Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive335

Safetystuff

Safetystuff is topic banned from the subject of alternative medicine, broadly construed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Safetystuff

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM

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

[1] 29 June 2024—2012 review by Vickers c.s., it has been found wanting in the past and deleted from the article; smacks of WP:PROFRINGE
[2] 29 June 2024—smacks of WP:PROFRINGE
[3] 29 June 2024—smacks of WP:PROFRINGE
[4] 30 June 2024—violates WP:NPA, postulates a conspiracy theory, and is rife with non sequiturs (who cares about the "democratic way" when we discuss the positive results of medical science? See WP:DEM.)
[5] 30 June 2024—writing such opinion just after being warned of WP:AE smacks of WP:RGW and seem to postulate a conspiracy theory; they claim to have a PhD
~~[6] 30 June 2024—see explanation below~~
[7] 30 June 2024—see explanation below
[8] 30 June 2024—DARVO

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 [9] 23 June 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think that a formal warning would work better than at topic ban in this early stage. A topic ban might be required if they persist in error. I am aware that their mistakes are not so gross as to deserve a topic ban, but prevention works better than banning them. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of their edits might be formally (literally) correct, but severely downplay that vast amount of evidence that acupuncture is bunk. A case of WP:GEVAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, yup, my conclusion is that they did persist in error. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replied with science dissemination breaking down political or racist bias just after arguing at [10] that the Wikipedia article is colonialist and ethnocentric. That promises nothing good. Namely they try to paint us and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as racist. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have learned thanks to the positive feedback received by good people editing Wikipedia. Is that the language of someone having a PhD? WP:NOTKINDERGARTEN. Speaking of good people editing Wikipedia is infantilizing. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They speak of personal insults, but my observations that they are postulating conspiracy theories and using infantilizing language are not my own fault, but statements of fact. Don't shoot the messenger. If they think that postulating conspiracy theories and using infantilizing language are that bad, they should not have performed such edits. I'm am aware of WP:BOOMERANG: there is no immunity for the person who reports the mistakes of others (real or alleged). Rational, evidence-based criticism is not personal insults. If my claims are not supported by evidence, it would be easy to point out that. Mere handwaving cannot show that. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Walsh90210. What you ignore is that they have an agenda. Their agenda is pretty clearly described at [11]. Of course, they could repent of having such agenda, but this usually does not happen in a matter of days. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walsh90210, thank you for pointing out they are different accounts. It is however baffling that Safetystuff did not point out that themself. It were a very easy way to prove me wrong. I'm not suggesting they are the same people, since although ChallengingAnthropocentrism claims to be much lower in academic degree, their English looks much more professional and academic than Safetystuff's. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Safetystuff: As Valjean wrote, Far too many problems to be worth keeping. Improper use of non_MEDRS. Attempts to shoehorn effectiveness using studies that say it's not better than any other method. Generally poor addition. Only one source was used correctly, the one about subsidy in USA. And that's because Valjean had to be very brief (an edit summary does not allow too many words). tgeorgescu (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12] 30 June 2024

Discussion concerning Safetystuff

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

Statement by Safetystuff

This matter has been raised after editing the acupuncture page and the Chinese medicine one. I don't have any conflict of interest on the topic and I have access to scientific papers being an academic as such I did my best to provide the broader view on these subjects and many more.

I don't have anyone paying for my activity on Wikipedia. My interest is on science dissemination breaking down political or racist bias.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetystuff (talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done mistakes (I am human) but I have learned thanks to the positive feedback received by good people editing Wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetystuff (talk • contribs) 00:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added Note: I hope some editors can moderate the personal insults that have been made against me. I am not replying back to these comments as I am not here to get into social media fights. Thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetystuff (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note 2: Thanks to Walsh90210 for acknowledging the overreaction in this event. I felt like retaliation for editing the acupuncture page.

I provided solid references on the acupuncture topic. Meta analysis are among the best statistical tools to assess the effect sizes of interventions (in this case acupuncture). I use them quiet often to merge data from different experiments as well as I teach stats and effect size too. As such, I know how to read the results from the papers I used as references. Regardless providing results from several published meta analysises, all the proposed changes, which were moderate by other editors, are now deleted without a strong argument. Further , in NZ, acupuncture can be used under ACC. You can very yourself just googling it. Many health insurance all around the world allow it use. Please google it.

Now it seems I will be banned from editing the acupuncture page. Can someone please explain to me in plain English what I did wrong? I do not see the logic of what is happening here. Many thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetystuff (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Walsh90210

The diffs provided are extremely weak evidence for the need for sanctions. An AE thread in response to (approximately) one edit feels like an extreme over-reaction; I cannot blame Safetystuff for jumping to the (inaccurate) conclusion that "moneyed interests" might be behind it.

However, the editing history does suggest that Safetystuff is a new user who might benefit from editing in other topic areas a bit longer. Without considering concerns related to the stigma of sanctions, a one-month page-ban from Acupuncture (which would require affirmative consensus on the talk-page for any changes) would likely be helpful. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: The diff 1231388113 is from a different editor. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

I reverted all of Safetystuff's edits as there were far too many problems to be worth keeping. There was also a strong WP:PROFRINGE bent to them. I saw attempts to shoehorn effectiveness into the article based on studies long ago rejected or whose conclusions said that acupuncture was not better than any other method, that last part being ignored by Safetystuff. One source (Edzard Ernst was one author), criticized acupuncture. It said that acupuncture seemed to have an effect on low-back pain, but was no better than other methods. (Those of us who are medical professionals know that LBP often has a strong psychological factor.) That critical meta-analysis was then used to make acupuncture seem to be really effective, when that was not the main message. That's an improper use of a source.

Many of the sources were poor websites. That doesn't mean they were awful, but personal websites that were not official. Few of the claimed meta-analyses were actually that, but were instead peer-reviewed research or other studies that do not meet our MEDRS guideline standards. MEDRS requires much better than individual studies, even if they are of the highest quality.

The fact that private insurance often pays for acupuncture, and other alternative medicine, treatments says nothing about effectiveness, but more about how insurance companies cater to customers' wishes and can make money off the deal. One reference, about such subsidy in the USA, was actually a good and official source!

We are all volunteers, so drop the aspersions and conspiratorial thinking. The appeal to personal authority and PhD education status means nothing here. Many editors are highly educated, very intelligent, professors, authors, researchers, Nobel Prize laureates, etc. I know of the president of a national medical society who edits here. Even one Nobel Prize laureate is blocked from editing here, so status means nothing, except as a proven subject matter expert. The spelling and grammatical errors are fixable.

Safetystuff should approach this differently by making smaller edits and discussing any that are rejected. They will have more success. The idea of a "one-month page-ban from Acupuncture" is a good idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of a COI and using multiple accounts may not be completely resolved. See the overlap of edits with Carolineding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the article history of Ruggiero Lovreglio. There might be other issues. Safetystuff has been warned about COI editing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I share Tryptofish's view about Seraphimblade's suggestion of a topic ban for alternative medicine, and that would be the usual "broadly construed". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I have serious concerns about whether Safetystuff is a net positive in the topic area. I came here from seeing the notice on their talk page, just after posting this: [13], at Talk:Acupuncture. The tl;dr of what I said there, with diffs, is that this editor repeatedly misrepresented sources that actually say mixed things about acupuncture, as saying that acupuncture has significant medical benefits, and cited a source about a primary study of acupuncture as supporting a statement that the Brazilian government pays for acupuncture. Some of this seems like not understanding what the sources say, and some really seems like POV-pushing. I also found pervasive problems with inept writing, although that might perhaps be an issue of not being a native English language speaker. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw above that Safetystuff said here: "Further , in NZ, acupuncture can be used under ACC. You can very yourself just googling it." (I assume "very"="verify", of course.) This is something that I commented about at the article talk. Here is one of two sources that Safetystuff added to support adding such a statement to the page: [14]. Here is a prominent part of what that source actually says: "Traditional Chinese acupuncture is not regulated in New Zealand. Be careful when reading acupuncture websites and advertising... It's not recommended that you have acupuncture as a sole treatment for your health problem." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Seraphimblade, I agree that alternative medicine is the right choice. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Safetystuff

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

@Safetystuff: Is it correct that your previous account was Carolineding? If so, why did you choose to create a new account? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respondent answered this question on their user talk page, claiming that they are unable to reply here due to a lack of a reply button, and attributing the account to a former roommate. Given their multiple replies here already, which each would have required the use of the source editor, I find their explanation regarding why they chose to reply on talk a bit hard to believe. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that Safetystuff has continued editing since the question by Red-tailed hawk, but has not replied to it, so I think we can presume that there is some reason they do not want to answer that. Given the behavior by these two accounts, I think a topic ban is in order, but the question would be broadness. Would we be looking at acupuncture, alternative medicine, or pseudoscience in general? I would lean towards the second of those options, but would welcome more input. Safetystuff has contributed positively outside those areas, so I hope they would continue to do that going forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also add that I am not impressed by the vague allegation of "political or racist bias" without any substantiation at all. That's a pretty serious accusation, even if not directed at anyone in particular, and I would expect to see evidence presented if it's going to be thrown around. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and the response is pretty clear WP:BROTHER in any case. I don't think this editor needs to continue editing in this area, given that. Unless any uninvolved admin objects in the next day or so, I will close this with a topic ban from alternative medicine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trilletrollet

Trilletrollet is issued a logged warning to observe the requirements of civility and avoiding personal attacks especially strictly in contentious areas, and that further failure to do so is likely to result in sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Trilletrollet

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Chess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Trilletrollet (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/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality

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

2024-06-30 Edit summary for a !vote on whether The Telegraph is a reliable source for transgender topics is unsurprising that the same shit heads who support the Gaza genocide would also support transphobia
2024-06-15 The term "Khamas terrorists" makes fun of the accent Hebrew speakers pronounce "Hamas" with.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2023-10-19 Editor has been previously warned (by a non-admin) for incivility in the Israel-Palestine topic area.

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

2024-06-25 Reverted someone citing WP:ARBPIA restrictions by name.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Trilletrollet does not view their behaviour as incivil. After BilledMammal brought this up on Trilletrollet's talk page, Trilletrollet's response was At least I'm on the right side of history [15] and a promise to disengage from the Israel-Palestine topic area. [16] The last time 2023-10-22 Trilletrollet was confronted about alleged bad behaviour in the Israel-Palestine topic area, they said Just wanna say that I'm taking an indefinite break from this topic area.

A formal warning from an uninvolved admin would make it clear to Trilletrollet that comments like these are unacceptable, and make it easier to take action in the future if this becomes a larger problem. Since Trilletrollet acknowledges a wish to avoid the Israel-Palestine conflict area but is unable to do that on their own [17], a voluntary topic-ban may help as well.

Trilletrollet does not believe the edit summary is a personal attack because It wasn't meant as an attack on any particular editors, just a general observation. [18] Is this an accurate interpretation of WP:NPA?

@Red-tailed hawk: I notified BilledMammal (the editor you mention) of this discussion so they can provide greater input. As far as I can see, creating redirects [19] [20] or disputing the usage of "Hamas-run health ministry" is not inherently disruptive. The issue I chose to focus on is that Trilletrollet often uses disruptive edit summaries or makes her point in an aggressive way e.g. posts on her userpage that Zionism is a cult of death. [21]. This extends to other areas she feels strongly about (e.g. this chain of edit summaries with a later-blocked IP editor fuck off [22] it's infested by you [23] look in the mirror bitch [24]). To answer your question, a single re-revert on Nakba denial isn't WP:TAGTEAM to my knowledge, and the only other interaction Trilletrollet has with Iskandar323 is in this thread. I define WP:POVPUSH as disregard for our content policies to advance one's point of view, and based on the diffs I see, that isn't the main issue.

A t-ban could allow for Trilletrollet to edit again when tensions surrounding the current Israel-Hamas war are less. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't add more w/o breaking wordcount, but I agree with BilledMammal & Sean.Hoyland. If nothing else, a warning should identify what behaviour is problematic, so it isn't disputed later. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: While the initial comment was ambiguous, Trilletrollet clarified in a follow-up that she meant to call out other editors. [25] Reddit, a common source for memes, describes the term "Khamas" as making fun of an Israeli accent.[26] [27] I don't buy that it's ok because it's just a meme and not "directed incivility"; is your standard that I can post memes making fun of a group's stereotypical accents onwiki as long as I am not directing the memes at specific editors? If not, when is making fun of a group's accent not acceptable onwiki and why doesn't "Khamas" meet that standard? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2024-06-30

Discussion concerning Trilletrollet

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

Statement by Trilletrollet

Just to clarify, I don't have any inherent problem with Israelis, Azeris, the British or any other national groups, but I do have a problem with ethnic cleansing, genocide and similar things. And it makes me kinda angry when people constantly try to downplay or deny such crimes. It just comes off as incredibly heartless, as if some human lives don't even matter. I've never tried to downplay the 7th of October attacks, because I actually have moral principles that I try to follow.

But I agree that some of my comments have broken our civility rules, and that's what matters in the end. I really have no interest in doing more edits to this topic area at the moment anyways. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

There isn't a clear civility issue in the diffs provided, which both outline general statements not directed at any editor or anyone in particular other than broad institutions. The first is directed at the Telegraph, which for sure is a race-baiting rag that well merits all sorts of colourful language being thrown at it, even if throwing colourful language at it on Wikipedia is somewhat needless. The second is directed at Israel through reference to what is now a very widespread meme. Neither really amounts to any form of directed incivility: if others take offense by proxy then it is more of an eye-of-the-beholder-type situation. The "s" word is generally best avoided, as with any other expletives, but beyond this, I'm not sure what there actually is to sanction here. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess, @BilledMammal: A couple of points. The Telegraph diffs relate to the trans topic area discussion, and the subsequent responses are likewise more about that topic area. Then the IP-related diffs from Chess and some of the other examples from BilledMammal appear to be related to Azeri-Armenian content. So that's already quite a lot of non-Arbpia content that suggests this is more of a general behavioural complaint about inappropriate edit summaries more suited to ANI than AE. With regards to the "kh" meme, "khamas" with a "kh" means "violence" in biblical Hebrew, so the pronunciation is a widely understood wordplay,[28] much as Arabic speakers prefer "daesh" as a term for Isis due to its pejorative connotations. Since I doubt that you have any reliable sources stating that there is nothing political about the choice to use the "kh", even though people in Israel have little issue saying other foreign "h" words like "hi", I would be very careful about raising the spectre of prejudice over other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Given that Trilletrollet said 'Ok, I'm terribly, terribly sorry about my actions.', information that was not included in the AE report, it seems likely that their views are more complicated than not viewing their behaviour as "incivil". I would argue that thinking some people are shitheads who support genocide is not a good reason to avoid the PIA topic area. It shouldn't matter if the editor can follow the policies and guidelines. On the other hand, thinking there is a legitimate reason (in Wikipedia's terms) to say things like that to specific people, a 'reason to be "incivil"' to editors, is probably a good reason to avoid the PIA topic area. I would encourage Trilletrollet to try to stick around in the topic area if they think they can cope with the content and behavioral constraints and the occasional intrusive thoughts because of their personal views. For me, question #1 for access to the topic area should be, is this editor using deception i.e. are they a sock? Honesty is probably grossly undervalued in the topic area given that it is an essential requirement for building an encyclopedia. And every time we lose an honest person, regardless of what we think of their personal views, we increase the proportion of dishonest editors who use deception via sockpuppetry. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the diff #2 cited by BilledMammal as a civility issue.

16 November 2023 - This move request is just a callous attempt to discredit the opinion that Israel's actions constitute genocide by cloaking it in 'both sides' language.

Some interesting context. What truly motivated the editor who requested the move is unknown. What is known is that they were subsequently topic banned as part of the ArbCom canvassing case - "Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that Homerethegreat most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor." (canvassing that is evidently ongoing). So, another way of describing the statement could be that it was unnecessarily speculative. I wonder if the statement would appear different if Trilletrollet had made exactly the same comment after the ArbCom case and topic ban rather than before. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

FYI, they have declared awareness of ARBPIA prior to this month, such as on 21 October 2023.

Iskandar323, if someone made a comment mocking the way Indians speak, we would probably interpret it as a personal attack against Indian editors, and might even ban them for racism. Why would mocking the way Israeli's speak be treated any differently? Regarding the first diff that Chess provided, this comment by Trilletrollet seems to make it clear they are referring to editors participating in the RfC, not to the Telegraph.

Red-tailed hawk, although I would agree that they suggest there is an issue beyond civility, I actually rose those primarily as civility issues. By saying that it is "Hasbara" or "Zionist propaganda" to refer to the Gaza Health Ministry as "Hamas-run" or similar, despite the designation being common in reliable sources and endorsed in multiple RfCs, is to suggest that editors who have added that designation or supported it in RfCs are Hasbara or pushing "Zionist propaganda".

Civility issues are also quite common for them. Examples in addition to the ones provided by Chess include:

1 July 2024 - Off-topic ranting, the whole thing is a disgrace to our encyclopedia
16 November 2023 - This move request is just a callous attempt to discredit the opinion that Israel's actions constitute genocide by cloaking it in 'both sides' language.
16 November 2023 - Asked JM2023 Do you agree that Palestinian lives matter, and when JM2023 did not respond removed the comment, saying apparently not.
8 November 2023 - Describes editors raising issues with their user page as literally 1984
4 October 2023 - How will the Azeri pov-pushers explain this? (This one supports Chess' point that this extends to other areas they feel strongly about, as it is within Armenia-Azerbaijan)
13 April 2023 - you're trying to whitewash such a bigoted extremist group

Note that while some of these diffs are old, they are very recent in terms of the number of edits. For example, 13 April is their 100th most recent edit to talk space, and 16 November is their 54th most recent edit to project space. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar, it mocks how Israelis speak - since when have we tolerated editors mocking cultural characteristics like accents, even when accompanied by the justification "I thought it was intentional"?

As for whether it is intentional, a few Twitter posts etc might claim that it is, but given those Twitter posts talk about Jewish "trickery" and invoke antisemitic passages from the Quran as evidence, and given that in Hebrew the closest transliteration of the first letter in Hamas is ח‎ (khet or chet), which naturally causes the mispronunciation, I think we need to reject that theory.

I think AE is the right location for this, as those are all contentious topics; WP:ARBAA, WP:GENSEX, WP:ARBPIA, with the issues being most common in the last. I also think you’ve misunderstood the Telegraph diffs; they apply to both GENSEX and ARBPIA. BilledMammal (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dtobias

Looking at this user's contributions, I see they are mostly regarding adjusting categories of prehistoric animals. This is, I presume, tedious but useful work at making the encyclopedia better in that area, so good for you. However, whenever the subject matter turns to something more contentious such as Israel/Palestine or gender, things get rougher, and this user starts arrogantly proclaiming "the right side of history" and using playground-bully style namecalling. Perhaps this user would be better off sticking to prehistoric animals. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aaron Liu

Please, let's all chill down here. TT (sorry bud I dunno what short name to call you) crossed a line here, yes. But this was a single incident that she didn't back down for a bit about that she has since apologized for. Otherwise, I see incredibly and invariably sporadic incidences cited here, with only two incidences (incl. the aforementioned) picking up in the past weeks, the evidence seemingly compiled overall for civility instead of a single topic notwithstanding. As argued in WP:PUNITIVE, sanctions should be preventative and not punitive. The editor has expressed willingness to disengage, so I believe at most, a big warning would be enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Trilletrollet

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

WP:ENFORCEMENT notes that when an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors will warn the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, though editors will resort to more forceful means if the behavior continues. In general, if an editor cannot conduct themselves within a topic area in a civil manner, even after being warned, then more forceful means (such as topic bans) become reasonable. But I'm not quite sure we're merely dealing with a civility issue here.
I am also noticing regarding respondent's conduct within WP:ARBPIA is that an editor left a note on respondent's talk page regarding several edit summaries that appear to principally be objected to for reasons other than civility: 10:48, 15 June 2024; 09:06, 23 June 2024; 09:16, 23 June 2024; and 09:18, 23 June 2024. Filer refers to an ANI archive from 2023 where concerns about tag-teaming/POV-pushing were brought up, and respondent said they would stay away from the topic area indefinitely.
Keeping that in mind, @Chess: are you explicitly concerned about long-term POV pushing from this user more broadly? And, if so, do you have additional diffs that you would like to present? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am seeing more than anything isolated to a specific topic area is that the respondent has had general issues with civility (particularly in edit summaries) across a few, including Armenia-Azerbaijan and the Arab-Israeli conflict. If the issue is not that the editor is misbehaved in one particular area, but has general civility problems across a bunch, a topic ban doesn't quite work.

We're left with two options to address the civility issues: blocking the user outright or warning the user to knock it off and be civil. I am not going to indef the user at this point, and I don't think a time-limited block issued now would be better at preventing future disruption than a warning. So, I'm leaning towards a logged warning to remain civil in contentious topics areas, particularly with respect to AA2 and ARBPIA. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree to a logged warning for civility in CTOP areas, with the clear understanding that the least future sanction if that does not happen would be a TBAN. If the type of behavior this editor has engaged in continues to take place across multiple areas, the remedy would likely be an indefinite block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable to me. No objection if you'd like to close this out. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorabino

The article Duchy of Saint Sava is placed indefinitely under a "consensus required" restriction as follows: Prior to taking any of the actions of moving, merging and redirecting, or blanking and redirecting the article, consensus must be established for such an action. That consensus may be established by any normal process, including request for comment and requested move. If there is any dispute over whether such a discussion establishes consensus, formal closure of the discussion by an uninvolved editor must be sought. Edits or moves covered by this restriction made without establishing such a consensus may result in sanction, and may be reverted by any editor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Sorabino

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Joy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBMAC

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

Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2#Improper merge

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, for example User talk:Sorabino#Zachlumia is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am an involved administrator here so I can't formally warn or otherwise sanction this user myself, so I'm requesting help from others.

This user has been furthering a content dispute at this article for many years now, on a question of how much due weight should be given to describing a medieval title and in turn a polity. This relatively minor historiographical issue has clearly been escalated into a modern-day political talking point, as a separate article gives some sort of prominence to the Serb nature of the place at the time. Multiple other editors have gone through multiple rounds of explaining that the justification for having a standalone article is insufficient, and it's not commensurate to what the consensus of reliable sources say about it.

This last flared up in 2021 at Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2, and it flared up again this year.

We should stop endlessly tolerating this kind of advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle and abide by our own rules against it.

This isn't as severe as the case of Antidiskriminator, but it's close.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[29]

Responses to questions

Seraphimblade The pattern of behavior is the problem, not the individual edits. I can go and copy&paste you a slew of individual diff links, and they're still going to be on the whole too long and/or too subtle. The trick is to see through the forest, realize how the endless wikilawyering on the Talk page is not accompanied with producing properly referenced content, or indeed actually building consensus, and that it's a pattern of behavior going back multiple years. --Joy (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade JFTR I'm not telling anyone to read everything, I'm just saying I already read everything, yet my hands are tied because I tried to reason with them already. If this is not the right forum where admins can get assistance on arbitration enforcement, perhaps we need a better one. --Joy (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk Okay, let me try it like this, I'll summarize with dates and outcomes so you can observe the bludgeoning:

March 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 1#Duke of Saint Sava Makes extraordinary claims based on a 1923 book with explicit quotes around that title in a section title, and a single cursory mention of that in a 1953 encyclopedia article about that. These assertions are immediately disputed. Appeals to authority, no discussion about the quality of this, no real answer.
March 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 1#Discussion re-start More assertions, no proof whatsoever in several comments. Discussion mentions numerous historian works, Sorabino zeros in on a Vego 1953 book where there's a nuanced discussion of the terms Herzegovina and whatnot, but Sorabino ignores the nuance and just uses this mention as justification to keep pounding his party line. He pastes the phrase Službeno se zemlja zvala Ducatus Sancti Sabbae no less than three times in the same thread. After some more back and forth, Sorabino finally posts a bunch of links to articles in support of their claim, which are immediately panned by Santasa99, and a cursory examination shows why - it's a bunch of cursory mentions, some in footnotes, some under double quotes, in papers that don't always focus on the topic area but something related. There's actually maybe proper single mention in a 2019 paper about the same noble family, as well as a link I can't follow any more, and a Google Books search that doesn't show up any more but the search string says it's just an alternate name for the name Herzegovina (defeating the point of the argument). This is the aspect that reminds me of Antidiskriminator - mindless pasting of Google search results with no real analysis, which doesn't stand up to elementary scrutiny.
April 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2#Common name and official contemporary name: explicitly re-posts the three claims made in the previous section. No new sources or anything of actual substance. User DeCausa joins to say the same thing, is met by more walls of text. Finally, we go "back to the sources", and then a 2005 article is cited as if it's in support, but it's actually a nuanced discussion by a historian about how the nobility used this title just like the nobility next door ('Herzog of Split' Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić). Repeats the citations again in the same thread, and Santasa99 tells them - no followup to that. Then another mention of the term in Ćirković 1989, again zero context, disputed, no response.
April 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2#Three-layered subject of the article: another unsourced rant, and at this point I start explicitly warning against this. No new contribution that would resolve the issue.
January 2023 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2#reference to Miller 1923: I point out the double quotes in the 1923 book (first item mentioned above). Zero response from Sorabino, other users argue a bit.

April 2024 the latter thread is briefly revived, but we see no improvement (another user requires a rehashing of the Herzog of Split comparison too). I recommend a merge, Santasa99 implements it.

June 2024 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Duchy_of_Saint_Sava Sorabino notices and starts claiming improper merge, repeats claims about the 2019 source, creates Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2#Improper merge, repeats more extraordinary claims about that source.

Since I filed this, there's been more discussion at the latter link, but it's more of the same. Now I noticed there's a 2020 German paper mentioned, which has a couple of cursory mentions of these terms likewise. Sorabino is still desperately trying to construct a narrative for a standalone article based on obviously flimsy sourcing. That is simply not what the standard of contributions in this contentious topic area is supposed to be. When this kind of a thing is done once, twice, three times, fine, let's not bash the newbie. But after so many years, we need to stop spending valuable volunteer time on nonsense.

--Joy (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade Sorabino is not acting upon a content dispute using reasons based in policy, sources, or common sense (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS), he's instead misinterpreting sources to advocate for policy violations. The problem here is not a content dispute, but persistent misconduct. --Joy (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich the fact that the title existed during the time of one ruler is immaterial to the matter of how to properly describe this polity. The term Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation probably existed for many many more years, but we don't have a WP:SOAPBOX article specifically about it. That's the disruptive part, the excessive insistence that a single fancy title is worth making a point about over the course of so many years. --Joy (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich also, if you want to cast aspersions like that I'm the one gaming the system here, while admitting you do not know enough about the Balkans to understand the POV implications of all of this, well, let's just say that I don't understand how you think that is the right way to approach this WP:ARBMAC issue. If this whole series of events, and the quality of these discussions and source evaluations from the side advocating for "Duchy of Saint Sava" have been enough to convince you that all is well with the multi-year campaign to maintain this sham of a separate article, maybe you need to actually learn something about the Balkans topics on Wikipedia, for example by reading the stories of Antidiskriminator and Sadko to see how all of this actually works. I can't say I appreciate the fact that my multiple decades of working on keeping all these various nationalist POV pushers at bay and learning the way they operate and abuse Wikipedia and trying to address it through the proper forums can be so casually dismissed and in turn claimed to be abusive. If one wanted a way to alienate and demotivate the scarcely few volunteer admins in a difficult topic area, this would be it. --Joy (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amanuensis Balkanicus there is nothing unilateral about this other than the process by which Sorabino has persistently disrupted consensus-building about this topic. In general, I will remind of the discussion about Sadko, where you and I already had a disagreement about what constitutes proper behavior in the Balkan topic area - what you claim is mere "expressing views" about a topic is what I see as slow-burn nationalist POV pushing and gaming the system. We've seen it with Antidiskriminator, we've seen it with Sadko, it's not novelty by any means. --Joy (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Sorabino

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

Statement by Sorabino

Thank you for the notification. For now, I will abstain from commenting, since my accuser is yet to provide particular edits or some other evidence that would demonstrate my allegedly inappropriate behavior. Sorabino (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several factual errors and misrepresentations have been posted here by my accuser. Starting from the top, he claims that I have been furthering a content dispute at this article for many years now. That is unfair and untrue, at least. My previous involvement in those discussions occurred only once, back in 2021, during the debates that lasted from march to may. Those debates ended with no consensus, and the article was kept, with its long standing scope and title, and that was the only proper outcome. During the following years, some users tried to reopen the debate, but no additional sources were presented that would justify abolition or merger of that article. I did not take part in those debates at all, as they also ended without consensus, and the article was kept unchanged. After more than a year of total silence on the talk page, discussions were renewed on 25 April 2024. Within a day, on 26 April, an involved administrator Joy (my accuser here) proposed to another specific user to merge this article, and that was executed on the same day! So, it was done only a day after the discussions were reopened, in spite of long standing disputes and without any notification to opposing users. To make it worse, the "merge" was used to abolish the very essence of this article, and then another radical step was made, on 28 June (here), when the remaining redirect was proposed for deletion, thus leading to the possible deletion of the entire history of those disputes. At that point, it was obvious that some questions should be raised in regard to recent actions and only then, three years after my first and only participation in 2021 debates, I decided to return to the talk page in order to raise the question of an improper merge. This is my first response, and the rest will follow. Sorabino (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of my accuser that in 2024 debates I repeated some sources (repeats claims about the 2019 source) is not true and might be an oversight from their part. None of the sources that I introduced in 2024 were ever mentioned in previous discussions. Thus, there were no repetitions, on my part. All newly introduced sources are scholarly papers from non-Serbian experts on medieval history (Croatian, Hungarian, German). Those papers are clearly showing that in scholarly circles there is no doubt regarding the historicity of the title in question (Duke of Saint Sava) and the existence of the late medieval feudal polity (Duchy of Saint Sava, 1448-1482). Articles on that very subject exist on 13 (thirteen) other Wikipedia projects, under the same title. Regarding some repetitions in 2021 debates, there indeed are some, but not in a copy-past mode, since the context of the debate was such that some sources were disputed, and therefore some source quotes were repeated, by various users. There are several other aspects of this entire debate, but lets hope that it is obvious by now now that this is in essence a content dispute. Sorabino (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since responses of my accuser already exceed 1000 words, please would you allow me just another post here? Several users have raised questions related to citing and sources, but 500 word limitations are preventing me from answering. If allowed, that would also be my final post here (just by re-posting my attempted post). Sorabino (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

I have a procedural concern as an uninvolved observer. If this is going to be challenged on insufficient evidence, then it would help if there's a clarification on what standard of evidence is expected. Would several diffs showing editing that favors one side be enough to justify a sanction on its own, or would these diffs need to demonstrate something beyond simply favoring a POV? And in turn, what would be expected of the accused in their defense if these diffs are produced? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amanuensis Balkanicus

I was notified to this dispute because I have the page in question on my watchlist. Santasa99 is being disruptive here, not Sorabino, and I'm puzzled how anyone can come to a different conclusion.

Back in April, Santasa and Joy agreed between the two of them to merge the Duchy of Saint Sava article to Herzegovina#Medieval period without inviting the wider community to discuss what was (as I think is now very clear) a highly contentious move. [30] [31] [32] Perhaps, instead of unilaterally deciding to merge the article, had Santasa or Joy initiated an RfC then about its future, an editor like myself may have chimed in and provided them the reliable secondary sources for which they were asking which attest to the Duchy's existence, notability and naming as such. Instead, it has come to this.

Santasa's effective destruction of the Duchy article back in April, and their attempts to get over half-a-dozen redirects deleted (!) for completely spurious reasons are themselves extremely tendentious. The peddling of outright falsehoods is also deeply unsettling. Take, for example, the claim that "These redirect titles are misnomers; it does not exist in scholarship on the subject in this form." [33] This is completely untrue, as I demonstrated in my comment at the ongoing redirect discussion by providing eight academic sources (one published as recently as last year) which do discuss the Duchy and verify the historicity of its existence. [34]

In contrast to the picture painted by Joy of a user prone to tendentious editing, Sorabino reacted to Santasa and Joy's recent actions by starting a discussion on the TP. [35] Thus, Sorabino is effectively being reported for holding a discussion and in that discussion expressing views that Joy does not agree with (in a content dispute Joy is involved in). Joy, expressing views about an article's title that differ from your own is not an ARBMAC violation, and continuing to hold those views for many years does not constitute a "pattern of disruptive behavior". Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Santasa99

Following could be a crucial point, these two (three) moments in 4 years long discussion:

after one of their many such scrapings around Internet for phrases I asked Sorabino to read the paper they ref and come and explain to me "what this "duchy" labeling means, how is that feudalna entity a "duchy", why is "duchy" and not something else, who calls it that way, when, in what context." They never even tried to explain; (on 1 July 2024)
and following DeCausa's two head-on tackles:

1) "Should this article exist? There’s virtually nothing about this Duchy in the text of this article. It seems to be merely a vehicle to acknowledge the existence of the title. it’s almost entirely about Stjepan Vukčić Kosača with a little on Vladislav Hercegović both of which already have articles." (on 4 April 2021);

and 2) "Sorabino, for years (literally) merging has been discussed and you have been the only editor that was against it. You responded by claiming the article could be saved by improving the existing and adding new contents, referenced by scholarly sources, that are abundant for the subjects in question, particularly in modern regional historiographies. So, I said Sorabino, just do it in a sandbox and post the link here. But you never did and you never did a thing to improve the article and justify its existence. This is the diff showing the state of the article when I posted that in April 2021 compared to what it was four years later when it was merged. Nothing's been done - not a thing - to improve it and address the point I made. I conclude there is nothing in the sources that justifies it as an article and I fully support the merger that has happened." (on 30 June 2024) --౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted this just to add depth to @Joy's discussion regarding bludgeoning, because Sorabino never responded to concrete inquires and questions, they would go and add new walls of text recycling the same arguments with eventual addition of more scraping from Internet. DeCausa was, to say the least, flabbergasted, and i am simply exhausted. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have following questions for User:Levivich, now that they shifted the blame on Joy and me:

who are those editors who were against moving article to redirect;
who are editors who supported moving article to redirect;
and, now that you support claim that RS exists, I would like to hear what in those sources warrants another article on the same subject - we have four: Herzegovina, Zachlumia, Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, and small article on Kosača noble family - I would like to hear the usual WP: DUE WEIGHT arguments that give those sources enough wight for creation of an article with a dubious title and scope. I would like that editors who claim RS support arguments for creation of an article, explain what is in them that will give me an explanations and proper description of that articles subject ?

(I suppose you can explain this last on the article's TP, not here)

You, of course, can't answer why Sorabino never answered on these kind of questions, asked countless times over the years, by Joy, Mikola, Mhare, Tezwoo, Surticna, DeCausa, and myself, but you dug through those discussions in Archives, and you should have noticed how Sorabino never produced an answer to a specific inquiry and concrete question. And let's not forget, you also can't make edits and rv's based on your opinion that "duchy is a polity ruled by duke", because sometimes it is and sometimes it is not, let alone that "Duke Levivich" means "Duchy of Levivich" exists.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how easily, from the position of righteousness and knowhow, you are spreading aspersions, @Levivich: Only "flat lie" is your justification for revert in the middle of two board discussions, and it include, list of names I asked you to name (who was pro and who was against) where someone who was digging through that discussion like you did could list Mhare and Thhhommmasss as ambiguous because "you couldn't tell from their posts" - their posts are everything but ambiguous, especially Mhare who said that what Sorabino was doing is a "dirty trick"; and your misdirecting answer to my direct question to explain how sources support argument for the existence of article - your answer and flat-out accusation of me lying, are more in line with Sorabino's bludgeoning and misdirection - as the discussion you were digging through testifies. Instead of ~~using~~ accusing me of lying (I guess in attempt to draw attention on me in another round of shifting the blame) and Joy gaming the system, you should provide us with diff's where Sorabion answers directly and explains how, why and what, on many inquireies by Joy, DeCausa, Mhare, Mikola, and myself - like one I already linked above but here's again (this is but one of such unanswered/unexplained inquiries). And the last but not the least, the only support for article and Sorabinos argument came from blocked and locked IP abuser Great Khan, who received it for abusing that very discussion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

I got curious after reading this and started digging, which led to me to reverse the bold redirection of the article and vote at the related RFD. Here's a summary of the history as I understand it:

For those who aren't familiar, a duchy is the territory or polity ruled by a duke. So if there exists a "Duke of Levivich," that means there exists a "Duchy of Levivich" and vice versa.
The content dispute at issue has the typical Balkans undertones of whether a particular piece of land is Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian/etc. The Duchy of St. Sava may have encompassed land that is in modern-day Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, and/or Serbia. A Bosnian named Stjepan Vukčić Kosača held the title "Duke of St. Sava" (at least according to a 1982 book written by historian Marko Vego, p. 48, cited in the related articles and talk page discussions). Saint Sava was Serbian. "Duchy" is an English word of course; Kosača took the title "Herceg of St. Sava"; "Herceg" comes from the German "Herzog," which means "duchy," and it's where the word Herzegovina comes from. So it's a Balkans content dispute.
The article apparently started in 2007 as Duchy of Herzegovina. I have a hard time following page/move logs, especially with history merges, but some series of moves happened in February/March 2011 involving the pages Duchy of Herzegovina, Dukedom of Saint Sava, and Duchy of Saint Sava. Joy apparently did a history merge in March 2011. A move/edit war ensued between "Duchy of Herzegovina" and "Duchy of Saint Sava". Joy posted what looks to be the first talk page message, including: "...the editor(s) with a Serb nationalist slant place too much emphasis on the Serb qualities of this domain..." (full thread in Archive 1). "Duchy of Saint Sava" 'wins' the edit war around April 1, 2011.
Ten years later (because this is Wikipedia) in February 2021, Santasa99 starts a discussion about the page title. Santasa moved the page from "Duchy of Saint Sava" to "Dukedom of Hum" and restyled it as the "Duchy of Hum". Sorabino reverts and objects on the talk page and points to some sources, and later, more sources. Hard to follow the histories but there is some kind of move/edit warring involving Duchy of Saint Sava, Dukedom of Hum, Duchy of Hum, Humska zemlja, and probably some other titles. Socks and IPs disrupt the proceedings. This all peters out around May 2021, and takes up Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 1 and Archive 2.
Almost 2 years pass, and in January 2024, Joy posts about the title again on the talk page, which Santasa responds to in March; some discussion ensues (full thread).
In April, Joy writes:
@Santasa99 can you just merge the remaining few relevant paragraphs from this article into Herzegovina#Medieval period, and redirect this there? Nothing of substance seems to have happened since the 2021 discussion where Sorabino was promising a rewrite, and it's 2024 now.
It doesn't look like anyone pinged Sorabino to the discussion.
Santasa does as Joy suggests, redirecting the article to Herzegovina
On June 28, Santasa nominates at RFD "Duchy of Saint Sava," "Duchy of Herzegovina," and a bunch of related redirects
On June 29, Sorabino objected to the move and voted keep at the RFC. Joy's response was aggressive, and I think may have been ~~her~~ his first message to Sorabino about this in two years (I could be wrong about that). (full thread on talk page)
On July 1, Joy opened this AE.

I don't know enough about the Balkans to understand the POV implications of having an article about a Bosnian's Duchy named after a Serbian saint (except by process of elimination, I assume Croatia might object), but I would be shocked--shocked!--to learn that one or more editors' motivations was nationalist POV pushing. I am even more shocked that nobody at any point apparently opened up a proper WP:MERGE discussion or started an WP:AFD and voted "redirect." Joy is an admin with an account that's 22 years old; Santasa99 has an account that is 16 years old; Sorabino's account is 8 years old. The claims on the talk page, RFD page, and here, that either the "Duchy of Saint Sava" did not exist, does not appear in RSes, or that Sorabino has not posted RSes, are patently false as evidenced by the talk page archives and the sources discussed therein (by Sorabino and others, including Vego 1982 but also several from the 21st century). Joy's and Santasa's posts at this AE do not accurately convey the relevant facts. This looks like WP:GAMING and "weaponizing AE," and these editors should know how to properly resolve this content dispute vs. improperly. Joy's and Santasa's actions here were improper, and should be addressed.

Sorry this is over 500 words; I don't plan to add anything unless there are questions. Levivich (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re Santasa99's questions:

I can't tell from their posts what the ultimate opinions on merger are of User:Thhhommmasss 1 ("I somewhat agree that this article should perhaps be part of the Hum or Herzegovina articles, but then again..."), 2 ("It's true that a quick google revealed few recent sources referencing the Duchy. Yet ... On the other hand, ...") or User:Mhare 1, 2 ("... I'm not entirely sure ..."), 3. Same with the IPs User:31.223.145.207 example and User:185.125.122.60 example. User:DeCausa removed some of those IP comments here citing "Long-standing socking," I don't know if that was correct; there are some blocked sock accounts who commented on the talk page, but I don't see any blocks in the block log of those IPs.
In favor of redirecting are (apparently) Joy, Santasa99, User:Tezwoo, and DeCausa. I don't know who "Surticna" is; I can't find a user with the username or that word in the talk page archives.
Whether the sources "warrant" an stand-alone article about the subject is a content dispute; AE is not the place to discuss that.
"Sorabino never produced an answer to a specific inquiry and concrete question" is a flat lie; the article talk page archives are filled with Sorabino answering questions, providing sources, quotes from sources, etc. Other editors have also provided sources, quotes, etc. on the article talk page and at the RFD.

Levivich (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@admins: I don't think anything more is needed to resolve the content dispute beyond somebody starting a proper WP:MERGE or WP:AFD discussion, either of which is likely to result in a consensus (based on my reading of the talk page archives). Neither RFC nor DRN is the right tool for this job, nor is consensus-required or any other page restriction necessary. Levivich (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DeCausa

I was pinged by Levivich - which is the only reason why I'm posting. It seems to be about why I removed some IP posts based on socking. The article and talk page has been plagued by socking, particularly by banned user Great Khaan. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Great Khaan/Archive. They have a very distinctive style and regularly posted on the page: WP:DUCK for the IP. I also noticed Levivich asking who "Surticna" is. This is Surtsicna a well known editor in multiple history topics. Although I've no interest in getting involved in this, since I'm posting here i'll make one comment. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Levivich has got completely the wrong end of the stick. I got "accidentally" involved in this in 2021. I don't know how exactly the underlying nationalist POVs play out in this. What I do know is that Sorobino (plus assorted Great Khaan socks) have pushed to maintain this article for many years with no other support. If you read the article it's apparent that there is very little in it about a "Duchy of St Sava". It was a title that may or may not (but probably was) used by a Grand Duke of Bosnia for a little over a decade or so. That's why the article is mainly about that individual. The sources that Sorabino claim (which I looked at in 2021) are just passing references (as you would expect from an adjunct title). So this has been gone over and over multiple times in the talk pages. I've lost track of the number of times I've said to Sorabino: produce a draft article from these sources that gives a substantive account of the history of a "Duch of st Sava". He's failed to do that every time. I conclude because it's not possible. FWIW, i think Sorabino's contribution has been WP:TENDENTIOUS and both Sorabino and Santasa have an inability to avoid WALLOFTEXT and won't drop the stick. If they are both PBLOCK'ed from the article and talk page it would be a net positive. (347 words) DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to focus in on my last 2 sentences above, I notice the comments that this is a content dispute and RfC/AfD etc is thataway. I'm sure that's right. But you only need scan the current talk page and the talk archive to see how Sorabino and Santasa have WP:BLUDGEONed the discussion for years. It's literally gone round in circles for a decade or more. Now I happen to think that Sorabino has the edge on tendentiousness amongst that, but even leaving that aside if the two of them participate in an RfC/AfD or similar it will just be a mess. Some conduct imposition would help greatly. (now 456 words) DeCausa (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sorabino

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

Joy, this report seems to be alleging a pattern of tendentious editing over time. That could be valid grounds for a sanction, but no diffs are provided, just a link to a discussion started a few days ago. Could you please provide actual diffs of particular edits which you believe demonstrate this pattern? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the filer of this request is unwilling to provide any evidence besides "Just go read everything and you'll see what I mean", I am inclined to close this with no action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joy, this is certainly the place for help with arbitration enforcement, but you have to do your part of it. None of us can read your mind; you need to specify particular edits that you think are demonstrative of the problem. (It need not even be exhaustive, just representative.) I can't know what anyone is referring to unless they're willing to say, and equally importantly, the editor being accused of such misbehavior needs the opportunity to respond to specific things and give their explanation for it. If you're not willing to do that, we can't proceed, because there is nothing with which to proceed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien, the answer is that there isn't an easy answer to that. AE (and admins in general) can't make binding decisions on content, only conduct, so of course we always have to be very careful not to step over the line of saying what position someone "should" be supporting in terms of content. The question, then, is when "advocating for your position" crosses the line into "disruptive behavior in general". If I ever find an easy answer to that, I sure won't keep it hidden, but I don't think there really is one. We can say that making a hundred longwinded talk page posts in a day is almost certainly disruptive, and making one civilly worded one almost certainly is not, but there's a lot of grey area in between those extremes. So, evidence should go to show that the editor has gone beyond just advocating for what they think, and is engaging in disruptive behavior. How exactly you do that depends on how exactly you think they've crossed that line, so I don't have a "one size fits all" answer to that and I doubt one even exists. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the material now provided, this seems to be a longstanding content dispute about how best to interpret sources. That's outside the scope of AE, and AE does not make binding determinations on what content should be. Has there ever been any use of dispute resolution such as a request for comment to gain input from the wider community on the proper interpretation of these sources? I think that would be a lot more productive than an AE filing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: In lieu of diffs to explain the general scenario from start to finish, are you able to provide something like a set of diffs that demonstrates bludgeoning? If the user is repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion, we should be able to point to specific diffs/comments where they are repeating themself over and over, or be able to get some rough count on how many times they are participating in a particular discussion (with some explanation as to why that would be bludgeoning). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless any uninvolved admin objects in the next day or so, I will close this with no action. This is clearly a content dispute, and should be getting resolved by RfC, not AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nihil obstat. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. WP:DRN may be more fruitful than WP:RFC though given the complexity of the issues; WP:RSN may also help for certain elements. Secondly, I think a ""consensus required" restriction for moving, BLARing, or merging the Duchy of Saint Sava article would be a good idea given the messy article history. Abecedare (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By RfC, I more mean dispute resolution in general, though I don't share your optimism that DRN would be fruitful, especially since all parties must voluntarily participate. I do think it's an excellent idea to put the brakes on those things with the article; maybe that will help lead to a better discussion on what should be done with it rather than fights over it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would give a general reminder that it can and will happen that editors receive sanctions based upon their conduct at an AE thread. Many editors are over 500 words; if you need an extension please ask, but further posts without extension for those who have exceeded the limit will likely be removed. Extensions may be granted if you have additional useful evidence, but not just to fight over it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ustadeditor2011

Appeal declined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 and substantial 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).

Appealing user: Ustadeditor2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Block from the page Amaravati with an expiration time of 02:06, 20 September 2024

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

Notification of that administrator: [36]

Statement by Ustadeditor2011

I would like to improve the lead section of the article with appropriate grammar and syntax. I would like to update the article with new references.

Ustadeditor2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is very clear, there was a non-consensus on founder of the city Amaravati. Now, since it is still in discussion over the talk page, I would like to focus on other aspects of the article. I have taken a middle path on the content disupte related to founder of Amaravati so I am going by other editors on the matter. The matter is now resolved, block is no longer necessary, so that article can be expanded and improved by me. I would like to improve the lead section of the article with appropriate grammar and syntax. I would like to update the article with new references. Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I promise, I would not continue edit warring. I will avoid such scenarios. I am looking for one opportunity. Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will not do that Now. I will not attack anybody. Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Moved responses to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel Case

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ustadeditor2011

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Ustadeditor2011

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

Ustadeditor2011, you have provided no rationale for why the sanction was either placed in error, or why it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. If that is not shortly provided, this request will be closed with no action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the reason for the block. You were blocked for edit warring on the article, and then the block was extended after you stated you intended to continue. Your rationale does not address the fact that you were edit warring, nor any indication that you will avoid doing so in the future. So, I would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above, thanks for the reply but it doesn't address the reason for the block. I note also the personal attacks such as those at User_talk:Daniel_Case#Amaravati. If these persist the block will likely be extended. Overall, agree with Seraphimblade that the appeal should be declined. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waterlover3

Indeffed as a normal admin action by me because I got to it first. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Waterlover3

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Significa liberdade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Waterlover3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/A-I

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

8 June 2024 Waterlover3 made two edits to the page 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation (one linked), a page directly related to the Arab–Israeli war.
24 June 2024 Across three edits, Waterlover3 added significant history and context for the Ghoul rifle article, primarily focusing on its use in A-I conflicts.
1 July 2024 Waterlover3 made edits to Elbit Hermes 900, an Israeli aircraft used for tactical missions.

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 2 June 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On 26 May 2024, Waterlover3 was blocked for one week due to edit warring. Specifically, they were editing the CZ Scorpion Evo 3 page, adding information about how Hamas used the weapon.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Waterlover3

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

Statement by Waterlover3

Statement by FortunateSons

Unfortunately, the defendant is either unwilling or unable to understand the relevant editing restrictions. I’m not sure if it’s CIR (or perhaps age?), but that doesn’t really matter. Just about everything, including their talk page (which was modified after they were made aware of ARBPIA, at which point they should have noticed an issue) implies that they are NOTHERE, or don’t attempt to separate their significant personal biases from the editing. FortunateSons (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

This is a non EC editor, any contribution that is not an edit request should be reverted with reason WP:ARBECR and editor reminded of the restrictions. Persistent breaches by such editors should usually result in a block, just ping an admin, an AE case shouldn't be necessary.Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (Waterlover)

"ok i am pretty sure hamas doesnt involve itself with US copyright laws KEK since yknow its designated as a terrorist organization"

"Hands off Waterlover, death to IOF swine!" (IOF = "Israeli Occupation Forces")

"o7 long live the revolution long live the resistance" (O7 = October 7)

That's um not good. We shouldn't be allowing that kind of rhetoric, just like we shouldn't be saying things like "nuke them all". I know it's a minefield with people expressing support/opposition for parties in a war, but I think we can draw lines here, at openly calling for death to people, or celebrating attacks on civilians. Especially not in response to template warnings about copyvio or edit warring. User talk:Waterlover3#May 2024 is old but still. They were blocked for edit warring after that. Then in June, calling an editor a disgusting pig, which someone warned them about on their UTP. This is all rather concerning. (Also maybe remind AFC about ECR.) Levivich (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawk: take a look at the infobox of Lebanese Civil War and note how Israel is a belligerent on one side and PLO is a belligerent on the other; note also the infobox says "Part of the ... Arab-Israeli conflict"; note also the lead, which explains that war began as fighting between Palestinian Muslims and Lebanese Christians, and a few years later, Israel joined the fight. That entire war is part of ARBPIA; not even "broadly construed," it's a direct part of the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. It's one of the major chapters in those conflicts. Levivich (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dan Murphy

I would urge any admin who doesn't know that Bashir Gemayel was an Israeli ally/asset against the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the Lebanese Civil War to abstain from making decisions about who is fit to edit articles about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. What a website. (Waterlover? Should be 86ed.)Dan Murphy (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Waterlover3

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

It is a bit unclear to me why this is being brought nearly a week after the last edit by respondent that might plausibly violate this restriction. I think it would be appropriate to give the account a specific reminder about the 30-500 restriction in this topic area, including a clear explanation as to the scope of this topic area; it is not always obvious to new users that the scope of ECR applies to articles that are not primarily about the Arab-Israeli conflict, even if the edit itself is related. The user has already been told about the existence of the 30-500 restriction twice, but another interaction with a good faith editor may have come off as encouragement to continue some editing in this area in a way that is not compatible with WP:ARBECR, and I don’t see any substantial clarification on the user’s talk page about the exact scope of the area beyond the initial CTOP notification template. Any of their edits in this topic area, except for edit requests, may be reverted in line with WP:ECR.
I will separately note that this interaction is quite strange, but does not appear actionable at this point.
— Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich:
The IOF comment was made by an IP from Vietnam, not by the respondent (unless the two are the same person, in which case it becomes much worse).
My understanding of “o7” is that it is an emoticon representing a salute (see:wikt:en:o7), rather than an endorsement of the October 7 attacks. I had not considered the possible double entendre.
I had missed the response to the copyright argument while going through the user’s talk page history, and looking at this a bit more it does appear that there is a pattern of incivility here that might warrant more than a mere reminder to address.

— Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that Waterlover3's most recent edit, to Assassination of Bachir Gemayel on 7 July, also violates ECR. That article concerns the killing of a Lebanese politician by Syrian rebels, which occurred during Israeli occupation in the 1982 Lebanon War; the article also describes Israel's subsequent occupation of the city. The sanction's scope is the Arab-Israeli conflict, not limited to Palestine, although the same article also describes a related massacre of Palestinians. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit hesitant to label the assassination of a Lebanese Christian militia leader from Lebanon by a Syrian Social Nationalist Party member in Lebanon while there was an ongoing ceasefire as being within WP:PIA, both because it apparently lacks Palestinian involvement and because it lacks Israeli involvement. Parts of the Lebanese Civil War are surely in scope, but not all parts, and I don't think this part is. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should have a better read of WP:BROADLY; like most things in this conflict, it's not so simple. The incident was in the context of a war in which Israel invaded Lebanon under the auspices of "rooting out" the PLO, and in which the IDF had been supporting Gemayel as a "counterbalance" to the PLO in Lebanon. The day after he was killed, Israel violated the ceasefire and illegally occupied West Beirut, then allowed Lebanese Christian forces to slaughter Palestinian civilians in a refugee camp (the Sabra and Shatila massacre), an attack which has been labelled a genocide and which Israel was later deemed responsible for. One might argue that only parts of the article directly related to the occupation are covered by ARBPIA, but I think we're playing with fire by drawing those sorts of distinctions in this topic area. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on this. There is so much intertwined that viewing it broadly is necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even without the 50/300 violations, the conduct I'm seeing here, so far as ignoring and mocking people who try to give them advice, and the general nastiness, lead me to believe this editor is NOTHERE. I'd be inclined to block as such, even if just as a normal admin action rather than AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to that as an ordinary admin action. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's probably the move here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Levivich in that we allow editors to edit in spite of holding abhorrent views, but we do not let them express those abhorrent views on Wikipedia (c.f. WP:NONAZIS). Waterlover3's user page currently introduces themselves as "i am waterlover 3, Proud Lebanese from northern lebanon and i hate the IDF. i dont edit much articles other than stuff that relates to weapons or the resistance. [sic]" While they obviously hold a bias, who among us doesn't? Yet the vast majority of us are capable of editing productively in spite of our personal biases. This is a sensitive topic, one where a new user with "I hate the IDF" at the top of their user page making personal attacks against editors who don't hold the "right" point of view is, to put it mildly, going to be a net negative. We can rely on ARBECR for new editors who haven't established an editing history, but editors who demonstrate that they are going to be a disruptive element in the topic aren't going to spontaneously improve after they make 359 more edits. Waterlover3 should be topic banned. Side note: the "disgusting pig" comment was directed at a drive-by account named "Zi on this", which probably should have been WP:DISRUPTNAME blocked, but they've only made that one edit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]