor like Drsmoo would know what "conflict of interest" means on Wikipedia and that Drsmoo was accusing one or both those editors of "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". That would indeed be an insidious allusion to private interests and would deserve a rebuke. I don't in the least blame Nishidani for this misunderstanding prompted by Drsmoo's ignorance. Zero^talk 08:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Granted this was years ago, but "All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case." Nishidani seems to get "his way" by posting walls of text and usually being acerbic to people who disagrees with him, and oftentimes just chasing editors away. There is a way to disagree with people without insulting them. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

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

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Zionism, race and genetics, which contains a write up of the situation, and a formal complaint that Drsmoo is the hostile actor on that article who is endlessly propagating the dispute after failing to have the article deleted. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Drsmoo and Nishidani: You're both past the word limit. I'll grant an extra 250 words each, which puts Nishidani just barely under and leaves Drsmoo still 150 over. But as a matter of equity, Drsmoo, if you don't make any further replies, I won't enforce the word limit against what you've written so far.
  As to the merits, this is the second time this in a month that this same article has wound up here. Last time I removed Drsmoo's comment for casting aspersions. So I don't have a lot of patience for this dispute, personally. Right now it looks to me like the best approach would be a one-month page-ban (article and talk) for both Drsmoo and Nishidani. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 00:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• I would be tempted to go for a logged warning for both. These are both very experienced editors, and I would hope that a "right - knock it off, or else" warning should be enough at this point. Obviously, if it isn't, we can pull out the blocks. Black Kite (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not outright opposed to that, especially if the warning is worded with a caution that admins may impose sanctions without further warning, but also would rather not have to have a Round 3 over this same talkpage. Even supposing that some opposition to the article is ideologically-motivated, there do seem to be some good-faith content objections (N.B.: "good-faith" ≠ "correct"), and there's something to be said for coming down hard before too many editors get scared away. So, not sure. Would love to hear from a few more admins. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 17:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Per Iskandar's observation above, I'm now fine with closing this with warnings for both, and will do so today unless another admin objects, or if you would rather be the one to write it. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 15:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  As long as they go in the AELog, this works. Courcelles (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Iskandar's observation that the talk page discussion has cooled off, and discussion is ongoing in a more positive direction. However, I see many behavioural concerns and I hope the talk page does not become heated after this is closed. I think some reminders should be posted on the talk page:

• On the article talk page, editors should discuss article content only, not editor behaviour. If there is concern about editor behaviour, bring it to the appropriate noticeboard.
• Editors with SYNTH concerns should clearly outline (with quotes from the article and quotes from the sources) where they think SYNTH is occurring in the article. If an editor is not concerned with the quoted passage, they should explain why.
• Rapid back-and-forth discussions amongst two or a small group of editors is usually not helpful, especially when trying to convince the other person that they are "wrong". Instead, avoid commenting for a couple hours and let others give new perspectives.
• I think that the banner should not be removed until there is consensus on the talk page that all SYNTH concerns have been addressed. "Addressed" does not mean "resolved" or "fixed", as an editor might think a sentence is SYNTH while consensus disagrees. If consensus is that there is no SYNTH concern with a specific passage, then editors should WP:DROPTHESTICK.

• This comment was a lot longer, with concerns about specific editors addressed, but I'm hoping that general reminders will resolve the issue. I am happy to address specific editor behaviour if the talk page becomes a problem again. Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Z1720 Do you mean this in addition to the logged warnings discussed above, or instead of? I have no objection if it's the former. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 15:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: This would be in addition to the logged warnings. After reading the article's talk page discussions and reports, I am concerned with the behaviour of several editors, not just Drsmoo and Nishidani. I think these reminders would be beneficial to the talk page so that if the behaviour returns admin can take bolder action to t-ban users causing the disruption. Z1720 (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lettashtohr (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/Eastern Europe#Contentious topic designation

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

1. 30 June POV edit, removing information that Malevich is considered to be central figure of Russian Avantgarde;
2. 7 August POV, community consensus is to use Kiev for this historic period
3. 7 August Removal "Russian and French painter", replacing this with "Ukrainian painter"", non-RS
4. 7 August Still the same problem; sources are better now, though mainly partisan ones.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

CT alert, 10 June 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user made about 150 edits and are not extended-confirmed. They were given a CT alert but continued to introduce POV edits in contentious areas. All their edits in July were reverted. Today they started edit-warring in Alexandra Exter, and I gave them a warning saying that the community does not allow non-extended-confirmed users to edit on topics related to Russian-Ukraine conflict (note that this is GS, not AE, though closely related). They responded without addressing the issue, basically a textbook example of RGW. So we are here.

The edits are clearly part of WP:GS/RUSUKR. There is an ongoing process which spills out to Wikipedia, when Ukrainians attempt to define everyone who is somehow related to Ukraine (e.g. born in what is now Ukraine) as part of Ukrainian culture. Since this is typically controversial, it became the subject of propaganda wars, prominently used by both sides.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

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.

Do you mean that I have to write up and submit edits in the individual talk pages of the artists? Happy to do that but often Ukrainian citations are not accepted as facts, whereas Russian ones are accepted bc they have been around for longer. It seems to be an uphill battle to clear the bios of eastern European artists from panrussianisms if we have to debate every fact in the talk page. The problem with artists pages that the museums and exhibitions often take the basic tag line and information from wikipedia > then they write it up in the cards next to the artworks > then this info becomes published in the booklet > then the printed media becomes a proof that the original panrussian info was correct. This happened at Venice Biennale in 2022 with Ukrainian modernists. Many modernists who worked and studied in Moscow during Ukrainian-soviet war 1917-1921 were placed by some art historians in the Russian modernists camp, even though the artists in their biographies have identified as Ukraininans. To some publications they automatically become "Russian" artists. So Ukrainian modernists become Russian modernists. Some people don't care about the difference but us Ukrainians and art historians do. It'll be a long journey to discern that. Lettashtohr (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lettashtohr: feel free to rewrite this but you need to keep all your comments here. Doug Weller talk 14:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: the consensus in question is documented at WP:KYIV. There was a WP:DANZIG style discussion a few years back that resulted in the use of Kiev for topics prior to 1991, Kyiv for topics postdating 1995, and individualized assessments for topics in between those dates or that were ongoing across them. Otherwise, I have no opinion on this request as a whole. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

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

• No comment yet on the CTOP side, but since the GS aspect is related, I will note: Please actually link to WP:GS/RUSUKR, preferably with an explanation of what extendedconfirmed is, when notifying someone of those general sanctions. While awareness is not strictly required for RUSUKR blocks, I would not be comfortable blocking someone who had only been told Please note that the community decided that non-extended-confirmed edits (such as you) may not edit articles on topic related to Russian-Ukrainian conflict with no further context. Here, I have elaborated on Lettashtohr's talk. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 19:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think those edits fall under the topic restriction in WP:GS/RUSUKR anyway, she died in 1949. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:21, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hm, I thought I'd spotted something looking at this last night, but now all I see is , which predates the GS regime and isn't about article content besides.

  Anyways, to the matter at hand, @Lettashtohr: You should not be making edits anywhere on Wikipedia, but especially in a CTOP area, that you know will likely be reverted. If you can acknowledge that, and agree to seek talkpage consensus for edits about the labeling of people and things as Russian/Ukrainian/etc., or in Kiev or Kyiv, I don't see a need for sanctions at this time. If you can't agree to that, I would favor an editing restriction—probably not a full topic ban, but something tailored specifically to these labeling disputes. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 20:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Ymblanter that recent Russia-Ukraine conflicts have been a factor in increasing nationalist POV pushing on both sides, even when discussing historical figures that predate the conflict by a century or more. I would not feel confident construing GS/RUSUKR so broadly, but it's reasonable. Ymblanter might choose to refer some of the pages mentioned here to WP:RFPP/I to see if any uninvolved admin would like to apply EC protection. ARBEE has this situation covered for this page's purposes, and Tamzin has ensured that Lettashtohr is aware of the restrictions in the modern topic area.
  I am not seeing a strong case for any action here. I would caution Lettashtohr to follow WP:BRD and to use edit summaries. If they continue to revert repeatedly and without explanation, a block is almost certain to come. Ymblanter, I encourage you to track down where consensus was formed to use "Kiev" for the period relevant to Aleksandra Ekster's life, and to refer newer users there specifically. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, 74.73.224.126. I'm sure I'll find that useful, and I hope Ymblanter does as well. I was thinking it would improve discussions like this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Does anyone object to closing with a note that Lettashtohr has been informally cautioned not to make edits they know are likely to be reverted, especially pertaining to Russo-Ukrainian matters, and has said they will abide by that? -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 17:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Where has Lettashtohr stated that they will abide by not reverting re:Russian-Ukrainian matters? Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, not about reverting, but rather about making contentious changes to nationality. That's how I took Do you mean that I have to write up and submit edits in the individual talk pages of the artists? Happy to do that above, even with a "but" after it. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 18:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Their statement after "but..." does not give me confidence that Lettashtohr will abide by this without disruption, whether intentional or not. More comments to come below. Z1720 (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support:

• Placing Lettashtohr on a WP:0RR restriction on articles relating to Ukrainian and/or Russian biographies, broadly construed.
• Placing Lettashtohr under a strict "sources must be provided" requirement to all edits that change the nationality of any article from or towards Ukrainian and/or Russian designation (so a change from French to Ukrainian or Russian would be covered under this restriction, and vice-versa).
• Restricting Lettashtohr from changing Kiev to Kyiv (and vice versa) without thoroughly reading WP:KIEV and discussing this change on the article's talk page first.

While I see that Tamzin above wants to send an informal caution, and Firefangledfeathers thinks nothing more needs to be done, but I think a more formal designation would help the editor understand where their limits should be and avoid disputes in the future. Lettashtohr should be encouraged to discuss any concerns with nationality on article talk pages after supplying sources to support their preference. Z1720 (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm only mildly opposed to these measures. I worry that Lettashtohr was given almost no warnings about their conduct prior to this filing, which is why I thought to leave it at a warning. If we go with Z1720's broad outline, I'd prefer 1RR to 0RR, hoping that it encourages them to get into a good BRD groove. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: If we're going to go down the road of sanctions, which I'm still not entirely sold on, but if we were, I would prefer: Lettashtohr may not edit any article to emphasize connections to Ukraine (broadly construed) over connections to Russia (broadly construed), including changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv", without first obtaining a consensus on the talkpage, unless they are reverting to enforce an existing consensus. This is a bit stricter on nationality changes, but lacks the 0RR, which I think is overkill for the conduct discussed. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 21:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This works for me. @Z1720:, any thoughts? It would be nice to close this before we hit the two-week mark. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:31, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Works for me. Z1720 (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, want to do the honors? Can get to it in 12 hours or less if no one else chimes in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Petra0922 (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

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

1. 23:10, 24 July 2023 Personal attack against محرر البوق, accusing them of persistently and unjustifiably go after Amhara and related articles that cover the ethnic violence in Ethiopia and describing their edits as destructive, which appears to be baseless
2. 15:48 25 July 2023 Repetition of the "destructive" comment toward محرر البوق.
3. 14:33, 27 July 2023 continued personal attacks against محرر البوق.
4. 20:25, 4 August 2023 Restoration of "Amhara genocide" in wikivoice in the lead, despite extensive recent discussion on the talkpage finding that nobody else but Petra0922 supports the inclusion of this.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

User is aware of the contentious topics sanction per this comment from May 2022, responding to a discretionary sanctions notice given by Beeblebrox on 19:17, 10 May 2022 regarding the Horn of Africa topic area.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Their old username "AmharaWAAGpublish" suggests that they are associated with the advocacy group "Amhara Women Association Against Genocide". I think that they are too emotionally invested in this topic to contribute to it in a neutral manner, and I think their comments and edit warring above above show that they are not capable of collaborative editing regarding this issue. At the very least, they need to be firmly told not to engage in personal attacks.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

03:10, 5 August 2023

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.

I like to start by saying that my edits are international and not limited to Ethiopia, and you will notice that I am focused on global human rights and war articles.

• For the allegation that my edits represent an organization, that is not true. As an incoming newbie editor in January 2022, I had no idea about the rules of individual accounts, and due to their inspiration related to the women's group, I randomly (naively) picked that name. Then as soon as I learned this was a misrepresentation of the group while I was actually putting in edits as an individual, I understood that was misleading, and completely removed the irrelevant account name. Another experienced editor helped me understand that, and the history can be seen on my users page. Stating again, my edits are the work of mine alone per Wikipedia guidelines and don't represent any organization.
• Giving some background on the early dialogues between myself and Hemiauchenia

As far as I can tell, Hemiauchenia stated inaccurate information in discussions dismissing what was disclosed on sources as the work of Amhara activists. At the same time, the editor was persistent in aggressively modifying the article in the middle of active discussions as it was also witnessed by @Random person no 362478479. Here is the link for the details of the discussion where I pointed out that Hemiauchenia was giving misleading information. The edits that I called destructive related to محرر البوق were manifested in the form of:

1. shaping narratives (especially for Tigray) without adding edit summaries discussing them first or without providing verifiable sources. This was also demonstrated with patterns of modifying fatality numbers and removing victim groups (those who were reportedly killed by Tigray forces)
2. demonstrated patterns of "cleaning up" contents that list the Tigray People Liberation Front as the perpetrator of Amhara and other civilians in Ethiopia, and sections that captured the dark histories of Tigray. At the same time, the editor consistently removed many war, ethnic, and violence-related non-Tigray contents in nature- providing misleading edit summaries (framed them as "not sourced.")
3. rushes to nominate Ethiopian and HOA notable articles for frequent deletion without notifying contributors and making an effort on diligent. I noticed most of them were voted to keep
4. provoking other editors who work on Ethiopia or other non-Tigray articles and ended up getting blocked- for getting caught up in the altercation with the same editor
5. others include adding multiple tags on Amhara materials to the point of making them difficult to manage and engaging in a persistent edit warring and tendentious editing- demanding others to provide sources to disprove the editors' point of view.

Please note that I just removed a list of 13 separate examples in order to meet the 500-word limit. They can be accessed here Petra0922 (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Random person no 362478479, Thank you! I am beginning to add more information now. It may be some sections at a time. Petra0922 (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I am also curious about this same question. Given the list of evidences gathered and concerning matters against محرر البوق that I wasnt able to completely list them here (due to word limits), I like to open a new compliant.Petra0922 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Let me do that. Petra0922 (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

The edit summary for the restoration of "genocide" in wiki-voice includes "Discussion still active." I agree with Petra0922 that the discussion is still active (there is an RfC now). On the other hand the discussion currently trends towards not using "genocide" in wiki-voice and therefore Hemiauchenia's removal was justified and reasonable. I don't think that Petra0922 should have reverted, but I also don't think that this revert was completely unjustified. The accusations against محرر البوق are serious and if there is evidence for them should have been raised at the appropriate noticeboard. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 09:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Please bare with me. @Petra0922 That's a bit outside my comfort zone. But I'll bear with you. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Procedural question Should the criticism of محرر البوق brought forward by Petra0922 be discussed in a separate section or should the two related issues be treated together? -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Petra0922 These accusations are completely baseless and unfounded. Its pretty obvious that you are trying to deflect this on me, by going through my history and cherrypicking my edits from months ago. Like I said before, if you have a problem with my "destructive edits" then file a report on the ANI, I would love to explain my reasoning behind those edits. However, you persistently accusing me of being biased and attacking my edits as being "destructive" on a talk page discussion exclusively about content is indeed a personal attack (WP:WIAPA and WP:ASPERSIONS) and seems to be the reason why this enforcement request was opened. Take accountability instead of trying to drag other users into this. محرر البوق (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

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

• @Hemiauchenia:, please clarify why the reported editor is aware of the CTOP protocols. Courcelles (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

  (Or at least remove the laundry list of reasons someone can be aware and place the actual reason in that place. Courcelles (talk) 04:58, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Petra0922: Your current statement is 1,297 words long. Please bring it down to 500. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 19:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• I'm leaning toward a logged warning to Petra to focus on content and stay civil. Petra, I recommend following the steps of WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE if you have an issue with someone else's conduct, which starts with politely discussing it at their talk page. At a glance, I don't think there's much meat to your complaints about محرر البوق. Starting an AFD that leads to keep is not itself disruptive, and neither is deleting an infobox after what looks like rough consensus developed that it was misleading. They forgot to include an edit summary but they added one within minutes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• I support giving a warning to Petra0922 concerning comments towards محرر البوق. Petra0922 goes into uncivil territory when they commented on the users editing habits instead of discussing the content. If Petra0922 is concerned with a user's behaviour, they should discuss it with them civilly on their talk page. Considering their recent interaction, I do not suggest that Petra0922 opens any discussions about محرر البوق's behaviour in the near future.
  I do not think Petra0922's addition to Amhara genocide was a good idea, but there is an RfC open on the talk page so that is the appropriate avenue to resolve this. I do not see further disruption from Petra0922 on this page.
  Concerning محرر البوق's edits: I do not support any action towards this editor, as their actions seem to reach the realm of WP:BEBOLD. I would caution محرر البوق that pages regarding Horn of Africa are designated contentious topics and they might need to adopt a more conservative definition of BEBOLD when editing in these topics. Z1720 (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Firefangledfeathers, I don't believe you've closed an AE thread yet. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 17:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SamX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious topic designation

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

1. 13:52, 7 August 2023 (UTC): Restoring Battle of Sangamner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to preferred version, characterizing another user's edits as "vandalism" after I'd advised them not to
2. 14:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Reverting sourced material with the edit summary Give your citation dude else you will be banned by disrupting this article for no reason
3. 18:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Polemics: You are so ignorant regarding Maratha history
4. 19:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Essentially the same comment as above
5. 19:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Another revert on Battle of Sangamner, again describing another user's edits as "vandalism"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None that I am aware of

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 21:57, 5 August 2023‎ (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Admins: Please note that, while this section is titled "Melechha", I am requesting an investigation of and potential enforcement against all three editors mentioned in this report.

Melechha requested assistance on my talk page after I warned them for adding a copyright violation to Siege of Ponda, possibly under the mistaken impression that I'm an administrator, saying that they were "tired of these vandalists like @ThePakistanihistorian and others for their external interests". I wasn't sure what they meant at first since they didn't link to the article under dispute or provide diffs, but a quick look at the editor interaction analyzer revealed a dispute on Battle of Sangamner. I explained to them that TPH's edits weren't vandalism and advised them to resolve the issue on the talk page or at an appropriate dispute resolution venue. Since several other parties appeared to be involved in that dispute, I posted contentious topic notifications on their talk pages. I also noted that they also seemed to be using the account Melechha2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and advised them of WP:SOCK, to which they replied Yes I have been using my alt for editng with PC.

Shortly afterward, two other parties to the dipsute (ThePakistanihistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Aryan330 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) began commenting on my talk page. It's worth noting that Aryan330 is indefinitely p-blocked blocked by Black Kite from Mughal–Maratha Wars and has been warned by Abecedare for disruption on Draft:Battle of Umberkhind (an article at the time) and Battle of Pavan Khind. I repeatedly advised the two editors to instead discuss the matter on the article's talk page or at appropriate dispute resolution venues and refrain from accusing each other of vandalism, with little success. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also revert-warred on the article, although, to their credit, they engaged in discussion on the article's talk page without accusing anyone of vandalism. I only alerted them to the contentious topics procedures just now, which is an oversight on my part.

Since I'm not just requesting enforcement against Melechha, I've compiled diffs from the two other editors below. These diffs might not be exhaustive.

Aryan330

• Contentious topics alert

1. 17:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC) Incivility: did you have common knowledge about history atleast?
2. 02:32, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Calling another user's edits "vandalism" after I'd warned them not to

ThePakistanihistorian

• Contentious topics alert

1. 05:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Accusing Meleccha of vandalism and stridently called for them to be sanctioned
2. 8 August 2023 (UTC) Personal attack/WP:OWN: don't you ever dare to rechange it again, like even the amateurs know that it's a mughal victory
3. 8 August 2023 Personal attacks: why are you being so sensitive about it, you are trying to be the victim here while you started this entire argument, do better.

I'm at my wit's end here. It's obvious that there's an intractable dispute going on that I don't have the necessary experience to deal with. It's very late in my timezone and I'll be fairly busy tomorrow, so I probably won't be able to reply here until 18:00 UTC. This is my first time participating at AE so I apologize if I've screwed up here. I'd also welcome feedback on my haphazard attempts to get the parties to resolve the dispute amongst themselves. — SamX 07:20, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Abecedare and Black Kite since I bungled the pings earlier. — SamX 07:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Melechha
• Aryan330
• ThePakistanihistorian

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.

First of all I had to say that there are some false allegations made by user samX as he said warned by Abecedare for disruption on Draft:Battle of Umberkhind (an article at the time) and Battle of Pavan Khind,which is untrue & I had told him at his talk page now,https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Special:MobileDiff/1169307732. I had started the discussion as the topic name "Vandalism" thought I apologise even after not knowing what my mistake was!I just reported @samX that :- user عبدالرحمن4132 is voilating three revert rule,nothing more than that. thought I shouldn't use the word like "Vandalism" as I already apologized about that in talk page of SamX https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/User_talk:SamX I will not repeat the same. Thought the query I had raised,nothing wrong in that as user عبدالرحمن4132 had made 4 reverts in less than 48 hours https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sangamner&action=history this user is also warned by samX previously,see https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Special:MobileDiff/1169256728, https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Special:MobileDiff/1169300167. & It was my first & last edit on that page,I had neither edited further nor engaged in edit war as user عبدالرحمن4132 engaged. Now he is also making articles on by one by sticking to only one source jadunath sarkar which is pretty dated source & can't be used as citation.The senior Wikipedia users also said same the user Abecedare & RegentsPark also said the same,see :- https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Special:MobileDiff/1163841364. If one source is not considered as reliable & the user is creating articles one by one using that only source then as a Wikipedia user I had to raise a query & that what I done. Note:- I had not Disrupted the page seige of basavapattan as the user accusing me on false claims https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Special:MobileDiff/1169305568. you can see that page where I even don't edited single time:- https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Siege_of_Basavapatan. He is adding wrong word "Disruption" as I just told him that his edits Is seems to be unconstructive & I will edit it soon & please don't distrib talk page of other user as he disturbed the talk page of Materialscientist & I just said to him that we can discuss it on that respective article & that's why I told him to come at page of basavapattan,see https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Special:MobileDiff/1169297504. About ThePakistanihistorian :- I had just commented that he had used abusive language for personal attack which was addressed by samX himself here. The issues raised by samX which are familiar with the issues I raised https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Special:MobileDiff/1169288983https:/ ,https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Special:MobileDiff/1169292668, https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Special:MobileDiff/1169289164. Even after that I addressed him on his talk page,but rather than correcting a mistake,he warned me https://en.m.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Special:MobileDiff/1169292668 Thank you

@Abecedare First of all I was blocked for the things I do in past on the page mughal maratha wars which is only because of not knowing Wikipedia policies that time & thats over there.but that doesn't mean you can judge me on that basis!

No one is completely neutral in whole Wikipedia because even on that page mughal maratha wars those two users Capitals00 & aman.kumar.goel were pro mughals or anti Maratha but black kite had blocked only me because that time I didn't know about Wikipedia policies.But now I am aware of that. You said about WP:RS applied

to history articles, I wonder how you are saying that even by knowing that after that I was discussed about battle of Pavankhind in talk page without harming main article pag e? Even at last I didn't Edited if after knowing my mistake & realising what WP:RSis, especially releted to history articles

Thats why I am convincing user عبدالرحمن4132 about his mistake in his latest created articles. that's other point that he is accusing me for Disruption rather than working on that or thanking me.

My Condition Now :- I am totally aware of Wikipedia Policies,WP:RS especially releted to History articles.

So think next time before talking about that.

My role in this discussion:- This discussion is mainly because of 2 reasons.

1) Disruption on page Battle of Sangamner :- I had edited or reverted article section of that page only single time,while in talk page I written more than 3 comments.

2) Unnecessary Discussion on talk page of samX :- though I only reported about Disruption of user عبدالرحمن4132 because of violating Wikipedia three revert rule as he had made 4 reverts in less than 48 hours which is true & you can check this on article section of page of Battle of sangamner.The only mistake in whole I committed is I started the discussion with wrong topic name Vandalism as I should had write it as Disruption.this is the only mistake I done & speaking honestly this is not that very wrong thing I done as I accept my mistake but thats not that very wrong same as عبدالرحمن4132 done by violating that rule. Aryan330 (talk) 03:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Editorkamran The word which you are claiming to be descrimnery is Mleccha. But that user is having the name Melechha which is not appearing to be related or as same as the word you mentioned Aryan330 (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello!

First of all, the user seems to have removed my sources, which prove that the Battle of Sangamner was a Mughal victory, and used a source that says otherwise. I fixed the article according to the source, but still to no avail. I've taken this to the talk page to discuss until the user, Melechha, accused me of being vandalistic and ignorant, assuming I'm committing bad faith on the article. He also assumed that one of the sources I've provided was not only that but said that one of my sources, which is Jadunath Sarkar, claimed he corrected his mistake in his fifth edition, and I've asked him to show me that fifth edition but never replied till now.

The other user, @Aryan330 had also begun disrupting my articles by removing the source in Battle of Shivneri Fort and Siege of Shivneri Fort, he also attempting to disrupt my article in future which I created Siege of Basavapatan , which is Jadunath Sarkar, who provides great military details about battles, claiming it is a dated source I don't know what that means, but you cannot remove sourced content just because you find an issue with him; otherwise, the reasoning he provides doesn't really make up for it, claiming the following in Battle of Pavan Khind talk page: & about this battle it should not as his works are primarily depend on persion sources and sardesai said that persion sources remained silent on this Battle for reputation.

Due to his bad English, I'm assuming he's talking about Persian sources, which he seems to have an issue with.

Melechha should be blocked for username violation alone. His username is a slur used for foreigners. See this and also our page on Mleccha. Editorkamran (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Placing myself here since I have previously interacted with Aryan3000 (see here and here) and Melechha (see here) regarding sources/content and, IMO, neither seem to have an adequate grasp of WP:RS especially as applied to history articles. This combined with their obvious pro-Maratha leanings in the centuries old Maratha-Mughal wars (which unfortunately have relevance to religio-cultural wars in contemporary India and Pakistan) makes them somewhat of a time-sink in this topic area. This is not to absolve the other editors involved in the fracas whose conduct I haven't taken a look at. Abecedare (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

A plague-on-both-your-houses-approach is needed, except for Editorkamran. Melechha needs an username-ban, as argued. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

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

• Melechha is problematic in both username and editing. Indeffed them and their sock. This does not resolve this filing, though, despite its naming. Courcelles (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Just thinking aloud here, but I wonder if a sourcing restriction would be beneficial on some of these Mughal–Maratha Wars articles. No restoring non-academic sources without consensus, something like that. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 15:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support placing Mughal–Maratha Wars articles under a WP:1RR restriction and "consensus required" restriction per WP:CTOP. Also support placing these articles under an "unreferenced edits may be reverted" and imposing a requirement that users who revert sourced information must immediately open a discussion on the talk page. While I like Tamzin's suggestion above regarding academic sources, I would rather avoid getting into discussions about what is an academic source, and focus more on editors resolving disputes in discussions or RfC. If the problem continues, I would support an academic sources-only restriction. My opinions on specific editor restrictions below:

• If Melechha is unblocked, I suggest that they be placed on an immediate topic-ban from articles relating to the Mughal–Maratha Wars. Melechha should not be unblocked until they can describe what vandalism is in regards to Wikipedia.
• ThePakistanihistorian should be topic banned from Mughal–Maratha Wars articles for WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN behaviour.
• Aryan330 and ThePakistanihistorian should be advised to read WP:VAND. If they continue to characterise good-faith edits as vandalism, they may be blocked without warning.
• All three editors should be restricted to discussing the content of this article on the article's talk page or appropriate dispute resolution notice boards. No more messages about this on SamX's talk page, or anywhere else. If they are concerned with the conduct of another editor, they should open a new thread at AE.

Thank you SamX for trying to resolve this dispute and bringing this to AE. Z1720 (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: I think widespread CR restrictions could be overkill, just because CRs are quite heavy-duty. I've gone and looked at all the articles at Template:Campaignbox Later Mughal-Maratha Wars and checked their past disruption levels. What I suggest starting with is:

• Mughal–Maratha Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): indef 1RR & indef ECP
• Battle of Sangamner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): indef 1RR & indef semi
• Battle of Kalyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): indef semi
• Siege of Shivneri Fort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): 3-month 1RR
• Battle of Shivneri Fort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): 3-month 1RR

With the understanding that any admin should feel free to escalate these sanctions, including up to a CR, if they prove insufficient, and that of course any admin is allowed to impose any of the standard restrictions on any Mughal–Maratha article. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 05:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I’d EC all of these. Especially if we’re going to 1RR. Courcelles (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

No objection for the four I'm suggesting 1RR on. For Kalyan, I do think indef semi is all that's needed, no 1RR or ECP at this time: Basically all reverts in the history are established editors reverting driveby unsourced changes by IPs (probably 1 or 2 IP-hoppers). -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 14:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair point, my point was I don’t think 1RR can really work unless it’s either alongside ECP. Theres just too much drive-by nonsense in this topic. I’d try the temporary 1RR, but with an indef ECP on the last two, this entire environment might get better once we limit it to somewhat experienced editors. Courcelles (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. Well, I'm good to close then, with Z1720's suggested user sanctions + my suggested page sanctions as modified by your ECP suggestion for the 1RR'd ones, with the caveat that I think Z1720's last bullet point can just be a warning. Not because a restriction would be unwarranted, but because it will be moot for 2/3 regardless, and because if the two not-currently-indeffed editors do continue to behave like that after a warning, the next step is likely an indef. Plus as a warning it can be general, not just about the articles at issue. I'd go with You are warned against excessive discussion of content or conduct issues on unrelated pages. Please follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in the future. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 18:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with this, so long as the discussions on SamX's talk page have stopped. SamX deserves to not have to deal with this on their talk page. Z1720 (talk) 21:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

KoA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Leyo (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#Contentious_topic_designation

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions

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

1. August 20, 2016 The single user opposing it by stressing non-applicable guideline/essay might have some kind of agenda. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS
2. October 17, 2018 You have a well-known history of man-on-a-mission edits. Your actions are not the consensus. WP:TPNO
3. October 17, 2018 I wouldn't call it filibustering, but the fact that he explained his point of view (that has been well known before) in detail does not make it more valid. Switching to veiled accusations.
4. June 2, 2023 Overall, actions of certain users seem to have led to a bias in the selection of references used in this field. More veiled accusations with "certain users", more background in Recent edits section below.
5. June 4, 2023 You are describing your own behavior here, in past and now. WP:POT when cautioned the 3rd time about aspsersions/CT designation.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on
• August 21, 2016
• October 17, 2018
• June 4, 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This comes off the heels of a recent admin action review started by Doug Weller on August 6 where Leyo made a bad block against me both on substance and as a WP:INVOLVED admin. One of the main suggestions from that review was to look at an interaction ban. Before this, I had been dealing with aspersions from Leyo in GMO/pesticide topics in article space in violation of WP:TPNO since 2016. The sniping was sporadic enough then I hoped sanctions weren't needed. Given the recent escalation of that behavior to using admin tools in that hounding, I'm requesting an interaction-ban be imposed on Leyo towards me.

Older WP:TPNO sniping and aspersions

I warned Leyo about WP:ASPERSIONS in the GMO topic 2016 and 2018. The older diffs in evidence show a history of under-the-radar sniping/battleground. Back at the GMO ArbCom, we crafted that aspersions principle because people would take to the talk page to bludgeon/poison-the-well with comments ranging from broadly accusing editors of having an agenda without evidence, COI, etc. to outright or thinly veiled comments insinuating someone was a Monsanto shill.

The "You have a well-known history of man-on-a-mission edits" comment shows the poisoning-the-well that's part of the problem. There they tried singling me out on talk pages as just a lone actor with an agenda. In that case, others had to chime in to contradict that mischaracterization. Generally the interactions were only occasional sniping, but still disrupted talk pages.

Recent edits

I cautioned about the GMO restrictions again just a few months ago between Leyo's certain users hounding comment above where they had not edited until after I posted in the previous section and promoting a WP:FRINGE organization (denial of scientific consensus on GMOs) as reliable in this discussion. This revival of the battleground attitude led to Leyo following me this month into another topic outside the GMO CT where they had never edited where the block occurred. When pushed at XRV about following edits, Leyo claimed they just picked me out of RecentChanges log, which editors were highly skeptical of. @BilledMammal: also had a really good analysis of this interaction at XRV concerning Leyo following my edits.

Where that ties into the GMO topic is that they ignored warnings about their behavior toward me in this topic to the point Leyo believed they were uninvolved when they tried to block me. At the review, multiple editors were concerned Leyo appeared dismissive of the history between us and carried on as if they had just merely given me warnings through their sniping detailed above. Because nearly all of this until the recent INVOLVED issue was centered around GMO/pesticides, I'm hoping a one-way interaction ban prevents this behavior from resurfacing in agriculture topics where we cross paths given the severity of the bad block I just had to deal with. KoA (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Admin replies

Seraphimblade just to be clear, I opened in this AE so that I don't have to worry about the GMO-based interaction pursuing me anymore (the action reviewed at XRV has been the sole exception outside this CT topic). The admin conduct was already addressed at XRV, so there wouldn't by much for us to rehash here on that except the GMO behavior that led to that escalation. I'm just looking for the simplest solution right now to be able to move on, so I thought this was more appropriate given the CT designation. I don't plan to personally ask for desysop at ArbCom because that still doesn't solve the behavior in this topic. KoA (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Tamzin, I'm at my word limit, so I'll just briefly say we regularly deal with this subject at AE with the Arb principle and WP:GAMING of it. Doug Weller also had to block an editor for aspersions just recently. It's a recurring problem in this topic with editors often making veiled claims (i.e., not specifically naming, but "certain editors" statements) of a user having an agenda in this space (and sanctioned for it).

The present concern is that while Leyo eventually said it was a bad block, they were still saying things that showed they did not really see an issue with their behavior explained at the very end of the XRV. They've only said they are taking a break from admin actions, so that's why I am still concerned about the "normal" editor interaction side here in the future. At least as the target here over the years, I think the admin-related discussion can be set aside for now if it's clear the non-admin pursuit of me will stop, however that occurs. KoA (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

Sorry for the late response due to the holiday season.
Over the years, I've watchlisted a number of articles that have been a target of major disputes, even though the articles aren't within my primary interests. As far as time allowed, I have been trying to keep an eye on NPOV (acknowledging that I have been devoting more time to such tasks in de.wikipedia). In some cases, I have noticed deviations from NPOV. In some of these articles, KoA was involved.
I feel that I am being put in the NGO/environmental activism corner. I therefore would like to provide an example that shows a different point of view: A few years ago, a very knowledgeable user in the field of agriculture was indef-blocked for suspected undisclosed paid editing on behalf of an agrochemical company/association (confirmed by a too hasty closed block review). I had pushed for a more thorough block review/an unblock, although such a procedure is not foreseen. I was criticized by several users for being pro agrochemical industry. Being criticized for not being eutral in two opposing ways could be an indication of having an intermediate position. In any case, it's a key aim of mine to work towards NPOV.
BTW, it seems to me that KoA is pretty quick when it comes to warning other users such as recently fellow admin Steven Walling for edit-warring after a single revert.
As previously mentioned it's striking to see the difference in KoA's approach to content disputes, depending on whether he prefers the pre-dispute/edit-war version or the other one:

• If he prefers the pre-dispute/edit-war version, he won't allow any changes, unless a consensus on the talk page is reached (which can't be reached since he opposes, even if the majority would agree). Even when KoA is involved in the reverting/edit-war (sometimes even as the only one from "his side"), he uses edit summaries that give the impression that he is acting as an uninvolved user or even as an admin. Examples:
  • Restore to before edit warring (again). Editor was already aware they needed to get consensus for these changes on the talk page.
  • Clean up blatant edit warring at this point. IP has already been told to use the talk page.
  • Undo edit warring. This is just repeating the same issues that have been brought up in previous edits and talk page discussion with no substantive changes. Editor has been reminded multiple times to get consensus for these edits first per WP:ONUS policy.
  • Undo edit warring. Please follow WP:ONUS and previous comments on the underlying content issues here and use the talk page.
  • Please do not edit war and instead follow WP:ONUS policy by using the talk page. We absolutely should not be using sources like Gilliam who have a conflict of interest with the organic industry and relying more in sources able to handle WP:MEDRS topics.
• As seen in Dominion (2018 film), the attitude is completely different, if KoA disagrees with the pre-edit-war version: In such a case, he considers several reverts to be fine, after only waiting a few days to see if the other users repeat their disagreement.

That's all for now. --Leyo 22:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I do believe that action is required here; based on the evidence I have seen I believe that Leyo used their admin tools to target an editor they were engaged in a dispute with. This is not behavior that can be swept under the rug; at a minimum, Leyo needs to be put on notice that further abuses of the tools will result in the tools being removed. If a reviewing admin wishes me to present the evidence here I will do so, but for now I will just direct any interested editors towards the XRV discussion.

However, I don't believe that AE is the correct location for action to take place; I believe either ANI or ARBCOM is required, and over the past few days I have been considering opening an ARBCOM case on this topic, and have been leaning heavily towards doing so. Now that this AE case is open I will hold off on doing so, with my current intention being to open one after discussion has taken its course here if it is still warranted. 11:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish and Tamzin: My concern is less with repeated use of the admin tools against KoA, but instead use of the admin tools in a dispute with a less established editor, whose block will not face the same scrutiny that the block of KoA faced, or that a block of any of us would face.

This is compounded by what I felt was an inadequate reply; they haven't laid forth any plan to avoiding these actions in the future, they haven't acknowledged that it was the ongoing dispute that made them involved (as opposed to the warnings they issued KoA), or even agreed that it was clearly an inappropriate block - the closest they have come to this is saying As for the user, I can partly understand why some people think I'm involved because of the warnings I've issued to the user due to his conduct. It is difficult to draw a line, where an involvement begins. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: You're right; I forgot that. However, it doesn't address my overarching concerns - that Leyo has demonstrated themselves capable of abusing the admin tools, that we have no protection against them abusing them again, and that the next time they do it it might be to an editor whose block will face less scrutiny. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been following and commenting on this situation, so I might as well comment here. I suppose one option that is within scope for AE would be to TBAN Leyo from GMOs, but I don't see much recent evidence that this would be anything urgent to do now. I agree with other comments here, that Leyo's stated intention to step back is something that is worth giving a chance, to see if it holds up. So it seems to me to be reasonable to close this AE without formal action, and wait and see if there is any recidivism on Leyo's part. If we're lucky, there won't be, and if not, this would be something for ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll note that Leyo is continuing to edit in the GMO topic area as of today: , although there is nothing at all wrong with the edit, as it is simple gnoming and not contentious. The only reason I post about it is that I think we need to be clear as to what Leyo has or has not voluntarily agreed to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I was not involved in the content dispute that lead to KoA's block and never edited that page. However, I have been part of this saga for a few months and my one week block for disputes in this area with KoA has been mentioned in this request. I will partially repost here a comment I made in the Admin action review that was also mentioned in this case.

KoA mentions that "Leyo made a bad block against both on substance and..." (emphasis mine). As Thryduulf stated clearly in their reply to me: The community not endorsing the block is not the same as the community endorsing KOA's behaviour or any side of the content dispute - the consensus is simply that a block was not the right course of action at the time. His edits were clearly non neutral and disruptive in my view (and I sincerely hope the community widely agrees on this):

• KoA was repeatedly changing the text documentary film with the text vegan anti-livestock farming film against the objections of several different editors Special:Diff/1166825517, Special:Diff/1167229773, Special:Diff/1167935777, Special:Diff/1168612971. This was clearly disruptive, egregiously against WP:NPOV, and should have been sanctioned.

As I stated in the admin action review I feel that policies enacted for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms are being used to attack and block users (even when the disputes have little or nothing to do with the subject).

This all started months ago when I began investigating evidence of a systemic issue with the selection of our sources that privileges industry interests (here, User talk:Headbomb/unreliable/Archive 1#EWG.org Generally Unreliable?), with troubling evidence showing that CropLife International and American Chemistry Council, for example, are cited in 19 articles and 53 articles respectively, while we are regularly flagging as inaccurate, and removing entirely, citations from independent non profits and advocacy groups (such as Environmental Working Group or Pesticide Action Network). This is what started this whole saga and it is extremely worrisome. Wikipedia is highly vulnerable to manipulation from outside interests. If any proof is required of this we can look at this recent well publicised incident: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-07-17/In the media. How can we ensure the independence of Wikipedia if we use the policies we built to defend our encyclopaedia in this way? Corporate capture is extremely easy and all but guaranteed in this environment.

I'm just a casual editor so I don't have the resources to participate in this (wide reaching issue) appropriately and I am on holiday. But I hope the community will find a way to investigate thoroughly on what is happening here. This additional enforcement request does not feel right at all. It feels like a WP:BATTLEGROUND attack against an adversary. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Gtoffoletto’s comments were made after the Administrative Review and were not part of it. User:Thryduulf responded by telling them that “ The content dispute and the behaviour of KOA unrelated to this block are off-topic for this forum, but you are free to raise them in the appropriate location if you wish.” I agreed and hatted it which has upset them. Perhaps it’s appropriate here, although I doubt it. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

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

• This appears to be primarily an issue regarding admin conduct and concerns about it. Given that, I think that would be much better addressed by ArbCom than at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Leyo has acknowledged that the block was inappropriate, and based on that and other responses at XRV, I think they know that any subsequent interaction with KoA in an admin capacity would be a one-way trip to ArbCom. So I tend to agree with KoA that referring this to ArbCom as an ADMINCOND matter is not necessary at this time. (That said, Leyo, you may want consider taking a voluntary but enforceable restriction from admin tool use regarding environmental activism and editors active in that topic area, or at least explicitly recusing indefinitely.)
  As to an IBAN, I'm not yet convinced. This is a rarer topic area to see at AE, and I don't entirely know its discussion norms, but as a matter of rough impression I would tend toward a logged warning for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Leyo would not be the first admin to be sanctioned at AE, and probably not the last either. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 15:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  @BilledMammal, just to nitpick one thing there: In the diff I cite above, Leyo did say, boldfaced, I do acknowledge that my block was inappropriate. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 01:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• I do not think an IBAN is needed at this time, as I do not see how Leyo is specifically targeting KoA in their 2023 comments. I think the 2016 and 2018 comments are too old to do anything about, and evidence that this is a recent pattern of behaviour was not presented above (an instance in 2023, 5 years after the previous instance, is not a pattern in my opinion). However, I agree with the conclusion at WP:XRV that this was a bad block, that Leyo should be now deemed WP:INVOLVED with anything to do with KoA, and Leyo needs to slow down their use of the block button. If this concerning behaviour continues, I would support an ARBCOM case concerning Leyo, but I don't think there's anything more to be done here. Z1720 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

KoA left this message on my talk page responding to my comment above in which I responded . My response, summarised, is for KoA to WP:DROPTHESTICK and come back if Leyo starts bothering them again. Z1720 (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Closing without action. Further instances of subpar behaviour can be brought back here, or directly to ArbCom. – bradv 14:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nishidani (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

Logged warning in AE case just closed, which see for details

Evidence

• Yesterday, Nishidani made revisions to the lead section of Zionism, race and genetics.
• I then made this edit, see edit summary for why. I think my edit summary explains the reasoning clearly, and was in good faith.
• Subsequently, other editors have further revised the lead sentence, and in my opinion they have significantly improved on what I did, as is expected during the normal editing process.

• Today, Nishidani created this section on the talk page. Note: calling the language in my edit "Extraordinary", and comparing it to a defense of parapsychology. That's quite at odds with the edit I actually made, and is exactly the kind of thing that the logged warning says not to do.
• Reply from another editor, self-explanatory.
• Reply from me.

• I notified Nishidani about it, hoping to just leave an expression of concern without having to escalate it further.
• Nishidani's reply to my message, which strikes me as defiant and lacking in self-awareness, clearly intending to continue the kind of conduct that the warning was about. So here we are.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Well, this is awkward. The previous AE thread was just closed, and hasn't even been archived yet. But the fact that Nishidani's post, coming so soon after the logged warning, so obviously violates the warning, and his subsequent reaction of acting like nothing was wrong with it, leads me to think that we are in "Further disruption may result in sanctions without further warning" territory. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I want to reply to what Iskandar323 says. I changed a sentence that said that science "affirmed" that there was "a hierarchy of races", to say that it had "provided evidence" of "genetically distinct races". Saying that there are genetic differences between races is a lot farther from scientific racism, than the claim of a hierarchy of races that came before: hierarchy implies that some races are "above" others, as I said in my edit summary. "Provid evidence" is more tentative than "affirmed". I changed the language away from scientific racism, although in retrospect not far enough. I agree that it needed to be changed even more, and I already said that I appreciate that other editors did so.

And I'm not criticizing Nishidani for taking it to the talk page, obviously. I'm criticizing the mocking and theatrical way he said it, as though I had introduced the problem into the language, when I was actually trying to fix a problem that was there when I found it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Although this is essentially finished, I want to say that I appreciate Ealdgyth's comment. And that diff was made after this AE thread had already been opened and Nishidani had been notified. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Logging back in today, I see an awful lot of pages where I should be replying, but I'll reply here first in the hope that it will make it easier for someone to close the thread. It seems to me that there's a pretty impressive who's who of admins below who are all saying pretty much the same thing, so a little fish like me is perfectly happy to see a congenial end result, and leave it at that. I especially appreciate how NYB sums it up at the bottom, and I'm willing to accept that my understanding of "affirmed", as a scientist, did not allow for that alternative definition. (But I'll stand by my understanding of "a hierarchy of races" as something that absolutely needed to be changed to something else, even as I continue to acknowledge that I did a crummy job of fixing it and other editors greatly improved on my version.)

I hope that editors can see that I'm willing to recognize that I made mistakes. So far, I haven't seen the same from Nishidani, but, whatever. But Nishidani, if you stay around, please at least take a few moments before posting talk page comments that will set other editors off. You're intelligent enough to see what does that, after all this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

I won't defend myself other than say this. I'm responsible for the comprehensive rewrite. All editors desisted as they kindly allowed me to do so. The only thing I hadn't touched was the lead. I specifically notified the page that, given the persisting troubles over the lead, I would try to rewrite it stringently according to WP:MOS/WP:LEDE, and asked if there were any objections. there were none. I went ahead. I managed three of four paragraphs, but was struck down with a raging fever, and spent 18 hours in bed. Unlike many others, I do not check who added what. In my view, that is a waste of time. All that matters is the conformity of text to sources via close paraphrase. Tryptofish apparently wrote it, and was offended by my opening a talk page discussion (brief, because I'm still somewhat feverish, but no headaches, so I can drop in to make a note now and then). My objections are strictly technical. I will say that the alacrity with which AE is being once more resorted to looks like 'harassment'. I don't mind my language being minutely parsed, but articles are written by attention to reading sources, not constantly suspecting editors' motives from some perceived 'tone'. Whatever. Good night. (My fever is not mentioned as an excuse. I wrote with lucidity, and if it is problematical under the ruling, I accept whatever judgment will be forthcoming) Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Breaking my rule. I appreciate the kind interventions on my behalf, but I think what's happened is a salutary reminder to me that it's time I moved on. My wife always thought I should have continued writing books, rather than edit wikipedia. Best wishes to everyone, good friends and those who regard me as a nuisance alike. Tamzin may well have done me an inadvertent service by reading this complaint in the way she has. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Tryptofish, re your concluding statement, (and this is mine). I used the term 'affirm' in its precise and general English acceptance from Shakespeare's time down to the present day, certainly in the English of the so-called Commonwealth countries.

(Affirm)'To make a statement and stand by it, to maintain or assert strongly, to declare or state positively, to aver.' Oxford English Dictionary 2nd ed. 1989 vol.1 p.218 column 2.

As I now learn with surprise from some comments below, apparently not even the OED can keep abreast of shifts in meaning, perhaps regional, or even mainstream elsewhere, over recent decades. I can't be held responsible for, or under an obligation to be aware of, an interpretation of a word I'd never heard till today, and I'm fairly well-read. In any case, this is settled, and I hope this unfortunate matter can be closed and archived.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see the behavioural issue worthy of censure here, let alone AE. Nishidani quite rightly pointed out the decidedly dodgy turn the first sentence of the lead had taken. While it was presumably inadvertent, the wording that has been landed on at the time of Nishidani's post basically all but said that racism has an evidential basis, essentially affirming scientific racism in Wikivoice. Nishidani then did exactly the right thing and, rather than reverting anyone (which might have ruffled feathers, had that been his inclination), took it straight to talk, i.e. the correct approach to resolving a content issue. I also found the wording that has been arrived at "extraordinary" (Nishidani's only commentary) in its inadvertent blunder, and I also emphasized the alarming nature of the lead wording in the summary for the edit that I made immediately afterwards to address it. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Self banning myself from the page for two weeks since I find nothing whatsoever actionable in Nishidani conduct and would have been tempted to respond similarly in the same circumstances.Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Posting here because I have too strong a positive opinion about both Tryptofish and Nishidani to be an uninvolved admin. I am having trouble seeing Nishidani's comment as an example of the conduct he was warned against. Both the "extraordinary" and the analogy to parapsychology are descriptions of the content in question. I would have to strain to read them as comments on other editors or their motivations. If our goal is to place Nishidani under a restriction that stops him from criticizing content, such a sanction should be explicit in saying so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't get it. Where is the offense? Tryptofish made a bad edit and Nishidani explained why it is bad without making any claim about Tryptofish's motives. "Affirm" does not mean "confirm" except in specific legal contexts, so replacing "science affirmed" by "science provided evidence for" is simply wrong. "Science affirmed" means "Science asserted/claimed", which is quite different. Nishidani (who knows more about word usage than all of us combined) correctly pointed out the error using an analogy that fits perfectly. Zero^talk 02:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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

• The warning I gave yesterday was pretty clear, including the bit about further sanctions without further warning. That said, this is really just above the threshold of being actionable. It's not nothing—it's a temperature-raising comment and a failure to walk it back—but it's not something massive, and Nishidani is still on a positive trajectory from before. So, I've split the difference between doing nothing and the sanction I contemplated in the previous thread, and am pagebanning Nishidani for two weeks from the article and the talkpage, in the hopes that that will get things across where a warning didn't. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 20:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

  To respond to some comments above: It's not AE's place to decide content, and it was certainly reasonable for Nishidani to object to Tryptofish' edit. This sanction was about the tone of that objection, and the tone of the response to Tryptofish' request to dial it back, and the timing relative to yesterday's warning, and being generally at wit's end regarding this article and talkpage. Of every admin action I've taken in the past 16 months, I think this is the one I've been the least happy to make—I think I made the right call, but I don't at all like what that call was.

  Nishidani, I'll never tell someone not to leave a situation if they think that's what's best for them, but I do hope you know the circumstances of this pageban are not fully generalizable, and I was not saying that a comment like that would always, or even usually, be sanctionable. I wish you the best in whatever comes next, either way. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 03:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not going to weigh in on an actual sanction but I'd like to point out that this diff where Nishidani says "My impression is that the lead is troublesome because some editors want a different article to be summarized, not the one we have." is sub-optimal, because they are speculating on editor behavior - which Tamzin specifically warned on the talk page to avoid: "On the article talk page, editors should discuss article content only, not editor behaviour." It would be helpful if such discussions of editor behavior/motivations was dropped going forward. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Callanecc: I'm reopening this based on statements from Bishonen, Vanamonde93, and Bradv that they had wished to comment on the matter. I'm not reversing the pageban, but if there is rough consensus against it, I'm fine with it being overturned or downgraded. I just want whatever outcome is best for the topic area, and I trust my colleagues to find that, whether it's what I imposed or something else or no action. Courtesy pings also @Nishidani, Ealdgyth, and Floquenbeam. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 03:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks Tamzin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Thank you for reopening this, Tamzin. It seems to me that this whole dispute is based on a good-faith misunderstanding of the two competing lede sentences (see User talk:Nishidani#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction), wherein both editors were trying to avoid hints of scientific racism in the article, but using different words. Nishidani's comment on the talk page reacting to Tryptofish's edits was one of genuine confusion, and does not, in my view, constitute battleground conduct. In the complaint above Tryptofish characterized this comment as "mocking and theatrical", but I suspect they read into it the same misinterpretation I made with the word "affirm" in the text. It's also worth mentioning that as of now, neither of the proposed lede sentences remain in the article and the discussion appears to have reached a resolution. – bradv 04:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• I find no misconduct in the edit giving rise to this thread, even in the context of the prior warning. As Bradv explains well, this situation appears to have resulted from a good-faith misunderstanding. I would vacate the sanction and close without action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• I must admit I’m not seeing the sanctionable misconduct here, either. This feels like a rush back here on very little cause, so I would have dismissed it without action. Now that a sanction has been issued and this not being a formal appeal, I’m unaware of a procedural precedent to follow. Courcelles (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Like the recent posts above, I think the matter is a misunderstanding. It would be clear if Nishidani wanted to abuse others—you wouldn't have to read the tea leaves. I don't think there is a constitutional problem as Tamzin has said above that she would be fine with the sanction being overturned or downgraded. I'm not sure that would influence whether Nishidani continues editing but that's not really the point here. The question is whether the evidence above warrants a sanction and I don't see it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  On the procedural note, my understanding of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments is that an enforcing admin can consent to a reversal outside the formal appeal process. But I'll save us the ambiguity either way and self-reverse. If the underlying issue has indeed been resolved, this can probably be reclosed. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 05:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm glad you have reversed your unjust sanction, Tamzin, but I'll give my opinion anyway, to reinforce the consensus here. I do not believe either of these diffs, of which Tryptofish complains, have any tendency to violate the warning previously given to Nishidani, and I'm baffled that they could even be read that way. Bishonen | tålk 07:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC).
• Also chiming in to reinforce the consensus. I don't see a violation of the warning and I felt that there the ban decision was made too swiftly, surely there was no urgency demanding a fast resolution before people in different time zones (like me) could respond. But credit to you for your post to Nishidani's talk page, I don't think I could have asked for a better one. Doug Weller talk 07:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• Thanks for reopening, Tamzin. As I've said elsewhere, my view is that no violation serious enough to sanction occurred, and I would in any case give some leeway to sharp language when editors are attempting to address scientific racism in the lead of a prominent article. Bradv above sums up my views also. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Just for clarity and to avoid the possibility of any further misunderstandings, it's clear that neither of these editors intended to endorse any form of scientific racism or to reflect it in the article. There was simply an ambiguity in the language used, resulting from the fact that the word "affirmed" in this context could be understood as meaning either "contended" (which was the intended meaning) or "proved" (which was not the intended meaning but could potentially be read as such). Given the poisonous nature of any form of racism, much less the perception that a Wikipedia article is endorsing it, it is understandable why tempers flared, but hopefully all can now move on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • With Tryptofish's response above, I believe this request can now be closed without action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

R.Lemkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

NMW03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

1. 14:22, 12 August 2023 Stalks me to yet another article to drop a POV issues template on top, linking two discussions (including one on my talk page) despite taking part in neither and never editing this article before
2. 22:36, 13 August 2023 Stalks me to another Wikimedia project to nominate my image that's clearly protected by 2013 copyright laws for deletion in bad faith
3. 22:11, 13 August 2023 removes quotation marks for MOS:SCAREQUOTES for being "POV" but there are numerous sources casting doubt on the eco-activist claim and the sources themselves use quotation marks to express doubt
4. 22:14, 13 August 2023 same as #3
5. 22:07, 13 August 2023 same as #3
6. 11:15, 14 August 2023 same as #3 but now edit warring
7. 11:30, 14 August 2023 same as #3 but now edit warring
8. 18:36, 8 August 2023 took part in a canvassing vote with several other users who are Admins on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, as another user pointed out

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 02:15, 16 July 2023 Warned less than a month after all of these incidents by User:Callanecc: "I would strongly caution you to be consider your editing and ensure that you are not following other editors around to revert them specifically."

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 12 August 2023
• AA2 advisory and warned for Edit warring
• Introduction to contentious topics and warned for breaking WP:1RR

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Although it had been less than a month since NMW03 had been warned by Callanecc for WP:HOUNDING, NMW03 still continued following me around and getting into edit wars, not only on Wikipedia but following my account to Commons as well. And while stopping NMW03's bad faith attempt to delete my photo, I noticed that NMW03 had uploaded 500 photos of a "Young Wikipedians Wikicamp Azerbaijan" organization that, according to the description, is organized by the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Azerbaijan. Even more peculiar is that the indef-blocked and topic-banned Solavirum (talk · contribs · logs) is in these photos and appears to be teaching the camp.

And as listed above in the final diff of the list, Solavirum made a deletion request on Commons and was consecutively given votes of support by three users who, like him, are also Azerbaijani Wiki admins, including NMW03. Seems that this Wikicamp Azerbaijan is not beyond gaming the consensus system on Wikimedia. I'm aware that Commons is a different project, but this seems relevant both because NMW03 followed me from Wikipedia to Commons and for the evidence of meatpuppeting on both sites.

So not only is NMW03 still hounding after recently being explicitly told not to do that, NMW03 also seems to be a part of a meatpuppetry group for Wikimedia projects. R.Lemkin (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk I never mentioned socking (these are clearly two different people), it's meatpuppetry that seems possible. A few months ago, the NMW03 account awoke from a 2 year slumber and is suddenly engaging in edit wars on Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict articles, including ones that Solavirum previously edited frequently such as Battle of Shusha (2020), Talk:Battle of Shusha (2020), Ghazanchetsots Cathedral, List of massacres of Armenians, Aras Valley campaign, and Armenian–Azerbaijani war (1918–1920). These articles are not only completely different from the editing interests NMW03 had before 2023, they are also articles Solavirum used to edit often before being topic-banned if you look at the article histories.

In addition, according to the descriptions of those Wikicamp Azerbaijan images, NMW03, Solavirum, and dozens of other users are working for the Ministry of Youth and Sports (Azerbaijan), something they haven't disclosed on their userpages as WP:PCD requires. R.Lemkin (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin @Callanecc Although NMW03 said they do not work for the Ministry of Youth and Sports, the photos NMW03 uploaded show the participants being given certificates and awards in images 379-463, with Solavirum himself being awarded in 388. And images 479-491 show participants lining up to receive bags of goods. This means that the participants are receiving undisclosed compensation as defined in the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use WP:PCD. R.Lemkin (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin Does NMW03 following me to Commons at least merit a formal caution this time?

And, although NMW03 said they do not work for the Ministry of Youth and Sports, the photos NMW03 uploaded show the participants being given certificates and awards in images 379-463, with Solavirum himself being awarded in 388. And images 479-491 show participants lining up to receive bags of goods. This means that the participants are receiving undisclosed compensation as defined in the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use WP:PCD. R.Lemkin (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

Putting a POV tag on an article that two other editors also had concerns about is not stalking. R.Lemkin, you don't own the Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) article, and simply editing the article (not even reverting any of your edits) is not harassment towards you. Last time, you claimed I was stalking you because my first edits to those articles were reverts of your edits. Now, my first edit does not even have anything to do with you. Red-tailed hawk has given a great reply to your claims in points two and eight. About the scare quotes, I did what Wikipedia guidelines told me to do. I'll let an admin decide whether that's valid or not. This is now R.Lemkin's second report of me within a month.

There are things I'd like the admins to review in R.Lemkin's contributions too. In the Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article, R.Lemkin removed a POV tag, saying that they've "Replied on the article's talk page" without waiting for any response from me, who added the POV tag, or two other editors who have expressed concern at the POV issues in the article. Also, R.Lemkin is demanding other editors to discuss every edit before they make it ("Please engage in the discussion before introducing more changes.", "if there any specific issue, it should be discussed and replied first (if you have a good rationale)"). The article also has copyright problems with several sources, all in the content added by R.Lemkin, which need to be looked at. See Earwig's copyvio detector for the problems. NMW03 (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This is ridiculous @R.Lemkin. I do not work for the Ministry of Youth and Sports. I simply attended an event that received financial support from them, like many other youth events in Azerbaijan. And I did not edit for 1,5 years because I was conscripted for the army at that time. I was an active editor before my conscription as well. You can see that I resigned from adminship before that. NMW03 (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

You can learn more about the event here to avoid jumping to conclusions like Kevo327 has: az:Vikipediya:Gənclərin Vikipediya düşərgəsi 2023. The awards were given to people who won a game of What? Where? When? (pictures of game, from 51 to 80). The "bag of goods" includes outfits, notepads, and pens that were given to us on the first day of the camp. They were not gifts. Wearing the shirts was mandatory throughout the event. We were not awarded anything for any editing that took place during the camp. Every award is listed in the link above. The only editing that took place was when we were asked to create new articles generally related to Youth, Sports, or Lankaran (the city where the camp was hosted) in Azerbaijani Wikipedia. The certificates was given to everyone who participated in the camp for their participation, not for the edits they made. (picture of certificate) I do not see how any of this relates to the English Wikipedia or my conduct on it. NMW03 (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I write only with respect to the parts of this report that allege impropriety at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Rza Talibov as a pattern of cross-wiki bad faith behavior and/or Commons socking.

Regarding that DR, if multiple AzWiki admins were present in a discussion, and they know that the uploader has previously engaged in deception and/or provided false information, it's a good thing that they would go to Commons and question the image submissions. And, as it turns out, there were multiple discussions on AzWiki not all that long ago about the behavior of the uploader of the images: and you will find NMW03 as a participant in at least one of them. Consequently, it doesn't look like NMW03 was gaming the consensus system on Commons. Meanwhile, Solavirum is a prolific editor on AzWiki, where they hold sysop rights. I would understand the concern about potential socking, but socking isn't really much of a concern if the uploader of that image is the photographer. And, there is a plausible alternative explanation for why there's a high level of Azerbaijani participation in the DR—all those comments from the Azerbaijani editors were posted on Commons after the relevant local AzWiki conduct discussion began.

Speaking as a Commons sysop, the participation in that DR on Commons doesn't look all that nefarious to me. It doesn't really serve as evidence of some sort of Commons socking ring, and the allegations of secret canvassing of Commons by "Wikicamp Azerbaijan" seem a bit off-base in light of the very public discussion about the uploader's conduct that began before AzWiki users began to comment on that DR.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin @Callanecc My 2 cents – although NMW03 said they do not work for the Ministry of Youth and Sports, the photos NMW03 uploaded show the participants being given certificates and awards in images 379-463, with Solavirum himself being awarded in 388. And images 479-491 show participants lining up to receive bags of goods. This means that the participants are receiving undisclosed compensation as defined in the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use WP:PCD. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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

• Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) is too high-profile an article within the topic area for me to see it as hounding to show up there, even with Callanecc's informal caution in July. The other alleged violations I'm likewise unconvinced can be distinguished from being active in the topic area. My preferred course of action here is a 1RR for the blockade article, but no user sanctions. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with the assessment regarding user sanctions. I'd been spending some time looking through these edits to find a clear demonstration of hounding and I just can't see it in this instance. Regarding 1RR I'm not sure it's necessary. While there has been some back and forth on the article it appears to have settled down and resulted in finding consensus versions of text and discussion. I would tend to use 1RR when there is persistent back and forth that is preventing consensus building rather than where there is consensus building occuring. My thinking is that what this article needs is a couple admins to monitor and apply user sanctions to anyone who is persistently reverting and not consensus building. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Outnproud (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#Contentious topic designation

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

1. 12:15, August 22, 2023 Personal attack and personalization on article talk, "Reading through your comments, you sound like a Bond villain "do a preponderance of highest quality sources (translation: scholarly) raise this issue ? I could be misremembering (but I don't think I am)". So in a Bond-like response, there's a useful four-letter word and you're full of it. We know what you're trying to do with your blocking tactics; nobody's buying your bull."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 14 June 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Outnproud is an SPA who began their editing at FA J. K. Rowling with edit warring,12:3113:20 (after the 12:44 CT alert) and is now unhappy that consensus has not developed for their desired change to an FA, on a topic that was well covered at last year's Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

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

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NMW03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Kevo327 (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

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

1. 14 August Restoring clearly POV language with the edit summary "comment on talk first with good rationale" (implying that these edits did not have good rationale , ).
2. 17 August Reverting the restoration of a POV tag in the same article, after preventing a user from removing the POV wordings.
3. 17 August Restoring POV scare quotes and reverting perfectly fine edits simply because they were not discussed beforehand.
4. 17 August Reverting the same user and restoring UNDUE wording in lead.
5. 4 August Restoring an exceptional claim with problematic sourcing. See below for more explanation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 4 December 2020 Blocked for 72 hours for edit warring in several AA2 articles

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 24 January 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Kevo327 has been repeatedly reverting edits made by Paul Vaurie on various articles with strange and demanding edit summaries. Kevo327 restores obvious POV wordings ("Ethnically cleanse the region of indigenous Armenians", "so-called 'eco-activists'", and "Many observers do not believe that Artsakh Armenians can live safely under President Aliyev's regime" among others) and tells Paul to discuss the edit first "with good rationale" in the edit summary. When Paul approaches Kevo327 about the revert, Kevo327 tells him to "gain consensus first" before making an edit. In the third diff, Kevo327 reverts Paul again, restoring POV scare quotes and irrelevant material that was removed by Paul, demanding that the edit be explained in the talk page first. In the fourth diff, Kevo327 again reverts Paul, for the third time in a single day, and restores UNDUE wording in lead and irrelevant content in the article. Again, they demand that Paul discuss the edits in the talk page first.

In the fifth diff, Kevo327 restores an exceptional claim one minute after posting a reply to my explanation of why the content was problematic. The source Kevo327 added, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) was a copy-paste of an article from Al-Masdar News, which actually cites SOHR as its own source. So, there's no actual source and these two articles cite each other as their source. Moreover, Kevo327 claims the source to be an "extremely reputable source" . I find it weird how any editor can believe either Al-Masdar News (See #Notable reports, fake news and disinformation) or SOHR (See #Accuracy) can be described as such. In our discussion, Kevo327 ignores this citogenesis and tells me "If you can't grasp this, I suggest you disengage from the discussion" and later "What is this and how do you expect others to see good faith in your comments? Because you just jump the ship every time your previous argument fails, and try to come up with something new to keep arguing."

Kevo327 is obviously here to spread their POV and not contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. They are uncivil, do not assume good faith, and carefully edit war to not pass 3RR. Their behavior violates the recent WP:AA3 case's principles of Standards of editor behavior, Edit warring and Tendentious editing. Additionally, they were warned last year for using the CSD process politically. NMW03 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC); edited 19:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

About this: I only added diffs to the quotes above. I have not changed any word or sentence in my comment. I put the added diffs inside <ins>. NMW03 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks for taking your time to review the report. I think this is also relevant.--NMW03 (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

Going through the diff list provides:

1. Paul Vaurie had not participated in the talk page discussion and when asked to do so, said "I don't want to get involved in a content dispute right now". But Paul Vaurie proceeded to remove content that was well sourced.
2. Paul Vaurie kept adding the POV tag without explaining what was a POV violation, which is required for using the tag. Instead, Paul added the tag, was reverted and asked to discuss on talk, and then added the tag again, never explaining the reasoning. So, it was Paul Vaurie that was edit warring.
3. NMW03 refers to these are "POV scare quotes" but that is completely false. WP:NPOV is "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and the reliable sources put these terms in quotes ('Azerbaijani "activists" are blocking the road...', '...claims that the Karabakh Armenians were "illegally" extracting gold from mines...'. I had pointed this out to NMW03 but they still reverted.
4. Paul Vaurie removed cited content and an entire section that had been on the article for years without any consensus, or reason besides being "unnecessary". By the way, why is NMW03 reporting incidents they weren't involved in on behalf of other users?
5. As I explained on the talk page, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is a very reliable source. I had checked the WP:RSN to verify this, and came across and informative discussion where multiple users agreed that when SOHR and Al-Masdar report identical things related to Syrian affairs, these can be considered well cited. In another discussion, another user pointed out that when it comes to Syrian news, there is either "pro-government Masdar or pro-opposition SOHR" to chose from. In this case, both sources reported the same thing.

As if making an enforcement request over content disputes wasn't bad enough, in 3 out of 4 articles NMW03 has linked in their diffs list, they haven't even made a single comment on the respective talk pages. Maybe they should start discussing content first? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

NMW03 now changes their comment after my response despite violating WP:TALK#REPLIED. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Callanecc Here are additional details of NMW’s conduct:

• 12 August – it was actually NMW first who re-added the POV tag with no valid reason . Initially it was added by a non-EC WP:GS/AA user . Bear in mind, NMW reverts users just for being under WP:GS/AA , but in this instance, when it suits his POV, NMW restores a non-EC user's added unexplained tag without valid reason.
• 13 August – NMW removes "scare quotes" on 3 different articles , , . The supposed "scare quotes" are actually sourced and used by reliable sources.
• 14 August – I point out to NMW that these aren't "POV scare quotes" as they're directly used by RS . But NMW proceeds to revert and edit-war (the quotes are still removed) .

All while NMW hasn't made a single talk comment in any of the articles above. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Will you stop dragging me into this? I have no interest in any arbitration/enforcement type of stuff. The way I see it is that some people have contrasting views on what should be in the page, and that doesn't require enforcement but simply dispute resolution. However, there are many problems with Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present), including POV weasel words, which R.Lemkin and Kevo327 must recognize, and stop reverting constructive edits which really do not need discussion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• I've been looking into these diffs and related examples for some time now. This is where I got up to:
  • Paul Vaurie:
    • On 25 April Paul Vaurie raised a non-specific concern on the article talk page regarding the POV of the article.
    • Paul Vaurie raised a concern on R.Lemkin's talk page (12 August) regarding reference bombing and NPOV the Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) article. On 15 August R.Lemkin replies and asks Paul Vaurie to engage on the talk page, Paul Vaurie replies and says they are disengaging as they don't want to get into a dispute.
    • On 14 August Paul Vaurie raised a concern about Kevo327's revert and the POV of the article. Kevo327 replies that due to the dispute on the article Paul Vaurie should have sought consensus for large changes first and to check talk page archives to see what already had consensus
    • On 14 August Paul Vaurie added a {{POV}} tag to the article with no further comment in the edit summary or article talk page.
    • On 15 August R.Lemkin reverts the POV tag and asked Paul Vaurie to engage on the talk page in the edit summary.
    • On 17 August Paul Vaurie readded the POV tag. During the period between adding and readding the POV tag Paul Vaurie's only comment on the talk page was TL;DR. Learn to be WP:CONCISE, please.
  • Kevo327 (in addition to anything above):
    • On 17 August Kevo327 reverted Paul Vaurie across three different articles. On 17 August Kevo327 readded quotes to "eco-activists" which have been labelled WP:SCAREQUOTES by NMW03. Kevo327 justifies the quote marks as they appear in the source.
    • There has been some discussion/disagreement on whether SOHR is a reliable sources with different editors pointing to different reasons why it is or is not reliable. That should be a discussion on RSN (and Kevo327 has pointed to two of them).

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

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

• I've posted a summary of my thinking so far in a statement above so it doesnt't fill up this section. I'm still looking but any further comments on my points in particular anything I've missed would be helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Regarding where to from here following Z1720's comments:
    • I don't believe that any action is necessary against PV at this point but they should be careful about editing in contentious topics per Z1720's comment.
    • Tamzin suggested in a separate thread that 1RR might be useful on this topic so she may want to weigh in? I didn't agree at the time but I'm more in favour of it now than I was. It would likely need to be 1RR/week to have an impact given that the reverts were over a longer time period. I'd suggest it should probably be time limted rather than indefinite (3-6 months or liftable by any admin?)
    • Regarding the Kevo diff Z1720 (are there supposed to be two different ones @Z1720?) linked I agree that it is problematic and there's a similarly concerning comment on my talk page. I'm not yet convinced that there is a pattern of comments like this and further evidence in this area would be useful in determining what if any action we should take.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I still think a 1RR is a good idea. I'd prefer 24h or 72h over 1w, just because on an article that's getting a reasonably large number of edits, keeping track of what counts as a revert over the course of a week can be complicated. But I think any 1RR is better than nothing. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 19:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there were supposed to be two different links, I can't find the other link right now but I'll add it in when I do. I don't think the second link makes much of a difference; it's similar behaviour to the first one from what I remember. I like the 1RR/week, even if it is difficult to keep track of, as editors familiar with the topic area can help us if there are any concerns. However, the timeframe is not a big deal for me so if others like 1RR/72 hours I will not be against. Z1720 (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with 1RR/72h. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Comments after reading the above and various talk pages:

• I do not see any concerns with Kevo327's reversion of Paul Vaurie's edits: I do not see consensus on the talk page about keeping the POV banner and PV seemed to remove sourced prose. Under WP:BRD, neither editor did anything wrong in this situation, although I wish PV would engage on the talk page more thoroughly if they want to edit in this contentious topic.
• The scare quotes concern should be discussed on the talk page, and perhaps an RfC should be opened to get wider community input.
• I think Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) needs to be put on a 1RR restriction for all users until the content dispute dies down, in order to prevent reversion cycles.
• I'm not happy with these two diffs of Kevo: . I'd like to remind Kevo to avoid comments like these.
• Kevo's comment, "NMW03 now changes their comment after my response" links to a diff showing NMW03 adding links to diffs to support their claims. It was probably better for NMW03 to note this addition below their comment, but I don't think it violates WP:TALK#REPLIED.
• I agree with Callanecc that if users are concerned about the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, they should open a new discussion on RSN.

Let me know if there are additional questions or concerns I should look at. Z1720 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@NMW03: concerning Dsrlisan85's concern on Callanecc's talk page, I do not know what progress Callanecc has made on this, so I will reserve judgment if/until one of the two of them brings it here. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)