Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive300
Encyclopædius
[edit]| Encyclopædius is indefinitely topic-banned from material related to Covid-19, broadly construed and across all namespaces. Investigation revealed a number of alternate accounts operated by Encyclopædius; as he is subject to this sanction, he is not eligible for a clean start and is not permitted to use alternate accounts without clear disclosure.Several admins expressed concern about Encyclopædius's behavior in the American-politics and gender/sexuality topic areas, where he has made inflammatory and uncivil remarks. While there was some administrative support for a topic ban from these areas as well, this request will be closed with a warning for those topic areas, given the lack of consensus for stronger sanctions. MastCell Talk 18:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Encyclopædius[edit]
This is far from Encyclopædius's first rodeo with COVID-19 misinformation. They were pushing the exact same line about Ivermectin back in September, see Talk:Ivermectin#Misinformation, and still appear, months later, to have absolutely no grasp of WP:MEDRS. Their comments on their talkpage from the 24 December appear to show that they have a conspiracist worldview, which is incompatible with editing an encyclopedia. In a conversation back in July at Talk:Antibody-dependent_enhancement#Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic Encyclopædius also displays a conspiracist worldview, talking about In response to XOReaster, I should note the edit they made to their talkpage in June 2021 implying that there was voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, referencing the Maricopa recount. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Encyclopædius[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Encyclopædius[edit]I strongly disagree with the way Wikipedia echoes a certain narrative put out in the media when there are sources which contradict them. As somebody who believes in a neutral encyclopedia which is free to edit, I detest this level of control and response to anybody questioning the "narrative". I've tried to ignore COVID on Wikipedia but the propaganda with the horse and tweet is very obvious. I do believe that there is a global agenda to vaccinate the world population and that many people and institutions are bought and paid for, including sources we often use to claim key points. I have good reason to believe that. I don't care enough about the subject matter to feel the need to edit it or discuss it often though. I will avoid editing articles on this subject as I largely have been doing, even if I believe they are compromised, so any ban or response is unnecessary.₪ Encyclopædius 22:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Comment Regardless of what I think about the pandemic being very suspicious based on extensive research I've done, my viewpoint has no place on Wikipedia and is certainly not threat to content. I just believe that articles should be neutral and there's something gravely wrong with immediately trying to ban me from a topic for pointing out mainstream sources (not fringe) in India and Philippines which say Ivermectin is a success in treating Covid and linking some scientific papers to point out that the claim in the article not entirely true. I don't have a history of editing medical articles and am not interested, why would I be aware of guidelines for writing medical articles if I never edit them? Articles I've strayed into with biology and earth sciences I've always used scientific papers along with books and presumed for this they were valid sources. The bottom line is I want Wikipedia to be neutral and accurate and not try to suppress certain information to meet a narrative. I'm seeing the same editors editing and protecting articles, particularly those who've spoken out about the vaccines, and I am concerned that they are not neutral editors and operating in a coordinated way. Other than this I have no interest in pursuing this or anything related to COVID.₪ Encyclopædius 08:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Reply to Slatersteven That's been there a while, but do you see me frantically going through articles neutralizing them? Nope. I'm British and centrist in outlook, I see issues with both sides in US politics. Both should read neutrally, but it's a fact that articles were trashed on anybody claiming fraud or has an issue with the vaccines. Maybe they are indeed bogus claims, but we should still strive to write neutral articles. My stance remains but that doesn't mean I don't have the self discipline to avoid the articles or rant about them. I have no problem agreeing to avoid articles and will do if respected without being so heavy-handed, I just wish editors like Alex would respect our neutrality guidelines more and act like somebody editing in good faith who is open to suggestions. ₪ Encyclopædius 21:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Response to valereee Spot on, and thank you, I agree to a self-imposed avoidance of editing and commenting on COVID-related articles, it's a non-issue as I largely avoid the articles anyway. If my promise isn't kept then this would be appropriate. All I ask is for the regular editors to be a bit more respectful towards the article subjects even if they personally disagree, and not display so much ownership of them. Alex does not own our articles on COVID and related topics. ₪ Encyclopædius 21:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Response to Shibbolethink How do you define "disrupt". Two sources were mainstream newspapers in India and the Philippines. I did not intentionally want to "disrupt" anything, merely question the claim and why the horse and tweet was used. I acknowledge that Alex, Slater and a few others have put in a lot of work on this subject and there's other content I've seen that I don't have an issue with. I concede that it wasn't in good faith to accuse them of propaganda, but the horse pic and tweet didn't seem right to me. I don't have a history of editing Covid treatments, and I certainly have no intention of doing so again, I think I've only questioned the Ivermectin situation, given that I've seen two sets of completely different claims, but I don't want to pursue it further. There's been a mixed bag of information from the media in all fairness, contradictory a lot of the time, and difficult to know what is the truth or reality at times. Even the health officials have said various different things. I certainly don't fully trust certain sources as I did anyway. Y₪ Encyclopædius 11:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC) Response to Vanamonde Where is the evidence that I've pushed conspiracy theories in the mainspace or have a history of this anywhere? Given that I rarely even look at COVID articles, why wold you not take my word for it to avoid this subject again? ₪ Encyclopædius 20:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Question for arbitrators The big question is why won't you trust me to agree to fully avoid editing COVID related articles and commentary? My level of activity on Wikipedia is nowhere near what it was, and how many COVID articles have I actually edited much less disrupted in two years? I am not a threat to actual content. All I removed from that article has stayed that way. And it's not as if I can't be check usered in the future to ensure that I've complied if that is a concern. I get the message to stay well away from this.† Encyclopædius 11:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by Generalrelative[edit]
Statement by MrOllie[edit]@Generalrelative: That's the symbol for the Israeli new shekel. - MrOllie (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by XOR'easter[edit]To the examples listed above, I'd add Statement by Alexbrn[edit]How does a user with 600,000 edits not use WP:INDENT? How does an editor who used to indent[5] now not? I appreciate this account has been CU'd and is apparently technically secure, but my mind is boggling. Alexbrn (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I think Encyclopædius' edits in this area are a bit more extensive than is currently apparent in this AE e.g. At Talk:Sucharit Bhakdi (bio of extreme COVID denier and antivaxxer)
At Talk:Antibody-dependent enhancement (reason given by antivaxxers why the COVID vaccines should be avoided)
I have spent some time looking at the contributions of the alt accounts which were temporarily named in this AE, and despite looking suspicious, ultimately I think there is no compelling case they are UPE, rather than just idiosyncratically detailed about certain companies' activities. I do think it would be good to have something out of this AE which clarifies whether Encyclopædius in permitted to make/use alt accounts. Is their strong desire to avoid a formal sanction connected to the ability to use alt accounts in future? Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Statement by PaleoNeonate[edit]I agree that Encyclopædius edits more constructively in other areas. I doubt that the account is compromised, some previous talk page posts also lacked proper indentation. As for the COVID topic, I wonder if it's also an AP one. Those conspiracy theories are unfortunately typical. Instead of being a great effort and a step forward to mitigate the pandemic, vaccines must only be some Big Pharma money hoax, ineffective COVID-19 treatments like ivermectin must be competing establishment-suppressed magical solutions, major reputable medical bodies must be corrupt disinformation outlets (and their public health education campaigns be commercial-driven propaganda)... And for whatever strange reason "woke" is thrown in. I initially thought that an AE report was a bit early, but from some presented diffs I understand. —PaleoNeonate – 04:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Generalrelative: User:Encyclopædius/Sig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) just fun, I presume, other characters were also used. —PaleoNeonate – 04:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC) The last comment contains more of the same. "Articles should be neutral" WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV, part of the WP:NPOV policy, specify that a false balance should not be promoted between mainstream consensus views and fringe theories or primary research. The only part that I recognize as having merit is that some organizations have warned about the potential for some authoritarian regimes to take advantage of the situation for human right abuses. You'll find no reputable source claiming that the pandemic was manufactured and no MEDRS that claim that ivermectin is effective against SARS-CoV-2 (if there were, WP should reflect that). Non-effect or low toxicity at low doses also doesn't mean anything: most people recover without treatment, the problem is that they also transmit it and that a high enough percentage is vulnerable to severe disease, to be overwhelming. Cherry picked statistical glitches and primary research like individual trials are also very prone to error and that's also why MEDRS matters: we can only really know from a higher level when enough data is available from properly run trials. Not being a journal, WP is not to do the science, but to report about its results... If we worked with primary sources, all editors would also need to be experts in review, how to evaluate in-silico, in-vivo, in-vitro, animal studies, human trials... —PaleoNeonate – 09:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Hemiauchenia: But only the CSM, —PaleoNeonate – 04:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by TheresNoTime[edit]As noted above, I checked Encyclopædius as a potential compromise - maintaining the security of accounts with template editor permissions is fairly important as they are able to do quite a bit of damage.
In the course of the check, I noted a number of accounts which were I must however stress that TBAN notwithstanding, they have been used in a matter consistent with policy. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 09:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by ProcrastinatingReader[edit]( @TheresNoTime: didn’t you say you weren’t going to reveal the identity of the other accounts as long as they didn’t edit further from them? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Slatersteven[edit]The fact they have announced they are retiring due to being topic-banned from COVID is not a good sign. I have no idea about what they were in the past, but that is a pretty good sign they are not wp:nothere now, whatever their past was.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Maybe they have not said "due to a TBAN" but comments like this "Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 and the 2020 US election I've strongly disapproved of the way Wikipedia echoes the endless lies put out by the media and the way we've become censored. I'm particularly appalled at the trashing of articles and completely disregard for neutrality on anybody who has spoken out about election fraud or against the vaccines, in areas which should be as neutral as the rest of the encyclopedia." are in fact declarations of wp:rightgreatwrongs, hence why I do not give them the benefit of the doubt.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC) It maybe stale but it seems they did make a stand on election fraud claims [[10]] [[11]]. But OK, lets give them a chance. No TBAN but an explicit warning that if they breach their agreement there will be a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC) In order to demonstrate you will abide by a gentleman's agreement, it might be a good idea to stop arguing about the stuff you are being reported for. It is very hard to take seriously your offer to walk away when you are so determined to argue your case.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by Serial[edit]Re. to Slatersteven, and answering the query Statement by Shibbolethink (Re: Encyclopaedius)[edit]I don't know much about this user, other than that they have dipped their hand into COVID matters from this perspective before (especially with regards to Ivermectin) [12] [13][14][15]. At the same time, I would say it's clear they have no interest in editing around these controversial COVID spaces on Wiki, because they know the ire it draws. I think the project would be safe, and disruption satisfactorily minimized, if Encyclopaedius were just TBAN'd from COVID-19 This is the controversial area of this topic that the user actually disrupted. And I would actually disagree with any ban from politics or gender/sex topics. I think it's extremely important that we restrict TBANs and sanctions to actions which actually interfere with consensus building and/or involve article-space editing. The diffs presented as evidence for these other TBANs appear to be limited to user talk space, where I think it is entirely okay to have and share these opinions, as long as it is not done in a harassing manner. I think it's important for the health of the project that we do not set a precedent of TBANing based on opinions shared, but instead on actions done. Likewise, the core of WP:NOTHERE is counterproductive (or a lack of productive) editing. That is clearly not the case for this user. Sharing controversial opinions in user talk space, but not letting those edits show through in your article space contributions, I think should absolutely be permitted. We treat user talk space more liberally for a reason. I am rarely, if ever on the side of "CENSORSHIP! THOUGHT POLICE!" people, but i think this is the very rare situations in which that fear is justified. Don't restrict people for opinions they hold, restrict them for actions they do. We have no reason based on the conduct presented so far, to believe that Encyclopaedius has any intention to disrupt these other areas. Encyclopaedius should be TBAN'd only from the things they actually did disrupt, namely COVID-19
Statement by Apaugasma[edit]Shibbolethink's statement is spot on. I've read the recent Talk:Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic/Archive 1#Pure propaganda discussion, as well as the user talk page discussions from which several concerning diffs were given above, and from this it is absolutely clear to me that this user should not be editing anywhere close to COVID-related issues. I also have a broader concern that the conspirational thinking in evidence is inextricably tied with a failure to identify and defer to expert opinion, both of which lie at the heart of any kind of Wikipedia-editing. If the user continues on this path of questioning mainstream expertise (or perhaps rather, the fact that WP should follow –and even emphasize– mainstream expertise), problems are likely to surface in other topic areas as well. However, I agree that we should not deal out TBANs preemptively, but only there where articles or their talk pages are affected. I think that with regard to Ivermectin (cf. already "the media is lying" in early September), that line has been crossed. If as a response to the criticism they agree not to edit in the topic area, so much the better: isn't this what a TBAN is, an agreement not to edit in a certain area for a while because other editors have raised concerns? It's meant to restore trust, and I think that could work out well if the user is able to place the concerns raised here in the right framework. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by Piotrus[edit]A TBAN from Covid topics seems reasonable. MEDRS exists for a very good reason, and someone who has issues understanding that should not edit medicine-related topics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by TrangaBellam[edit]I do not edit in these areas but I had found his commentary on Ivermectin to be disruptive - a TBan will put an end to that. I agree that the comments on CRT etc. are concerning. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Encyclopædius[edit]
|
Saad Arshad Butt
[edit]| Temporarily closing without comment on the merits, and without prejudice to bring up the same diffs in a future filing if the issues resurface. No admins have commented in over a week, it seems the editor has stopped editing, for now. This should not be seen as a "no action" close, but rather a pause in enforcement by an uninvolved admin, which can be taken up at a later date if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Saad Arshad Butt[edit]
n/a
IPA notification, BLP notification
Diffs #10 and #11 are the most damning. Per this, the editor is associated with Saad Hussain Rizvi, and even offers to provide his ID documents to prove a date of birth. The editor identifies as Saad Arshad on their userpage, if required I can provide a social media link proving someone of that name is a member of the political party Saad Hussain Rizvi is in charge of. They are also editing while logged out, the minimal difference between the IP's version and Saad Arshad Butt's version isn't likely to be a coincidence.
Discussion concerning Saad Arshad Butt[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Saad Arshad Butt[edit]Statement by TrangaBellam[edit]There are 90+ "Arshad Butt" profiles in Linkedin .... TrangaBellam (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Jehochman[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Saad Arshad Butt[edit]
|
Cygnis insignis
[edit]| 96 hour block for 1RR and personal attacks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Request concerning Cygnis insignis[edit]
31 October 2010 Toddst1 ask me, no sanctions or topic bans on this or any other pages. ~ cygnis insignis 22:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I am not sure if 1RR violation alone would justify this request, but the comments and behavior by this user are highly confrontational, including diffs 3 and 4 above and their removal of comments made by other contributors [19], removing their own signature [20], edit warring about tag date (diffs 1 and 2) etc.
Here [21]
Discussion concerning Cygnis insignis[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Cygnis insignis[edit]I did restore that, noting the warning about 1rr within 24 hours above the edit window and reckoned that I hadn't. I then mentioned this in an active discussion on the tag, those opposing its presence also objected to an indication of how long synth concerns had existed (which spun off to two or three sections as things do on that talk). After a substantive period of time, with no further edits to that page by me, the user thought to undertake a sanction process. I am also currently involved in discussion with this account on the Abortion article's talk page, where their concerns are as creepy and bizarre as their username. And how are you? Have a lovely day, wont you? ~ cygnis insignis 22:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Cygnis insignis[edit]
|
Lokeshwaran V R
[edit]| Indef blocked as a standard admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Lokeshwaran V R[edit]
n/a
The user has a long history of not abiding to the naming conventions. See move log. The talk page is full of warnings and discussions on this particular topic: WP:COMMONAME, Article title, Article moves, December 2021, Page moves. Almost all of the moves, if not every, doesn't have a move summary as to why the move is made by the user. This long-lasting moves against the naming policy suggests the user has no understanding the policy itself. I'd request an indefinite move ban within the topics of India, broadly construed.
Discussion concerning Lokeshwaran V R[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Lokeshwaran V R[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Lokeshwaran V R[edit]
|
in re Sushant Singh Rajput
[edit]| Protected talk page as a standard admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Sushant Singh Rajput[edit]
This is a very unorthodox request, to be sure, but the situation is such that the alternative is just spamming RFPP every few months and the standard AE template is of absolutely no use to me. I'm seeking to make the current 500/30 on Sushant Singh Rajput · ( talk | logs | history | links | watch ) · [revisions] - presently set to expire in 2024 - indefinite and to likewise indefinitely semi-protect the talk page of the article. Since Rajput died by hanging in June 2020 the article's been facing cyclical disruption from drive-by IP editors who are pushing conspiracy theories, fed mainly by right-wing Indian media, that he was murdered by his girlfriend or someone else who was/is part of either of their inner circles. (Reliable sources report that it was suicide, based on the initial autopsy and a review of that autopsy.) Every time the article proper is unprotected, IPs/unregistered users quickly come in and reintroduce content in support of this conspiracy theory. The issue is less pronounced on the talk page but still present, in that every few months we get a surge of drive-by IPs demanding we add the conspiracy theory material in meritless edit requests, ignoring an FAQ written and pinned at the top of the page. Because of the nature of the disruption, editor-level sanctions are not viable as an option to stem the tide, since the IPs make their edit and never show up again, making sanctioning them directly moot. While content about Rajput specifically will lose BLP protections in June, there is no guarantee that the conspiracymongering - which, again, focuses on people who are still alive - will stop at that point, especially given Rajput's family members have stirred the pot a couple of times, triggering another surge every time. Again, I apologise for the grossly nonstandard template, but it is not built to request page-level sanctions in a situation where the users themselves are drive-bys. Discussion concerning Sushant Singh Rajput[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Sushant Singh Rajput[edit]
|
Devesh.bhatta
[edit]| indefinite topic ban from all pages and discussions concerning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Doug Weller talk 15:49, 26 January 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Devesh.bhatta[edit]
The listed instances are just from this past month after DS notice was given. There is more instances of reckless sourcing from before for which I had, politely and later forcefully, asked them to be more careful. There was no response or an attempt at cleanup, but they have also not tried to restore my reverts yet. But their slow edit war at Krishna Janmasthan Temple Complex and a continued misrepresentation of sources show that their contributions in this topic area are to push a POV, not to improve articles.
Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion Discussion concerning Devesh.bhatta[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Devesh.bhatta[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Devesh.bhatta[edit]
|
Critchion
[edit]| Indef blocked for WP:DE ++ by me as a standard admin action. The behavior is bigger than one topic, even if he's only had the chance to edit in one area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:29, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Critchion[edit]
n/a
Recent storm in a teacup involving three politicians tweets from 10 years ago, from before they were even politicians. I'm not opposed to any mention of this whatsoever as my comments at Talk:Sinéad Ennis show, but the constant attempts to go way above and beyond what the references say is unacceptable. I've made user talk page as well as the article talk pages to explain the problems to the editor, they just reply with wild accusations and cries of censorship. FDW777 (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Critchion[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Critchion[edit]Storm in a tea cup. This guy is a Sinn Fein supporter and will not allow facts to be printed about them. Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Critchion[edit]
|
Davidbena
[edit]| Davidbena is topic banned from the subject of the Israel-Palestine conflict, broadly construed. This topic ban is in addition to, and does not repeal or alter, the existing community sanction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Davidbena[edit]
If this doesn't belong at WP:AE but at WP:ANI, please simply inform me, it isn't very clear. Davidbena has a topic ban from ARBPIA basically (exact restriction can be found at the linked editing restrictions page). I noticed, while new page patralling, the creation of Outline of Jerusalem, which I moved to Draft:Outline of Jerusalem as it seemed extremely one-sided in its POV, claiming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel without any indication of the very disputed state of this, and with an outline that didn't even mention Palestine or the Palestinians, nor the division in East and West Jerusalem. After explaining at the talk page why I moved this POV page to draft, I checked the history of the editor, only to notice that they have recently come of a two month block for violations of their ARBPIA ban. As the above POV problems are quite clearly ARBPIA / post-1948 politics related, I believe this to be a flagrant breach of their topic ban. Fram (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
In reply to Davidbena's statement, an article which includes the controversial claims of one side (Jerusalem as the capital of Israel) but excludes the controversial claims and even every mention of the other side (Palestinians) is not a neutral post and is not avoiding the inflammatory stuff, but putting it right there, from the start and until the end of the outline. Fram (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC) I didn't really plan to reply again, but this statement by DavidBena is so far of the truth... When you are banned from an XY dispute, and you then write an article claimed by both X and Y, but only write it from the X point of view and totally ignore Y, then you are not "avoiding the XY dispute", you are taking a clear position in it by choosing only the X position and ignoring Y completely. So yes, you have clearly broken your topic ban. Fram (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC) Discussion concerning Davidbena[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Davidbena[edit]Actually, my limited topic ban (see here) permits me to edit articles carrying the Israel/Palestine conflict area tag, which I have been doing ever since, writing specifically on historical, geographical, cultural, archaeological issues related to, both, Palestinians (Arabs) and Israelis (Jews), but WITHOUT engaging specifically in those areas of conflict that are well-known and inflammatory, such as war, extra-judiciary killings, terrorism, etc. See Draft:Outline of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a city that has been settled by both peoples, Jews and Arabs alike, and although the city is contended by one indigenous people, my current topic ban prohibits me from saying so. As you can see, I have avoided writing anything about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and have only mentioned the two peoples that live in the city, each with its own language and dress customs; nothing, however, about war and conflict. I am also permitted to write on Palestinian issues after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, such as on geography, such as I did on Jerusalem, when such edits do not divulge in the specific areas of conflict, such as Palestinian claims over East Jerusalem. Even Fram, the submitter of this enforcement request, admits here that I have not broken my limited topic ban.Davidbena (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC) @Floquenbeam:,@Ealdgyth:,@Dennis Brown:,@Girth Summit:,@Seraphimblade:,@Hut 8.5: This article came to describe Jerusalem; not the government. It just so happens that Israel’s Parliament is situated in West Jerusalem, and there are, I suppose, members of that Parliament who would like to see two independent states in our country – divided along ethnic lines, but I am not concerned with these matters in this article. Keeping everything as simple as it can possibly be, based on what people have always known to be Jerusalem for thousands of years, before the current conflict. Needless to say, with respect to both ethnic groups living in this city and who both have historical ties to the city dating back centuries, it is unanimously opined that both ethnic groups – Jews and Arabs – should remain in this city and pursue their own individual lifestyles without disturbance. There are no grounds for the claim that it is the government (Israeli, or otherwise) that has determined its ancient borders, or has given to it its name, since the people living in the city for centuries have already determined the name of the city, neither are the trees and the stones found there able to be delineated as not belonging to Jerusalem. My limited topic ban allowed me to address historical and geographical issues, even in relation to cities in Israel/Palestine, and even after the 1948 Arab/Israeli war. The permit to edit pages with the I/P tag proves that. I call God to my witness that I respect all peoples in this land, and I have no qualms against any man, be they Jew or Arab Muslim. If I should be thought worthy of an extended topic ban, I will eventually ask to repeal it. True, not having this "limited topic ban" could have avoided all this confusion. Moreover, unlike some editors here on Wikipedia, I strongly disdain having to write about war and conflicts, except where it might be to show how one place-name in the country was changed because of that conflict, and this, too, is purely related to history, with no ill-intent in my mind.Davidbena (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC) @Nableezy:, thanks for your kind words. I wish to only say that the page in which I was editing (Draft:Outline of Jerusalem) asked for the current government over the city and I could not possibly think of leaving it blank, although perhaps you can come along and re-submit the draft copy, but add this time that its status is disputed. I could not do that because of my limited topic ban. I was not advocating any international acceptance of the current government, because, honestly, if you ask my personal opinion, I would prefer a monarchy over Israel's current political system. That's my own view. Secondly, I am against dividing up the country with barrier fences, etc., because this gives the impression that Jews and Arabs cannot get along, when I think we can. I work with Arabs from Surif and other nearby villages, and I can tell you that I highly respect and love some of these families, and I would love to visit them in their respective villages, if it were not for the tensions created by some of those of a more radical mindset and who upset dual co-existence in our mutually shared country.Davidbena (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by Selfstudier[edit]Previous report Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1077#Tban enforcement and clarification, discussion not closed, ARBPIA sanctions were separately applied for canvassing. Tban says "...indefinitely banned from (a) any edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed,..." The Tban permits editing unrelated to the modern conflict, a potential lack of clarity resulting imo in the editor pushing the boundary. Although a community sanction it does seem an ARBPIA matter and I think the page being created is not a permissible exception. Selfstudier (talk) 10:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy[edit]Floq, I agree it is the latter. David, I know speaking directly to you isnt quite the normal process on this board, but as somebody who has over and over again argued for you to maintain an ability to edit you really have to understand the limits of your ban by now. Stay away from the modern politics of the State of Israel, full stop. Jerusalem's status as capital has been one of the most contentious topics in the history of Wikipedia as far as I know of. We still have a page level sanction forbidding anybody from modifying the language of its status as capital in our Jerusalem article absent a new RFC. You have to know that saying "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is a contentious statement specifically because of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Just stay away from anything about the modern state of Israel that is even a little bit contentious. I still think highly of you, and still believe you are editing with a good faith belief that you are not violating your ban. But you are. And sooner or later you are going to exhaust the patience of the people who have repeatedly made special carve outs for you (sometimes at my own urging). And when enough people decide that it simply is not worth your positives to try to ensure you edit within the scope of the tailor made ban you are just going to end up banned from WP as a whole. And since I still think highly of you, I would really like that not to happen. nableezy - 16:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Davidbena[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by FDW777
[edit]| Sanction vacated by issuing administrator. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
Statement by FDW777[edit]It is alleged I engaged in "repeated edit warring . . . to restore contentious material without consensus". On the contrary, the material has consensus. It was originally added to the article at 14:29, 13 October 2020, and appears to have been stable in the article until Crowder's latest video. As I have conistently pointed out over the last 24 hours, if something has been in the article for so long it represents the consensus version of the article. At Talk:Steven Crowder#Regarding Bloomberg's citation of a graduate student as an expert multiple editors reject the idea that you can dispute long-standing content that is properly referenced, remove it, and then insist other editors obtain consensus for its restoration. That's simply not how WP:CONSENSUS is written, as @MrOllie: states here
@Dennis Brown: articulates my feelings perfectly. Has this been new content, or content removed with an edit summary making it clear it was removed as a (potential) WP:BLP violation, I would absolutely not have restored it. Anyway, I'd prefer to move on to other things and leave Steven Crowder behind as there's plenty of other editors involved at present. To that end, I will offer not to edit Steven Crowder's article or talk page ever again (and any closely related articles, say for example should a standalone article be created on "Louder With Crowder"). In return I would like the official topic ban rescinded, as I consider it an unfair black mark against my name. FDW777 (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by TheSandDoctor[edit]I stand by the sanction as written. FDW777 is aware of discretionary sanctions in this area as they filed an AE request for a BLP sanction today, thereby fulfilling criterion 4 of awareness. What FDW included here is only a partial representation of the sanction as stated. They left out that this conduct is directly violating principle 1 of the arbitration committee's final decision in BLP: "do no harm". WP:BLP states that WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are the three core content policies that must be strictly (emphasis not mine) adhered to. The verifiability policy additionally states that there must be consensus for the inclusion of disputed content, not the other way around. FDW has been made readily aware of that in the talk page discussions (awareness, response) and edit summaries (revert, response). Then he continuously contravened the aforementioned policies while discussion was initially taking place on the talk page and was subsequently escalated to BLPN. FDW showed no signs that they were going to stop this behaviour after being informed and their statement here has further indicated that they are unlikely to change their combative behaviour in this area, which solidifies how I originally came to this decision. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Statement by MrOllie[edit]This is an edit war that TheSandDoctor took part in: [24] - they are clearly not an uninvolved administrator. - MrOllie (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by Zaathras[edit]1. Hmm, per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." No one was seeking to include disputed content here, it appears that a single editor removed it on 1/28, this was objected to the next day, then the edit warring by Coffee began, helped by SandDoctor. Yes, "it has been in the article for awhile" is not a shield against removal forevermore, but longevity should be given some due when someone comes in to remove content. And outside of egregious BLP violations, allowing the material to stand as it has while under discussion also would not do the subject harm. Two administrators completely misread the circumstances of the content being reverted. One did a WP:CRYBLP to keep a preferred version, the other issued an arbitrary topic-ban when they were (despite protests above) involved in the reverting. Not in an admin capacity, but as a user. This is bordering on tool abuse. I also count 6 editors who were in favor of retaining the text, FWIW. Against 2 admins and the Lettuce guy. Zaathras (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC) 2. Doc, you're basically doing argument from authority. "Arb says X", "I say I'm doing X", "I'm right." No. Merely saying "it's a BLP concern" doesn't automagically make it so, hence the sage advice in WP:CRYBLP. In the case of the subject, Steven Crowder, it appears that his article already describes him as utilizing homophobic and racist speech. The material you reverted was a reliably sourced observer's opinion that Crowder's channel content was overtly racist, and contained examples of such against Asians. The BLP of a man who is already described as using racist slurs is not materially harmed by including examples of such, and an opinion of such. Your argument falls flat. Zaathras (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by NorthBySouthBaranof[edit]TheSandDoctor's statement that TheSandDoctor's interpretation of policy would require a formal consensus to be found on literally every single word of every single article relating to a living person prior to inclusion, and allow users to unilaterally remove every single word of any such article which has not received such a consensus, merely by declaring that they have
Statement by Kingoflettuce (moved from below)[edit]@EdJohnston: I think you have summed up the situation perfectly, Ed. What I do not understand is why certain editors keep insinuating that the editors on the "other side" e.g. myself, Coffee, Doc, are "trolls" or "vandals" "crying BLP" (as if that was a sacred policy as opposed to... Actual policies) and are so insistent on having those few sentences up while the discussion is still ongoing. I always had the impression that we erred on the side of great caution when it came to BLPs, especially those of contentious figures like Crowder... Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Like, it's far from "well established" (thanks to the diff FW provided, I now am blessed with the knowledge that it was randomly included in a half-baked "Content Analysis" section by a self-avowed furry), nor will its removal "paralyse" the article. So I really don't see what's the big deal with just waiting for actual (not "default") consensus to emerge. Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC) And what's with the slippery slopes that Nomoskedasticity and NorthBySouthBaranof keep invoking? Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Moved from admin section to this section because of involvement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion[edit]I asked on talk whether anyone was willing to assert that this fell under BLP, and the most anyone was willing to assert was that it could be considered covered by WP:BLPKIND, which is emphatically not WP:BLPREMOVE (and nowhere near sufficient to satisfy the requirements of BLPREMOVE.) To be clear, it's not just that this is not the sort of BLP violation that would require immediate removal - at least in that discussion, none of the people trying to remove it were willing to assert that it rose to the level of BLP violation that requires immediate removal (looking over BLPREMOVE, it clearly does not.) It is an attributed statement from a high-quality source commenting on a public figure, not something that can reasonably be described as presenting an immediate threat to the subject's reputation. Obviously there is still room to discuss WP:DUE weight, focus, rewording, and so forth, but BLP is not a limitless blank check to instantly remove all longstanding text from any article which the article subject might object to; as it says, I also want to particularly note that I feel that a huge part of the reason this went so poorly was because of Coffee's "procedural revert" where they implied they were indifferent to the text and were removing it solely on policy grounds (an indifference that they ultimately discarded when challenged.) Those sorts of reverts are terrible ideas outside of the most clear-cut of cases, which this very clearly was not, since they amount to a WP:STONEWALL situation - it means you're refusing to present or even endorse an argument related to the article content that can be engaged with or answered, instead claiming that policy "obviously" requires a specific outcome as though that is indisputable. Even when it comes to BLP, you need to be willing to assert a position on the content and sources so other people can reasonably answer and discussion can proceed; if WP:BLPREMOVE's applicability is obvious, then it should be equally obvious that the sourcing is insufficient, and it is particularly important to emphasize why you think that when invoking such a strong policy, so that discussion and consensus-building can follow up on that disputed point. --Aquillion (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by FDW777[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Nomoskedasticity[edit]I would request that everyone concerned take account of the potential for disruption of the encyclopedia if we allow any "challenge" to underpin exclusion of material. This idea is increasingly attempted (and, it seems, increasingly successful), and it's not hard at all to appreciate the way it can be weaponized, by any motivated faction regardless of their ideology. If we allow a "challenge" to material supported by a Bloomberg article, we can allow a challenge to any material at all, no matter what the source. There is no lack of creativity in the invention of reasons, amounting to endless special pleading. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Statement by RandomCanadian[edit]The history of Steven Crowder looks like a bad case of edit-warring for all involved, including (but most certainly not limited to) FDW and SandDoctor. I do not see how the topic ban is correct on either procedural grounds (TheSandDoctor at the absolute very least clearly looks involved - whether one revert is truly involved or not might be open to interpretation, but if they were unsure, they should have refrained or maybe asked for the opinion of someone else, completely uninvolved) or on merits (topic bans are supposed to be a last resort, like a block but with only some pages in mind, and usually spurred on by long-term disruption and editing against community norms. On this second point, I simply do not see evidence of this kind of long-term disruption (the kind that would be sufficient to warrant an unilaterally imposed topic ban) in either FDW's comments at Talk:Steven Crowder (none of which I find objectionable, a prima vista) or in their actions on the article (2 reverts in total - which makes the question of whether SandDoctor was involved or not far more interesting...). Ok, sure, long-term editors should abstain from edit-warring as much as possible, but if FDW was really the main contributor to the problem [he isn't, and I note that clearly, this was something done by many other editors], then a partial block for edit warring - or, more likely, page protection, as that is what was required - would have been plenty enough. Nor does the (clean) block log contain any hint that this is a problem which previously lead to hypothetical disruption and sanctions which FDW would have had hypothetically ignored. The discussion at BLPN is certainly heated and contentious, but there again FDW's comment fall far short of what is usually considered disruptive (and given that policy issues remain unsettled, this is clearly a matter where reasonable editors could have different interpretations). In short, the topic ban seems wrong both from the clear appearance of a conflict of interest and on the merits. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by FDW777[edit]
|
Just another Wikipedian editor
[edit]| User blocked as a sock--Ymblanter (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Just another Wikipedian editor[edit]
P-Blocked a month ago for two weeks - I have not bothered to link relevant evidence.
WP:CIR issues; prob. too young. Either an indef or a TBan is necessary.
Discussion concerning Just another Wikipedian editor[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Just another Wikipedian editor[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Just another Wikipedian editor[edit]
|