Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive284

Noteduck
''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 Noteduck

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 04:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2


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

Edit warring Reverted editors include myself,, , , , ,. While wp:ONUS puts the burden of making the case for inclusion on the editor trying to include new content, Noteduck feels the burden is on those rejecting the change.


 * The PragerU (trimmed):
 * []
 * []


 * At Douglas Murray (trimmed):
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []

Behavioral Standards: Bludgeoning
 * Long discussion regarding the Bridge Initiative as a SPS here: []. Editor tediously says consensus is reached because they feel objections have been addressed.  [], [], []

Behavioral standards: Edit summaries disparage editors (trimmed)
 * [] "Given that (from your talk page) you've engaged in edit wars on this page and given that you called the PragerU page "critical remarks from partisan leftists writing in fashion magazines and on twitter" (20 November 2019) you may be struggling with bias. I see you and [editor] know each other - please don't collude to remove material"
 * [] "a warning was given for disruptive editing which was ignored. Lvl3 vandalism given on page User:[editor]. Please refrain from deleting material on the page without evidence. Go to talk page for commentary on article and discussion"
 * [] "I am concerned that your revision was not made in good faith and can be considered tendentious editing. If these edits are removed again a warning for vandalism may be due. You betray your biases with your description of academic sources as "absurd" and "nonsense" on the talk page. Please refrain from unjustly removing evidence thnx"

Behavioral Standards: Casting aspersions/inappropriate talk page comments: (trimmed)
 * [] If you cannot view this subject neutrally and objectively it may be best not to edit this page
 * [] In particular, this comes in the form of right-wing editors trying to omit unflattering material from pages on controversial subjects, resulting in a kind of whitewashing by omission or status quo stonewalling
 * [] "I've noticed that certain editors on this page have a regrettable tendency to revert large blocks of recently-added material wholesale, especially material that might be controversial." - Admin deleted the section []
 * [] "have a look at WP:ROWN when considering whether to discard this edit"
 * [] Created section "Blatant partisan politicking on this page" - "This is the last attempt I'm going to make to put a stop to these tendentious edits. The editors engaged in this process of tendentious editing know who they are and I'm not going to ping them for now.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

NA


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):[]


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Noteduck account created 19 Dec 2020 (prior account from April 2020). Battleground mentality including include edit warring, uncivil talk page behavior (unrelated comments about editor, tendentious editing, refusal listen to others). Editors have reached out to discuss issues [], (uninvolved) commenting[][]. Myself before filing this complaint []. Noteduck complaint at the Treehouse. An uninvolved editor said Noteduck needs to listen to others[].

Dialog was ignored or treated as examples of the unreasonableness of other editors. Noteduck does not follow concepts like BRD and CONSENSUS, repeatedly reintroducing disputed content absent consensus or sometimes discussion. This resulted in extensive, slow edit warring. Noteduck is quick to use article talk pages/edit summaries to cast aspersions and or inappropriately focus on editors. Affected articles include PragerU, Roger Kimball, Douglas Murray (author) and Andy Ngo.

Edited for length Springee (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * and again Springee (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Replies

 * Noteduck's replies illustrate why they are problematic. Rather than address their own behavioral problems (edit warring, attacking other editors etc) they have bludgeoned the discussion with text, much of totally misrepresenting the facts.  As an example, in "Update 5" Noteduck falsely said I removed "Reuters and Fox News(!)[281]".  The link in question shows I moved the text, removed nothing.  This sort of false accusation yet again illustrates the issue.  It is not possible to have a good faith disagreement with this editor.  Until they learn the ropes they should be restricted to less contentious areas of Wikipedia.  Springee (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Noteduck, your Update 5 accuses of colluding on some of the disputed pages:
 * It's worth noting that Springee, Shine, Pudeo, and Hipal have all edited together and largely backed each other up on pages like Andy Ngo and PragerU
 * The editor interaction tool is telling here []. Pudeo has never edited PragerU or its talk page.  They did edit Andy Ngo... over 2 months ago (2 edits total).  Their edits to Douglas Murray (3 months back) and Roger Kimball (3/4 years back) are even further back and less than 3 edits each time.  Falsely accusing editors of collusion is an example of the disruptive behavior that we are concerned about.  Springee (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Reply to jps
, It's interesting to note that you also felt Noteduck's behavior has been sufficient that you warned them to be careful[]. 's comment here [] suggest they still do not understand the difference between commenting on the content vs the editor. Springee (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Generalized reply to Loki and Shadydabs
If you look at the diffs in most cases Noteduck isn't reverting my edit or replying to my comments. Absent diffs claims that I was edit warring, POV pushing etc have no merit. Springee (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Loki, your edit here fails to noted the talk page discussions that went along with the edits. Most of this talk page is about the content in question[]. Note there were more editors in the discussion. Can you say there was a consensus for any of the edits you cited?[] Why have a consensus policy if we don't expect editors to respect it? Springee (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It is clear Noteduck still doesn't get that they should comment on the edits, not the editor. In the last few hours they accused  of ROWN.[] Springee (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Shadybabs, it is perfectly reasonable to dispute your edits to long standing article text. Why is that a complaint here?  Springee (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Cedar777
Cedar777, your accusations against me misrepresent the facts but also miss the point. For example, when looking at the examples of casting aspersions, Noteduck is attacking a large number of editors, not just myself. Even with this active ARE they decided to accuse Hipal of ROWN just a few hours ago. Springee (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Reply to dlthewave
Dlthewave, I think you are confusing disagreements regarding content with editors casting aspersions etc which is the heart of the issue here. Your last point, saying I refused to review a list of sources, is not entirely accurate. Noteduck dumped a large list of possible sources on the talk page and asked which I would reject which is already borderline failing to AGF. Since there was no text to accompany the source we have no way to know how the sources would be used. I did provide an answer [] but it had to be limited to just the sources which were either not green or not green for this topic. You also neglected to mention that you are an involved editor. Springee (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Reply to El_C
, I've thought about what is the correct remedy here. As I said to Noteduck here [] I want the problem to stop. I think a clear warning that comments about users are not acceptable on talk page. Any comment that is about the editor not the content of the article should not be on the talk page. The one sanction I think would help is a consensus required restriction. This would force Noteduck to slow down and listen to editors who object to changes but aren't willing to engage in the edit wars. Being forced to slow down and trying to address objection or otherwise establish consensus is only going to make Noteduck a better editor overall. Springee (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * El_C, you comment is one of my concerns. The real issue here is the volume of inapropriate comments, edit summaries, examples of large changes made without consensus.  In filing this complaint one of the hard parts was figuring out which examples to leave out[].  Springee (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

, even with this AE open, Noteduck's edit warring and failure to follow BRD continues. Just last night they added new content []. The material was removed, ND restored it with a demand that the objecting editor make the case for removal []. {u|Peter Gulutzan}} subsequently agreed and removed the content. Noteduck's failure to discuss disputed edits and expectation that others should have to justify removals is contrary to ONUS and BURDEN and leads to more edit warring. A BRD restriction or similar on ND's edits would be helpful. Springee (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

, this has been open a while with little traffic in March. Is it appropriate to request a close with warning which appears to be the admin consensus? Springee (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Discussion concerning Noteduck
''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 Noteduck
I believe 1RR allegations are factually incorrect, as said.

Given block reverts and vandalism I will concede that I got somewhat cranky around the Douglas Murray (author) page. As a newbie I was sometimes ignorant of policy - eg I know now Springee can delete material from talk page even if I'd prefer they didn't - and I apologize. It seems I edit-warred on several occasions and I apologize - happy to learn from any arbitration decision.

A counter-claim - if not the right forum I will happily withdraw it for now: I contend is highly partisan and doesn't edit pages with any objectivity. Springee's talk page history has many claims of partisan bias and misunderstanding of policy (these just from the last 3 years), including worrying claims of firearm advocacy, behavioral problems, edit-warring, vandalism, and canvassing Springee's twin fixations seem to be conservative politics and firearms. Stalking has been raised by another editor. Springee has followed me around Wiki, aggressively editing pages they previously had no involvement with right after I edit them. I believe Springee sometimes follows my user contributions, looking for material to challenge. Springee's MO seems to be stonewalling any potentially unflattering material from pages on conservative subjects. It's worrying that Wiki pages of powerful conservative groups have become one-sided and whitewashed thanks to Springee. Full disclosure - I have discussed these problems with other editors via email who have concurred.

I appreciate Loki's criticism - it's ironic of Springee to accuse me of ignoring requests for help. On several occasions my posts on Springee's talk page were rapidly deleted without engagement.

As Loki mentioned this is a boomerang but I believe Springee in fact has serious behavioral and POV problems that need addressing. Noteduck (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I went back further through Springee's talk page history, and there are a large number of accounts of behavioral problems and failure to meet Wiki standards going back years, including some serious allegations including hounding and harassment. I'm not sure how to deal with it but it needs attention Noteduck (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * UPDATE 2: I'll get to the other points but first, what is the actual contention of impropriety on the Roger Kimball page? Two primary sources referring to Kimball's endorsement of the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden rigged the 2020 presidential election (which he has done on quite a few occasions, hence the term "repeatedly") were deleted by Springee and I reverted them once. Multiple previous primary sources in the same paragraph that were more flattering to Kimball were not touched. At any rate, after discussion on the talk page and a BLPN discussion initiated by Springee I did not end up restoring the contested source and provided two independent sources for the claim, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Pudeo, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Australian journalism, but Creighton and Newman are VOCAL about lockdowns and climate science respectively, so I don't see how this material is improper in any way. I didn't know the Epoch Times was depreciated at the time and don't see how that's relevant, but I apologise, I should have done more research. I never said Springee hounded me - I said that Springee's pattern of apparently going through my user contributions in order to contest material was concerning given previous accusations of stalking and hounding. Pudeo, given that you made vociferous, detailed, and baseless claims of sockpuppetry against a new editor (myself) on my talk page, and declined to remove them when I asked, your accusations of incivility are something of a pot-kettle-black matter Noteduck (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * [To El_C:] what sanctions are potentially enforceable? I've learned more about Wiki's rules over the last two months and I'll aim to be more mindful of Wiki policies. I still think I have a strong counter-claim though, which I'll support with more evidence soon Noteduck (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Hipal, I've presented robust claims of partisanship, POV-pushing, stonewalling and behavioral problems from multiple editors on Springee's part in formal and appropriate language, based on dozens of diffs (with more still being added). I've taken two days off my new job to make sure my arguments are as thorough as possible. This is a forum for resolving disputes between editors, and I hardly think presenting my side of the case constitutes "battleground behavior" Noteduck (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , I don't quite understand your comments. I am just making my defence that I am not in conflict with a disinterested editor, but rather somebody who is highly partisan and experienced at whitewashing Wikipedia. Is this not the appropriate forum for this? I think my sometimes scrappy behavior needs to be understood within this context, but nonetheless I'll strive to improve and be more relaxed in the future. I believe that my contributions to Wiki, such as creating Soon May the Wellerman Come, Draft:Osman Faruqi(waiting on assessment for this one) and my additions to Douglas Murray (author) and Andy Ngo, as well as innumerable grammar and syntax corrections, are high-quality and demonstrate my commitment to improving this site in good faith Noteduck (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I wanted to tell you this privately, but it was bound to come out sooner or later at any rate. I'm disabled - I have bipolar disorder and struggle with mania from time to time. I should have been more proactive about looking up Wikipedia disability policies but I see there is a WikiProject Accessibility page and a Template:User bipolar2 tag. Over the summer (I'm Australian) I was unemployed and had nothing to do, and nothing to look forward to or be happy about except editing Wikipedia. I think this is trenchant information that demonstrates that I have no ill intent or lack of good faith in editing. I'll cut down the statements in the morning Noteduck (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , no problem with the trim. For full disclosure, I do plan to launch a claim against Springee, which is in my sandbox for now Noteduck (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , please cease repeating the misrepresentation that I "accused" Hipal of anything. I simply mentioned being mindful of WP:ROWN when considering whether to revert material - a reminder of established policy is not an accusation Noteduck (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks El_C. I feel like I need to do two things (1) defend my own conduct and the charges is making, and (2) make a counter-claim against Springee's own conduct, which I believe I have a strong case for. Should I being with the first one, or try to combine them both into a single argument? Cheers Noteduck (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , please don't make spurious and misleading allegations. I added a single 14-word sentence to the Dennis Prager page based on a NY Times article that referred to Prager misrepresenting the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic. There weren't any editing restrictions on the page at the time, and nobody has told  me that I can't edit while the arb request is ongoing. The edit was reverted on the frankly implausible basis that it was "fake news","misleading, biased and anti-semetic"[sic]. I think any reasonable editor would have done the same as I did and restored it Noteduck (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rosguill talk and Ymblanter, thanks for taking over this matter. Is there a usual timeframe for wrapping up these arb request decisions? Thanks Noteduck (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Furthermore, I just want to confirm that it's okay to criticize persistent editorial bias and tendentious editing if the editor feels that it's justified, including on talk pages of contested articles when necessary. I'm not sure how else it can be communicated. Cheers Noteduck (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * it's heartening to see other uninvolved editors like LokiTheLiar, Shadybabs, Cedar777, Dlthewave, PaleoNeonate, jps (note that I'm a newish editor, don't have social connections on Wiki, and haven't solicited comments from any of them) raising the same serious issues with Springee's conduct. Browsing Springee's last 1000 edits (a very small sample given their 12 years on Wikipedia) over 95% seem to relate to subjects related to right-wing politics (I've discounted contributions to user pages) and follow this same pattern of relentless ideological bent and obstructionism. This WP:AE claim is clearly WP:LAWYERING and WP:BOOMERANG on Springee's part. Springee, can you please strike out the false claim you made on 26 February that I engaged in edit warring and failure to follow BRD?? Obviously, this whole matter belongs in Arb Com. Noteduck (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by LokiTheLiar
As someone who's been involved in some of the disputes above, I would like to say that 's above portrayal of themselves as neutral or justified in all the above is not true. So for example, take the PragerU page from January 5th to January 7th. It's my contention that that history pretty clearly describes a two-sided slow moving edit war, with one of the sides being and the other being Springee and, and that it's eventually ended by the edit-protection of the page by  and the starting of this RfC a few weeks later. Or in other words, Springee was also edit warring, they just had a partner making their edit warring less obvious.

I also think the characterization of Noteduck as having broken 1RR on PragerU is incorrect. This edit, which Springee characterizes as a revision of this previous edit adding that entire sentence to the page, is not in fact a revert. It's just an edit. A revert, according to WP:3RR is an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part. Simply changing the wording of a sentence to be less credulous towards Ngo's claim does not undo the previous edit regardless of what Springee feels about the purpose of including that sentence. (And I'd also like to point out that asserting that it does undo the edit to reword it would be evidence of POV-pushing, as it would indicate that the purpose in including that line was to support Andy Ngo and not to document the facts.) Noteduck made only one revert to that page, this one, in accordance with 1RR.

I'm less familiar with the situation on Douglas Murray but a cursory glance at the page history reveals a similar slow motion edit war that Noteduck is only one of many participants in. Several editors, most of whom appear to now be blocked, remove large parts of the page without going to the talk page, and Noteduck and several other users add them back in, including Springee themself at one point. My impression here is that the side mainly at fault is the side with all the socks that repeatedly tries to remove large sections of the article without talk page consensus.

Some of the above behavior from Noteduck is still concerning. Obviously, edit warring is not good even if many other people are also edit warring on the same page, and I'd really rather Noteduck had just gone to ANI with their complaints rather than cast all the WP:ASPERSIONS they've been casting. But TBH I'm tempted to call for a WP:BOOMERANG here because Springee's case against Noteduck is pretty directly parallel to a similar case that could easily be made against themselves. At the very least, this is not a problem with Noteduck, it's a content war across multiple pages that Noteduck is one member of one side of.

E: Quick reply to Shine: I don't believe that anyone here is casting aspersions, nor do I believe that aspersions can even be cast here,as this is one of the appropriate forums for dispute resolution that the guideline mentions. The whole point of the guideline is to get people to raise concerns about editor behavior here and not on article talk pages. Furthermore, I gave evidence that Shine was a party to a slow motion edit war, and Noteduck seems to have given plenty of evidence for their accusations, so I really can't help but see this as attempted WikiLawyering.

E2: Because both and  again have asked me to provide evidence, I am providing a timeline to substantiate my accusation of a slow motion edit war on PragerU (and fixing the broken link above, sorry, my mistake):


 * 03:15 on Jan 5th: Noteduck adds some material to the Critiques of Videos section about a video on Robert E. Lee, and points people to the talk page in the edit summary.
 * 03:49 on Jan 5th: Springee reverts Noteduck's edit, asserting existing consensus on the talk page was against inclusion.
 * 04:04 on Jan 5th: Noteduck reverts Springee's revert, again directing Springee to the talk page and asserting previous removal of the material was based on poor sources.
 * 04:38 on Jan 5th: Noteduck adds more material to the Critiques of Videos section, this time significantly expanding a paragraph about a video narrated by Douglas Murphy.
 * 15:09 on Jan 5th: Shine reverts Noteduck's older addition about Robert E. Lee, and points to talk page consensus as the reason.
 * 02:42 on Jan 6th: Springee significantly cuts down the material Noteduck added about Douglas Murphy, again pointing to discussion on the talk page.
 * 02:53 on Jan 6th: Noteduck reverts Springee's partial manual revert, claiming it is "totally unjustified".
 * 06:28 on Jan 6th: Shine completely reverts Noteduck's addition to the Douglas Murphy paragraph, again pointing to the talk page.
 * 06:43 on Jan 6th: Noteduck reverts the revert and accuses Shine of edit warring and POV-pushing in the edit summary.
 * 08:43-11:45 on Jan 6th: Noteduck adds a bunch of material to the Reception and Critiques of Videos sections.
 * 16:04 on Jan 6th: Springee makes a small edit adding context to Noteduck's new material but does not remove it. They also explicitly say they do not endorse the new material.
 * 17:07 on Jan 6th: Another user named comes in and manually reverts all Noteduck's edits up to this point.
 * 01:05 on Jan 7th: Noteduck reverts Hipal's manual revert and asks them to be more specific about what exactly they object to.
 * 03:10 on Jan 7th: Hipal reverts Noteduck's revert.
 * 11:41 on Jan 7th: full-protects the page.

Also for full context, this RfC about Noteduck's various additions was opened weeks later through processes that apparently did not entirely occur on the PragerU talk page.

In total, over a three day period, that's two reverts each for Springee, Shine, and Hipal (for a total of six reverts by their "side") and four reverts by Noteduck, for a total of ten reverts over 3 days.

@: Could you be a little clearer about what part of Pudeo's comment is causing you to lean towards sanctions? I'm personally not seeing anything interesting/new there.

Statement by Shadybabs
Having come into conflict with Springee in the past I can say pretty confidently that it is Springee, and not Noteduck, who is the primary problem with contentious edits and extremely biased application of wikipedia policy to whitewash factual information with respect to right wing individuals or organizations.

 Another diff by Springee undoing edits where I try to move language away from PragerU's self-published claims to those made in RS, as well as re-inserting edits that were still under dispute in the talk page. He provided no specific justification on which edits were sourced poorly. Alarmingly, PragerU's disinformation regarding climate change is removed from the content about their fact-checking spat against youtube, highly biasing the article against youtube in favor of PragerU, against what is reported in third party sources.Shadybabs (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shinealittlelight
Noteduck admits to being sometimes ignorant of policy and states that Noteduck edit-warred on several occasions. Noteduck then quotes editor complaints on Springee's talk page over the last three years, which don't show anything without providing diffs of alleged misbehavior. Noteduck then alleges that Springee was hounding him. But this isn't true: WP:HOUND says Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy. Given that Noteduck was violating policy (as Noteduck admits) it was reasonable for Springee to check on Noteduck's edits to be sure that Noteduck wasn't continuing to violate policy. Noteduck says Springee's twin fixations seem to be conservative politics and firearms. What is the evidence for or relevance of the claim that Springee has "fixations"? He then accuses Springee, without evidence, of whitewashing. To me, without diffs backing these statements, Noteduck is repeatedly casting aspersions here. Per WP:ASPERSIONS, An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence. LokiTheLiar apparently concurs that Noteduck has cast WP:ASPERSIONS elsewhere as well. I agree, per the evidence Springee gave above, and I would add that Noteduck has shown an unwillingness to stop this behavior despite being repeatedly warned (again, per the evidence in the complaint). That and his repeated editing against consensus has been what is most frustrating to me.

accuses me and Springee of slow-motion edit warring. This is an outrage. I'm extremely careful not to edit war. If evidence cannot be produced, then I'd ask Loki to strike that statement. I thought Noteduck was pushing content about Douglas Murray and Robert E. Lee into the article against consensus, which I politely removed one time each here and here. Because Noteduck kept reintroducing this content against consensus, other editors, including Springee but also notably the most experienced editor on the page,, removed the material, e.g. here. These additions went to arbitration, which produced a massive RfC which seems to be split at present (no consensus so far). This is how editing contentious pages works: we slowly improve the page. Casting ASPERSIONS and editing stuff into the article against consensus is going to drive good editors away. I'd like to also note that Hipal and I have often disagreed in the past; there's no attempt to "team up" here. I see Springee, Hipal, and I just trying to do our best to deal with a disruptive editor.

do you have any diffs showing what you're saying about Springee? Otherwise that's more WP:ASPERSIONS.

Noteduck is new, and I don't want to be too hard on new editors. But Noteduck needs to apologize for casting aspersions, and to be sternly warned that continued editing against consensus and casting of aspersions is unacceptable. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The "evidence" you allegedly provided is that broken link to the history page? That's not evidence. And no, we can't cast aspersions, even here at AE, without evidence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Hipal
Per the evidence offered by Springee, Noteduck needs to be constrained from involvement with AP2 topics, otherwise we're going to be back, after even more disruption from Noteduck. Noteduck's statement above shows what we can expect until it is stopped: bad faith assumptions of others, an inability to respect content and behavioral policy, and the battleground attitude typical in AP2 topics. --Hipal (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck's subsequent comments above show an inability to take responsibility for their own behavior, in addition to what I wrote above. --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck is now arguing above, without any diffs, that editors agreeing with Springee (It's worth noting that Springee, Shine, Pudeo, and Hipal..) are doing so because of similar biases. This is absurd and assumes bad faith. Noteduck provides no diffs because it's nonsense. --Hipal (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

On January 27, I provided Noteduck with 13 diffs showing evidence demonstrating you've been working from the perspective that other editors are pov-pushing against your edits. The response from Noteduck was agreement: right-wing editors trying to omit unflattering material from pages on controversial subjects. Almost a month later, Noteduck continues with this battleground mentality in this very discussion. --Hipal (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Noteduck has redacted the accusations against me made here. Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Dlthewave, we're dealing in this discussion here with an editor, Noteduck, that I think would be best blocked or banned from PragerU completely for the reasons already given. In this context, I believe my very slow and cautious approach to his latest comments at Talk:PragerU are perfectly fine, especially if one were to assume good faith. Even if this discussion wasn't happening and there was no problematic editing going on, slow and cautious is always advisable. --Hipal (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo
Noteduck could have been blocked as a "sock of someone" (seen such a block rationale), after Spungo93 was CU-blocked and their explanation for that did not make sense. Noteduck explained: I made User:Spungo93 years ago and forgot about it. This was not correct because Spungo93 had been created on 18 April, 2020 (log entry), meaning Notedeuck misremembered the date by years. Furthermore, the "forgot about it" part did not make sense because they had edited with the account 4 days before registering this one. (After more review, I don't think Noteduck is based on their timecard, though).

Noteduck has used self-published / WP:PRIMARY sources to make contentious claims: 1) Using Dennis Prager's own National Review column to say he rejects scientific consensus on climate change 2) Using Roger Kimball's own columns to say he has "repeatedly" contended that there was voter fraud, then after someone changed "fraud" to "irregularities", they changed that and their own original wording to say he has repeatedly made "false and debunked claims", while claiming white-washing in the edit summary. They once reverted the removal of these primary sources, accusing Springee of hounding. One of Kimball's own columns that Noteduck used as a source was in The Epoch Times which is a deprecated source in Wikipedia. 3) Using Maurice Newman's own column to say he rejects consensus on climate change 4) Using Adam Creighton's own column to make critical claims on his lockdown stance. I think it's unusual that someone would link to The Epoch Times or the person's own columns to make negative claims about the subjects, so it's clear these were WP:OR claims, and editors should err on caution per BLP like Springee has done.

They also initiated a declined RFAR with a focus on four editors on January 7. They seem to be constantly accusing other editors of partisanship: "partisan politicking", "problem with partisan bias", problem with politically partisan editing" "ideologically motivated -- sabotage" etc. Some of their statements had to be hatted in the PragerU DRN thread due to personal comments. While this isn't too unusual in the topic area, it's usually done by ranting IPs, not by regural editors. --Pudeo (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Cedar777
My familiarity with this dispute is limited to the Andy Ngo article. Noteduck has made a number of constructive, if imperfect, comments and edits. The article has benefited after Noteduck pointed to WP:ROWN and MOS:LEADCITE. I do not agree that there was a 1RR violation or that Springee is a faultless party here.

Springee has repeatedly removed reliably sourced content from the article that, if retained, might reflect unfavorably on conservatives. The bar set by Springee (with support from Shinealittlelight) for inclusion of content critical of Ngo is impossibly high such that they have disallowed content from the NYT, the WP, along with a number of other sources listed in green at WP:RSP when the content is not flattering to conservatives. In observing these patterns and engaging with editors on the talk page over several months, the phrase "moving the goal posts" comes to mind. Even innocuous statements such as Ngo has been the subject of wide ranging media coverage (when there were already 77 citations) have been sanitized from the article by Springee as in this edit.

Meanwhile, the door has largely been left open to contributors sympathetic to Ngo where the quality of their sourcing receives limited scrutiny, as with this edit sourced to Sky News Australia followed by more disparagement of RS at talk where the NYT & Wapo were referred to as "fourth rate sources". This pattern is also reflected in efforts to enforce 1RR: sympathizers get gentle proactive advice from Springee here, while opponents are warned and/or scolded here and here where a user restored sourced content that happened to mention a political figure. Overtime, these actions add up to a skewed article that does not reflect what the bulk of RS actually say. Sanctioning Noteduck is not going to address this underlying issue.

Noteduck has been direct at times about the reverting of unfavorable content but is otherwise respectful. Springee and Shinealittlelight have had issues with what is known as "talking out of both sides of your mouth". For example, Springee claims this NYT article can be used to support that Ngo must be called a journalist diff. . . but once a summary of what this same NYT article was discussing about Ngo was added, the source was deemed no longer usable or relevant when it came to criticism. Diff A second instance is where user Springee, in a slow motion edit war, reverted content that was added by 3 different editors, sourced to WP, Bellingcat, and Daily Dot:
 * The original contribution Nov 19 from : Addition 1a + sources in Addition 1b Springee deletes content: Deletion 1
 * Content restored on Dec 1 by : Addition 2 The second deletion by user Springee: Deletion 2
 * The most recent addition Feb 12: Addition 3 Which was again deleted by user Springee: Deletion 3

Noteduck is a newer editor, with much to learn. While I cannot speak for the disputes at the other pages, in my view their contributions have been a net positive at Andy Ngo. Cedar777 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon
User:Noteduck filed a Request for Arbitration concerning PragerU. I said that I was willing to mediate the content dispute, and the arbitration case was closed, and a DRN case was opened, which was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_201#PragerU The result of the mediation was a six-part RFC, which is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PragerU#RFC_on_Various_Proposed_Edits The calendar is about to run out on the RFC, so that the bot will remove the tag, and the RFC will be ready for closure. One editor took issue with the RFC, saying that the sources were unreliable. My view was that reliability of the sources could be considered by the community in the RFC discussion. The same editor, User:Hipal, also said that there were behavioral issues that needed to be addressed. The behavioral issues were not addressed at DRN because DRN is a content forum.

I don't have a strong opinion on either the content, because I was maintaining neutrality in order to mediate, or on conduct, because DRN is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for Closure If any admin here (or other experienced editor) hasn't become involved in this case, they could help by closing the RFC. On the other hand, I am willing to close the RFC if no one objects, and if the parties agree that I have not become involved and am neutral. Of course, "closing" the RFC doesn't mean performing some housekeeping task such as archiving it. It means assessing consensus, which requires judgment.

Do the other editors want me to assess consensus and close the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Update on Closure User:ProcrastinatingReader has closed the six-part RFC, evaluating the consensus on each of the questions separately (which is what was needed). I thank ProcrastinatingReader. I would also like to comment that my own opinion is that no action except maybe a caution is needed, but I try to stay neutral if I have taken an actively neutral role. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Dlthewave
I have concerns about whitewashing at PragerU, where it appears that several editors are working to block any negative content. The general attitude towards Noteduck comes across as condescending and there seems to be no effort to work collaboratively or help Noteduck develop their editing skills.

Example #1:
 * 00:07 19 February 2021: X-Editor adds "In 2020, a joint analysis conducted by counter-disinformation consulting firm Alethea Group and the nonprofit Global Disinformation Index found that PragerU was one of the five most common sources on the Internet that spread COVID-19 misinformation. "
 * 12:12 19 February 2021: Springee reverts with the reason "Opinions of a red linked group (Alethea/GDI) are not DUE", an argument that has absolutely no basis in policy. Springee has been around long enough to know that WP:DUE concerns the reliability of the source, which in this case is MSN/Yahoo News, not Alethea/GDI.
 * Discussions follow on Springee's talk page and the PragerU talk page . Springee repeatedly claims that Alethea and Yahoo News somehow do not meet WP:DUE, and Hipal repeatedly claims that the source is a "warmed-over press release" (read it, it clearly isn't). Both editors provide little to no evidence or correct interpretation of policy, and there is little effort to acknowledge that Noteduck and myself have a valid point of view, yet these spurious arguments are effectively blocking inclusion of this content.

Example #2:
 * 17:38 24 February 2021: Noteduck proposes a "Criticism" section along with 13 sources.
 * 18:53 24 February 2021: Hipal immediately suggests a bizarre and tedious approval process - "How about picking the best reference out of that bunch and telling us what you believe is encyclopedic and due from it? If we don't agree on it, we can go to the next, until we have some agreed-upon references or we run out of references to consider." This bears no resemblance to our normal consensus building process, and I struggle to see it as anything other than the start of another drawn-out effort to block content that Hipal doesn't like.
 * 20:23 24 February 2021: Springee refuses to look at the sources and instead insists that Noteduck bring a proposal to Talk before editing the article. This appears to be an effort to require Noteduck to bring a publication-ready proposal that will not be approved until it is perfect, and the entire burden will be on Noteduck to satisfy any concerns.

I've seen this abuse of the consensus-building process before and it's a very effective way for a small group of editors to control article content while maintaining superficial civility and complying with 3RR. I'm concerned that a "Consensus Required" restriction would only grant Springee, Hipal and others more power to block content by refusing to reach consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 04:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I also wanted to address Pudeo's BLP concerns. I would generally argue against the use of these primary sources, since they would need secondary coverage to establish WP:WEIGHT and The Epoch Times has been deprecated. However, I fail to see how Noteduck's edits can be construed as contentious or negative. They're literally repeating what the subjects say about themselves which falls under WP:ABOUTSELF from a verifiaility standpoint. Again, this content shouldn't be self-sourced, but it's not the big BLP brouhaha that Pudeo is claiming. –dlthewave ☎ 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate
My involvement at PragerU has been minimal so far and I'll avoid commenting on specific editors at the moment. I comment to share that I did notice particular resistance and whitewashing in relation to the promotion of climate change denialism by the org, despite reliable sources being clear about it. There's a tendency to present a WP:GEVAL view like if ideology and science were equal or that sources that comment on it are only opinions. — Paleo Neonate  – 18:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Statement by jps
I am appalled by User:Springee's approach on the Talk:PragerU page. It looks to me like we have a case of WP:Civil POV-push as a source is being blackballed from a respected university on the flimsiest of bases. When I pointed out that this is the hallmark of an ideological game, Springee decided to come to my user talkpage to wag his finger. Perhaps Springee should take a break. jps (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Noteduck

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


 * , your request greatly exceeds the 500-word limit, so please trim accordingly. Thanks. El_C 06:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll preface by saying that I've only glanced at this still lengthy complaint (with me, Spartans!), but from the several random examples I viewed, I'm not seeing anything too egregious. Just a tendency to call out partisanship, which runs both ways, in a way that certainly exceeds article talk and user talk pages usage. Overall, the less said on any of that the better, except in forums such as this. Not sure what the filer or the respondent to this complaint are really asking for. Are they asking for sanctions? A logged warning (to that, to those interested, see my latest clarification request about logged warnings at ARCA)? An un-logged warning?


 * Regardless, an evidentiary basis needs to be established with both the recent and the egregious prioritized, if one expects any sort of an outcome from this process. Finally, I plead with several participants to significantly trim and otherwise aim at concision. Us AE admins are not paid staff, we are volunteers like you. I submit that you are asking too much out of available volunteer resources. El_C 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'll re-emphasize that the evidentiary burden for sanctions (CR or otherwise) doesn't appear to have been met in your complaint. Just from what I've seen so far. El_C 16:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , I'm afraid I don't have any additional advise beyond those general recommendations at this time. Perhaps another uninvolved admin will see it different...? Who know. El_C 17:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Per 's evidence, now starting to lean toward sanctions. Will wait to see what other admins think, though. El_C 02:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , you probably don't realize this, but your various updates (word limit?) are doing you a disservice. "Partisanship" is in the eyes of the beholder. Even if much of everything (everything!) that you've written has a sound basis in fact, I doubt that, in this case, that's something AE admins would wish to address — if anything, that would probably be a Committee matter. You're basically making the complainant's case for them right now. Thought you should be aware. El_C 13:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , two things. First, to re-emphasize: word limit ? Secondly, in answer to your question: no, with respect to what you allege about (which, hey, may well be true), I contend that this goes outside the purview of admins at AE, but rather, that this would be a Committee matter. I suppose other admins' mileage may vary, though. El_C 13:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , while Wikipedia takes a strong anti-ableist position, as it does against all other forms of prejudice and discrimination (for example, with WP:ACCESSIBILITY and so on), I'm afraid that when it comes to the realm of the psyche, that isn't something for which many allowances can really be made. BTW, sorry for declining your request to correspond privately (I now realize about this), but as a matter of principle, I don't usually do that with users whom I don't already know (well enough). Best wishes, El_C 13:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , thank you for the significant (20K) trim. Much appreciated. El_C 23:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Gah, I still seem to be the only one contributing to this section, so maybe a couple of additional notes. , you should make your case here. If you are to file a new AE request, it is likely to be viewed negatively. Folks may well end up asking: why didn't they just present their case in the original complaint? I'll stress that the filer of an AE complaint faces no less scrutiny than the its subject. , you still need to trim (hopefully, with no more collapsing). The requirement is an upward of 20 diffs, whereas you are now approaching 40. El_C 17:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I am not familiar enough with the details so as to advise further with any confidence. All I am really able to provide is my general sense. Which, hey, may be off. Who knows. Also, I'm sorry to say (well, not that sorry, to be honest), but I will not be following up further with this or any other open complaint on this noticeboard. Best wishes to all. El_C 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Guess whose back...? No, not really. But I do note that after being open for over a month, this complaint is probably cursed. Help us, Buffy! El_C 17:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * My impression is that if stops including allegations in their edit summaries and slows down a bit no further intervention will be necessary. Notebook has made some errors regarding the use of primary sources, but given the examples seen so far this seems like it is likely just inexperience and a good faith misunderstanding of WP:OR. I don't think it is necessary to impose a consensus-first sanction at this time, but a formal warning is probably appropriate. Regarding the behavior of the editors listing grievances against Notebook, while they obviously could have been a bit more collaborative, I don't see any breaches of conduct that clearly merit a sanction (Noteduck, note that it is more helpful to post diffs of problematic behavior itself, rather than diffs about other editors accusing someone of problematic behavior). One editor's obstructionism is another editor's quality control, and I concur with El C that ArbCom is the only venue that can successfully handle cases where the allegation is tendentious editing without overt breach of decorum or policy. signed,Rosguill talk 05:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Rosguill that a logged warning is needed, but probably not blocks or topic-bans at this stage.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

3Kingdoms
''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 3Kingdoms

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 18:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4


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


 * 1) 02:59, 27 March 2021‎ 1st revert
 * 2) 18:34, 27 March 2021 2nd revert


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


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

1RR violation is a general sanction that only requires the edit notice (here) to be enforced, but the user was notified of DS in the topic area.

The editor asks others to go to the talk page, despite my having already done so and having not joined the discussion. Straightforward 1RR violation, along with a peculiar understanding of what edit-warring is in his or her edit summary claiming that material first added by the user a few days ago may not be removed because only that is edit-warring. The user declined to self-revert when offered the chance, claiming the onus is on people removing material and he or she will just follow the 1RR next time. The user recently had an indefinite block for edit-warring reduced to a page block, it appears that did not have the desired effect. The latest response to asking them to self revert was how about you act like an adult.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Saying it will not happen again and refusing to self-revert dont solve the problem here.  nableezy  - 18:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

No, the problem remains a 1RR violation that you apparently refuse to self-revert.  nableezy  - 18:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI, the self-revert has been re-reverted, despite 3-1 opposition to the edit through either reverts or the talk page, and despite the prohibition on using sub-standard sources in BLPs after they have been removed and explicitly cited as BLP violations.  nableezy  - 01:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried. Was unsuccesful.  nableezy  - 22:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean I tried to help you avoid a topic ban, because the admins below havent been, in my opinion, as blunt with you as they should be about what it is you are doing wrong and what you can do to avoid what seems inevitable at this point (a topic ban and when the behavior is repeated in a new topic area an indef block). Thats what I failed on. Ah well.  nableezy  - 23:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning 3Kingdoms
''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 3Kingdoms
Hey I'm sorry that I did not notice the 1rr will not happen again. However, the guy doing this really needs to calm down, I explained why I would not revert it again. My reply about being an adult was about him trying to be a tough guy by saying he was going to report over something not needed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no problem, you are just blowing this up.
 * It was a simple mistake, I won't revert because the information stands, especially after what I found to be a childish threat instead of figuring it out like adults. like I said it won't happen again. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not agree, but if you feel that way I will remove the edit. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted my edit.
 * I did not intend to troll, I just felt that the reaction of the other guy was obnoxious. When I saw what others were saying I thought we could end this. I do not think a topic ban is needed, this won't happen again. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it had been 24 hours, thus not violating the rule. I stand by the edit, but after hearing, from admins, I removed it to conform with the rules. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand what the objection is. I have reverted once the admins made it clear I was in the wrong, I accept that and I apologize for overstepping. It won't happen again and will conform with the 1rr. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also regarding what was posted above, the person is speaking nonsense. Sources were not substandard the user only responded with goal post moving and failing to understand that a sources that is not labeled reliable can still be used. However for another section where I provided 7 different sources from ones offically labeled reliable, he then goal-post moved again and made up a complete abritary rule about the "news cycle". Their entire argument boils down to Wikipedia:I just don't like it which to me is not an argument. Then they decided to file a nonsense report to try and end the discussion as opposed to actual trying to argue. I should have just revert, but when some is going to not bother to have a discussion and then threaten actions, I really just lose respect and have no interest in listening, even when I should. My bad, but I stand by the edits. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't try anything. You didn't like an edit, didn't make a goof point, then reported. Don't try pretend that this was some great act on your part after already filing a report and then constanly arguing and goal-post moving. You made this a bigger deal than it needed to be. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that you yourself don't understand the rules very well, I don't think your in much of a position to lecture, coupled with disingenuous arguments that all amount to  Wikipedia:I just don't like it 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning 3Kingdoms

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


 * This is a textbook 1RR violation, and judging by their talk page history and block log it's not the first time they've gotten in trouble like this. I would suggest a topic ban is in order. – bradv  🍁  19:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The "my bad, it won't happen again" defense is fine, but it goes out the window once you acknowledge that you violated a sanction and still refuse to self-revert. That comes across as willful disruptive editing and trolling. I don't really look favorably on the self-revert because it came after this report was filed, and it was only filed because you refused to self-revert in the first place. I would be inclined to block anyways, but I agree with BradV that a topic ban is probably in order given the past issues. ~Swarm~  {sting} 00:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the block log, it appears that the ARBPIA area is not the singular problem, it is one of a low signal to noise ratio everywhere at Wikipedia. I would be more inclined to give a moderately long block but would be ok with a topic ban.  I just worry that a topic ban will mean we will see the same problem again, just in a different topic area, perhaps due to immaturity. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , why DID you essentially revert again after this AE discussion started? Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with others that a topic ban is likely in order here. While there's cause for concern about editing in other topics, I don't think we're at the point where an indefinite block is in order, and short of that a topic ban seems like a more appropriate way to steer 3Kingdoms towards more constructive editing than a block. signed,Rosguill talk 18:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Gilabrand
''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 Gilabrand

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 22:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA topic ban


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


 * 1) 06:48, 1 April 2021 Removes large section about "private Palestinian land was taken and given to Israeli settlers by the World Zionist Organization....."
 * 2) 07:08, 1 April 2021 Ads a JVL source about "Zionism: World Zionist Organization (WZO)" The content of the source is part of the A-I conflict.
 * 3) 07:19, 1 April 2021 ads image about "First Zionist Congress in Basel where the Zionist Organization was founded"

Gilabrands first topic ban violation was reverted by an administrator:

I asked Gilabrand to self revert her third topic ban violation of the First Zionist Congress image:, her next edit after that was to re ad the Aliyah template, she had previously removed: , she did not revert the addition of the First Zionist Congress image she added that was also against her topic ban.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Long list


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

Not applicable


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Notified: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Gilabrand
''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 Huldra

 * 10:45, 23 December 2020, Gilabrand also broke their topic-ban on Al-Sinnabra,
 * I couldn't bother doing anything about it, Huldra (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ZScarpia
Note that the Israeli Foreign Ministry is listed as the source for the Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) article which was added as a citation in the second diff. The JVL has been discussed multiple times at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. The cosensus arrived at in the last discussion was that it should be regarded as a mostly unreliable source. In addition, the JVL is a tertiary, rather than secondary, source.    ←   ZScarpia  02:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by JzG
I concur with the analysis above: this is both a topic ban violation and POV-pushing, i.e. recidivism, so enforcement is warranted. I have no strong opinion on how long the block should be, but given the time since the last one it should probably be no longer than mine was. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Gilabrand

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


 * Pinging since he is familiar, based on this diff.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also pinging, who made the last block on Gilabrand in 12/2016. Note, the last block was for 3 months, but that was over 4 years ago.  I get the feeling that a block is going to happen here, but I don't know if it should be "escalating" given the time since the last problem.  Something in the 1 to 3 month range seems reasonable. I would also support longer but feel that the shorter period is more appropriate.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Katafada
''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 Katafada

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA4 :Tendentious editing


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


 * 1) 18:23, 22 March 2021 Adding to article Jund al-Urdunn. That is changed to


 * 1) 00:25, 25 March 2021 Katafada rv to , with edit-line: "Reverting vandalism"
 * 2) 20:12, 1 April 2021 Re-adding to the Dead Sea Scrolls; with the edit-line "Reverting political vandalism". (All the Dead Sea Scrolls were found on the West Bank, ie, not in Israel)


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Alerted, 20:16, 25 March 2021

Katefada has less than 100 edit; they have been told "Please note especially the 30/500 rule" when given the ARBPIA-alert. Still they continue to make extremely controversial ARBPIA-edits, with inflammatory edit-lines. Also; I am very disappointed that re-adds  about discoveries done outside Israel (link): he should know better than this, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * User:HJ Mitchell, my "Please note especially the 30/500 rule" (diff) was not a template. In general; I am disheartened by such aggressive edit-lines as this user makes; one is not very tempted to engage in discussions with editors who repeatedly calls you a vandal. Huldra (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Sir Joseph: the Dead Sea Scrolls were not found in Israel, as I think you know very well; how do you justify placing the cat Archaeological discoveries in Israel on the article? Huldra (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Qumran Caves are wholly on the West Bank, undisputedly not in Israel, Huldra (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Now that the Cave of Horror has been included in the Dead Sea Scrolls article; I withdraw this report. (Although; noting the opinions/attitude that Katefada has shown on the Talk:Dead Sea Scrolls-page: I suspect that Katefada will find themselves back here soon), cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Notified

Discussion concerning Katafada
''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 Katafada
I am new to Wikipedia. I am not a political activist or a keyboard warrior. As you can read on my profile, I am allergic to propaganda. I'm mainly interested in linguistics. Some years back (2015 if I remember correctly) I edited the Modern Hebrew page which had been vandalised by anti-Israel editors who gave undue weight to fringe theories in order to classify Modern Hebrew as "Relexified Yiddish", I provided most of the sources that enabled other editors to fix the article, its classification section is largely based on my initial draft. I had no account back then. What prompted me to create an account was the appearance of the category on the Dead Sea Scrolls page, this category was created in February 2021, ostensibly with the intention of granting undue weight to the Palestinian Authority's ownership claim (which is entirely spurious, what Huldra conveniently ignores is that the "West Bank" was under illegal Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967, and that the PLO made no claims on this area until 1968). To make sure the article is more balanced, I have added the, which Huldra seems quite keen on removing, using Huldra's logic the "Archaeological discoveries in the State of Palestine" category should also be removed as there was no "State of Palestine" when the scrolls were discovered. As for the other edits, I have no issue if the Palestine infobox were added as well in the Jund Filastin and other articles, that being said Huldra should have no problems with the Palestine infobox's absence, after all if we are to follow her logic none of Jund al-Urdunn was in the territory normally assigned to Palestine (Gaza & the West Bank), most of it was in what is now Northern Israel. Replacing the Israel infobox with the Palestine infobox obviously is a political edit. The impression I'm getting so far is that I've stirred a hornet's nest and am being unfairly targeted for it. Katafada (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
Note to Huldra who decided to mention me here, you'll notice I didn't remove "State of Palestine" from the article but it's just silly to not have Dead Sea Scrolls as part of the Israeli archeology cat. Not everything has to be a conflict. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
I dont know how anybody reads the edits, talk page comments and hell the response on this page and doesnt say WP:NOTHERE and good bye, but thats just me. Beyond the 500/30 violations, which the user continues to repeat despite being informed of, the actual POV being pushed here goes well beyond fringe. But if you feel that AGF is in fact a suicide pact, at least make sure that the user understands the 500/30 rule, and uses the time to learn that WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not in fact the purpose of Wikipedia.  nableezy  - 00:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
Whether Katafada is actually "relatively new" or not (per HJ Mitchell below) is thrown into doubt by their statement that they edited the Modern Hebrew article "Some years back (2015 if I remember correctly)". There is indeed an IP who made edits which fit their description in May 2015. If Katafada was that IP, and they were editing with proficiency 6 years ago, then it seems wrong to treat them as if they were a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike
The only edit that could be under scrutiny is the last edit as other edits were before an alert--Shrike (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The new discoveries was founded in Israel, so its not WP:TE at all .The removing the Israel category by Huldra it is  I don't know if it rise to level of WP:BOOMERANG but this case should be dismissed Shrike (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Katafada

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


 * At first glance this does look like tendentious editing but only one of the diffs is post-alert and this is a relatively new editor. Has anyone attempted to explain the problem with a hand-written (ie non-templated) message? HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've actively tried to avoid this case, but it seems no one else wants to jump in. HJ Mitchell has already modified the Dead Sea Scrolls article to EC, which is probably a good thing.  I'm having trouble buying all the innocence from Katafada, to be honest.  If this wasn't PIA, it would be a simple content conflict, but it is PIA so here we are.  At a minimum, we probably need a logged warning, with instructions to Katafada to avoid PIA topics until they have the required 500 edits.  Even if the page isn't locked as EC.  How "new" they are is up for debate but the spirit of the Arb ruling is pretty clear, so it's just a good idea.  Not sure what else to do.  I'm not really thinking a block or topic ban is due for a first time issue.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with HJ and Dennis that an explanation of the 30/500 rule would be a good first step and that it would be appropriate to log that notification/warning. If Katafada continues to edit in the PIA area after my message to them then a block would likely be appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip
''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 Elijahandskip

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 07:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2


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


 * 1) 23 March 2021 (the actual violation is deleted, this is the discussion about it): while this violation (a Prod placed on the article of a current US politician) may have been a genuine mistake, it at least will have reminded them of the topic ban;
 * 2) 25 March 2021 Another editor inquires about this link (which was added pre-topic ban), and Elijahandskip indicates that they can't discuss it due to their topic ban (fair enough, I guess, but necessary background for the next diff)
 * 3) 31 March 2021 Elijahandskip adds to their user page "I was (Unofficially) mentioned by News Akmi in their article Wikipedia Editors Censor Hunter Biden Bombshell, Call New York Post ‘Unreliable’ Source on October 15, 2020." (bolding in original). This is a clear and blatant violation, and given their comment from 25 March (diff 2) they should clearly be aware of this. It also harks directly back to the edits for which they were topic banned in the first place.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 2 March 2021 topic banned, logged in Arbitration enforcement log

While probably outside the scope of this request, the editor has been problematic elsewhere as well, with Draft:Torino Walter Bickmore created and deleted G10 only yesterday as well. This from a week ago also highlights some problematic (though hardly sanctionable in themselves) actions. I think that, apart from strict application of the AP2 topic ban, some mentoring by someone more patient than me is needed here. Fram (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Elijahandskip, can you please a) stop making personal attacks, as these are unlikely to help your case, and b) provide links or diffs for the statements you make("an admin told me", "another admin told me", things like that)? Fram (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * We are rapidly approaching WP:CIR territory here. I hope that the admins who will look at this compare your claims to what is actually said in those diffs. User:El_C did not state (or even imply) that "as long as I didn't edit articles/discussions related to the t-ban, I was ok", they said that if you want their advice about a specific violation or so, you can link to that edit on their talk page. I don't see in that edit (nor do I think they meant to give you) any permission to post blatant violations, of the kind that led to your ban in the first place), on your user page. But perhaps they will chime in to give their own perspective. Fram (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess continuing this back-and-forth won't really help, but for the record: I am not their mentor, I never claimed to be, I surely don't want to be; what I said is that they could perhaps be helped by having a mentor, but that it would need to be someone with more patience than I have. The above CIR claim is not about their personal attacks, but about the things I actually wrote in that post, i.e. your complete misinterpretation of what El_C said. Finally, striking through your personal attacks and then making a statement about the strikethrough where you simply repeat the attacks once again is not making things better, but worse. Fram (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Elijahandskip
''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 Elijahandskip
Let me discuss each of the 3 edits in question.

1. The edit in question was a recognized violation by me and I self-reverted after the edit. Basically I was on new page patrol and saw an article (that is now deleted) that at a quick glance, was about a ceo of some small burger place. What I missed was a small section with I think 2-3 sentences about an attempt to run for 2020 President of US. thankfully saw it and messaged me about, so I self-reverted a PROD that I had on the article. I would like to point out that Fram in the link he said above said "I don't tend to try to get people blocked for what seemed like a genuine mistake." Because of that comment and now this,, you will have to earn my trust back as I no longer trust you, since you lied and all.

2. The second edit in question sort a shows that I didn't want to violate my T-Ban. I have a comment on my userpage, "I am not allowed to talk about all of these recognitions until September 2, 2021." which I have had on my userpage since the t-ban started. On my talk page, someone asked a question to a pre-tban edit that was on my user page, and I just told them that I can't talk about it until September 2. This shouldn't even be in this discussion as it was a pre t-ban edit.

3. The 3rd edit in question confuses me and I have been confused on this for a while now. When my t-ban started, [ I was told by an admin that linking to things related to the t-ban was a violation. Recently, another  admin told me that as long as I didn't edit articles/discussions related to the t-ban, I was ok.  I really don't want to violate the t-ban and will be happy to self-revert, but can an admin just say in plain terms what the rule is for userpages & admin talk pages?  I have asked before and never got a straight answer.  The answers were all in paragraph form, not just a straight answer.  Update: I just self-reverted the edits in question.

4. The additional comment made by in my opinion just shows that I improved as a Wikipedia editor since the t-ban. One comment in the t-ban discussion was that I went and created articles way too quickly. A few days ago, a CBS reporter was doing some breaking news on a US citizen arrested in front of hundreds of spectators in Puerto Rico. I started a draft on the guy and decided to wait to see how it turned out before either g7'ing the draft (deleting) or working on the draft. While I was asleep, it got g10'ed and to not cause problems (even before this discussion), I decided to not restart the draft. The case is a unique one as the guy in question only got a $100 fine, however, the judge ruled that "He cannot be charged, since he is drunk", which got I think the President of Puerto Rico judges involved. Honestly, that control for me to not create the draft into an article on day 1 shows that I improved a lot since the start of my t-ban.

In my defense, the first edit shows I wasn't trying to violate the t-ban. The second is irrelevant to this discussion (pre t-ban edit). And the third is just confusion for me and I have requested guidance. I don't believe I should be blocked more or anything as I have really tried to to not violate the t-ban. Since the t-ban started back on March 2, I have started 7 articles and I am working to improve them all. I hope the admins that read this see that I don't have bad intentions on Wikipedia and that I shouldn't have a longer t-ban or have a real block. Elijahandskip (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Stating for the record on why I did strikethroughs. My self-proclaimed "mentor" apparently believes that me mentioning that he lied to be is a violation of CIR.  Because of that and the fact I do not want another ban/block (because I have worked hard to improve since my t-ban), I am recanting EVERY statement I made about Fram.  Apparently, lying is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia.  Good to note. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Update: I recently asked  a question on his talk page and he happily answer why my edits were “personal attacks”.  I do understand why they were personal attacks and am sorry for them.  I would like to ask the admin not consider them in the final discussion as I now understand those mistakes I made. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Fram
My edit was not suppose to be a "personal attack". I really do feel like stating that you did lie to me when you wanted to help me is completely relevant. You believing that was a personal attack is a problem for me. I gave you some really good advice which you very qucikly (2 minutes) reverted saying "not helpful". Later that day, I received a thank you from another user. (I cannot link this as I have no idea how to link a "thank you", however, it came from Tom.Reding) I do not intend to do any personal attacks, but from my personal perspective, it appears like this is an attack on me, since you lied and all. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Grandpallama
I'm fairly sure this edit, which precedes the ones noted by Fram, was also a clear violation of the TBAN; however, I suspect Elijahandskip didn't realize it would be considered as such. That said, in line with Fram's concerns about greater editing issues that are outside the scope of this enforcement, but which lend credence to the idea that Elijahandskip needs mentoring, is the "unofficial" Wikipedia Current Events Twitter account Elijahandskip has created (he appears to have scrubbed mention of it from his userpage). Apart from the questionability of a relatively new user under sanctions creating what looks like a WP-sanctioned account is the fact that Elijahandskip name-checks editors on the account who suggest certain current events aren't notable, which seems tied to prior complaints of him discussing user conflicts off-wiki. There do seem to be competence issues at play here. Grandpallama (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Elijahandskip, the problem isn't you mentioning the existence of your own ban; when you are under an AP2 topic ban, commenting in a noticeboard discussion about an AP2 topic ban for another user is a violation. You must stay away from all things AP2, period. That's what the "broadly construed" part of the ban means. Grandpallama (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Grandpallama
Wait, that is a violation of the t-ban? How. I was told as long as I didn’t edit articles about the post 1992 US Political realm, then I wouldn’t be in violation. I didn’t know that mentioning I had a t-ban was a violation. Does that mean I violated it on my talk page (in #2 of Fram’s original reasons) since I mentioned I had the t-ban? Elijahandskip (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OH. That makes more sense.  Thanks for that!  Elijahandskip (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If I may ask, what was wrong that that Twitter thing? In my mind, it was a way to help spread information about current world events and the Wikipedia articles associated with them.  At the start of this, I stopped tweeting from it until I can get some answers.  It was unofficial and never had any affiliation of Wikipedia, so I didn’t see a problem in it.  Would love for you to elaborate on that some more so I can learn and adapt. Thanks! Elijahandskip (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Dennis Brown
(See below for his statement in the “Result” area.) I would be perfectly fine with a strong warning. I hope that other editors allow me to show that I don’t want to violate the t-ban again, so hopefully (Crossing fingers) no one starts that ANI during this or even right after this discussion. It isn’t too hard to live with the t-ban as there is millions of articles that I can still edit and improve. The difficult comes from a stray edit that is accidental or done without really thinking about it, which can result in a full on Wikipedia block. Thank you for your comments! Elijahandskip (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Elijahandskip

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


 * Obvious mistakes were made, but it seems they were reverted and more importantly, based on the limited evidence I'm seeing here, Elijahandskip appears to be trying to live by the tban.  Instead of talking about how unfair it is, they appear to be reasonably quick about correcting mistakes.  It seems that good faith is being exercised, even if mistakes are being made.  I can only imagine how difficult it can be to work under a tban, as I've never had them.  As long as they are being cooperative and fixing the errors when pointed out, I find it difficult to slap harsh Arb related sanctions on them.  That said, a strong warning is due, and they need to exercise better diligence in staying compliant with the tban.  Personal attacks don't require AE, but since we are here, Elijahandskip needs to knock that off as well.  Apologizing for it afterwards isn't a substitute for simply having civil discussions with all editors.  As for CIR issues, that would require more digging and is really outside of the scope of Arbitration Enforcement.  That is something that would best be discussed at WP:ANI where the entire community can join in.   Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dennis. We should not punish someone for an honest mistake that they owned up to. We should also allow editors a little leeway on their own user pages. A logged warning clarifying the scope and extent of the topic ban would seem to strike the balance between the need to enforce the restrictions and AGF. Logging the warning means that there will be a record of it for admins in future should Elijah end up back here. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

50.84.151.82
''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 50.84.151.82

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 16:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBBLP


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


 * 1) 17 March 2021 Willfully misgenders a transgender man
 * 2) 7 April 2021 Undoes another IP who fixed their misgendering
 * 3) 7 April 2021 Again reverts the misgendering
 * 4) 9 April 2021 In response to being warned, declares that misgendering is a obviously left wing belief and states their intention to continue reverting the misgendering
 * 5) 9 April 2021 Again reverts the misgendering


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


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


 * Alerted to discretionary sanctions here.

Reference the article Shooting of Tony McDade - the person shot and killed was a transgender man, as discussed by reliable sources. The IP user edited the article to intentionally misgender the person - changing transgender man to woman who identified as a man. This is a clear violation of BLP and MOS:GENDERID. In response to being reverted and warned, they attempted to turn it into a political debate, made a number of personal attacks, and mocked the very idea of misgendering. The user clearly understands Wikipedia policy in this space, but has no intention of following it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Notified. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion concerning 50.84.151.82
''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.''

Result concerning 50.84.151.82

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


 * Rather limited to what I can do with an IP, but I blocked the IP address (corporate/static) for one year as a standard admin action (non-Arb Enforcement). Leaving open in case another admin has a better or additional idea.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the block and above comment by and think this can be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Grandmaster
''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 Grandmaster

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 01:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2


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


 * 1) 9 April 2021 Grandmaster deliberately distorts what the RFE/RL source here says. He cites "RFE/RL experts" but these are not the words of Ron Synovitz (article writer), they are the words of Can Kasapoglu and Fuad Shahbazov, Turkish and Azeri officials, respectively, and far from neutral or reliable sources.
 * 2) 9 April 2021 Rather than simply move the source to the "Supported by" for Turkey below, Grandmaster removed the entire citation
 * 3) 7 April 2021 Grandmaster refers to neutral and reliable sources (The New York Times, Reuters, Stratfor) that confirm something he doesn't like as "pointless"


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 1 February 2008 4 week topic ban in the same area


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


 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 1 February 2008 by.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The complete misrepresentation of the RFE/RL source was especially alarming. Given that the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war article already has the Very Long and Controversial templates and has the 1RR applied, it is both very harmful for false information to be included like this and very easy to overlook it. --Steverci (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If the body of the article no longer mentions fighter jets, then someone has removed it at some point, and I will take care of re-adding it. The discussion on the talk page right now is not directly related to the source Grandmaster added to the article. I only wanted to bring to light that an editor is either hardly reading his sources for intentionally twisting what they say to suit his agenda. The RFE/RL source states Shahbazov is an analyst at the Center for Strategic Studies under the President of Azerbaijan, which is a government organization. Kasapoglu seems to be director of a think tank that calls itself independent (at least officially), so I apologize for any oversight. And I didn't mention Mekishvili because he wasn't quoted in the edit. The thing to note is that Grandmaster took a neutral source simply reporting what Turkish and Azeri sources were claiming, and lied that it was actually the neutral source making those claims.


 * Perhaps Grandmaster could've discussed the RFE/RL source in the ongoing talk page discussion before even adding it in the first place, but that would've revealed it didn't state what he claimed it did. I already explained on the talk page how Turkey being the one responsible for recruiting and deploying the Syrian terrorists was being questioned on the RfC at the time, so I added that EU source to verify it. I would like to see Grandmaster try to explain how he came to the conclusion that Kasapoglu and Shahbazov are "RFE/RL experts".


 * And since Grandmaster has decided to bring up sanctions from several years ago (which I originally wasn't planning on doing), I'll point out he has been blocked multiple times for edit warring on AA2 related articles. He is also distorting the circumstances that led to the RfC. I had started the RfC so we could get the opinions of third-party editors with no personal bias. Those "other involved editors" were all entirely Azeri or Turkish users, some of which are now banned, and one of them was blocked for sockpuppeting and revealed to have been running an off-Wikipedia canvassing network for votestacking. There were a lot new users and IPs that showed up to the RfC to !vote on all pro-Azeri positions, including Turkey not being a belligerent. Who knows what could've led them there.


 * I have not done anything wrong by adding the Turkish leaders to the infobox. I was citing a source discovered after the RfC and simply being WP:BOLD to see if anyone would be opposed to it. Turkey being a belligerent is listed as alleged for now, but Turkish support is not alleged. I have also not violated 3RR or even the article's 1RR. Grandmaster's first link isn't a revert, and the second link is me reverting a user who called my edit "Armenian propaganda" when one of the sources is from an Azeri news site. Perhaps Grandmaster was hoping no one would check to verify that it was a revert, like he may have been hoping no one would verify what the RFE/RL source actually says. Lying about me making reverts seems to show Grandmaster is the one who hopes to get me banned to eliminate a threat, as he revealed at the end of his statement. --Steverci (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If I had to question the validity of the source I wouldn't have gone here, instead you outright lied about what the source was. That's not being bold. What does that say about you're intentions? Misrepresenting a source like this is something to be expected from a new disruptive user, it's alarming to see a user who has been editing for over 15 years do something like this. The Turkish and Azeri analyst claims (which RFE/RL simply reported) that the Azeris used NATO commando tactics and only got a little advice from Turkey are not confirmed by any third-party sources. A report to the OSCE here reveals that after several failures on the battlefield by Azeri forces in October, they were called back and replaced by Turkish special forces. So much for NATO-level commando tactics.


 * I reverted the first time because no good reason ("Armenian prepaganda") was given, and reverted the second time because you claimed Turkey's participation is entirely alleged when support is not alleged. --Steverci (talk) 15:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Grandmaster
''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 Grandmaster
This report is simply ridiculous. None of the diffs provided show any rule violation on my part. Regarding RFL source, if Steverci disagrees with it, he could have discussed it with me at talk of the article. He never raised any objection or concern about it, but took it here instead. Second diff, Steverci used an EU parliament resolution to support the claim that Turkey was a belligerent, while the source clearly says Turkey was "offering military support to Azerbaijan". So in this case Steverci blatantly misused the source, and reported me for fixing the problem. Regarding the third diff, indeed, as it was mentioned here, my comment only meant that the presence of Turkish jets in Azerbaijan does not make Turkey a belligerent, as those planes did not take part in hostilities. I don't see how this comment could be a violation of the rules.

But this is a good opportunity to look at POV editing of Steverci himself, who was repeatedly permanently banned from WP for POV editing and sockpuppetry (please see his block log). I find his activity on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war to be quite disruptive. He tried to have Turkey included as a belligerent, despite the overwhelming majority of reliable sources only mentioning that Turkey provided support to Azerbaijan. When his proposed edits received objections from other involved editors, he started an RFC, and the consensus was that Turkey could not be listed as a belligerent. Then Steverci demanded a closure review at WP:AN, without notifying other involved editors. To me it looks like forum shopping. The result was that the closure decision was upheld, and Steverci's demand was not satisfied. That still did not stop Steverci from trying to include Turkey as a belligerent into the infobox. He tried to list Turkish generals as commanders, even though Turkish generals cannot be listed, if Turkey itself is not a belligerent. 3 rvs to have the article his way, despite no consensus from other editors:    I understand that Steverci will not accept Turkey not being listed as a belligerent, and will continue editing against consensus, forum shopping, etc. This report here is an attempt to get me removed as a perceived obstacle to having the article his way, though I'm not the only one who disagrees with him. Please see the discussion at talk of the article, where his attempt to list Turkey and Turkish generals as belligerents does not get any consensus from other involved editors. I think it would be good if admins looked into Steverci's own activity, and consider banning him from AA topics due to disruptive behavior. Grand master  16:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci. Again, if you disagree with a source, the way to go is to discuss it at the talk, and not to take it to WP:AN. You have been here long enough to know that WP:RSN is the venue where you can request a review of reliability of a source, after you fail to reach a consensus on it with other involved editors. But since you did not make any attempt whatsoever to discuss it with me or other involved editors, and this is the first place where you discuss it, I have a good reason to question your intentions. I was being bold by adding a source, but if you disagree and revert my edit, you must take it to talk and explain what you think was wrong with the source, and that never happened. Coming to RFL as a source, it contains no controversial info, and does not bash or slander any sides of the conflict. It merely informs that Azerbaijan used robotic warfare doctrine developed by Turkey, and commando tactics employed by NATO in Afghanistan. There's nothing controversial about this information, and it is quite in line with what other sources quoted in the article say, for instance Forbes magazine and others. So I don't see how my edit could be something so outrageous that merits an immediate admin intervention. Grand master  22:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci. Regarding your edit about Turkish generals, it goes well beyond being bold. You made an edit, it got reverted, received no support at talk, yet you made 2 reverts to restore it. Grand master  22:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Steverci. That is not OSCE report, it is "Statement by the delegation of Armenia". Not a neutral third party source by any stretch of imagination. It does not justify your frivolous report here. We can continue discussing RFL source at talk of the article, which is the normal way to proceed when you have a problem with a particular source. You cannot take every minor editing dispute to WP:AE, and I would appreciate if admins gave their assessment of the recent activity of Steverci. Grand master  17:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Grandmaster

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


 * For diff #1, I note that the source also cites an Alex Mekishvili, and that Kasapoglu and Shahbazov are think tank analysts, not government officials (I'm not saying it's a great source, but trying to use it hardly seems beyond the pale).  I'm not really sure what to make of diff #2.  My reading of diff #3 is that "pointless" was used to say that it was a moot point because there aren't any sources establishing that Turkish planes participated in the actual fighting; surveying 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war quickly,  I don't see a mention of Turkish planes, so the comment seems reasonable.Given that there's currently a discussion on the article talk page related to Turkey's position in the infobox which seems to be leaning against Steverci a the moment, this smacks of trying to use AE to win a content dispute, which seems like the most concerning behavior on display  at the moment. signed,Rosguill talk 06:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This also seems to me like a content dispute, which is already being discussed on the article talk page as it should be. While sometimes reasonable people can disagree on the proper interpretation of source material, the fact that another editor disagrees is not misconduct to be addressed by AE, but a matter to be handled via the usual process of discussion and if need be dispute resolution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Vojtaruzek
''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 Vojtaruzek

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 03:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2


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


 * 1) 22:00, 15 April 2021 "Don't forget that wikipedia is basically a far-left propaganda site now, they will not allow information about this to be published here."
 * 2) 00:28, 16 April 2021‎ "See? You can't even talk here without getting reverted, if you say something local censors don't like. They will just whine about their "reliable sources", which is just an arbitrary demand to make writing non defamatory things about PV and other organizations impossible. And also to make criticism of CNN and other progressive media impossible, since they are those "reliable sources" and of course they won't inform about themselves being exposed for manipulating the public discourse and the election."
 * 3) 00:37, 16 April 2021‎ Restoring above comment after it was reverted
 * 4) 00:45, 16 April 2021‎ Restoring above comment after it was reverted, this time with the summary "I did stay on topic, which is refusal of PV's work and them exposing the "reliable media" that permeates the whole talk page. Also, censoring talk page is a new low for wikipedia censors, you now started to purge criticism of your far left policies."


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 19:40, 18 January 2021: 48-hour block following a discussion at the edit warring noticeboard stemming from edit warring at Project Veritas


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


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

The Project Veritas page has received some renewed attention lately, apparently due to some new video relating to CNN. Vojtaruzek, who has largely been inactive since their January block for disruption at the page, has evidently also found renewed interest in using the talk page as a place to denigrate Wikipedia, its editors, etc. It's pretty clear that they can't edit productively in this topic area and especially on this article. Whether or not they can edit productively at all I'll leave up to the AE admins, though their apparent disdain for Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy and our other "far left policies" does not give me much hope in that regard. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * While I'm here, I'll mention that Talk:Project Veritas has become a bit of a nightmare again recently, of both SPAs and some slightly more established accounts making personal attacks, POV-pushing, and generally rejecting the reliable sourcing policy. I'm not sure if there's a discretionary sanction that would help, but if a reviewing AE admin has any ideas, some uninvolved admin eyes would be useful. There are a handful of users who could potentially be brought to AE over their behavior there, but a report per user would be unwieldy IMO. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

diff
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Vojtaruzek
''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 Vojtaruzek

 * I usually edit Czech wikipedia (to that accusations that I do not edit much), here I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the propaganda about Project Veritas and refusal to accept any sources but from the same organizations that PV exposed (like CNN). Of course, it was just met with censorship from those people who took control of that page and can basically erase everyone, and when I defend myself, I get accused of "edit warring", "verbal grenades", "disruptive conduct" and other buzzwords and punished, how typical, why is wikipedia still called a public site that "anyone can edit", since many articles are just a far-left propaganda and informations that do not fit this narrative are immediately erased, which is very evident on Project Veritas page, along with people who criticize this. You will not be convinced otherwise, since this is just meant to silence me, stop with this act of "just arbitration" and "reasonable period to make a statement", the result has already been decided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vojtaruzek (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (slatersteven)
I was going to post a message on their talk page about this [] to tell them if they are not willing to abide by wp:rs this might not be the best place for them to edit (I did not pick up on the NPA violations until now). They are not here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the comment they have posted here is chock full of not here and right great wrongs. Its about as clear a statement of POV pushing as I have even seen.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Vojtaruzek

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


 * I'm not seeing much indication that this individual intends to do anything but disruption, with the noted lobbing of verbal grenades. The editor's last edits before the latest round were in January, which also involved disruption and edit warring at Project Veritas., I'll leave some reasonable period for you to make a statement and convince me otherwise, but otherwise I'm very much leaning toward a regular administrative indef for disruptive conduct and NOTHERE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As the statement here was indeed more of the same, I have proceeded with the indefinite block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Breezing through all the contribs, a few concerns come to mind, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is one of them. WP:FORUM is another.  It's fine to have opinions, even about Wikipedia as a whole, but when those opinions interfere not only with your editing, but with the editing of others, then we have a problem.  We are a collaborative project, welcoming diverse opinions, but not disruptive behavior.  This seems a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE, as the primary reason they are editing is to "correct the record".  I think  has the right solution here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with User:Seraphimblade that a regular indef block would be logical. This user is also active on the Czech Wikipedia where he also seems to run into complaints of POV-pushing. Apparently the abbreviation 'POV' is internationally-recognized. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you Seraphimblade; I was on my way to do the same thing. And thank you,, for filing the paperwork. Two Veritas disruptors on the same day, what are the odds. and , you might want to look at the one below this also, which is much less blatant but still disruptive. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Pkeets
''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 Pkeets

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 14:22, 16 April 2021 Questioning the reliability of well established sources,...
 * 2) Talk:Project_Veritas and Talk:Project_Veritas ...seemingly based on one "source" known for spreading disinformation
 * 3) 22:21, 16 March 2021
 * 4) 14:30, 16 April 2021
 * 5) 14:40, 16 April 2021 ...and making vexatious RSN filings.
 * All seem to indicate that this user has not heeded the concerns expressed previously about their behaviour in this topic area and that they are still intent on promoting their own views on the topic and engaging in trolling and posts of a purely disruptive nature.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 * 1) 01:38, 9 December 2020 Topic banned for a duration of 3 months by pursuant a discussion at ANI


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * 1) 04:22, 24 September 2020 Warned of AP2 sanctions,
 * 2) 01:38, 9 December 2020 Topic banned for a duration of 3 months by pursuant a discussion at ANI and clearly aware of it on their own talk page.

The most appropriate course of action, given that the memo apparently hasn't gotten through after three months and that their recent edits are even more egregious, would be an indefinite topic ban from the subject area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * The problem isn't Pkeets opinion. The problem is their disruptive tendency to promote such opinion without regard, rather, yea, blatant disdain, for reliable sources (going so far as to make vexatious RSN filings). Prior topic bans are entirely relevant, as they show the editor was informed by the community of an issue with their editing, and, apparently, they have decided to disregard such community input and instead persist in their ways: a behaviour clearly incompatible with the project of a collaborative encyclopedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Atsme: the issue is that the editor is using an unreliable, biased, known for fabricating disinformation source (Project Veritas - known for publishing misleading videos, getting caught red-handed by the WaPo trying to fabricate a story, etc... - in short, entirely unacceptable for any and all kinds of factual information: Talk:Project_Veritas seems to contain far more than enough for this) and using that to question the reliability of well established sources (seemingly because they are biased? - ignoring the wolf in the room that PV is solidly far-right...). The reports at RSN were vexatious and meritless (based on the same creation by PV), and this is clearly part of an existing pattern of behaviour about american politics for which they've already been sanctioned and are not stopping. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dennis: Disagree that this is just "annoying" and a matter for ANI. There's a difference between legitimate concerns about reliability of sources and making an overblown case based on an entirely unreliable, poor, partisan source (they're not even subtle about it - the headers of the RSN section are clear enough on this one) and personal opinion (stuff like "Wikipedia may be personally liable"; see also the analysis of Peeks wild speculation based on "fantasy" here). The first is a regular and totally acceptable practice. The second shows not even a lack of comprehension of our policies, but a blatant disdain for them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

01:52, 17 April 2021 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  01:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Pkeets
''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 Pkeets
Since suspension lapsed, I have made only good faith posts about issues I feel are important and supported these appropriately. I have made no changes to actual articles, but only made polite recommendations on various talk pages. Besides this Request, I notice that some editors have been changing my posts and then making raucous comments. I'm wondering when this kind of harassment became acceptable at Wikipedia? Pkeets (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GorillaWarfare (Pkeets)
(Posting here and not below as my editing interests overlap with Pkeets' somewhat substantially).

I have seen Pkeets cross my watchlist a few times recently and thought "aren't they topic banned from AP?" only to remember that their previous topic-ban was time-limited. I almost filed this myself last night after seeing their comments at Talk:Project Veritas (which, as I mentioned above, is a bit of a nightmare right now), but didn't have the energy for it. It's pretty clear that they treated their topic ban as a timeout after which they could return to their previous behavior, and didn't actually learn or change their approach. Their goals here seem to be pushing the things they read in unreliable, hyper-partisan sources, and attempting to reject the sources that are generally considered reliable on Wikipedia in talk page comments without actually beginning any discussions at RSN. Edit: Oh dear, I see they've actually begun to start discussions at RSN. While this is generally the advice that I give for people who object to RSP consensus, they're arguing from the basis of Project Veritas' "exposés". That's... arguably worse than not beginning the discussions at all. The AP topic ban should be indefinite.

I would also like to echo my comment above about the difficulties at the PV talk page, if any uninvolved admin has ideas for how to improve things there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this accusation of harassment referring to RandomCanadian's merging of your two sections at RSN? What is the "raucous" comment? Their edit summary was "merging sections by same OP" and they left no further comment in their edit, so I assume it wasn't that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to double check: is it possible you misread Thryduulf's comment? The rest of your comment makes me think you probably do not agree with his inclination: "I'm not seeing any reason not ​to impose an indefinite AP2 topic ban" (emphasis added). It goes without saying, I think, that I disagree with your characterization of my and other commenters' attitude toward "the opposition". I regularly collaborate with people on this project who hold opposing views from my own; I am here advocating for a topic ban not because of Pkeets' political views, but because of their persistent attempts to flout the project's policies and guidelines for WP:ADVOCACY purposes, which a three-month-long topic ban did not address. It's not bad faith to bring up a previous, recent topic ban in this exact topic area for this exact type of behavior. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
I was alerted by, who commented on Pkeets' claim that CNN was claimed to be unreliable based on some Veritas video. The "raucous comment" is probably this one (they're conflating me and RandomCanadian, I think)--I didn't merge the sections, but "Recommend reducing reliability rating of the NY Times and Washington Post over repeated failure to verify reports" is indeed presumptuous since "repeated failure etc." is hardly a fact, yet it is stated as one; I assume Orangemike's cn tag pointed at the same thing. In my edit summary here I indicated why I thought their comment (another indictment of the NYT) was a forum post--and that is precisely why I think we should go for a longer topic ban. I didn't impose one myself, since I couldn't find the energy to do it, and log it, etc., and I figured that since the last one came from an ANI discussion it would not be a bad idea to have this one not be imposed by one administrator, especially since I think this one should be longer. And I asked RandomCanadian to file this since they need the practice. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Orangemike
Pkeets persists in disingenuous insistence that they are just raising questions of reliability, when what they are doing is trying to argue that two of the most reliable sources in North America have been "exposed" by a fraudulent operation run by a notorious conman specializing in deceptive editing of recorded images. Obviously, they understand nothing of why they were topic-banned before. How long do we have to tolerate this nonsense? -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  03:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Hemiauchenia
Pkeets seems to have not learned their lesson from their prior temporary topic ban, and has subsequently engaged in similar behaviour to what got indefinitely topic banned Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive276. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme
I reviewed the evidence, and did not find anything that Pkeets did that could be considered non-compliant with WP:PAG. I'm also of the mind that bringing up a prior t-ban is being misused by some editors who represent the opposition to gain advantage and amplify the obvious lack of a smoking gun; it has a chilling effect. Yes, mud sticks and WP:POV railroad is real, but each t-ban case is different; therefore, using a wide-sweeping net as a catch-all to rid a topic area of opposition is not what I would consider to be the original intent of DS/AE. Having an opposing view is not automatically considered disruption, I hope. I agree with Thryduulf, and commend his ability to review this discussion without prejudice. Sincerest apologies, I misread Thryduulf's comment. Thank you for pointing that out, GW. The AP topic area has become quite foreboding, and that is not how it should be in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. What I've witnessed, and have inadvertently become the target of, is that any editor who dares express an opposing view is targeted, threatened, chastised and typically ends up here. For whatever reason, there appears to be an imbalance that negatively affects editors whose views doesn't align with the ideological bias on Wikipedia; the latter has even been pointed out in mainstream media. If we keep up this pace of opposition elimination, who among us will be left to represent the other significant views in order to achieve NPOV in our articles? As I've mentioned in some of the discussions at ArbCom's DS review, something needs to change, and what we're seeing in this particular case certainly supports that view.  Atsme 💬 📧 23:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC) Correction added 00:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * , thank you for pointing out my mistake, and accept my apologies because I did not intend to imply that all editors misuse prior t-bans to gain advantage. I am guilty of letting a recent incident color my POV but I am now in a much better frame of mind. (Oh, and I had my first COVID vaccine 8 days ago, and have experienced some strange side effects but I'm working through it). Following are my views on the diffs synced numerically:
 * 1) Innocuous - I don't see anything noncompliant about questioning the NYTimes, especially in today's online clickbait environment. I think it's commendable to be cautious because there are instances where a news source is considered a primary source, which means we should find better 2ndary sources, problem with that is the 2ndary sources tend to use the primary as their source (like a wire service), so we have to reach outside the echo chamber. Our pool of resources is shrinking.
 * 2) Innocuous discussions on article TPs: Project Veritas - CNN issue - rather brief and nothing that I would consider disruption or tendentious editing. Was the Project Veritas video proven to be fake - is that the issue - that he's POV pushing a fake video? That diff didn't tell me much.
 * 3) Innocuous - (March WP:RSN - WaPo & CNN) he made a suggestion - & not the first editor to make such a suggestion. I subscribe to WaPo and I'm very concerned about some of their reporting, but that's what RSN is for - to get input and discuss whether a source is reliable for citing material we want to include - context matters.
 * 4) Innocuous - WaPo and NYTimes (April WP:RSN) - another suggestion by the editor. I am aware of some pretty big errors by both publications, some of which have come to light rather recently. Our first red flag is to be cautious about the use of anonymous sources, and if my memory serves that was part of the issues that came to light recently.
 * 5) Innocuous - CNN - Proj Veritas - (April WP:RSN) - RSN is a noticeboard and that's where we go to discuss sources, express our concerns, ask questions, seek input, and present arguments - why on earth would we want to t-ban an editor for doing that? I am judging the provided diffs only - I don't know this editor so I want make that clear. Perhaps different diffs would have told a different story.  Atsme  💬 📧 02:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Qualifying my statement about not knowing this editor: I meant that the editor is not someone I collaborate with, or remember collaborating with; however, I just now discovered that I supported his December t-ban., I just now saw your ping, and I certainly understand your concerns. You need diffs that clearly support your allegation, but the diffs you provided don't support it. You said he's made vexatious filings at RSN - there's currently a serious discussion about WaPo on RSN right now, so how can we say his suggestion was vexatious? We tend to be annoyed by things that don't align with our POV, but that's not a reason to t-ban someone. That's more like an excuse. Provide more substantive diffs and let's go from there. I supported his last t-ban because there was strong reason to, but I'm not seeing it now.  Atsme 💬 📧 04:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My final comment, so please don't ping me: I can certainly understand an admin action for edit-warring, beligerence, cursing, vandalism, relentlessly adding WP:OR, but that's not what I'm seeing here. Why are we silencing editors with t-bans for simply expressing a perspective or POV that doesn't align with the prevailing view in a discussion? Are we now considering disagreement to be disruption? Are we silencing editors for criticizing our favorite news sources - the ones that align with our POV? Doesn't that conflict with NPOV? Can someone point me to the ArbCom ruling, or policy that justifies such an action along the line of An editor cannot criticize a RS - does such a ruling or policy exist? I'm not saying it's being done in this case, but it has happened so I don't doubt that any one of us can assemble a large group of innocuous diffs against our opposition, present them out of context, prepend them with our own opinions that align with the prevailing view, and give the appearance that the editor is disruptive and actually make it stick. Throw them some rope, and dare them to express their POV again. But I thought AE is supposed to be where ArbCom decisions are enforced. My pragmatic style of thinking needs something concrete that actually demonstrates disruptive behavior, not just an opposing POV or a suggestion to open a discussion about a RS. I never imagined that to be an actionable offense. I realize it's probably suicide to criticize the home team when you're sitting in their bleachers, and isn't that kinda what's happening here? I'm certainly willing to change my position with some hard evidence of disruption that supports the allegations presented by the OP. I also hope someone can help me understand why our NPA policy states very clearly: Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions. We don't have to agree with Pkeets, or his views, much less like them, but we are obligated to leave our biases at login and at least consider them, are we not? News sources are not subject to WP:MEDRS, and we're not using them to write medical articles; this is all politically based. We cannot deny the fact that news articles, most of which are available online, are provided to us courtesy of capitalism; thus the new clickbait media environment. Many news sources, including WaPo, are now either owned by big conglomerates, or the very wealthy, like Jeff Bezos who owns WaPo. News sources should remain open to criticism and scrutiny by WP editors whose job it is to exercise sound editorial judgment when citing RS. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme 💬 📧 12:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell
I kind of get the people who are saying we shouldn't punish Pkeets for just asking questions about sources. But I have to tell you that it is exhausting to deal with people who constantly raise frivolous objections to and try to undermine clearly reliable sources on these political articles. These people are poison to any attempt to cover a contentious, nuanced topic. It's like trying to write about linear algebra and constantly having to deal with people arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc have been discussed to death at WP:RS/N, and they are clearly and unarguably considered reliable by the community. Of course anyone can question that consensus, but a serious good-faith effort to reassess their reliability doesn't look anything like this.Regardless of personal political views, as Wikipedians we need to accept the community's judgment on source reliability or try to change it. Pkeets clearly isn't willing to accept it. As to whether his efforts to change consensus are serious and thoughtful, or partisan and disruptive, well... I guess that's the question. And yes, continually trying to undermine reliable sources without any sort of compelling argument is, ultimately, disruptive.(For that matter, it's also disruptive to routinely and reflexively attack the motives of people filing complaints, and to claim without any evidence that they're trying to "silence the opposition" etc. Noticeboard misuse is a real thing, but these are unsupported accusations and assumptions of bad faith which violate our behavioral standards and degrade discourse.) MastCell Talk 17:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Pkeets

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


 * Looking at what is presented here and having seen the discussions at RSN, I'm not seeing any reason not to impose an indefinite AP2 topic ban. Thryduulf (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * DGG: We absolutely should not remove minority opinions from discussions for being in a minority, however we should remove users who are disrupting discussions regardless of what opinions they are expressing. I see this a being a very clear case of the latter. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not in favor of imposing an indefinite ban from AP for such relative mild disruption as this which is mostly on WP and WT pages. . Arguing over a source is engaged in by everyone in the area, and I think it essential to NPOV that we do not remove minority opinions from our discussions.  DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I watch discussions there, tho I rarely participate in those that involve politics, just those involving academics. I have seen a considerable amount of repeated argument from each side iat RSN, or politics and other topics too, because otherwise most cases would not get there. I do not think any of it amounts to disruption, but if it did, I have seen it from each side.    I do not think pkeets hs been more disruptive than others.  If anything, in order to maintain balance, we should have more tolerance for those who express minority opinions. As Dennis says below, the material does annoy those on the other side. I don't see that as disruptive, but as a n inevitable  part of the procedure there.   The desire here for drastic penalties for minor offenses tends to confirm my opinion about selective enforcement.  DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a long-term (at least a year) is warranted. While the talkpage comments could be viewed as only mild disruption, they are not a first offence and the fact that they were done after a topic ban had already been served suggests that GW's comments about the previous ban being a timeout after which they could return to previous behaviour is accurate. Number   5  7  11:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If we are going to do a year t-ban, it should be indef. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 13:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I began reviewing the evidence when I commented on the discussion below, but was called away. I concur with my colleagues who have commented since that a TBAN is required. Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is it a debate forum. Opinions, whether majority or minority, need to be based in policy, or they are detrimental to our project. Pkeets seems to believe that basing their opinions in policy is optional. If there was a way to implement a TBAN from a narrow set of topics (US media, perhaps?) I would slightly prefer that, but would not strongly oppose an AP2 TBAN. I don't think this TBAN should be time-limited; as I've said elsewhere, time-limited TBANS are rarely useful. I would make it indefinite, appealable in 3 or 6 months. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Indef topic ban seems overkill here. What he's doing is certainly annoying and to a degree, disruptive, but not something we would normally take such drastic measures for.  This seems more of an ANI issue than AE.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:17, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The more I look at this, the more I'm against sanctions. I struck a bit of my comment above as well.  It may be inconvenient for someone to distrust certain media outlets, and I don't agree with all his conclusions, but it isn't stopping work from getting done, it isn't warring over content, nor anything that is really disruptive.  In short, it doesn't really belong here.  I didn't just close it because it would end up here again.  I think the solution is for people to be a little more tolerant of different opinions so long as those opinions aren't really getting in the way of consensus building. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 04:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't help out much at ARE but I do read over cases and just wanted to comment that it is an unfortunate situation that any editor would be labeled "the opposition" based on their political point-of-view. I think this must be an attitude is held by some editors working in the field of American politics but rarely stated so bluntly. While disruption is unacceptable, hashing out disagreements is what noticeboards and talk pages are for. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also not seeing it here, and would not sanction at this point. This editor is not edit warring, and is bringing up suggestions in regards to consideration of reliable sources and inclusion or exclusion of material in an article. Certainly, we should not hesitate to periodically reevaluate whether sources we have found to be reliable in the past still are; that can change and in some cases has. I am not seeing evidence of deliberate disruption, and just putting forth a position or proposal that doesn't ultimately gain consensus is not in and of itself disruption. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Airpeka
''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 Airpeka

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 11:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy
 * 1) 19 April 2021 after DS/Alert as well as clear warnings (1, 2).
 * 2) 16 April 2021 after DS/Alert and first recent warning.
 * 3) 16 April 2021 ditto.
 * These were before DS/alert or clear warnings but included for context
 * 1) 15 April 2021 Start of the new campaigning thread (already repetitive on that page).
 * 2) 15 April 2021 Continuation of the same thread.
 * 3) 29 March 2021 Random exerpt of typical WP:NOTFORUM creationist spamming among others in their edit history.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 16 April 2021‎

I recently noticed this editor then evaluated their edit history as WP:NOTHERE but they admitedly were not always properly warned on their talk page when their previous WP:NOTFORUM or spam were replied to or reverted at article talk pages, except once on February 2021. I made sure to issue a very clear warning but it seems to have been ignored. That warning pointed at evidence of previous problematic behavior, notably that since the start they were apparently only on Wikipedia to campaign and complain about WP:RS (example). I propose either a fringe topics and American politics ban or a non-AE NOTHERE block. Also noting that this user is autoconfirmed and can edit the recently protected Project Veritas talk page. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 11:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Special:Diff/1019075469

Discussion concerning Airpeka
''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.''

Result concerning Airpeka

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


 * I blocked the user indef per WP:NOTHERE as an ordinary admin action. All their contribution, 33 edits in total, is in talk space, where they either attack other users, or spam wixra.org, a website hosting materials which are typically not good enough for arxiv.org. I do not see how this user is helping to build encyclopedia, quite the opposite. Leaving this open a bit longer for possible other opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymblanter (talk • contribs)
 * Well done, Ymblanter. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC).