Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive289

Leechjoel9
''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 Leechjoel9

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 15:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa


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


 * 1)  reverting a  of the result of the Demographics of Eritrea RfC (and reverting unrelated edits by other people than me)
 * 2)  violation of the spirit of the result of the Demographics of Eritrea RfC on the Eritrea page (e.g. removing "three and a half ... million")
 * 3)  repeat violation of the result of the spirit of the RfC, on Eritrea


 * 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):




 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Leechjoel9 seems to be trying to interpret the RfC on the population of Eritrea in a pedantic way and to prevent edits improving the referencing quality. I see no sign that the closing summary of the RfC described an intention to disallow the use of precise referencing with full, complete references. Pedantically speaking, the RfC did not specifically mention edits of the main Eritrea article, and it's true that in principle, an editorial consensus on one article does not imply a consensus for another related article. However, common sense in this case says that if the Eritrean population needs NPOVing on the main article on the topic of the Eritrean population, then there should also be an NPOV on the discussion of population on the article Eritrea itself. The RfC result does not oppose adding UN DESA 2019's explanation of its change. All three of Leechjoel9's above three edits remove the reference ref name="UNDESA2019_release_notes" that explains the surprising change in population estimates. The RfC favours NPOV. Leechjoel9's three edits oppose NPOV. (Explanatory notes by other sources would be valid to add for NPOV, but the sources are not demographic sources, so they don't publish explanations, they just provide raw "believe me, it's true" numbers.) Boud (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Response to Leechjoel9 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Due weight does not mean that "believe-me-it's-true" sources prevent explanations by demographic research "we-calculated-things-this-way-from-these-sources" sources from being mentioned. Ordinary reasoning about sourcing should not need wikilawyering and another month or so of effort for making an edit in the spirit of the result of an RfC. The risk of this editor's behaviour is to discourage editors who lack the stamina needed to argue at length for making changes that are normally uncontroversial in Wikipedia. (Side note: the UN Population template does not appear to be controversial; for Eritrea, it gives .) Boud (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * : "Bouds edit [136], the user removed the line which explains that various sources disagrees ... editing by BubbaJoe123456 [137]." I added detail to 's edit, making the statement more precise and carefully referenced; I did not remove the population disagreement; I did not remove the statement on no official census (source: name="PHS2010_full"). Moreover, Leechjoel misleadingly pointed to my revert, instead of . "Not engaging in discussion"? I made a huge effort in the RfC engaging in rational, structured discussion fully supported by specific sources rather than undated, unarchived sources. I responded patiently to Leechjoel9's repeatedly false and misleading statements and reluctance to use non-ambiguous language. Engaging in discussion with a user who discusses this way and rejects Wikipedia policy (NPOV) would imply that this user gets to veto editing by editors with less patience than me. My recommendation is that the community should refuse Leechjoel9's use of these techniques to own Eritrea-related articles. Boud (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * See for more disputed content; however, the main problem is the irrationality of discussion by the user. Boud (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume that you have authorised extending beyond the 500-word limit, since otherwise I cannot answer. The dispute is not only about the infobox. include:
 * fixing the infobox;
 * fixing the old statement Eritrea is a multi-ethnic country ... in its population of around six and a half million which I changed to  ... three and a half to six and a half million ;
 * fixing the old statement Eritrea's population increased from 3.2 million to approximately 5,755,124 ... between 1990 and 2020 for which none of the old references provide any estimate for 1990;
 * adding the clarification to the reader " and revised down " from the only one of the sources that gives sources, methods and explanations, and explicitly states why it revised down its population estimate by 1.8 million.
 * My guess is that your statement "I will repeat my concern regarding Leechjoel9: insisting on 6 million as the only figure in the infobox given the result of that RfC would be disruptive (sanctionable)" is likely to be a strong enough result of this ARE to resolve the first three issues (I'm assuming good faith). I cannot predict Leechjoel9's reaction on the fourth point. So far, it seems that s/he rejects the normally uncontroversial idea that a sourced explanation for the disagreement in numbers is better than no explanation at all; pedantically, it is not a formal result from the RfC. Boud (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: "having read Leechjoel9's explanations here": scroll up to see the false statement by Leechjoel9 of 06:11+06:15, 18 May 2021 here at A/R/E; a false statement about my editing is not an "explanation" and it is not evidence of a post-RfC change of behaviour. Boud (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * [Word count estimates of comments excluding this line: : ; : ] Boud (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Leechjoel9
''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 Leechjoel9
is ignoring and violating the reached consensus and proceeds doing changes without discussion. I have addressed the matter in the talk page of Demographics of Eritrea, and I have urged the user to participate in that discussion. Repeatedly filing for AE and ANI as soon someone disagrees is not a way forward, this is time consuming for everyone involved and a behaviour possibly breaching with Wikipedia policy. This can easily be resolved by discussion which don’t want too, see.

The reason for restoring the Eritrea article was that this newly added content goes beyond the reached consensus and has yet been agreed upon. Consensus had been reached for estimates in the Demographics of Eritrea and did update this article with info that the population of Eritrea is estimated between 3,5- 6,7 Million. This was presented fairly, mentioning the range of estimates but also that majority views supports ~6M est, see. Now a month later Boud decided to update the Eritrea article with new estimates in the info box and in the lead in the Eritrea article, see. The user has done own interpretations of the consensus and did not propose any suggestions on how this should be implemented in the Eritrea article. The consensus did not reach beyond the Demographics of Eritrea article, however a change in the demographics article would affect the Eritrea article. So, there is several issue that needs to be taken in consideration when adding this content to the Eritrea article.

Unlike, user did not mention that all sources besides UN DESA supports estimates in the 6M. In the changes made to Eritrea article the user do not even bother to mention that the broad majority view and sources supports estimate in the 6M. Sources that consist of CIA (2021), Eritrea Ministry of Information (2020), African development bank(2017) and more. By doing this the user presents the UN DESA estimate (single- minority view) source as it has the equal weight of the all of the other sources (majority view), this is giving undue weight to the minority view per WP:RSUW. This is not acting neutral and what the consensus says. The consensus however says both estimates should be presented, which nobody including myself are not objecting to. The objecting comes on how it is should be presented and formulated. This has been discussed before and I have urged that we find a solution on how to implement the consensus also in the Eritrea article.

The Eritrea article is not constructed as the Demographics article. For instance it has an info box unlike the Demographics article. In the early days of the dispute there was an discussion regarding which section that should be affected by these changes (I.e lead, info box, body). That discussion is also not closed, and should also be discussed before implementing. There is currently no dispute about the Demographics of Eritrea article. I would again suggested that the user keep the discussion in the talk page. Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * [Reply to Rosgquill, moved from admin-only section] Clearly Boud lacked support implementing the changes without discussing with involved parties on how the consensus was going to be implemented. I restored it because of that and since there are minor issue to the article, I still feel there are issue on the Demographics article that should be resolved. I could of restored it again, I however refrained from restoring current version since the Demographics edits also were less minor compared to the changes to the Eritrea article, I proceeded with discussing the matter in the talk page instead. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

If you look at Bouds edit, the user removed the line which explains that various sources disagrees to current estimates of Eritrea and that there haven’t been an official census in the country, removing the constructive editing by .That was the reason, and I also noticed Boud only proceeded with adding and citing the UN DESA source which is this users favoured source. Boud edits also lacked sources, citing and explanation of the sources supporting estimates in the 6M which is the majority view, the consensus reached in the RFC said that these should be presented. Leechjoel9 (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I have given proper explanation on the matter, in my replies above. Could you please clarify what it is you want me to further explain? In this case I don’t don’t see a need for a ban for anybody, the overall behaviour of the other parties should also be reviewed, since content has been added without reaching final agreements on how the consensus was going to be implemented (not in the talk pages or the RFC concluded this). But also since we are in the final stages of resolving the matter by discussion. I proposed in the discussion thread in the Eritrea article that there is a need of rephrasing the sentence, yet still including UN DESA and all the other sources. Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by BubbaJoe123456
I was involved in the discussion on Talk:Demographics of Eritrea about how to best represent what sources say about the population of Eritrea, and contributed to the RFC as well. Overall, the concerns that has expressed here are justified. Leechjoel9 contributions on this topic have all been very focused on having the article have as high a population figure as possible. I don't know what motivates this, but it does appear to be POV-driven. Just to be clear, the available data sources have population estimates ranging from under 4M to nearly 7M, as is reflected (now) in the lede of the Demographics of Eritrea article. Grudgingly, after the RFC, Leechjoel9 acceded to the current wording. We've just had a lengthy RFC that came to the conclusion that the most NPOV way to describe Eritrea's population is to (a) show the range of estimates, and (b) note that no official census has ever been conducted. I see no reason why, after all of that, the main Eritrea article's infobox should continue to only show a single estimate from a single source, an approach that was clearly rejected in the Demographics article RFC. Bottom line, I'm concerned that Leechjoel9 doesn't come to topics around Eritrea with a NPOV approach. As another example, they argued for the removal of a clearly notable person from the list of notable people from Asmara, on the grounds that the person no longer held Eritrean citizenship. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Leechjoel9

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


 * This is particularly difficult for admin resolution. I might say more later but my primary concern is always what is in the article and I have to say that it is not satisfactory to put population = 6,081,196 in the infobox at Eritrea given reliable sources with estimates from 3.6 to 6.7 million. I see a comment that the issue is extremely contentious—apparently a small number implies a certain political outcome while a large number implies some other real-world consequence. Unless there is a knock-out argument that I can't see, editors have no basis to decide which RS should be chosen for the infobox number. The problem cannot be solved by the walls of text in Talk:Eritrea/Archive and throughout Talk:Demographics of Eritrea. The approach at Demographics of Eritrea is better where there is no simple factoid—it starts with "Sources disagree as to the current population of Eritrea, with some proposing numbers as low as 3.6 million and others as high as 6.7 million." Question to participants: is there a dispute relevant to this report about text in the article apart from the number in the infobox? If yes, please succinctly identify it. If not, I'm afraid this issue might have to go back to article talk with a focus (that I couldn't see) on exactly what to put in the infobox (one suggestion would be to put nothing there). Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is there an answer to my "Question to participants"? It appears from recent posts above that the main issue is the number in the infobox, summed up by this 15:00, 13 May 2021 revert by which asserted that the RfC did not apply to the infobox and that the UN DESA report was a "minority" view. I'm inclined to close this as no action with an informal recommendation that participants digest my above comment. The demographics RfC is not sufficient to say what should be in the Eritrea infobox but I will repeat my concern regarding Leechjoel9: insisting on 6 million as the only figure in the infobox given the result of that RfC would be disruptive (sanctionable). Editors should stop talking about the past and who is to blame. Focus on what should be in the infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , could you explain why you performed the edit at Demographics of Eritrea linked to in the first diff provided by Boud in this report? signed,Rosguill talk 23:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry, but I was hoping for a bit more detail. Could you please clarify what your specific objection was that motivated you to perform the first revert on May 13. signed,Rosguill talk 22:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for the clarification. My perspective at this time is that Leechjoel9's objections were reasonable, and I don't see anything that immediately warrants a sanction. I find some fault with Boud for not attempting to engage in a discussion about what Leechjoel9's objection was before coming here, which may warrant a warning. signed,Rosguill talk 18:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , my comment was meant with respect to the post-RfC dispute alone. Generally speaking you have been engaging in constructive discussion, but having read Leechjoel9's explanations here, I believe that you could have settled this new issue (or at least sufficiently defined the point of dispute to allow for 3rd parties to weigh in and build a consensus) without coming to AE. signed,Rosguill talk 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , on review I think I may have misread the edit you made which was identified by Leechjoel9 when I commented earlier . Reviewing it now, while formatting of the citations was changed, all of the citations appear to have been preserved; content about the range of estimates was reworded, but Sources disagree as to the current population of Eritrea, with UN DESA proposing a low estimate of 3.6 million for 2021 and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa proposing a high estimate of 6.7 million for 2019. Eritrea has never conducted an official government census seems to still adequately present the information., do you stand by your prior assessment regarding this edit? signed,Rosguill talk 13:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to get a further reply from before pushing for a close, as I still have unanswered questions about editors' explanations for their behavior. If we don't see a satisfactory reply soon, however, I think that a short tban for Leechjoel9 may be appropriate. signed,Rosguill talk 17:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , the issue is that your original explanation given here of the edit at Demographics of Eritrea was that Boud had removed sources in that edit, and you reverted, but they did not actually remove any sources in said edit. If this was simply a misunderstanding then I don't think we have any problems at this time. signed,Rosguill talk 00:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To prevent archivation--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

أمين
''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 أمين

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 18:25, 14 May 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) 18:26, 14 May 2021
 * 2) *Removal of sourced information to RS: On 14 May, four Palestinians were killed, including one said to have attempted to stab a soldier and more than 100 people injured. There have been daily demonstrations since the escalation in Gaza.
 * 3) *Replacement with: On 14 May 2021, the Israeli army and Israeli settlers killed 10 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank who were in peaceful demonstrations and others while they were in their homes. (issues w/ this explained below)
 * 4) *Addition of In Iskaka village near Salfit, Israeli settlers under the protection of the Israeli occupation army, attacked Palestinian homes, and they killed a young man and shot 10 young men.
 * 5) **I can only read the source via Google translate, but it appears to say nothing that sounds like under the protection of the Israeli occupation army. It doesn't seem to say anything about settlers attacking Palestinian homes either.
 * 6) 18:49, 14 May 2021 On 14 May 2021, the Israeli army and Israeli settlers killed 10 (according to the Palestinian Health Ministry) Palestinian civilians in the West Bank who were in peaceful demonstrations and others while they were in their homes.
 * 7) *Misuse of, noted as a partisan source in Arab–Israeli conflict.
 * 8) *Original research and POV issues. Even Al Jazeera doesn't say what the editor is trying to say. It says nothing about people being shot for peaceful protest or for being in their homes. This is what the source says (entire article): "The number of Palestinians killed by Israeli fire during confrontations in the occupied West Bank has risen to 10, the Palestinian health ministry has said.500 people were injured in different parts of the West Bank.Violent protests erupted across the territory, with mainly young Palestinians hurling stones, Molotov cocktails and other projectiles at Israeli forces who have responded with tear gas, rubber bullet and live rounds, multiple sources said."
 * 9) *Another entry on Al Jazeera directly says otherwise, writing: The Palestinian health ministry said nine Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces during protests across the occupied West Bank on Friday, and a sixth was killed during an attempt to stab an Israeli soldier near an illegal Israeli settlement in Yabad near Jenin.
 * 10) *According to other sources: Five were killed after protesters started throwing stones at Israeli troops, while the sixth was shot after ramming his car into a military post and then trying to stab a soldier, officials said.
 * 11) 20:46, 10 May 2021 On its own, probably fine. Along with the rest, appears like POV pushing.
 * 12) 20:45, 10 May 2021 Ditto


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 30 December 2018 Violating 500/30 to edit ARBPIA.
 * 2) * 4 January 2019 Block for violation following unblock
 * 3) * 25 January 2019 Block for gaming extended confirmed


 * 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.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Report updated slightly in. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether Al Jazeera is biased or not is not key to this report. The issue is that it appears the editor made all this up. The edits claim that Israeli armed forces shot Palestinian civilians in the West Bank while they were in their homes, and for peaceful protests, and that "the occupation army" protected Israeli settlers as they attacked Palestinian homes. Simultaneously removing actually verifiable information e.g. about the knife, also contained in the same source the editor used. Both Al Jazeera and Ma'an, as well as other HQRS, contradict what the editor wrote. (Unless it's me who can't read sources today?) Surely the editors below don't think that the report is about a numbers issue of 10 killed vs 6 killed on a current events topic... The edits are a complete fabrication. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC) e: 19:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The assertion that the sources have changed their portrayal completely and that the edits were based on an old version of the source is difficult to believe. The archive here, from an earlier count, says Palestinian health officials say six Palestinians have been killed by Israeli army fire in the occupied West Bank. The officials say five were killed in stone-throwing clashes with Israeli forces in several locations, and a sixth was killed during an attempt to stab an Israeli soldier. This is before the figure was updated to 10. So are we seriously saying that Al Jazeera updated from "6 killed -> 5 throwing stones and a 6th trying to stab a soldier" to "10 killed -> they were all peacefully protesting and/or in their homes" and then reverted back to the original statement with the new count (without any notice of amendment)? Similar for the other source - Ma'an - which allegedly said that the IDF was protecting settlers as they attacked Palestinian homes, and then deleted that statement from their article?
 * Incidentally, I read this source between the user's two edits, and it didn't say anything of the sort at that time either. Again, whereas the tone and phrasing are secondary POV concerns, the primary one is persistent addition of statements that are nowhere to be seen in the sources. This unverifiable statement remains in the current article's revision. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning أمين
''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 أمين
You have included text supported by two sources but you claim to be biased. How is it biased? Is it because I said the occupation army? I put two sources, but you retrieved my amendment, because I settled with one. By blocking a lot of amendments, you are biased toward the Israeli side You could also create a discussion to guide me about the sources and how to choose them, not start blocking me just because I am an Arab. أمين (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Al-Jazeera appears to have modified the text it published, because it removed some words such as settlers and homes. this is not my fault. أمين (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I will be more careful in using sources next time. أمين (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I had been banned before, but it was for not knowing the encyclopedia's policies and being new. Now you are trying to block me. I wrote a text and placed two sources, one in Arabic, the another in English. It seems that Al-Jazeera has modified its text so that it becomes inconsistent with its text, and this created a problem. The goodwill I have in the amendment relieves me of these accusations and I am ready to improve my performance as I will hear advice from users below. Thanks. أمين (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I will do my best only to use English language sources in articles. thanks. أمين (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I will follow the advice you have put. أمين (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by selfstudier
For the sake of clarity, the first line of AJ entry says "Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization." That there are "some editors" who think it is biased for the IP area is not relevant. The discrepancy in the figures above is because this is a fast moving current event and the casualty count has apparently been rising all day, it was reported as 4, then 6, 9 and now 10 and reports are frequently changed.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the article with the latest report (11 fatalities now) and removed material not in the current source.Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
What WP:RSP says is Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Not that there is any consensus that al-Jazeera is anything other than a RS. In fact, the actual consensus position is summed up in the green check mark showing generally reliable. Disliking an editors edits is not an arbitration violation and misusing this board to remove an opponent because they used a generally reliable, per consensus, source merits a boomerang in my opinion. Including what numerous reliable sources discuss about the fatalities (that they included nine children) is likewise not a violation of an arbitration decision, and reporting it here merits a boomerang in my opinion.  nableezy  - 19:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I will say that Ameen should take care not to import the POV of the sources here. The source uses "Israeli occupation forces", but we should be using "Israeli army" or "IDF" or some such thing.  nableezy  - 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ProcrastinatingReader, the Maan source does indeed call them the occupation forces, which is what I said Ameen should be careful in importing the POV of his sources. As far as the al-Jazeera piece, it's a live link thats constantly changing. Best to avoid using such links and find a stable url, but what it currently says is According to the Palestinian health ministry, 10 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire, nine of them during confrontations. The Israeli army said that one of them was killed after he tried to attack Israeli settlers.  nableezy  - 19:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I dont see where the source support that the deaths were of people peacefully protesting or in their homes, and that is indeed concerning. I mostly object to the way that this was presented as though using al-Jazeera is an offense when it is a perfectly reliable source. Or the addition of the number of children killed which is well sourced to a number of places being some sort of POV violation.  nableezy  - 22:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning أمين

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


 * Content related to ongoing armed conflict is something we must get right. Ameen's edits don't seem to properly represent the sources, so even if made in good faith this pattern needs to stop. Given previous blocks, I would recommend a topic ban from ARBPIA for at least 6 months. I'm assuming I shouldn't take unilateral action at AE, so I'm leaving this open for more comments. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
 * To be fair, some of the previous blocks were possibly misunderstandings. Ameen was blocked for violating 500/30 twice, and they appear to have then made a whole bunch of edits to get themselves over the 500 requirement, perhaps not realizing that this would be considered gaming the system. However, using sources available only in Arabic makes it very difficult for editors who don't read Arabic to verify, so mistating even slightly, even inadvertently, what those sources say is extremely concerning. I hate to topic ban from ARBPIA yet, though. I'm not sure there's that level of disruption?, how would you feel about requiring Ameen to use only English sources in that topic? —valereee (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to let this archive unresolved, but I've never closed an AE request before. —valereee (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you need some help with the closing procedures, please feel free to ask me. It's great to see some new names here. That said, I'm concerned with the proposed resolution of just using English-language sources. I think if an editor cannot be trusted to appropriately represent sources used in this area, they need to be removed from the area entirely. I would more tend to agree with Wugapodes' suggestion of a topic ban, though I'm not much of a fan of timed topic bans, rather leaving it up to the editor if and when to ask for restrictions to be lifted but requiring that they do actually make such a request. I've seen far too many editors "wait out" timed topic bans and get right back up to the same old not long after they expire. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade, sorry, been out of pocket. Thanks, I appreciate the offer! I figured I'd read/watch/comment for a while before trying to do any closes.
 * Re: this editor...the reason I thought maybe requiring only-English sources was that I'm wondering if this is more a case of mild/unintentional POV-pushing rather than actual intentional misrepresentation. What I mean is that may "know" these were peaceful protests the same way many US conservatives "know" January 6th started out as a peaceful protest so that's what they write, even if when source doesn't actually call it that. Which is easily discovered when everyone at the talk can read the source in the original language, and easy to correct as long as the mild POV pushing is unintentional.
 * But if Ameer is using sources most enwiki editors can't read, it's hard to verify what that source is actually saying. Allowing them to continue editing using only English sources lets us figure whether this is a chronic/intentional/more than mild issue. If we instead topic-ban, even indef, we miss the chance to determine whether this is something they can learn to stop doing. So in six months or a year, when they ask to have their restrictions lifted -- assuming they manage to avoid the trap of editing too closely, which for someone whose first language is Arabic is a pretty big trap -- we still won't know if they can edit productively in that area. Sorry for the wall of text. —valereee (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm having a hard time making sense of this. I've been looking at this Al Jezeera source that was used in one of the edits, and it looks like one of those "live updates" pages that posts updates every hour as more news comes in. That makes me more inclined to believe أمين when they say the page changed after they edited. And from what I can tell the sources say that many Palestinians were killed by Israelis during protests and that Israelis have been shelling Palestinian homes. So the edit  saying "On 14 May 2021, the Israeli army and Israeli settlers killed 10 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank who were in peaceful demonstrations and others while they were in their homes." may be accurate. But I can't find support for the word "peaceful" in "peaceful demonstrations". (There was mention of violent protests though.) On time-limited vs. indefinite topic bans, I'm ok doing time-limited for the first, and then if the user just waits it out and goes back to problematic editing, it's easier to justify an indef. Given the "gaming" issue mentioned earlier, it might not hurt to give the user some extra time to gain more editing experience outside the most contentious area on Wikipedia. ~Awilley (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
 * @Awilley, I do think it's possible, based on Ameer's responses here, that this is a well-intentioned new editor who simply has a point of view they believe is clearly correct. Like you, I'd recommend to all new editors that editing in contentious areas is a terrible idea until you're much more experienced. My advice to would be that even if you don't end up topic-banned, go edit in areas that aren't contentious while you learn to edit, as you can get in huge trouble in those areas simply from ignorance. If you have questions about that, feel free to ping me to your user talk. —valereee (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. I'm really fine with whatever you do in closing, including the English-only restriction you suggested above. ~Awilley (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Arminden
''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 Arminden

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles


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


 * 1) 22:40, 3 June 2021 changing "Palestinian" to "Arab" for the description of the depopulated village of Al-Birwa


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 21 May 2015 Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * Alert, 18:02, 20 May 2021

Calling the villages depopulated by Israel in 1948 for "Arab" or "Palestinian" has been a hotly contested area, which was resolved  with this RfC:  Talk:Kfar Ahim: we shall call them "Palestinian". I was therefor disappointed with the above edit by Arminden, and when I asked him to revert link, he replies "I don't care about those tonnes of blabla. I won't revert whatever you do. Enjoy your crusade." link
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

My 2 cents: editors in the IP area needs to follow the rules, also the rules that they do not agree with, Huldra (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, if the present version of the article will stand (ie, Arminden (or anyone else) will not change it); then I withdraw this report. And I realise that reporting this might seem draconian to outsiders, but the IP area is one area where the attitude My way or the highway is really extremely unhelpful. Nobody is  "above" the rules (Or: that "blabla").  cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


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

Discussion concerning Arminden
''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 Arminden
Bad English (mine). Wrote that before going to sleep. Followed up on it now: "(ping) Huldra, I've written quite clearly: you can do as you like, I'm out of there, it's all yours. I've removed the star from that article, not getting any more notice when it's being changed."

Do whatever you want = exactly that.

I won't revert = I'm out, not interested in warring. I've stated what I think of it, don't care for more. Not the first time I'm doing this. Seriously sick of I/P crusaders of both camps and their dodged pitched battles. Not for me, life too short.

Now I'm out of here, too. Do as you like.

Statement by Shrike
And why he should revert? he didn't broke any policy. There was a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on one page. That doesn't apply to all pages on Wikipedia --Shrike (talk)

Statement by Nableezy
The RFC question said ''This issue concerns all the Palestinian villages depopulated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and all the Israeli settlements which were built on their lands after 1948. ... Should these villages be called "Arab" or "Palestinian"? Or perhaps "Arab Palestinian"? I have argued that they should be called "Palestinian", as that is what their source say, and that is what is most unambiguous. Another editor (Number 57) has argued that ""Palestinian" is not a helpful term here because it does not clarify to the reader whether it was a Jewish or Arab village."'' Saying this was related to one specific article is specious. Arminden, I think most of us here respect your editing, but if youd like to challenge a settled consensus the method you should choose is a new RFC, not the take my ball and go home if your edit against the consensus of the current RFC is opposed. Just self-revert and engage on the talk page, I dont think most of us root for your uninvolving yourself in any article.  nableezy  - 21:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever, I made a tweak that satisfies both concerns here.  nableezy  - 21:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Arminden

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


 * Arminden, I think what you're saying here is that you won't revert your edit, but you also won't revert if someone else reverts yours? —valereee (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Ping
 * Fix ping: —valereee (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm just asking for clarification of what Arminden has posted, as it could be taken several ways:
 * I won't revert my edit
 * If someone reverts my edit, I won't revert them
 * Both of the above
 * —valereee (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Aquatic Ambiance
''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 Aquatic Ambiance

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 18:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality


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


 * MGTOW
 * Aquatic Ambiance's contributions to the Men Going Their Own Way talk page (viewable at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way, but shows they stopped engaging on the talk page as of February 5, 2021)
 * 08:57, 12 May 2021 changes lead sentence wording related to "misogynist", with the summary "One person cannot define a group."
 * 10:39, 12 May 2021 same as above (revert)
 * 17:31, 07 June 2021 removes "misogynistic" from lead sentence, with the summary "One person cannot define a group".
 * 17:37, 07 June 2021 same as above (revert)


 * Other pages
 * 14:48, 18 May 2021 changes "Ideology" from "feminism" to "misandry"
 * 10:24, 28 April 2021 adds "popularly known as OnlySimps" to lead sentence of OnlyFans (see simp if unfamiliar with the slang)


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

In January/February 2021, Aquatic Ambiance joined a discussion on Talk:Men Going Their Own Way to discuss the inclusion of the term "misogynist" in the lead sentence of the article. Their last post to the discussion was on February 5, where they wrote "Anyway I won't bother with things like this anymore because I've promised myself not to waste time on discussions anymore, be it political or otherwise." The discussion ultimately failed to reach any consensus to change the wording, but Aquatic Ambiance has apparently decided to just try to slow-motion edit war the change in anyway.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I'm only familiar with their edits through the MGTOW page. A quick perusal of their edits shows what appears to be generally productive editing* on articles about bands interspersed with vandalism on gender-related topics: for example, changing the infobox "ideology" field from "feminism" to "misandry" at Women's Equality Party, and adding "popularly known as OnlySimps" to the lead of OnlyFans. It seems pretty clear that this user has a strong antifeminist POV and is not able to edit in this topic area.

* I haven't looked too closely at their COVID- and epidemic-related edits—from looking at their talk page there may be an issue there too, but that's outside the scope of this request. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 

Discussion concerning Aquatic Ambiance
''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 Jorm
This user is simply not here to be productive. There's nothing more to say than that.--Jorm (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's an edit where they left the summary of redundant feminist nonsense.--Jorm (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sangdeboeuf
Apparently one  when it suits one's purposes to call a feminist political party, while ignoring reliable sources. A.A. seems to be WP:NOTHERE to be productive in this topic area. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Aquatic Ambiance

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


 * Fairly obvious gender & sexuality topic ban required here IMO. Edits in other areas look fine. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Black Kite. A couple of attempts to insert a POV in a single article would probably merit a warning but if all edits in the g&s area are problematic, as they appear to be here, then a topic ban is definitely in order. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This editor was properly notified of this case having been filed, and has edited since then, so apparently has chosen not to respond. Given that, proceeding with what we have here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Davidirvine894
''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 Davidirvine894

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/The Troubles


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


 * 1) 18:46, 2 August 2020 "Give it a rest you wierdo" in reply to an administrative warning about edit warring at Nigel Dodds
 * 2) 15:20, 8 June 2021 Violation of WP:DERRY at Nigel Dodds, despite being previously informed about it
 * 3) 16:05, 8 June 2021 "Oh fuck up you bellend" in reply to a warning about the previous edit
 * 4) 17:18, 11 June 2021 "I'm truly astonished by the knowledge you hold in regards to the terrorists and scumbags in Sinn Fein/IRA", this is mocking an actual award that's visible on my userpage
 * 5) 17:20, 11 June 2021 Adds "convicted terrorist" to Martina Anderson and amends "A member of Sinn Féin" to "A member of Sinn Féin/IRA", that being a term used by unionists to imply they are the same organisation.
 * 6) 17:26, 11 June 2021 Adds "convicted terrorist" to Martina Anderson
 * 7) 17:40, 11 June 2021 "I’m stating facts, clearing a Fenian the way your getting on, wise up and get a life", see Fenian for the contemporary usage of "Fenian"


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

n/a

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


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

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

Discussion concerning Davidirvine894
''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 Cabayi
David does not appear to want to contest this enforcement request - m:Special:GlobalRenameQueue/request/78428/ (declined). Cabayi (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Davidirvine894

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


 * I've blocked for 1 week for the personal attacks as a regular admin action. Beyond that, I think it's pretty clear that an indefinite topic ban from the Troubles is in order, and will close this accordingly in 48hr unless someone disagrees. signed,Rosguill talk 05:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think an indef block would have been out of line here given that this user hasn't made many edits and they mostly consist of doing something obviously disruptive and insulting people. The evidence above doesn't include vandalism to the OP's userpage .  Hut 8.5  15:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Mercrediaankijker
''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 Mercrediaankijker

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 09:40, 17 June 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) 16 June Initial edit, in violation of 30/500 rule
 * 2) 16 June Reverts
 * 3) 17 June Reverts again after being warned about the sanctions


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * User was warned about the sanctions prior to making the second revert
 * The article has a pagenotice clearly stating that "Editors to this page: must be signed into an account and have at least 500 edits and 30 days' tenure"

Should be a fairly open and shut case. Cheers, Number   5  7  09:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC) 
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Unfortunatley they are now continuing to revert. A quick block or page protection would help. Cheers, Number   5  7  10:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And now gone past 3RR. Number   5  7  10:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They've now been indef-blocked, so I guess this can be closed? Cheers, Number   5  7  10:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Mercrediaankijker
''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 Mercrediaankijker

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



Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Astral Leap
''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''

''To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).''


 * Appealing user : – Astral Leap (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : You are indefinitely banned from interacting with (WP:IBAN), one-way.


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Astral Leap
To get this out of the way, I was suspected of being a sockpuppet but this was checked and rejected by checkuser at Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek (deleted). My relations with the editor I am sanctioned from got off to a rocky start after this question following Zezen's block (AN discussion) that I was involved with. The sanction was imposed on me after two actions on my part:

1. I made a AE report,, that documented a topic ban violation. However, because the editor was reported by other new users previously, and there was a pattern of these reports the topic ban was lifted so that there would be no more reports.

2. I made a ANI report, which I admit was on a minor issue (minor flags). After this was opened, El C placed in short succession on my page: a. warning not to do "ad-hoc prosecutions". b. discretionary sanction alert c. sanction

I think El C was quick here because he suspected me of something else.

This sanction would not be so bad, but it is bad because I am being tormented by the editor who I am sanctioned from. They are addressing me, accusing me, all this while knowing I can't respond:

1. : "Astral Leap I recognize that you are under a one-way interaction ban with me, so I apologize to you AL. I know you can't defend yourself concerning my criticism...."

2. this notification of Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek was criticized by the clerking admin  in the deleted discussion.

3. In Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek (deleted, can not link) making accusations at me. Even responding to my request to be left alone, with a condescending comment on me responding to a the notification on my talk page.

The last sockpuppet accusation was not the first one. I also faced accusations by this edit in Sockpuppet investigations/CommanderWaterford/Archive.

I admit my ANI report made a mountain out of a molehill of minor edit summaries. I shouldn't have done it. I will avoid making these kinds of reports against the editor or any editor.

Admins, please either lift this sanction or make it so this editor can not make comments on my either. It isn't fair that I get criticized and tormented like this and I can not respond to it.--Astral Leap (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El C
Except for today, since Feb, the appellant has made a total of 2 edits, so it's difficult to gauge the utility of the (Jan 30) ban, the context of which I admittedly no longer have a firm recollection of. El_C 10:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GizzyCatBella
I’m an editor with whom the appellant has an interaction ban. Just a note of what really happened because the appellant offers a bit twisted version of it. I suffered harassment from numerous brand new accounts, which followed my every edit and kept reverting me or filing bogus reports against me. One of them was, at the time, a junior account of the appellant. Details can be found here (see my closing note at that report). The appellant has been granted an interaction ban with me (and very rightly so) on 30 January 2021. Soon after, on 1 February 2021, they were blocked for one week and eventually, their talk page access was revoked for poking at Volunteer Marek After their block expired, the appellant made a total of 5 more edits on February 15th and went still. On June 9, 2021, I left a note on the appellant talk page regarding the Sockpuppet investigations/Volunteer Marek (now deleted) notifying them that they are being mentioned there. To my surprise, the appellant responded within 4 hours making a post at the investigation and their talk page despite being inactive for 4 months. Admins may want to look at the mentioned (now deleted) investigation for details on how the appellant's name has been brought up there and by whom, since I don't remember anymore. As far as tormenting accusation - this is a total boloney. I referred to the appellant only once after them receiving an IB, and despite me not having an interaction ban with them, I was very thoughtful. That's a quick recap; This appeal should be rejected since there are no reasons for the lift, and .... well, you draw your conclusions. If you need any more information, please ask. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade - Got it. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Astral Leap

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


 * I don't see a compelling reason to overturn this sanction -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Like Guerillero, I don't see any substantial reason to overturn the interaction ban, and there is not enough editing activity to determine whether Astral Leap's judgment has improved sufficiently to warrant doing so. That said,, I do not think what you did was meant to be poking or provocative, but avoid anything that could even be interpreted that way, and understand how easy such an interpretation is when the other editor is barred from responding to you. If, for example, Astral Leap's participation at the SPI would have been helpful or desired, an SPI clerk could have taken care of making that notification, and that would have been much better that than you doing it. If they didn't think that needed to happen, what was the need for you to go and do it? Basically, absent some absolutely compelling reason to do otherwise, leave Astral Leap alone in return, or the interaction ban may need to be made mutual. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I endorse Seraphimblade's first sentence and encourage Astral Leap to edit regularly and productively for a few months before appealing again. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  19:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I also endorse Seraphimblade's first sentence. I'm very surprised that Astral Leap has made this request without giving any evidence. Do some constructive (and regular) editing for six months and ask again. Doug Weller  talk 12:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Mbsyl
''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 Mbsyl

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 21:38, 16 June 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) 02:02, 9 May 2021 First attempt to add material to completely the wrong place (the section at Killings of Aaron Danielson and Michael Reinoehl already deals with some of the ballistics evidence)
 * 2) 08:53, 20 May 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit
 * 3) 18:33, 24 May 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit
 * 4) 06:06, 07 June 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit
 * 5) 23:11, 13 June 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit
 * 6) 17:40, 14 June 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit
 * 7) 21:14, 16 June 2021 Edit wars to repeat previous edit


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 01:58, 27 January 2020 One year BLP topic ban

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

At this point they are a SPA, making no other edits to any other articles, yet just turning up intermittently to try and force their disputed edit through. FDW777 (talk) 21:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

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

Discussion concerning Mbsyl
''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 Mbsyl
this is silly. you are doing what you accuse me of, except you are "edit warring" by removing important info that is not mentioned in the article anywhere and saying that it is when it clearly isn't. whereas my "edit warring" is simply returning the information back to the article since it is NOWHERE ELSE IN THE ARTICLE. if you don't like where it is, that's a different debate, but you are just outright obsessively deleting it. you are the one who should be sanctioned.

Result concerning Mbsyl

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


 * I'm concerned that Mbysl's comment here ignores that they were directed to add content to a specific section identified by FDW777 (three different times by my count, always with a wikilink to the section). Between that and the edit warring, an indefinite topic ban seems appropriate unless there's a sharp course correction. signed,Rosguill talk 19:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we are indeed up to an indefinite topic ban. The editor has been sanctioned from BLP articles for a year, they have received a significant number of warnings and notifications related to the AA2 case, but they do not seem to have learned anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Extra care must be taken in BLP articles, it is a serious responsibility for the project. The characterization of this as "silly", and their statement to the effect that removing such content is essentially the same thing as adding it tells me that there is a lack of understanding regarding our BLP policies. Given the prior topic ban and the sheer amount of time that the same issues have been going I don't expect this to change. Based on that I think that an indefinite topic ban(from the topic of BLP, broadly construed) is justified. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 01:52, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Normchou
''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 Normchou

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:COVIDDS


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


 * 1) 22:12, 16 June 2021 Reverting statements about the scientific consensus several times over several days against WP:BRD. Did not engage in ongoing discussions on the talk page (1 2 3), which indicate consensus-building is resolved or at the very least ongoing.
 * 2) 19:10, 14 June 2021 Same as above
 * 3) 22:01, 16 June 2021 Same as above
 * 4) 23:13, 11 June 2021 Removing well-sourced content against talk page consensus as above
 * 5) 22:31, 11 June 2021 Removing same well-sourced content as above against talk page consensus
 * 6) 21:59, 16 June 2021 removing well-sourced content as above without gathering consensus
 * 7) 20:41, 14 June 2021 More reverts of above without talk page discussion or gathering consensus
 * 8) 14:46, 10 June 2021 Removing "scientific consensus" as above, after being reverted, w/o consensus (although also good edits bundled in with this imo)
 * 9) 19:23, 10 June 2021 Inserting POV content that is WP:UNDUE and not from scientific peer-reviewed sources
 * 10) 18:59, 14 June 2021 Inserting POV content that is WP:UNDUE and not from scientific peer-reviewed sources
 * 11) 20:42, 14 June 2021 Reinserting same content as above in other articles, despite ongoing discussions on both talk pages
 * 12) 17:01, 10 June 2021 Removing NPOV tags without consensus


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 06:29, 26 January 2021 TBAN for 90 days for uncivil behavior and making articles, talk pages , and ANI  into a battleground. Also received admonishment for abusing SPI . He has also been accused at SPI, though checkuser was negative . Other users assumed WP:MEATPUPPET. TBAN expired 26 April 2021.


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


 * User has been alerted several times about General sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months.

has been disruptively editing Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 and COVID-19_misinformation since shortly after TBAN expired at the end of April. TBAN was related to uncivil behavior specifically WP:BATTLEGROUND. Worth noting that the original TBAN was after this user made an inappropriate ANI report re: "subtle vandalism" and accusing a "tribe" or "coalition" of editors of "going after" him. AKA a consensus of editors on the talk page. Editor has also received several admonishments for edit-warring in the past related to these exact same behaviors. I would say that now, the editor has tried to go the other direction and avoid conflict by just ignoring discussion altogether, but still reverting and contravening/avoiding ongoing discussions and consensus-building. This is why I would say Normchou is NOTHERE. It feels to me like a case of failing to pound the facts, and so defaulting to pounding the table instead. Suggest indefinite topic-ban, but I'll take whatever I can get to make this article slightly less of a headache.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC) (edited)-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Normchou also removed several similar statements from elsewhere, that had MEDRSes appended. If it helps, I just added several MEDRSes to the lead statement. I was following MOS:LEAD for a statement that has several repeats in the body with sources. Again, if that were the only issue, then Normchou or you or anyone could have simply added the sources from elsewhere in the article. Or engaged in the several ongoing discussions on the talk page. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 04:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not believe many of the things you have broadly accused me of. I am not interested in "removing" the lab leak theory from Wikipedia, only giving it the due weight of its coverage in MEDRSes and RSes, where each is applicable. I think we actually do that quite well in the Investigations article already, I see no reason to remove any "lab leak" content there. DGG, respectfully, I have seen your edits to be of high quality and your assessments to be neutral in the past, but I think you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS here. This editor is a problem because they are not interested in building a wikipedia, not because they believe something I do not.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 13:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, Normchou is not only uninterested in reaching consensus on these content questions, he is uninterested in any discussion whatsoever. His main interaction with these articles since the end of his TBAN has been to repeatedly push his POV. Furthermore, he doesn't see anything wrong with this. I'm not sure it would be any better in 90 days. His edits in other areas seem okay (prior edit wars notwithstanding). So maybe it's just COVID that's a big issue.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 16:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why an indefinite TBAN? :


 * Appendices :

Edited to add diffs instead of internal links, better quotes, summary from original TBAN-related ANI post, and reformat/reorganize. I have also tried to simplify to get under word count limits. I tried very hard to not change the substance of arguments, only to eliminate duplicate diffs and convert internal links to diffs. I apologize, this is my first report to AE, and the last report anywhere else was probably years ago. Please forgive my initially very poorly formatted comments.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 23:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC) (edited)-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Notifying every editor who has edited the relevant article in the past 3 days:

Notified: User:RandomCanadian, User:Forich, User:Bakkster Man, User:Darouet, User:Stonkaments, User:CutePeach, User:Wqwt, User:NightHeron, User:K1812, and User:Aeonx. Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding additional users who edited the talk page in the past 3 days:

Notified: User:Firefangledfeathers, User:KristinaLu, User_talk:Novem_Linguae, User:2601:602:9200:1310:29B4:4D77:E328:DCFE, User:Drbogdan, User:Thucydides411, User:Empiricus-sextus, User:HalfdanRagnarsson, User:Adoring nanny, and User:Eccekevin. -- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 00:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not the place for content discussions. However, I really think the most useful place to look to understand the scientific consensus on the lab leak and related theories is WP:NOLABLEAK. The statements by WHO are great per MEDRS as a professional body, but there are a number of other peer-reviewed review articles in the aforementioned essay that show the consensus is "unlikely"-to-"extremely unlikely."

We have multiple discussions about this in these talk pages every few days. Someone will bring a poor quality WP:FRINGE source from a low-quality journal (typically sham peer reviewed, if at all) saying one individual scientist (generally not a virologist, I say as a PhD virologist) has "figured it out!" and "here's the new "slam dunk" evidence the lab theory is true!" And then, when you run it down, it is more WP:FRINGE nonsense, based on the same rehashed evidence. To me, it's the latest WP:PROFRINGE editing game in a long line of same. This time, the media is still caught up in it as sensational click-bait. But scientists, by and large, have not changed their opinions, because the evidence has, basically, not changed.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 02:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC) (edited)-- Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * 1) 23:43, 16 June 2021 User Notified

Discussion concerning Normchou
''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 Normchou
My comment is that I have been making edits in accordance with WP:5P, using WP:COMMONSENSE, but have found it extremely difficult to edit this article—which shouldn't be the case if everyone followed the community policies and guidelines on content and conduct—despite the fact that my contribs are still a substantial part of its current form. I have made a similar comment/complaint on the ArbCom case request, which apparently has become the basis of this enforcement request, but in my opinion it has little effectiveness on resolving the underlying COI issue (more background: ).

Re WP:CONSENSUS, "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." Consensus can be achieved "through editing", "through discussion", and/or through other means. I have tried using the talk page before, but now feel there is so much WP:GAMING by some "experienced editors" such as RandomCanadian to push their POVs that the talk page is barely serving the purpose of "addressing legitimate concerns" or reaching consensus. Their failure to be consistent in applying their own standards ("Science is made by publishing in peer-reviewed journals, not counting opinions.") when facing different POVs says a lot about their purpose of editing this article, , with the latter edit merely citing a "count of opinion" that happened to appear in a single peer-reviewed article.

I have no more diffs to list or talk page records to show here, so please feel free to accuse me of casting aspersions. I do not have the energy for doing any of that stuff and know it could backfire no matter what. Anyone who has edited the article for a while and who does not have a specific agenda/POV to push, however, understands that there is something unusual about editing this article, but I have nothing else to say.

I support discretionary sanctions against "unacceptable" behavior if the sanctions are applied equally to every editor who fits the pattern. I can only suggest the enforcer to scrutinize the revision history of the article and make a well-informed decision. Normchou  💬 17:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC); edited 20:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC); edited 00:42, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I just wrote an essay to make my case clearer: User:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin? Normchou   💬 04:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I provided an to this piece in my  because JS was making fun of people who did not use common sense to make their judgment on the issue (cf. Maybe a pangolin kissed a turtle. Maybe a bat flew into the cloaca of a turkey and then it sneezed into my chili and now we all have coronavirus.) But given your reaction and interpretation, I guess there really is nothing more for me to say.  Normchou   💬 05:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Berchanhimez
The motion to replace the GS with DS has passed from what I saw, but I'm not sure if all the "formalities" have been done - if not, I would like to see this kept open so that the obviously merited sanction can be applied as a discretionary sanction, logged in the arbitration enforcement for the COVID sanctions, and "more formal" than simply under a GS. I also would like to point out that the problem here isn't so much any one individual edit - it's the covert POV pushing that is flagrantly ignoring due weight policies and attempting to use individual opinions sourced primarily to news articles, not scholarly sources. While merely holding an opinion is not grounds for sanctions, explicitly ignoring discussion and consensus building, as well as this "covert" POV-pushing by using what appears to be reliable sources to override more reliable sources, as well as their flagrant disregard for what is due and undue (by simply including anything they agree with) means that at a minimum, a topic ban from COVID-19 indefinitely should be applied. The user was notified within the past year of COVID-19 general sanctions which will transfer to the DS authority. I'll end by adding this final diff of their response to my pointing out their use of weasel words and "scare quotes" - which gives no faith that they intend to edit appropriately in this area. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears the formalities have been done, so I'll note they were notified 21 January 2021 of general sanctions, and per the remedy/motion: Notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire. As such, this user can be sanctioned under the discretionary sanctions (if uninvolved administrators see it fit, of course). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Further comment: Wikipedia does not lead, it follows. If "scientific publication" hasn't caught up to scientific consensus (which I don't believe to be the reality here), that's not an excuse for us to violate our normal sourcing policies on scientific material, in which scholarly sources are preferred. Regardless, even if some of this content is merited in some articles in some way, the way this editor has gone about it is absolutely not constructive. Personal beliefs about "scientific consensus" do not trump the fact that it is still an immense minority of scientists giving this credence, and as such, any opposing opinions should be carefully inserted in articles, if at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ched
"No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict." Since the motion being passed was just posted, I don't see how we can retroactively sanction someone. — Ched (talk) 00:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC) (edited: — Ched (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC))
 * per WP:AC/DS

Statement by Adoring Nanny
The conflict in this area is driven by the fact that some users are trying to maintain in article space the idea that there is a scientific consensus on the origin of covid. As of today, that is not the case. All but the last of the above sources all dated within the last month. The scientific publishing process has not kept up with the discussion in the real world. Furthermore, there is press discussion that scholarly papers which take the lab leak hypothesis seriously are being rejected for political reasons. In short, Wikipedia policies (such as "academic sources > news reports") are flying in the face of reality. In other words, as a matter of Wikipedia policy, there is a scientific consensus that there was no lab leak. As a matter of reality, there is no such consensus. I don't know if we want to reflect our policies or reality. That's above my pay grade.Adoring nanny (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The question of what definition of "consensus" to use is sufficiently glaring that I just wrote an essay WP:DEFINECONSENSUSESSAY. In particular, when an article uses the word "consensus", does it refer to a Wikipedia-consensus or a dictionary.com-consensus? I'd think it refers to a dictionary.com-consensus. But I could be wrong. Adoring nanny (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The complaint makes a big deal of an alleged "scientific consensus" that the zoonosis hypothesis is true. Therefore, it seems reasonable to reply to that issue. I am particularly bothered by the leaking of the definition of "what constitutes a consensus for purposes of a Wikipedia discussion" to become a definition of "what is a consensus in the real world". Most readers will understand the word "consensus" with a dictionary.com type meaning, not with a Wikipedia-policy type meaning. Therefore, they will consider a sentence like "There is a scientific consensus that COVID-19 is a zoonosis" to be lunacy. By sanctioning NormChou, we are therefore addressing a less-serious problem, while making the more-serious problem worse. Adoring nanny (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will say that I agree that the lack of discussion from NormChou is a problem. But last time he was sanctioned in part for too much discussion. So it's not the case that he is ignoring community input. Adoring nanny (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing that there is a scientific consensus by the dictionary.com definition of "consensus"? Adoring nanny (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A statement that the virus is natural is different form a statement that there is a consensus that the virus is natural. NormChou is therefore on the verge of being sanctioned for reverting something that isn't even in the sources. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Worth noting that the specific text under dispute for several of the diffs in the initial report has been softened after some discussion between me and User:Shibbolethink. It is very much to the credit of User:Shibbolethink that (s)he was willing to make that change while this report is pending. At the same time, one takeaway is that User:Normchou was at least partly correct about the content issue. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by RandomCanadian
The disregard for Wikipedia's policy and general preference for lower quality sources, including interpretation of primary sources, is not unique. Particularly troubling elements are the refusal to participate in talk page discussions (the only edits by Normchou on that talk page date from back in January - and they're not much more charming), and the ignoring of sources even when they're literally quoted in the edit summary. The long term, "slow" edit-warring is also disruptive. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As to AN's (post above) comments about "reality", Verifiability, not truth is a good reflection of our policies. WP:RS and WP:NPOV both imply that academic and other high quality sources are superior to newspapers, and WP:NOTNEWS details that we're not a newspaper. But anyway, this isn't the forum to litigate policy. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs)  03:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Geogene: Normchou has been asked multiple times to contribute on the talk page, and has been topic banned before, and is currently disruptively engaging in a "slow-motion" edit war to cleanse the articles of terms that don't suit their opinion (generating much discussion on talk pages, where they have so far failed to participated), as well as casting accusations on other editors (see their comment), as if that would somehow justify them not using the talk page (hint: it doesn't). As for the content dispute, suffice to say that the bigger issue is the perpetual confusion between the two main aspects: the political controversy over the subject has little common ground with the vast majority of scientific inquiries into the matter, and many sources which are totally fine to report on politics are utterly inept at making proper summaries of the science (this is not new, nor unique to COVID - see this excellent comic take on the subject). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Your claim that "saying there is a scientific consensus is a lunacy" is, to put it bluntly, wrong. For one, a look at actual scientific papers (even recent ones - the trend hasn't changed in the past year AFAICS) will show that. The media are prone to misrepresenting certainty (or uncertainty), especially when it involves politics (climate change denial - ringing a bell?). In either case, go read Verifiability, not truth for why we don't care, even if you are right and the scientists are wrong. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Empiricus If this were the first time, a warning to strictly comply with the regular editing process - namely, to take disputes to the talk page and not in edit summaries, and to not make wild accusations about the intents of other editors (which is valid whether there are DS or not in a topic) - might be enough. However, at this point, that would just be a symbolic non-action which would not do anything to solve the problem. Normchou's talk page archive is also rife with signs that this isn't a new problem, and not one that a few month's break has solved. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to continue the content dispute. I don't care what the dictionary definition is, I care what the scientific sources say about science. You're free, as ever, to present the same kind of high quality sources on the relevant talk pages to support your assertions. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * NormChou is to be sanctioned for not participating in consensus building and other dubious behaviour. As for the discussion about the content dispute, please take it to the relevant talk pages. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note Normchou has just published an essay where he, unironically, alleges that scientists are entirely unethical and that we should throw out peer-reviewed publications because of this, along with some bogus pseudo-mathematics... Clearly, they do not understand our policies and guidelines. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now thinly veiled uncivility. Also, @CutePeach: you can't explain being at over 1200 words here (which also include personal attacks against me and ) just because "links took you over the limit". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:53, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by HalfdanRagnarsson
I second. Circumstances have changed more than a bit in the past few months, with new questions arising among both the general public and the scientific community. News reports from reliable sources cannot be dismissed only on the grounds of WP:MEDRS; they too are a key source of to-date information, especially on a topic like covid that is quite significant in the public eye. It is true that the volte-face of the past few months is a bit difficult to take at face value, in that what seemed like a conspiracy theory last year now appears quite credible. However, we must avoid getting into a bunker mentality. HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by WhatamIdoing
I remember the sudden, striking change in the article tenor when User:Rosguill topic-banned Normchou for 90 days. It became less difficult and effortful for everyone/anyone to make small contributions, because editors didn't have to push every single word through a self-appointed gatekeeper.

It appears that the long break did not produce any lasting change in the editor's (in)ability to contribute in line with consensus, and EdJohnston's warnings against edit warring in general do not seem to have had much effect. ("As an admin, I would like to avoid a block but you seem like someone who is very sure you are correct and is not easy to persuade", about this incident). Normchou's edits, taken as a whole, tend to cast doubt on scientific consensus (which is not absolute or unanimous, but which does have a broad direction at this moment) and sometimes seem to have a specific political slant as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Bakkster Man
There are two issues at play. One is the contentious content dispute. This isn't really the venue for resolving that dispute, but it is definitely the backdrop of the case. Uncertainty, a quick moving nature, and allegations of 'cover-ups' in the press all make it more difficult than the standard content dispute. I suggest this means more need for conscientious consensus building and courteous editing than the average content dispute.

The direct issue is whether Normchou's edits amongst that backdrop have been constructive or disruptive. Echoing, my primary concern is an apparent refusal to discuss and reach consensus through Talk pages, seemingly preferring to edit war and attempting to make his case solely through edit summaries (sometimes arguably WP:POINTY summaries). This makes consensus building more difficult than it needs to be, if not nearly impossible. Particularly contrasting the above edit war behavior with the commendable behavior of regarding the same dispute where he went to Talk page, participated, and we seem to have resolved the dispute with better wording.

Echoing, if this was a first offense I'd hope that a warning and coaching could improve user's consensus building and result in constructive editing. Having been topic banned once before makes me, unfortunately, less hopeful that the user is interested in and willing to improve behavior. Outside of DS and the previous topic ban, this behavior might be tolerable (if annoying). In the context of disruption to a delicate process of consensus building, on pages under GS/DS, and the prior ban, I regrettably agree that further sanctions are necessary. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the content/WP:PAG question of "consensus" be taken up in a different venue instead? Any sanction here would seem to be based on whether behavior was appropriate for reaching consensus, not whether Normchou was right or wrong in their position regarding the dispute. Two orthogonal questions; a user can be correct in their interpretation of a policy, but still violate PAGs in a way that's disruptive while attempting to make their point. Bakkster Man (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Understanding the content dispute helps to understand the complaint, but this AE/DS can't and won't resolve the content dispute. Resolving it should start with a request in the right spot. Even if Normchou (or any other editor) is completely correct regarding content, I would suggest they can still break dispute resolution policy and violate DS. Dispute resolution/consensus is the complaint, the content dispute is just the POV behind the alleged disruption. Bakkster Man (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Forich
I am sympathetic to Normchou, because I see his edits going in a direction than can improve the articles on Covid's origin. This makes my opinion biased, please note that. The DS rule is a remedy to behaviour described as disruptive, and that "members of a twitter group" engage in "using Wikipedia as a soapbox", among other issues listed in the original arbitration request. If Normchou has been disruptive, or if he is a member of the twitter group that misuses Wikipedia, he should receive the sanctions per DS. The first allegation, being disruptive is clearly defined. In my opinion, Normchou crossed the line on being tendentious, and ignoring community inputs. I can see why others would think he is not engaging in consensus building, but I disagree with them. On behaviour grounds, Normchou's edit summaries seem complete and reasonable to me, although he falls short on the guideline to "Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page". From his statement, he felt that the Talk Page of "Investigations into the origin of COVID-19" was WP:Gaming (deliberately using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith to thwart the aims of Wikipedia). Is Normchou using Wikipedia as a Soapbox (a medium to express stirred passions on a subject)? I don't believe so, if that was the case he would be writing long opinions and walls of text in talk pages, which is the opposite of what he has done. So, in summary, I think Normchou is guilty of showing tendentious editing, and ignorig community input, and doing it enough number of times to be perceived as disruptive. I suggest we warn Normchou on the specific behaviour of stop being tendentious and ignoring community input. His previous topic ban was made because of WP:Battleground, so I am unsure if it counts as precedent that we should take into account for the current case (it was a different case, IMO). Finally, Normchou's statement was, at times, showing disregard for the inputs of the community, which is a sign that he is not interested in fixing that part of his disruptive behaviour, and should be taken into account in the final decision. Normchou if you are reading this, retract and ammend the attitude inmediately or be prepared to face the consequences. I want to put in the record that I condemm his attitude in that regard. Also, I oppose a definitive ban even if allowed by DS. --Forich (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Geogene
I'm concerned that Shibbolethink considers these diffs, as disruptive, claiming that Inserting POV content that is WP:UNDUE and not from scientific peer-reviewed sources. Why does Shibbolethink have a problem with reliably sourced investigative journalism? What PAG requires all content to be sourced from peer reviewed journals? And is the origin of COVID-19 purely a scientific question, or are there social and political dimensions as well? Geogene (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Empiricus
I basically agree with Adoring nanny observation. NormChou is an important corrective to one-sided, purely scientific article editing, including by incorporating new aspects of 2021 into the article. For this, as far as the laboratory is concerned, sources other than MEDRS can be used according to our guidelines. NormChou does not do anything else - it is difficult to deduce misconduct from this. Ultimately, it's just a matter of different interpretations and source preferences. That he not much discussed is certainly a problem, but "the consensus logic" of the discussion side is completely unproductive. I can understand this. On the discussion side, the zoonosis theory is treated as truth - the consensus of science, but without proof - and everything that speaks against this, especially the laboratory thesis is a conspiracy theory and is endlessly discussed. Everything what does not fit is selected, for e.g. the important statements of the G7 for a new investigation - is not included. A serious misconduct of NormChou I can`t see, if these would be a warning would be sufficient. A ban would worsen the article quality and remove the article even further from reality. He is a main author of the article and he should continue writing here, maybe seek a little bit more consensus.--Empiricus (talk) 20:00, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Aeonx
I find Normchou explanation justifiable, and would be disappointed to see Arbitration/DS against Normchou result from a failure in the community to apply to good editing as a community responsibility. I am particularly concerned about the zealous editing, and presumptions of superiority in editing relating to claims about what is a lower quality source or what is/isn't undue weight or the current scientific consensus. Building on Bakkster's comment, I find that generally on the whole Normchou's edits to be NET constructive, whilst certainly not free from disruptive editing, there are positive edits which need to be valued by the community. I also oppose the view disruptive edits are always a bad thing, debate and conflicts in editing are good, they just need to be managed and conducted in a way that is conducive to achieving editorial consensus. Aeonx (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by CutePeach
I appreciate inviting me here but I believe he filed this case too hastily, and it seems to me he did so on the beckoning of , who is the one who effected the regime change of sanctions to this venue  Just the other day, I removed politicians from Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19  and it was subsequently restored by RandomCanadian as part of a peculiar revert that didn't affect any of the later edits made by Shibbolethink. RandomCanadian’s then revert appears to be part of a well crafted scheme to provoke clashes with other editors, leading to the escalation of our content dispute to this forum where the hope is that administrators will treat it as a conduct issue. Note that this is the second time RandomCanadian restored the politicians title, after first took it out , so it was only reasonable for Normchou to counter RandomCanadian’s revert, selflessly throwing himself on a grenade aimed at me, leaving the politicians change for me or another editor to defuse. Read further for context.

Before ’s changes, this subsection was originally a section titled "International calls for investigations", which made a lot more sense as an introduction to the subject. Neither Darouet nor RandomCanadian explained their changes on the talk page, and instead reverted Normchou and myself on restorations made to this important introductory section, also without explanation on the talk page. The introduction section of the article now is a ambiguous transclusion from SARS-COV-2 which pushes the actual subject of the article below the fold, which raised in a discussion here. In a possibly final act of courage as a Wikipedian, I have again removed politicians from the title, added the official WHO source about the World Health Assembly motion , and restored it as the introductory section to the article (notwithstanding a revert attempt by RandomCanadian seconds after I made it). I fully expected RandomCanadian to make this revert, but didn’t know he would get to it within seconds, and now Arbcom should be able to see why editing in the COVID-19 origins topic area has become so precarious and risky for the rest of us.

If Darouet, RandomCanadian, or any other editor wishes to further revert my abovementioned edits and has valid reasons for doing so, they should start a discussion on the talk page, as per WP:BURDEN. To my knowledge, there are no RSs claiming Australia and Germany’s calls for investigations were politically motivated and the source I added shows this is standard procedure before a WHA. I also created a new Renewed Calls for Investigations section as per the G7 statements reported by CNN, which RandomCandian also reverted a mere minute afterwards. I would also encourage other editors here to participate in the above mentioned discussion started by Terjen, so that we can form proper consensus on how to order and structure the Origins section. Placing the background of the Origins section before a background of the Investigations does not make much sense for an article titled the way it is. CutePeach (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , did you read my well prepared and thought out statement before typing yours up in such a hurry? RandomCanadian interrupted me between edit #2 and #3 that I made just to show Arbcom how he has poisoned the well for the community. There was no edit war. CutePeach (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , instead of leaving driveby warnings on my page and ridiculing my explanation here, perhaps you should refresh your knowledge of WP:PRIMARY and specifically point #3. The first WHO document in this edit was provided as a primary source supplementarily to the Science Magazine which I provided as a one of the few secondary sources that covers its statement accurately. There are hundreds of RSs and even a few MEDRS covering this WHO document, many of which do so inaccurately, and therefore Wikipedia’s coverage has been inaccurate too - requiring us to look closer at the primary source and scrutinize our secondary sources. Neither the WHO document nor the Science Magazine article say that the outcome of the WHA was for the WHO to conduct an investigation, but that the WHA requested that the WHO DG work closely with partners to determine the origins of SARS-CoV-2 - so WHO’s statement is not being presented accurately in our COVID-19 investigations article. I corrected this inaccuracy, which you nearly banned me over.
 * The second primary source I provided was on the "Terms of Reference” for the WHO mission that was subsequently organized by the WHO DG, where we see it is called the WHO-convened Global Study of the Origins of SARS-CoV-2 or "Joint China-WHO Study" and not a "WHO team" or "an investigation" as our article calls it, so this too is not being presented accurately. There are many very good secondary sources clarifying this small but important point, like this 60 minutes segment . The WHO Mission Chief himself pointed out that study was not an investigation, and WP:COMMONSENSE says it lacked any of the characteristics of what Wiktionary or Wikipedia would call an investigation. I’m not sure why you wanted to ban me for making this distinction.
 * I would like to start a discussion asking why my edits were removed, and also about adding third primary source on the WHO DG’s response to the Joint WHO-China Study, for inclusion in the Reactions subsection of the WHO section, as supplement to the many secondary sources we have for it . I am sure it would be a productive discussion, but I’m too tired now, so I will try to get around to it tomorrow, if you haven’t banned me by then. CutePeach (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * if Jon Stewart’s humor doesn’t do it for you, here are some more serious writeups about the COI issue from some more reputable sources  . What would you think if mud men launched a campaign right after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill to persuade the public that there was nothing risky about their little Deepwater drilling exercise even though they had not yet developed the means to plug a leak at 18,360 feet depth? What would you think of petrophysicists going on TV right after the Aliso Canyon gas leak and telling everyone that there was nothing risky about their Natural gas storage in Aquifer reservoir project, even though they had not yet developed the means to detect a leak in a corroded pipe at 8,750 feet depth and plug it. What if some civil engineers tried to publish papers right after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster claiming that there was nothing risky about placing nuclear reactors in zones exposed to tsunamis and vulnerable to earthquakes? What do you think of Virologist Angela Rasmussen’s quotes in Gain of Function Research trying to persuade us that there was nothing risky about that kind of research and that the government has it all under control? In this tweet, Rasmussen discloses she is a " friend" with her "PHD Advisor" and "trusted mentor" Vincent Racaniello, who just so happens to be founder of Scientists for Science which advocates for self regulation and against increased government oversight. In the current climate, is it worth me risking my account to remove that non WP:NPOV quote from the article, or put in an alternative POV like Peacock did on their platform ? CutePeach (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , please note that is an involved party in the campaign that  accurately describes, and he is especially distinguished for his strong POV pushing and lobbying of administrators to ban other editors involved in the topic area of COVID-19 Origins. ProcrastinatingReader voted strong delete here, and falsely claims here  that the selective quoting of Richard H. Ebright‘s general 2017 comments on Chinese labs by editors to spin them as his endorsement of the conspiracy theory, when he’s explicitly disavowed it. In fact, Ebright is the most most vocal prominent scientist calling the China-WHO Joint Study a charade and demanding a real investigation into what he calls the laboratory-accident hypothesis . ProcrastinatingReader’s misrepresentation of Ebright’s view was noted by another editor in an ANI posted by  about me , and when I tried the other day to add a more recent quote from Ebright on Wuhan Institute of Virology , it was immediately reverted by you know who without any discussion, and now the article reflects only Ebright’s 2017 view. Ebright has been quoted extensively on the topic in many reliable sources from as early as Jan 2020 , saying most notably that the hypothesis must undergo a forensic and not just a scientific investigation , and he is a signatory two open open letters about this published in two very reputable sources . . CutePeach (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
This just to note that I am very impressed with the lengthy diatribe of the new SPA CutePeach, and that I came this close to blocking them for their behavior on Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. Striking how verbose they are here and how they refused to communicate there during an edit war they instigated. Maybe I should have blocked--it might have prevented them from posting here and muddying the waters even further. If we're arbitrating, it'd be nice if someone looked at their contributions to see if a topic ban is in order. Drmies (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes
There is no scientific evidence that the virus did not escape from this lab or another lab by an accident. And even the artificial selection or genetic manipulations can not be disproven solely by the sequence analysis unless someone finds exact populations of bats and intermediate hosts (if any) where the virus came from. The origin of the virus (i.e. the specific population of bats, the intermediate host and patient zero) are very much unknown. I believe all non-medical aspects of this controversy should be covered per WP:RS rather than WP:MEDRS, and most aspects of it are not medical. But the actual issue here is different: can all these users work collaboratively with each other? And if they can not, what should be done about it? I can not read all these comments, but the initial diffs brought by the filer do not seem so convincing to me because the changes by Normchou can be arguably viewed as slight improvements, although the bias and the amateurish approach by Normchou are also evident. I would say 1RR editing restriction at most for Normchou if admins think something needs to be done. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As about CutePeach, most their main space edits look legit (e.g. ), but indeed an SPA and possibly not a new user. My very best wishes (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Terjen (just below) is right because the statement removed by Normchou: imply the existence of consensus among virologists on three points: (a) that the virus "likely had a zoonotic origin", (b) that it is "possibly transmitted through an intermediate host", and (c) that "a laboratory origin for the virus is "extremely unlikely" . Speaking on (a), yes, sure, but it has a zoonotic origin even if the virus escaped the lab because the virus clearly originated in bats, and how exactly it infected patient zero (and who was patient zero) does not matter. Speaking on (b), the word "possibly" betrays the actual lack of consensus even about the existence of the intermediate host.  Speaking on (c), "origin" in this context implies production or at least manipulation (including artificial selection) of the virus in the lab rather than just an accidental escape. The "extremely unlikely" is just a hearsay, not science, because no one even tried to estimate the actual probability (that's a number), obviously because this is not meaningful.  Yes, it does seem unlikely, but only until one learns about the biological weapons program in China . The remaining issue is repeated reverts by Normchou, but if that counts as removal of incorrect and unsourced claim, I do not think it justifies any sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But I equally agree with Guy Macon (see his statement below). Normchou can not interact productively with other people who disagree with them on that subject and seem unable to self-reflect and critically evaluate her/his own statements. So yes, a topic ban might be in order. My very best wishes (talk) 14:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Terjen
This is a bizarre complaint, with many of the diffs showing removing WP:UNSOURCED claims inserted by other editors, primarily the submitter of the enforcement request. WP:VERIFY explicitly allows removing material unsupported by cited sources, placing the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate verifiability with the editor who adds or restores material.

In the first three diffs  removes the WP:UNSOURCED claim that when WHO reported that the virus likely had a zoonotic origin they were "Echoing the consensus among virologist". This WP:OR claim of scientific consensus was repeatedly reinserted by  and  , despite WP:V saying unsourced claims should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

WP:RS/AC sets the bar high for claiming academic consensus, including explicitly requiring any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors. This guideline has been repeatedly referenced in the discussions on Talk:Investigations_into_the_origin_of_COVID-19 involving these editors. They are well aware of the requirement for reliable sourcing and are quick to demand WP:MEDRS from others. Terjen (talk) 02:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:BOOMERANG opens for your disruptive behavior to be under scrutiny. You have been edit warring to insert unsourced POV, showing disregard for our core policies. Then you drag the challenging editor to AE proposing an indefinite TBAN to get them out of the way, despite the burden being on you to provide sourcing, not on them to discuss. Enforcing admins should not take this lightly. Terjen (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by DGG
I do not think Normchou has been editing very effectively, and I;ve told him so. But I see this as part of a campaign to drive away editors who want to cover the real-world discussion of the possibility of COVID19 being of laboratory origin. Those trying to remove or slant our coverage are pretending that the hypothesis has never been covered by any RS, ignoring that both Science and Nature have covered it, and the NYT has run a long series of articles about it. nominator here is pretending that there is consensus that it can not be covered except by MEDRS quality sources, it has no place on Wikipedia. That's a biased and false interpretation of MEDRS.-- the true meaning of MEDRS is that we cannot say definitely it is right without MEDRS quality sources saying so, but nobody is proposing to do that. I am not certain whether or not we have MEDRS quality sources to say it is wrong, but that's irrelevant to discussing it both as a scientific hypothesis and as a social fact. .Some of those above have taken the psition that the likelihood of the hypothesis is relevant. They're wrong. The question is whether it is discussed by RSs. The hypothesis may be wrong, but as it has been covered by RS it is hardly fringe. We shouldn;t be presenting the hyporthesis has proven right, or as proven wrong. And even when it is proven wrong, as I expect it will, it still needs to be discussed, because its a major chapter in the history of thinking about this disease. They ae now trying to remove one of the editors who oppose their narrow perspective. The motivation for their view escapes me. It can't be science, because science takes alternative hypotheses seriously until proven wrong, and even then continues to discuss them in full detail as examples. I can only suppose that they are saying that because the hypothesis was originally proposed by a group with a far-right wing bias, that it must necessarily be so wrong we should pretend it has never been proposed and that no responsible publication has ever discussed it. This is the very opposite of science, of NPOV, of WP:V-- an unprecedented perversion of the encyclopedia.

I do not think all the neutral admins to be actually neutral,. Some of them have been expressing similar views about restricting unduely our coverage of fringe topics, and of expand  our definition of fringe as broaqdly as possible. I see one of them is using this ANI request to suggest the removal of anothereditor who has been expressing similar views.  DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon
On User talk:Normchou/Essays/Does common sense point to a lab leak origin? Normchou called another editor a troll.

The post was clearly not trolling but was instead simply an opinion that Normchou didn't agree with.

I asked Normchou not to do that.

They responded by doing it again.

I have warned them using stronger language.

Related: Wikipedia talk:Advocacy

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader
I recall the user from this ANI discussion. Today I stumbled across their essay. The "A simple calculation" section is pure disinformation, and indicates that the user is either trolling or has such a strong POV that they cannot edit usefully in this area. Their other edits on articles have been equally problematic. While I'm here, respectfully, I believe DGG may need to reconsider his statement about an alleged "campaign". An editor misrepresenting sources should be a problem for everyone. As DGG admits, I do not think Normchou has been editing very effectively. The rest seems to be an unrelated statement about coverage of the lab leak theory on Wikipedia, which can be discussed on the appropriate article talk. This is an AE section requesting admin action against a single editor. That single editor has persistently behaved problematically. They should be removed from the topic area, for their sake and everyone else's, and this time indefinitely (ie, until the user can justify to the community that they're ready to contribute productively to the topic). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Normchou

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


 * , per the motion, notifications issued under COVID-19 general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from their date of issue, then expire. Normchou was notified on 21 January 2021, which makes this request valid. – bradv  🍁  00:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing that Normchou was topic banned for 90 days in January and the diffs provided, I think another topic ban is in order -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm perplexed by the fact that, in the face of allegations that Normchou prefers low quality sources, they chose to begin their essay with a reference to a clearly satirical bit in a comedy show. – bradv  🍁  05:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Normchou's behavior is disruptive enough to warrant another topic ban, and this time a longer one. I also invite admins to look at CutePeach's commentary here, and their rather silly explanation for their completely unexplained edits and the subsequent edit war. ARE is kind of like ANI, where posting or weighing in can lead to one's own edits being examined, and CutePeach's edits in article space (both in terms of content, with primary sourcing, and in terms of behavior, the edit warring and lack of explanation) are problematic enough. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors editing articles under these sanctions are expected to hold themselves to a higher standard regarding the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Normchou has not done this. The slow motion edit warring to their preferred version is particularly disruptive. I don't have to make a judgement call on whose edit is correct to see that repeatedly making the same contested edit over the course of several days is disruptive. They know this based on their prior topic ban. Due to their behavior in the short time since its expiry I think another topic ban(from COVID-19 related topics, broadly construed) is required. I think it should be at least 6 months, but a year would probably be better. While I prefer a finite duration TBAN I do not oppose an indefinite one if that is the consensus of other administrators here. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 00:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While some of Normchou's edits can be defended on various grounds, they have made no edits to Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 since 23 January 2021. Given the degree of slow-motion edit warring, that is not acceptable in a topic under general/discretionary sanctions. Johnuniq (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Belteshazzar
''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 Belteshazzar

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 08:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:

This user was topic banned from "Complimentary or Alternative Medicine, broadly construed" and his appeal failed.


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

This user was blocked twice for violating this topic ban. This week he just came off his second ban.


 * 1) Since coming back from his 3 month block, seven out of eight of his article space edits are to a controversial advocate of alternative medicine.


 * 1) And one edit to the talk page of the article that he originally got in trouble over.

Individually all these edits are pretty minor, but making them with a topic ban, right after coming back from a block, is pretty clearly a way of testing the limits of his topic ban, and signaling that he continues to edit in this area despite his blocks.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) May 2020 First block for edit warring on Bates Method and William Bates (physician).
 * 2) June 2020 Second block for edit warring on Bates Method and William Bates.
 * 3) December 2020 Topic ban on Complementary and Alternative Medicine, broadly construed.
 * 4) January 2021 1 month block for topic-ban violation
 * 5) March 2021 3 month block for topic ban.

(Many of Belteshazzar's edit-warring edits are to Bates Method, I don't think it's a coincidence that this user's recent edits are to the article about the Bates Method's most prominent proponent besides Bates himself.)


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


 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on December 2020 by.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

(I apologize if I've filled out this form incorrectly. I don't normally do this. ApLundell (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC))

User:Masem makes the point that the article for Bernarr Macfadden is currently rather credulous and does not actually use the phrase "alternative medicine".

However, I don't think we need to seriously consider the possibility that Belteshazzar was unaware of Macfadden in this context. Macfadden was a major proponent of a pseudo-scientific medical technique called the Bates Method and the Bates Method seems to be Belteshazzar's primary area of interest. He has been blocked more than once specifically for his edits about the Bates Method. It stretches credulity to imagine that Belteshazzar was not aware of Macfadden's connection with alt medicine in general or the Bates Method in particular. ApLundell (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and I see that he's made a spelling correction edit to the article since this discussion started. He's making it very clear that he believes that he's allowed to make edits in his ban area, so long as they're "good" edits. I'm certain it has been explained to him that topic bans don't work like that. ApLundell (talk)

I've notified the user here :
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Belteshazzar
''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 Belteshazzar
Guy Macon's first two diffs were from well before I was topic banned. Belteshazzar (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone until now had actually pointed out WP:BMB to me. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding 's statement "If I can remember correctly Belteshazzar was trying to remove the term "faddist". This user has always had a POV in trying to remove criticisms about those who have historically supported the Bates method." Before my topic ban, I did remove "physical culture faddist", but that was mainly to eliminate repetition of "physical culture" in that sentence. In general, no, I did not try to remove criticisms of Bates method proponents. I advocated for removing "ineffective" for reasons which I explained previously. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. I suppose I should take them off my watchlist, as seeing the recent activity was mainly what prompted me to edit or comment. Belteshazzar (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

 * The edits to Bernarr Macfadden were more than just edits "to a controversial advocate of alternative medicine". They are directly related to the specific area where Belteshazzar has been disruptive in the past (Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 72), which is promotion of the pseudoscientific Bates method. Macfadden is the author of:
 * Strong eyes; how weak eyes may be strengthened and spectacles discarded.
 * Strengthening the eyes : a new course in scientific eye training in 28 lessons
 * The most troubling aspect of this is the complete refusal to accept their topic ban. Again and again they have claimed that they are allowed to violate their topic ban as long as the violating edits are good edits:
 * "I explained in talk why my edit was good."
 * " Again, I believe that edit was valid"
 * [ Correction:
 * The first of the above two was from before the topic man but after multiple warnings. Here is the state of Belteshazzar's talk page at the time:
 * The second was after being blocked for disruptive editing but before the topic ban. Here is the state of Belteshazzar's talk page at the time:
 * So I was wrong about those two being about the topic ban -- they were about the disruptive editing that later led to the topic ban. I apologize for the error. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC) ]
 * "It was just a bit of copy editing. Nothing controversial."
 * "What was bad, controversial, or pov here? [3 edits to the Vision therapy article]"
 * Two blocks have failed to convince them that the topic ban applies to all edits on the topic with no "good edit" exception. Nonetheless, they made the same argument yesterday:
 * "On Talk:William Bates (physician), I was only letting someone know that he got the date of Bates' disappearance wrong."
 * All of this has been explained again and again to Belteshazzar (just read their talk page) and yet they continue to claim that there exists an "I am allowed to violate my topic ban if the edit is good" exception. They don't seem to be able to even remember that they are topic banned from Complementary and Alternative Medicine, broadly construed:
 * "And my edits to Bernarr Macfadden had nothing to do with eyesight, which is not even currently mentioned in the body of that article."
 * --Guy Macon (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Another "good edit" topic ban violation, this one during an open AE case about previous topic ban violations. Bernarr Macfadden was a proponent of several forms of alternative medicine, including fasting to "exercise unqualified control over virtually all types of disease", Grape therapy to cure cancer, and of course Belteshazzar's favorite, hobby horse; the Bates method. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Re "a year or indef seem to be the correct escalation" below, does anyone reading this actually think that if Belteshazzar is blocked for a year they won't immediately resume editing pages related to the Bates Method as soon as it expires? Is there the slightest hint that they will ever be willing to accept WP:BMB? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , Re: "The only possible argument I see that that would state in Belteshazzar's favor is that, at least for Macfadden, the topic is not crystal-clearly in 'alternate medicine' ", a year ago Belteshazzar added Category:Bates method to Bernarr Macfadden, so they clearly were aware of the connection. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shibbolethink
I have no familiarity with this user or the diffs here etc. Just editing to say while I was reading this out of curiosity, I went ahead and updated the section name to Belteshazzar 3 (Diff: ) so that when it archives, it doesn't get too confusing. I also updated the talk page notification (Diff:). Please let me know if any of this was out of order and by all means feel free to revert.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 15:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Psychologist Guy
I believe that Belteshazzar should be indef blocked from Wikipedia, none of their edits have been productive. I have never seen a user have so many chances, ignore policies and everyone's advice and continue doing what they do. I reported this user 3 times I believe in the past at the admin board. There has been huge discussions on their talk-page and on the Bates method in the past, I am talking thousands and thousands of words it is all a waste of other users time. This user does not listen and only edits the same kind of content. I believe this account is a case of WP:NOTHERE.

I haven't fixed up the Bernarr Macfadden Wikipedia article yet it was on my to-do-list but Bernarr Macfadden was an alternative medicine activist and well known advocate of quackery. His books support fasting, hydrotherapy and orthopathy. The book "Naturopathic Physical Medicine", a textbook on naturopathy even lists Bernarr Macfadden as a naturopath. Macfadden was a proponent of the Bates method. Belteshazzar knows this because they edited material about it on the Bates method Wikipedia article, "In 1917, Bates teamed up with "'physical culture' faddist" Bernarr Macfadden on a "New Course of Eye Training" which was heavily advertised in the Physical Culture magazine". If I can remember correctly Belteshazzar was trying to remove the term "faddist". This user has always had a POV in trying to remove criticisms about those who have historically supported the Bates method.

So in short, Belteshazzar is well aware that Bernarr Macfadden had authored material supportive of the Bates method an alternative medicine. Macfadden was an advocate of alternative medicine and this user's edits are in violation (yet again) of their topic ban. And lets not forget Belteshazzar also edited the William Bates talk-page. They have been asked many times not to do this but they do not listen. Good faith cannot be assumed over and over. This negative behaviour is also soaking up time of productive editors of this website. Belteshazzar's talk-page has had 10 (!) users telling this user not to edit anything on the Bates method. You can't keep giving this user chances. I have seen users on this website banned for making one off foolish mistakes. This user doesn't not deserve another chance in my opinion, they have had too many chances and they blow it every-time. They have ignored advice from ten experience users and in total have been blocked for 31 hours, then 2 weeks, then 1 month and then 3 months. If they are blocked for 6 months or 1 year they will just come back and do it again. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Roxy
When I saw the first entry in the uninvolved admins section, I automatically did that thing dogs do with their heads when they cant quite believe what they are hearing. Anyway, for those not playing along at home, Diff1 and Diff2 show beltshazzar editing the bates method talk page today!! -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 09:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Belteshazzar

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


 * This seems to be the only diff that crosses the line -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 13:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am willing to accept that I am feeling overly narrow today. If these are violations, a year or indef seem to be the correct escalation -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I very much disagree with in this instance. Both Macfadden and Bates are primarily notable as CAM proponents, bringing their articles in their entirety within the scope of the topic ban, so all of these edits are violations. It seems that  has no intent of obeying the topic ban and believes (quite incorrectly) that they can violate it if their edits are "good" or "uncontroversial", and seems to be either unable or unwilling to understand that a topic ban means to never edit about these subjects at all. Unless I'm convinced that this will change, I'm minded to indef as a regular admin action at this point, else a six month or one year AE block would be in order as the next escalation point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , let me be very clear. Do you now clearly understand that you must completely stop editing and discussing these articles, regardless of whether your edits are "good", "uncontroversial", or anything else? No fixing typos, no tweaks in wording, no nothing. Take them off your watchlist and don't visit them, nor any like them. Is that clear to you? Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the acknowledgement above, I would at this point go with a six month AE block, but with the warning that if this were to happen again the next one will almost certainly be indefinite. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As shown by, Belteshazzar has already started editing the topic area again after agreeing to quit doing it, and so is clearly not going to stop. Given this, I'd favor an indefinite block, and will do so unless someone shortly objects. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:46, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The only possible argument I see that that would state in Belteshazzar's favor is that, at least for Macfadden, the topic is not crystal-clearly in "alternate medicine", as it doesn't call out this term on the page, nor does the usual aspect of where alternative medicine's theories are debunked or criticized by scientific evidence. However, we generally put the onus on the topic-banned editor to understand what "broadly" is scoped to mean and to stay far far away from anything that even may touch or overlap, of which Macfadden's article does clearly touch even if not explicit it is alternative medicine. So fully agree this is a violation of the topic ban. --M asem (t) 16:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Completely valid point and thus definitely in the topic ban area without question. --M asem (t) 19:40, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree these are violations. The edits on Bernarr Macfadden relate to a section which says that the subject advised people to avoid mainstream medicine and that he promoted fringe medical ideas. Even if the article as a whole doesn't fall under alternative medicine that bit clearly does. William Bates (physician) unambiguously falls under the scope of the sanction. Belteshazzar did revert some of the edits in question but only after this enforcement request was filed and subsequently fixed a typo in the same article  so it doesn't look like they're leaving the topic alone.  Hut 8.5  18:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that Belteshazzar is still making edits to the topic area even after agreeing to stop above  I think a six month block is too lenient.  Hut 8.5  10:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)