Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive315

Minaro123
''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 Minaro123

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA


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


 * 1) 24 January 2023 Claims the "official" map of the district to mention a certain region. It took minutes to disprove the claim and establish that he had cited a map by a barely known publisher. Minaro123 reasoned that if the map had any problem, it should have been banned by the government and the lack of a ban established the official status. Wow!
 * 2) 18 January 2023 I do not know how to explain this.
 * 3) 18 January 2023 Representative chat-bot behavior; their replies have little relation to the topic under discussion.
 * 4) 18 January 2023 Claiming that Wikipedia has an exhaustive list of reliable sources and accordingly, removing sources from prominent Indian media!
 * 5) 11 january 2023 Cavalier attitude with sources; citing scholars who do not support the content before being forced to concede grudgingly.
 * 6) 3 January 2023 Claims that "Brokpas had never claimed to be Aryans at all." This is a 180-degree misrepresentation of content and shows the insistent POV-pushing; see the current version of Aryan Valley where multiple scholars note the Brokpas to have claimed themselves as Aryans for decades!
 * 7) Talk:Aryan_Valley/Archive_1 (3 January 2023) - An example of "discussion" with Minaro123.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 18 January 2023 Indefinite P-block from Aryan Valley and t/p under AC/DS. This arose out of an AN3 complaint.


 * 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.

I argue that Minaro123 has a CIR issue; his contributions are essentially disinformation and the noise-to-signal ratio is too high to be a net positive. Right after being subject to a sanction, he is misrepresenting sources and defending the same using ridiculously tortous arguments!
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

He can either be indefinitely blocked from the project or sanctioned with an indefinite T-Ban from anything that has to do with Brokpas (broadly construed). I,, and others have wasted sufficient editorial resources in the process of engaging him and trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.


 * @: You wrote, The central issue here is however that it isn't up to TB to decide [] what ethnic group [Minaro123] belongs to. Provide the diff where I tried to "decide" (or even comment) on Minaro123's ethnicity.


 * , thanks for chiming in on the applicability of REDACT. I did not restore the new text because I was unsure about the extent to which it was to replace the old post. Hence, I chose to alert Elinruby of the revert at his t/p and the REDACT policy so that he could reincorporate his edits in compliance. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Elinruby, thanks for your compliance with REDACT. That said
 * My request for the diff where I had decided on Minaro123's ethnicity remains unanswered. Do note that I have to comment on Minaro123's ethnicity explicitly; not on the ethnicity of Brokpas, to which he belongs to (per you).
 * Also unanswered is K3's query about how Minaro123 — who is editing for months and has raked in about a thousand edits — is a newbie. Actually, you have doubled down on the claim by accusing me to be "biting" him citing the very evidence, that I had cited as the latest example of their incompetency!
 * Can you please double-check your diffs? The diff linked to your claim that [n]obody in this story here claims that they are [Aryans] — thereby contradicting scholars like Mona Bhan, D.S. Bhagabati et al and about a dozen journalists — has no relevance. Frankly, there is not a single source which notes that the Brokpas do not claim being Aryans!
 * Minaro123 removed information sourced from OPEN, Mint etc. by claiming that the sources were not featured in Wikipedia's list of reliable sources; it is obvious that he took it as an "exhaustive" list. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I won't reply to Elinruby in any substantial manner (unless requested by RP or other admins) since I believe he is spamming the board with irrelevant stuff to take the focus away from Minaro123. I have no clue about which ethnologist got dismissed and by whom. That said, my edits were supported by K3 and JJ, two of the most veteran editors in S. Asian topics; frankly, it was JJ who had overhauled the content before I jumped in. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark: I disagree with your approach. If I am picking up a single edit, how do you explain Minaro123's claim that "Brokpas had never claimed to be Aryans at all" when scholars and journalists note Brokpas to have even changed their surnames to Aryan and garnered political mileage citing their (distinct) Aryan-ness! That is not a competence issue but blatant POV-pushing; the precise reason why we have a sanctions-regime covering all South Asian social groups. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @RegentsPark I will concede to such a perspective.
 * But, in addition, some sort of (logged) warning needs to be provided about participating in discussions at the t/p in a coherent fashion. As I (and JJ) noted at the 3RRN thread, it is quite a feat to discuss anything with him. You ask him about X, and he replies about Y. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Latest edit. If admins agree that
 * is mainspace-worthy content, what can I say? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elinruby: You write, Kargil, one of the villages in question, is *on* the line of control and is occupied by the Indian Army. - Kargil is a city, and the headquarters of the eponymous district but it is not a village. Two of the four Brokpa villages lie in Kargil, and the remaining two in Leh. None of these four villages lie *on* the LOC. None of these four villages are "occupied" by the Indian Army. If you persist in misrepresenting sources, the next AE thread will be on you.
 * I guess the sanction is decent and there really isn;t any way to enforce coherence in t/p discussions. I can only hope that we are not kicking the can down the road :) TrangaBellam (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Discussion concerning Minaro123
''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 Minaro123
1 I have welcomed TrangaBellam to welcome a have a constructive critisim here  regarding the Map and i told him I could be wrong, and since Indian book deport was established before 1936 ,i added it only in a talk section to have a opinion about others editor. 2,4: I have added the information cited by international reliable newspaper  like BBC news,The hindu, Aljezerra ,  The Hindu says which cited  that" One theory says they arrived from Gilgit, Pakistan in the seventh century; a popular story is that they are descendants of Alexander’s army, while many argue that the Aryans are the indigenous inhabitant of india . I talked about it in a talk section ,but TrangaBellam have ignored it and added the newspaper like Mint  which have a no mention under the reliable newspaper by wikepedia . 3: I tried to explain to TrangaBellam  to add a geographical boundaries in a lead because  Aryan valley is a  geographical area and have a boundary , because TrangaBellam have removed the part which was backed by reliable sources here  . 5: I wanted them to add about geography and History of Aryan valley , now i have added the content in geography section of  Dah, Ladakh. 6: I wanted them to emphasis the Aljezerra cited that " Brogpas do not associate their Aryanism with its ‘dirty and cruel’ history in Germany and elsewhere". TrangaBellam and other were adding mainly about 'Aryan association ' in the history section so I was afriad that i could go against the reality. I have said the statement in this context. 6: I have created a 13 Topic in active discussion page  Aryan valley ,and has a actively participating in talk page.

My major contribution related to the topic of Aryan valley is: In a old revision of Brokpa page ,the population of the Brokpa was false however i have discussed in Brokpa  talk section  title=Brokpa&oldid=1124611839 And add a corrected it.

The Aryan valley articles was created by me and  was nominated for deletion by  and was suporting by , , However me and  have  provided  evidence to save it. However after the decision of Aryan valley was to keep, k3 and TB has did a edits without having a discussion on a talk.

Thank you Minaro123 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Elinruby
The thing that strikes me the most here is the utter certitude of TB and K3 of the correctness of their actions. is correct in saying that this is fundamentally a content dispute. My issue is the way it's been addressed. I first became aware of the article at AfD, where the rationale was that the residents of Aryan Valley weren't *really* Aryan.

Nobody in this story here claims that they are, mind you, but the important part is that the article survived AfD because it was about a place, not a people. That night it was edited into an article about how the people of the area are not really Aryans, over repeated attempts to discuss, as recent as yesterday.

I did want to address Bookku's concern about quality. Recent deletions include cited work by me about apricot and barley cultivation, and cited ethnography]. Nobody is suggesting that the article should not meet normal standards, which is why I suggested AfC. I would not oppose requiring him to publish that way, if my assurances that I will help don't seem sufficient. Meanwhile, having edited Aryan Valley into something unrecognizable, TB filed a 3RR complaint, and this complaint, and is currently trying to redirect another village article to the article about how the people who live in Aryan Valley aren't really Aryan. all within the last couple of days. Elinruby (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

(Earlier) Minaro123 wants to write an article(s) about a group of villages. I was under the impression that we encourage that. He is willing to learn the standards and apply them. For example, Wikipedia does indeed have a list of perennial sources. I don't know where "exhaustive" came from. He really does need to figure out how to run spell-check however, yes.

I remain baffled as to Trangabellam's goal. I think Mindaro123 should work on his articles, offline if necessary, and publish them through AfC. I will continue to help him. TB should be admonished about newbie, biting, and encouraged to find something else to do.(later: besides the Aryan-ness of the Minaro, that is)

The current version of Aryan Valley should be moved to Aryan Valley (problems Trangabellam has with the name) The central issue here is however that it isn't up to TB to decide whether Minaro123 is competent or what ethnic group he belongs to. To the extent that he's a problem, it's being addressed. At this point it may as well be in Draft, since the article he was writing is gone. At that point the AfC process can be a failsafe, if anyone is worried about his English. I don't think he realizes how bad it is, but I do and will work with him on ways to deal with that, by editing the article myself if need be.Elinruby (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

TB reverting my statement
Could someone please explain to TB that they are involved? I'm under the impression that the policy they cited doesn't apply here. If I'm wrong about that, I will rework the statement to include the words they questioned, although it all seems off-topic to me. I would appreciate a clarification that TB is a party here. I now need to be offline for a while, will address this on my return. Elinruby (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Housekeeping
TB presents themself as a subject matter expert, so it did not occur to me that this editor would not realize that Minaro123, participant in [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1125459759? many a] discussion about the oral history of the Minaro, is a member of the Minaro ethnic group. Apparently TB believes that the above account somehow accuses them of outing an editor who has their name and all of the IP addresses they have used on their user page. It would not have occured to me that it could be read this way. I am not interested in TB. I just want Minaro123 to be allowed to contribute an article. Hopefully this clears up any confusion. Elinruby (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

. Yes. My question is why? Elinruby (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I stand by it fine. I just think it's off-topic. But by all means if somebody disagrees.

(trying again) You keep telling Minaro123 that the Minaro are Bropka Elinruby (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

sure. That is why I called the whole ethnicity thing off-topic. Just saying, my neighbors would get upset if someone assigned them some other ethnicity. Some exasperation is understandable, especially when it was cited ethnologists that were getting dismissed, not just the elders of Dha. All of the effort that went into discussion here was completely one-sided. I don't pretend to understand what TB is trying to accomplish, but they essentially gutted the Aryan Valley article and are now piously lecturing me on my talk page about the integrity of content. I will be offline most of the day but will check this when I get back to see if there are questions Elinruby (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I strongly support the adoption of the articles. I am particularly concerned about Aryan Valley, which was transformed overnight into something other than the article that survived AfD. By the people calling his objections disruptive editing. Please let me know if I can help.

I noticed you crossed out the part about Minaro123 taking a break. He has exams coming up and needs to take a break. I am encouraging him to focus on his exams. He is upset about this episode however. As for what to do about this complaint, yeah, I proposed the AfD restriction. I have said I'll help him, but a formal process won't hurt him, since we agree that there's a problem there, and nothing is stopping me from helping him on a draft. I would like to mention that when I first encountered him at the AfD, he was citing the elders of Dha, so the fact that he is citing ethnologists is vast progress in a couple of weeks, and he does learn. I have some concerns about 1RR however, since I would have thought that it would apply in any event to all parties given that the area in question abuts the Line of Control. Could you please clarify what discretionary sanctions apply to these articles? And that they apply to all editors? I'd appreciate it. Elinruby (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I admit that I am out of my area of expertise here, but frozen or not, that conflict is ongoing, is it not? Kargil, one of the villages in question, is *on* the line of control and is occupied by the Indian Army. Dah is 40-some miles from the front. I don't claim to fully understand this dispute, but I can understand why Minaro would object to repeatedly being told that his ethnic group believes they are Aryan. The point I don't understand is why TB is so adamant in saying it, based on that one sociologist they keep citing, to the point of promo. Clearly, strong feelings are involved, is all I am saying, and if DS is going to be applied then I personally think it should be applied to all involved. Thank you for your previous reply, btw. I am not trying to give you a hard time, but I'm just not sure that the proposed solution addresses the entire problem. I will of course abide by whatever you decide and will try to help Minaro123 to do so. I do think there is a lot of merit in Bookku's suggestion, fwiw. Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Bookku
Uninvolved opinion.
 * Two very recent edit summaries 1, 2 by User:Minaro123 seem to have expressed psychological depression as co-Wikipedian I feel concerned.
 * Above complaint in part seems to be content dispute brought here before completing protocol mentioned @ WP:DDE and in part legitimate linguistic abilities concern.
 * IMO content disputes are best resolved through regular WP:DR
 * Info @ User:Minaro123 and writing style indicates that Minaro123 seem to represent some linguistic minority, though they seem to understands English reading, they would need little more improvement in English proficiency and some support while writing. Another user seem to willing to provide such linguistic support to them (appreciated).
 * IMO We certainly allow them continue to write in own user space, Draft and AFC.
 * And also allow participate in main space talk page discussion in spite of linguistic difficulties. Many say, even billion plus populations feel they are not best represented on Wikipedia, if some one from very small communities feel so, we can not do much about it if Reliable sources do not support.
 * Still I feel we should not take their right to represent their and their community's encyclopedic concerns on the respective talk pages. And not curtail right to WP:DR through WP:ARE.

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As I already admitted and again pointed out by @TrangaBellam concerns about English grammar of @Minaro123 even in their good faith edits seem quite legitimate as of the day.
 * Let @Minaro123 focus on their studies.
 * Shift all concerned articles to draft namespace.
 * Each of us experienced users will adopt two two articles each develop in a years time  with minimum expectation of WP standard.
 * I am ready to adopt two such drafts for non-disputed content from my side.
 * &#32;Bookku   (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Kautiya3
I am not writing a full statement here since the user seems to be voluntarily withdawing. But to drive home the CIR issue, he was told on 20 November 2022 the need for WP:Full citations and the guidelines for WP:RS. Yet, he provided within the last 24 hours this link (a book titled "My Unskooled Year" by a certain "Sagarikka", published by "Notions Press").

The user has been editing for more than a year and is extended-confirmed. If he still appears to as a "newbie", that itself is an indication of a CIR issue.

We have also had to face edit-warring/tag-teaming from apparent members of the ethnic group, who are variously called Brokpa/Dard/Minaro/Aryan. So this doesn't stop with one supposedly "newbie" editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * A gentle reminder to that he is editing a section titled "Discussion concerning Minaro123". It is not a discussion concerning TB or K3 or AfD's or page titles or barley cultivaion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , I would also like to request a prohibition against creating new pages, though he can go via the WP:AFC route. Notice here a wild claim that Tsewang Namgyal conquered "Lhasa" using an absolutely junk source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Result concerning Minaro123

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


 * This conflict is above my paygrade, but I want to comment (only) on Elinruby changing their statement and Tranga Bellam reverting that change, per Elinruby's request. I don't understand why you would think the guideline WP:REDACT does not apply here, . If you redact, in a significant way, something that has been replied to, you wrongfoot the person/s who replied. Don't do it. Even if there were no policy or guideline about it, it's confusing and discourteous. What's wrong with crossing out? However, a problem with Tranga Bellam's revert is that it removed the quite different text that you added in place of your original statement. You are most welcome to re-add that text yourself. (It needs a spellcheck, though.) Feel free to change or shorten it in any way you like, or leave it out, since nobody has replied to it. But please use cross-out for your original statement, if you no longer stand by it. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC).
 * In a nutshell, it appears that, while editing in good faith, there are competence issues with Minaro123's edits. The question, I guess, is which one outweighs the other. I'll take a look but, meanwhile, Elinruby, please note that the stated ethnicity of any editor is not something that should be used as a pro or con in an argument. Wikipedia is a reliably sourced encyclopedia, not a crowd sourced one. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * After reviewing Minaro123's edits, yes, there are competence issues. I see examples of improper sourcing (e.g., here where did the literacy rate come from and the household number is less than half of what is in the source), and lots of moving stuff around breaking the relationship between the content and the citation (e.g. here). And then there is the unskooled book mentioned by Kautilya3 as well as the use of raj era sources. That said, the editor appears to be taking a break and has made an incremental contribution to wikipedia. I'm inclined to just let this pass lightly, perhaps by placing a 1RR restriction to reduce the probability of edit warring when they return. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * my thinking is that a 1RR restriction will alleviate problems associated with the sloppy sourcing. Perhaps I am wrong but they do seem to be adding content in a relatively underserved area and we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * . I guess the draft space restriction is reasonable. So, a 1RR restriction and article creation and submission through AFC? --RegentsPark (comment) 15:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The appropriate contentious topics area is WP:ARBIND. The existing 1RR restriction that you refer to, afaik, pertains only to articles related to the Kashmir conflict. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * 1RR and article creation through AFC sounds reasonable to me based on what's been presented here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

SashiRolls
''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 SashiRolls

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 15:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
 * 1-way IBAN with me, as an AE sanction
 * 1-way IBAN with me reaffirmed by the community a week ago (January 15), as a condition of unbanning. From the close: There is very little rope left on the coil, and I cannot imagine another unban gaining consensus.


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * Giving me a "thanks" notification for an edit I made, January 22, 2023.

This is so far beyond "I told you so", that I can't believe I have to post this.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

It's a relatively small thing, to "thank" someone, and on the face of it, not something one would normally expect to result in sanctions. But, our WP:IBAN policy says: Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:... use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits. Those are the existing ground rules, and I didn't make them up. I'm willing to WP:AGF that, somehow, SashiRolls was unaware of that, and that he was trying to reach out in a friendly way. So, as a minimum, I'll be satisfied with a very clear message to him that it was unwelcome, and that the IBAN has no exceptions, footnotes, or special circumstances, full stop, the end. Anything beyond that is up to the administrators here, and it's not on me.

Under the circumstances, though, it seems to me that he should have made it his business to know what the IBAN rules are. And there was no particular reason for him to have thanked me for that edit I made. It was completely unrelated to anything I'm aware of him doing, and I don't see him making an edit in that RfC after I made that formatting fix. From my end, it feels creepy, like he was following edits I made and letting me know that he was seeing them. Although I'm under no restrictions under the 1-way ban, I actually have no idea what edits, if any, SashiRolls has been making, because I'm not concerning myself with that, and I sure didn't ask for that blue notification that brings me here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Following up after the comments so far, I find it plausible that it was a matter of inadvertent mis-click/mis-swipe. Not unlike someone accidentally hitting rollback on a 1RR page, and then quickly self-reverting – except that here, there is no way to self-revert. As I already said, I'm OK with a firm understanding that this will absolutely not happen again, and I'm not comfortable with a severe sanction. But there's no getting around the fact that SR was viewing my edit when the error happened, which, in the future should be a big flashing red light that when you are viewing anything I've done, be very, very careful.
 * I think that Politrukki's comments directed at me are worthy of administrators taking note, and I am seriously sick and tired of this kind of conduct. (Seriously, the fact that I didn't go back and check whether SR had edited the page earlier indicates that I could have followed SR there and somehow manipulated him into thanking me? Yes, in filing this AE request, I checked if he had also been editing there around the time that I edited there, in case it was an inadvertent thank, but in fact I didn't check the whole page history, because I'm not looking for SR's edits.) Anyway, I think that Floq has read the situation astutely. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also: seeing Vanamonde's comment about Mr Ernie, I understand Mr Ernie's comment in the context of discussions that he and I have had, and his comment was not a sarcastic one. I appreciate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


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

Discussion concerning SashiRolls
''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 SashiRolls
I had no intention of having any contact whatsoever with my accuser. I think this must have been due to a careless swipe closing a window while looking through the RfC on Vector 2022 last night. When blocked, the giant 'thanks' button did not appear at the bottom of the screen on the phone app, so I'm used to just swiping from bottom to top to make the app disappear.

I am aware that thanking someone is not permitted and would not have done it intentionally.

It is my assumption that wp:banex allows me to reply to this immediate escalation.

I will look into this further when I get home from the hospital this evening, as normally I thought you had to confirm to give thanks, which I certainly did not do... unless the dialog box was also swept away in the effort to close the window.

-- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 16:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

I have just checked and indeed no confirmation is necessary on Android... You have two seconds to cancel if you misclick / mis-swipe. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 16:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of lying. I guarantee you I just thanked SFR and was given only 2 seconds to cancel using Chrome on Android. Talk about a gotcha' filing and a wp:agf failure. :/. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 17:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, please do not accuse me of lying. I just thanked Bishonen for her comment and was unable to take a screenshot of the tiny line of text appearing beneath the BIG BLUE BUTTON at the lower right of the screen where your thumb goes to swipe Chrome into the background on Android. It disappeared that quickly. I may have mispoken when using the word "app". It is for Commons that I sometimes use the App, but apparently I need to redownload it because it hasn't worked for months now. I assure you, I had absolutely no intention whatsoever of interacting with him. -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 18:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy: on pages with significant amounts of text scattered all over the place (such as in the Vector 2022 RfC) I find the easiest way to read, by far, is by going to the top diff and then clicking "previous diff" so that I have enough context to understand what's going on. Perhaps in future, this method of reading would be best avoided as it apparently makes inadvertent errors such as this one possible. Thanks to those who compensated for my incompetence in video capturing using my phone! -- SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 19:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's alright: no blood, no foul. I've gotten my heart-rate back down now and appreciate the comment below explaining that diff-viewing is a reasonable way of reading a complicated discussion (but that has unexpected risks on mobile). I was unaware of these risks because while blocked I did not see a thanks button.  I don't believe this inadvertent mistake warrants any further sanctions and would ask for whoever closes this to put themselves in the position of someone (me) who had a heart attack during their three-week long appeal and who did not appreciate this thread.  Granted, I can put myself in the shoes of the person KoA describes below as having been the victim of a  terrible "car crash" I caused and see that they might want retribution for such reckless swiping.


 * My apologies for my inadvertent role in this. I would like to be able to continue to thank people and so I will avoid flipping through diff-view in mobile should either of the good users I'm i-banned with come gnoming in threads I've previously made comments in. This will surely help avoid offended reactions.   I would prefer to be able to continue to thank helpful users like yourself.


 * I would ask that no further comments be made about my cardio-vascular health anywhere on en.wp. --  SashiRolls 🌿 ·     🍥 20:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by KoA
And here I just caught myself earlier today thinking I hadn't heard anything about SR since their unban (and hadn't gone looking either until I saw this). All I'll say is that multiple editors in the unban discussion did mention one of SR's issues is a sort of stalking of targets that warranted the sanctions in the first place. That context matters even if it were just a little thing that wasn't directly spelled out in ban policy instead of this. Tryptofish was correct to come here in part because there is no other realistic option to discuss an I-ban violation even when it's one-way. Otherwise, it would be like someone who caused a car crash (accident or not) chastising one of those who got hit for asking the cops to get involved. Regardless of intent or accident, SR already knows they are supposed to steer clear of Tryptofish, and WP:BANEX is not an excuse for sniping. Instead, SR used this AE as an opportunity to launch into loaded language to lay it on thick like my accuser or this immediate escalation that is definitely out of line considering previous snark they've been warned about and comes across as taking advantage of an accident to make potshots at best. That is not the language of someone who had a simple accident that recognizes the issues such an accident would still cause and have to be followed up on. That's instead the kind of escalation of situations that's gotten SR repeatedly sanctioned, and someone that's supposed to be protected by an I-ban like Tryptofish shouldn't have to deal with it at least.

Others that can test it can assess the validity of the Vector 2022 comments, but what led to the interaction can also become a red herring from later behavior, so that's why the comments caught my eye. KoA (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Nableezy, Tryptofish linked the diff in their section that was thanked.. As you mention, SR was there at that discussion too (basically that they wanted to keep the Vector 2022 and that they were already familiar with it from the French wiki). It at least makes sense that the interaction was because they crossed paths there and not through contribs. KoA (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sashirolls, you know better with respect to Granted, I can put myself in the shoes of the person KoA describes below as having been the victim of a terrible "car crash" I caused and see that they might want retribution for such reckless swiping. You're already being warned to stop sniping at AE and likely to get by with just a warning despite ramping up the battleground behavior again. You are the one who "crashed" into Tryptofish in this case regardless of intent, and instead of lashing out like in the analogy, all you needed to do was recognize the problems it caused other editors in showing it was an accident rather than use the opportunity to take unneeded potshots and go beyond WP:BANEX with respect to your I-ban. KoA (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On Buffs' and Politrukki's comments, I will remind both of you not to violate the WP:ASPERSIONS principle that is in effect here being a GMO DS discussion in your comments on Tryptofish. Admins have been letting enforcement of that slip lately. KoA (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Shibbolethink
Without making any other statement or claim as to this filing, I just wanted to point out, @ScottishFinnishRadish @Isabelle Belato-- @SashiRolls is talking about using the mobile site on the Android Chrome app. Not using the Wikipedia for Android App. Very different interfaces on iOS between these two so I can imagine it's similarly very different on Android.

I just tested it (on @Tewdar ) on iOS Chrome mobile version on the DIFF (not the history or contribs pages) and indeed, it only gives 2 seconds to cancel before it goes through with the thank action. On the history or contribs pages, the "thank? confirm cancel" persists, but on the DIFF, it is ephemeral.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Tewdar
If you view a diff using a mobile web browser (Chrome, Firefox, Opera...) and hit "thank", it gives you two seconds to cancel, without confirmation.  Tewdar  18:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just tested with Shibbolethink 😁.  Tewdar   18:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
What was the diff ? Because personally I'd be willing to buy it was an accident that I will make sure will never be repeated if it was a diff from a discussion SR was involved in, but if they just randomly trolling through Tryptofish's contributions to go through them for god knows what then I personally would say it doesnt matter if it was an accident, block for the IB vio anyway.  nableezy  - 18:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * oh nvm see it linked in your statement. Given that SR had already commented in that discussion I suppose it was possible they were just going through more recent comments. But honestly I dont get why youd even be on somebody's diff like that to be in that position in the first place.  nableezy  - 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000
I’m no fan of Sashi, !voted neutral with TBan last time and block on all previous times. I’ve also been sarcastically “thanked” in the past by another editor. But, my feeling on this is Meh. Sashi will have to try harder than this to get blocked again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just not enough evidence to convict, as I would say as a jury member. If convincing evidence appears; I'll wholeheartedly support an indef. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Sideswipe9th
I've just sent two videos to demonstrating the two different ways that en.m.wikipedia handles sending thanks for contributions. If you're looking at the history for a page, there is a confirmation requirement prior to sending thanks. However if you're browsing by the diff views, sending thanks has no confirmation, and only a 2 second window to cancel as other editors have said. I don't know of any other ways to send thanks via the mobile site. I'd be happy to send these videos by email to any other admins who'd want to see, but I don't want to upload them to files/commons if I can avoid it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To nableezy, I often find it significantly easier when reading a highly active page to read through the contributions made since my last view or edit via the diff view. This makes it easier for me to identify which comments/contributions I've seen already and which ones are new. Sometimes I'll do this just as a block of all changes since my last view, and sometimes I'll step through each one at a time, depending on how my attention span is behaving at the time. I imagine other neurodiverse editors will do something similar when catching up on active pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
Let me at least use this opportunity to thank everyone who chooses to contribute to Wikipedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Floq
Would the same uninvolved admin who closes this with an assumption that this was an unfortunate coincidence and a weak reminder that SR shouldn't thank TF also remind SR that using terms like "accuser", "immediate escalation, "gotcha filing", and "agf failure" above, about someone they're ibanned from, is also an iban violation? I presume this is SR on their best behavior, and they still can't help but test the boundaries. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Buffs
Error or not, the worst punishment appropriate here is a WP:Trouting, but more appropriately "be more careful". I recognize that Tryptofish effectively has no other recourse and find no fault bringing it here. As with above, I too thank all the people who have made solid edits to Wikipedia (since when is such gratitude a punishable offense? If he were spamming with "thanks" all over the place, you'd have a point, but two things that appear to be nothing more than a misclick? Tempest in a teapot perhaps?).

As for reading through old posts, I know I've done so to see where I could have done better and that means looking through diffs to see what others said too. It seems to be a reasonable mistake...SR, please avoid being even close to such behavior in the future. Buffs (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Re:Floq's comments, he's being accused of violating his IBan by the same person. Kinda hard to point out the (potential) problematic behavior of another editor here otherwise. Both would do well to drive down the temperature by WP:AGF more, but due to the IBan, there isn't another avenue to ask and clarify. Buffs (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Politrukki
Tryptofish claims "I actually have no idea what edits, if any, SashiRolls has been making", but also admits checking that SashiRolls didn't edit the RFC after TF's edit. The two statements are contradictory; either TF was checking SashiRolls's edits or they weren't.

Based on the timeline of SashiRolls's edits and Tryptofish's edit, it could be argued that Tryptofish creepily followed SashiRolls to the page, but I think if TF wished to annoy SashiRolls, TF could have found a better way.

Even though a technical violation happened, the filing is unnecessary escalation. As the two-way IBAN is yet to be reinstated, a peaceful resolution could have been reached by assuming good faith and leaving a message to SashiRolls asking them to refrain from using "thank" function. Moreover, Tryptofish, your claim that "IBAN has no exceptions, footnotes, or special circumstances, full stop" is both objectively and subjectively false. You should know better.

SashiRolls shouldn't say they were accused of lying if they weren't accused of lying, but I believe this is moot after their last comment.

What more there is to be done? Close with no action. Politrukki (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328
I guess that I am involved because I have commented on the conduct of SashiRolls in the past although not in the recent unblock request, where I was sincerely undecided and chose to remain silent. As is pretty well known, I edit using the fully functional desktop site on Android smartphones, and my thank function requires an affirmative verification before it goes through, because I choose to use fully functional software instead of slipshod WMF software deviations. All that being said, I am perfectly willing to accept that WMF software botchery may well yield a less acceptable result when using any of their less than fully functional sites and apps. But what really concerns me here is the snide, confrontational remarks by SashiRolls that points out above. This editor is fresh off a lengthy block for this type of behavior, and I was prepared to assume that this editor would refrain from stuff like this, but I guess that I was wrong. Maybe they will now stop behaving this way, or maybe they will continue and get blocked again, this time forever for real. Time will tell, I suppose, but after the comments by SashiRolls above, I am not optimistic about their future as a Wikipedia editor. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint
- can we wrap this up?  starship .paint  (exalt) 07:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Result concerning SashiRolls

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


 * I've tested on the app and on the mobile view on Android and both of them request a confirmation. The app even opens a big window warning you can't undo a thanks. I'd appreciate if another univolved user could confirm this, but right now this appears to be a clear case of breach of sanctions. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 17:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I just downloaded the app to check, and it certainly asks for confirmation when I did it from the diff view and history view. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I've now seen that in the mobile web interface in the diff view there is no confirmation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks . That's a very odd behaviour and should probably be changed. In that case, this should probably be closed with no action.
 * Apologies if it appeared that I called you a liar. Exactly because I couldn't reproduce that behaviour (and was unaware of it till today) that I asked for other users to confirm whether it was an actual thing or not. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 19:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems completely incredible to me that this was done on purpose. I could imagine Sashi sarcastically thanking Tryptofish for something meaningful, but Tryp's edit in this instance was the most uncontroversial gnoming. Surely Sashi could and would have found a better way to either annoy or "reach out in a friendly way". Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC).
 * Just to avoid a whole lot of debating about technical things, and keeping in mind that it would be a lot harder to sell this as an accident twice (even if it really were an accident both times), could we compromise on SR agreeing to disable the thank button by CSS? (I can take a stab at the correct CSS, but would probably best to ask at WP:VPT.) This would be considered an extension of the IBANs, i.e. as long as SR is subject to an IBAN, they would be expected to keep this CSS rule active. Once pblocks from thanking go live (which has seemingly been a month away for ~18 months), we could switch to that if desired. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tamzin: I guess if SushiRolls agrees with it, then sure. Otherwise, my recommendation to them would be to avoid checking the diffs by users they are iban'ed with while on mobile to make sure this doesn't happen again. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 19:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on the evidence that no confirmation is required on a tiny mobile screen, and that this was a discussion SR was already participating in, I don't any action needed on the original complaint. I'm a little less impressed by the language used by SR in response to said complaint, and also in the responses to the response (, what exactly does your statement above achieve?) per Floq. I would support closing with a reminder to SR both about the IBAN and about temperate language at AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

CanterburyUK
''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 CanterburyUK

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
 * WP:GENSEX
 * WP:ARBBLP


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


 * 1) Within the past month or so, has become a quasi-WP:SPA promoting favorable descriptions of . In doing so, they have violated DS (1RR) and WP:TPG in numerous ways.
 * 2) Violates 1RR to re-insert preferred text with more favorable descriptions of Peterson and disfavorable of others:  Edit: [ See diffs below ] See also:  and second 1RR vio:   Edit: [ See diffs below ] (also adding meta-commentary to page )
 * 3) bludgeons discussions by repeatedly raising arguments in new sections (user has made 15+ on talk in the past 20 days) ( - more diffs available upon request) despite warnings by myself and others: . Forcing others to fix fragmentation
 * 4) placing their comments above others or otherwise increasing prominence [24]
 * 5) replying to multiple users' with the same argument and demanding users respond to past arguments when users have already replied (WP:AGF and WP:SEALION).
 * 6) adds "close and summary" to thread they started, ignoring others' comments and asserting preferred outcome
 * 7) Repeatedly placing usernames in talk section headings in violation of WP:TPG: despite warnings
 * 8) Using blatantly unreliable sources: Google drive, twitter, "countersignal", "thepostmillenial" to support pro-Peterson insertions despite warnings
 * 9) Justification for behavior is to make the page "most helpful to the reader" and to "rebalance the bad influence the page has been"  AKA righting great wrongs.
 * 10) This is not the first time they've been brought to a conduct board regarding NPOV, sources, TPG, and edit warring (though it was a long time ago, 2017): or warned about disruption (2018)

N/A
 * 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):


 * User received alerts about DS in these areas in the last twelve months, on 8 January 2023 and 12 January 2023.

In summary, per the diffs above, this user has recently focused a single-minded effort on providing more favorable coverage of Jordan Peterson (righting great wrongs), violating 1RR, using very low quality sources, SYNTH, and POV text to do so. In the process of arguing for these insertions, they have strayed into WP:SEALION territory, repeatedly arguing their points and adding many multiple new sections, in essence taking over the talk page for their campaign. They have violated numerous other talk page guidelines despite warnings, and appear to have no interest in fixing these behavioral problems, raising WP:CIR and WP:IDHT concerns. Several editors have advised the user this is a contentious area, not a good place for those unfamiliar with the guidelines or policies. It appears the user is too invested in this topic to comply with WP:PAG, especially considering how complex, sensitive, and treacherous this topic area is. Perhaps worst of all, their conduct in the area has become a massive drain on others' time and effort, as calmly answering their many long and drawn out threads, reviewing their edits, etc. has taken up many hours of nearly a dozen experienced editors.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I propose the user be indefinitely topic-banned (or page-banned) from Jordan Peterson, as the most narrowly-targeted remedy which would stop this disruption. Thank you for your time and attention.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)  (06:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC) edited to strike confusing diffs, replace, and lay it out in chronological order below)

Note: I apologize for the number of diffs and words. I think I have probably exceeded the 20 diff limit. I request an exception in this case given that the behavior in question from this user involves many repeated actions which require diff evidence for each. Happy to remove some of the repeat diffs and/or reduce word count as requested. Thanks — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 18:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

17:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mr Ernie
 * Evidence of 1RR vios
 * 22:32, 6 January 2023 CUK inserts header, cites twitter, Daily Mail, and other deprecated sources.
 * 22:57, 6 January 2023 SFR reverts to stable.
 * 14:55, 8 January 2023 CUK reinserts header and deprecated sources. (That's revert #1)
 * 15:50, 8 January 2023 I revert to stable.
 * 22:00, 8 January 2023 CUK again reinserts header and deprecated sources. (That's revert #2)
 * Later....
 * 11:53, 12 January 2023 CUK reinserts header and adds protest content with unreliable source (That's revert #1 - the header)
 * 16:03, 12 January 2023 FFF removes header and the UNDUE protest content
 * 23:07, 12 January 2023 CUK reverts FFF trimming of UNDUE (That's revert #2)
 * 23:16, 12 January 2023 SS9 restores stable
 * 24:19, 12 January 2023‎ CUK re-inserts Poilievre comments (part of the content block from 6 January 2023) (That's revert #3)
 * 1RR says: An editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period (emphasis mine) Neither of these were "consecutive reverts" aka sequential edits, to my understanding. Unless I'm missing something? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 06:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, I was waiting to see if CUK would respond! But I suppose he's had 48 hours now, and hasn't popped in. Regardless, I am not sure his response would change much about this situation. I am inclined to agree with Sideswipe, FFF, and Girth Summit, the degree of passion CUK has displayed here, and the WP:IDHT tendencies on their talk page, together lead me to believe they will likely spread these behavioral problems onto another related page. That said, I don't think we lose that much if we default to the PBAN for now, and revisit at that future junction, if it comes to pass. Worth giving them a chance I suppose. More than anything, this should serve as a warning for CUK to slow down, read the WP:PAGs, and consider carefully how they behave on talk pages and in reverts/bold edits in controversial areas. Hopefully they correct they behavior and nothing else will be necessary! Thanks for all the help and input here, I think the PBAN will at least serve to stabilize that article space for the future.Best, Shibb — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay, I was waiting to see if CUK would respond! But I suppose he's had 48 hours now, and hasn't popped in. Regardless, I am not sure his response would change much about this situation. I am inclined to agree with Sideswipe, FFF, and Girth Summit, the degree of passion CUK has displayed here, and the WP:IDHT tendencies on their talk page, together lead me to believe they will likely spread these behavioral problems onto another related page. That said, I don't think we lose that much if we default to the PBAN for now, and revisit at that future junction, if it comes to pass. Worth giving them a chance I suppose. More than anything, this should serve as a warning for CUK to slow down, read the WP:PAGs, and consider carefully how they behave on talk pages and in reverts/bold edits in controversial areas. Hopefully they correct they behavior and nothing else will be necessary! Thanks for all the help and input here, I think the PBAN will at least serve to stabilize that article space for the future.Best, Shibb — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion concerning CanterburyUK
''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 Sideswipe9th
My thoughts on CanterburyUK mirror much of what Shibbolethink has said, so I'll keep this brief for now. I think a PBAN or TBAN from the Jordan Peterson article and talk page would be the narrowest remedy that applies here. However with Canterbury's propensity for sealioning and repetitive arguments, I do worry that such a narrow sanction would just shift this problem to another article and talk page in the same content areas. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As I said before, while a PBAN from the Peterson article and talk page is the narrowest remedy that'd apply in the circumstances, I do fear that such a narrow sanction will just shift this behavioural problem to another article and talk page, in the same or closely related content areas. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by North8000
(Pinged) I did a quick read of the entire talk page and a quick scan of the edit history of the article. I did not analyze anything related to 1RR nor do an in-depth analysis. I don't see sanctionable behavior. The "favorable" coverage described looks like mostly straightforward informative info, something that persons desiring a negative article on him would want left out. The "above other editors" posting looks like proper talk page protocol where doing otherwise would have been wrong. While IMO the current level of talk page activity is IMO not problematic, my advice to CanteburyUK would be to dial it back a bit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
I’m not seeing a clear 1RR violation in the posted diffs (sequential edits are considered to be counted as one). And the bludgeon thing can be a bit subjective. Shibbole you made a couple hundred edits to a recent AN thread, and nobody really thought that was sanctionable. That said, I would support a warning related to making sure to use reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers
I doubt advising CanterburyUK to "dial it back a bit" will work. I worked hard to help them understand 1RR after their first violation (discussion), ending with a warning "not to make it the beginning of a pattern". They broke the rule four days later.

Shibbolethink tried here to get them to dial back their talk page section creation, but they've created four more since. I'd be less (though still plenty) concerned about the bludgeoning if they didn't take silence as agreement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , did you only review the first diff when it comes to ? The second diff is problematic; I'd be surprised to learn you countenance that behavior. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, I looked at the second one too quickly and missed that. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Girth Summit
I think that Shibbolethink is correct that this user's contributions do essentially amount to disruptive sealioning. The issues first came to my attention when I realised that they had added some stuff to 'balance' critical comments in the article about a meat-only diet, when the source was actually comparing vegetarian diets to diets that contain some meat - in other words, it was irrelevant, and a misuse of the source to push a particular POV. A rookie error, perhaps, and not really something to worry about, but the have continued in the same vein, attempting to crowbar in Peterson-friendly material using primary sources, Tweets and so on, and their habit of adding numerous, needlessly verbose and repetitive comments have turned the talkpage into a completely impenetrable wall of text. This habit is a bad combination with their willingness noted above by Firefangledfeathers to interpret silence as consensus - the impression I get is of someone trying to wear everyone else down by relentless argumentation, in hopes that other editors will let them get on with what they want to do out of sheer exhaustion. Some time away from this article, and editing others that they are less personally invested in, might help them develop their understanding of how talk page discussions and the consensus-building process work here. Girth Summit  (blether) 13:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * - I can't speak for, but I predict that a TBAN will ultimately be necessary to stop this spreading elsewhere. I'm happy to wait and see, and will be happy to be proved wrong, but I can't say 'I told you so' if I didn't tell you so. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Snow Rise
I'm a little torn here. On the one hand, the issues with the bludgeoning on the talk page (at least such as I observed in the brief window of my recent participation there) are quite pronounced, with the impact of the sheer number of rapid fire discussions opened (and the high volume of responses to other editors in those discussions) being further exacerbated by the size and wall-of-text nature of those replies, as well as a problematic unfamiliarity with standard talk page formatting and protocol. To understand what I mean, one need only do a superficial, high level visual review of the state of the TP as it presently reads. And that is before one even explores the details of what CanterburyUK actually advocates for, which to my eye, seem to suggest a fairly consistent confirmation bias when reviewing the sourcing, such as to exclude information which casts Peterson in anything less than a hagiographic light, regardless of the overall WP:WEIGHT of RS.

On the other hand, we are talking about a relatively inexperienced editor here: yes, they have been on the project since 2008, but have only logged a little under 600 edits in that time, with gaps up to years in duration. With a pattern of involvement like that, it's possible that this is a sleeper sock account running parallel to others during that time, but I've seen no suggestion of that by any other community member, and absent at least that, I AGF this is just someone who occasionally gets the bug to edit on very particular political/BLP topics with hyperfocus over bursts of time: we do afterall get some genuine serial-SPA editors in that respect. That being the case, I'm not seeing a whole lot in terms of brightline policy violation just of yet. Obviously something substantial needs to change with regard to this editor's approach, and their talk page is kind of a mixed bag of concessions to that fact when engaging with some editors who have used a softer approach, while verging on WP:IDHT with some other community members who have been more blunt. But for a certainty, over the last couple of weeks, Canterbury's volume of engagement on the Peterson talk page has reduced dramatically, following the discussions opened on their personal talk page. So there seems to be some positive progress.

Perhaps Bish's action in implementing the current pageban is the correct approach in threading the needle, removing CanterburyUK from a very narrow space (where they are being particularly activist) for the time being, while maintaining most of their editorial permissions. Again, afterall, I can't say that I don't think that was where we were headed eventually anyway. But by the same token, had I arrived here before that action was taken, I think on the balance of things I would have advocated for no formal action just yet, purely to be pro-forma with giving this editor time to adjust their approach short of sanction. Snow<b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 21:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeeps, had to shorten this after I realized I had blown past the word count: in order to expedite that process, I simply removed an entire paragraph, in addition to other cuts, no doubt leaving my comments a little disjointed: anyone interested can see my original un-amended comments here. <b style="color:#19a0fd;">S</b><b style="color:#66c0fd">n</b><b style="color:#99d5fe;">o</b><b style="color:#b2dffe;">w</b><b style="color:#B27EB2;">Rise</b><b style="color:#d4143a"> let's rap</b> 22:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat
Rather like above, I don't agree with the characterisation of the diffs (they can be hugely misleading without context), and sequential reverts are often considered as only being one, (except when people want to weaponise 1RR or 3RR restrictions). I also agree that bludgeoning is subjective and just counting comments doesn't give evidence or proof of anything. As to SEALIONING (dear lord, where do these ridiculous terms come from), again that's a subjective thing. CUK has made 44 edits on Jordan Peterson (they are 9th on the list of most active editors on the page); the person bringing this case has made 57. If you want the stats on bludgeoning accusation, CUK has made 138 edits to the Peterson talk page and are only 7th on the list of editors by volume on the page; the person who opened this thread has made 193.

While CUK may not be a model editor, I don't see their behaviour as sanctionable, particularly on the "evidence" presented. - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Result concerning CanterburyUK

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


 * I've page-blocked CanterburyUK indefinitely from Jordan Peterson and Talk:Jordan Peterson per Shibbolethink's diffs. That seems both obvious and minimal. Leaving this open in case somebody thinks there needs to be a topic ban as well, to prevent the Jordan Peterson-related disruption from moving to other pages. What do you say, ? Bishonen &#124; tålk 13:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC).
 * Everything here relates just to the JP page, so I think Bishonen's page block is sufficient for now. If further issues develop in other related articles, we could consider a TBAN at that point, but it feels a little overbroad to me at this juncture. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Since the evidence presented here relates to just the Jordan Peterson article and its talk page I agree that action only about that page is needed. I'd suggest an indefinite page ban instead of a partial block due to the limitation with partial blocking - that is, if CanterburyUK is temporarily blocked for something else it'll override and effectively remove the partial block whereas a page ban will remain in place. But that's about the method of paperwork rather than resolving the issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, the page ban, a rare bird. Something for the paperwork feinschmecker. Of course you're right about the page block problem. On the other hand, the problem with page bans is that it's up to the user to abide by them — there's nothing technical keeping them off the page. That's awkward when there's a bit of a CIR issue. We don't want to set the user up for a series of escalating blocks just because they don't understand their ban. How about this: I try to keep an eye on CanterburyUK and their block log, to hopefully notice any shorter siteblock that destroys the partial blocks, and after such a shorter block expires, I restore the partials. Of course that would need a bit of bookkeeping, but I've done it before. Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC).
 * Sounds good to me. I guess you could also do both too. The page ban is the sanction and the partial block effectively enforces it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking "both" myself. But surely that would make it even harder for the user to understand. The bureaucracy of sanctions is hard enough to grasp for experienced editors. I have talked with several who assume page blocks also imply topic bans (one today by e-mail, actually). In fact, I'd sooner keep an eye on the partials than do any more explaining. Bishonen &#124; tålk 15:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC).
 * Everybody seems OK with my partial blocks, so I'll close. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC).

Dan Palraz
''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 Dan Palraz

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 12:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced
 * WP:DIS
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:TENDENTIOUS


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

Dan Palraz has been exhibiting what I see to be extremely disruptive conduct and agenda-pushing on ARBPIA matters for a considerable amount of time. He is often edit warring to push his own viewpoints:

Six Day War: see
 * #1
 * #2
 * #3
 * #4
 * #5

White phosphorus munitions:
 * #1
 * #2
 * #3

Judaean Desert:
 * #1
 * #2
 * #3
 * #4

Ramot:
 * #1
 * #2
 * #3

In addition to the obvious edit-warring, he occasionally refuses to leave edit summaries despite repeated requests (see here and here). When he does, he often just mentions the minor changes rather than the major ones. See this edit for example: while claiming to only update the population, he removed a chunk of information from the article.

Moreover, Dan moves pages without any discussion, despite the fact that it is undoubtedly required in those cases:
 * Rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel was moved to Rock-cut tombs in ancient Palestine
 * Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem was moved to Ring Settlements, East Jerusalem


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Dan had been blocked twice in the past:
 * block 1 - for edit warring
 * block 2 - from editing International recognition of the State of Palestine, for refusing to abide by ARBPIA after it's been explained

Me and other editors have warned him about his disruptive behavior previously (for example: #1, #2, #3, and by an admin, Doug Weller, right here), but each time he chooses to remove warnings as if nothing had occurred rather than responding and regretting his actions, often blanking his page (two examples: here and here).
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

It appears that some editors are of the belief that someone who has made mistakes in the past is not entitled to call for justice when they believe it is necessary. I'm surprised that there are some to prefer to make this about me, but I have answers for every accusation made here.

First of all, we all know ARBPIA is a heated subject and that everyone who writes about it has opinions and feelings on it, which occasionally may result in emotional behavior (as most those involved, myself included, sometimes do). But -
 * Selfstudier claims that I have strong opinions, but I don't believe that he or other editors working in the same field are opinion-free. The exact opposite. I the past year, a lot of articles about Israel have completely shifted to the anti-Israel side, and I observe this trend every day. The ethnic component of Jewish identity is often completely rejected in discussions, the well-documented history of Jews in Palestine is dismissed as a biblical myth, and contemporary Israel's actions are frequently harshly criticized while the wrongdoings of the other side are frequently ignored. But again, though, I'm not criticizing Dan's beliefs; rather, I'm criticizing his disruptive methods of forcing them, bullying others to accept them.
 * Selfstudier says I have canvassed before, but to be honest, I had no idea that this would be considered canvassing, otherwise, I wouldn't do it. I still wonder how is this different from from this post on Dan Palraz's talk page and another similar one.
 * Selfstudier claims that this action was blanking, but no - it was archiving, as clearly stated in the edit summary.
 * Selfstudier asserts that I breached 1RR in this article, and Iskandar even added that he believes I have never reverted, However, a quick glance would reveal that I immediately self-reverted after Selfstudier had requested me to.
 * To be honest, I can't deny that I've been the target of a number of baseless allegations in the past. One of them had a claim that I and EladKarmel were the same editor, but it was promptly rejected as baseless. In the other, Iskandar323 made a claim that I had broken 1RR but then withdrew it. That, in my opinion, proves that sometimes people are too quick to pull the trigger when it comes to me.
 * Iskandar323, you and other editors have been gently explaining the rules to Dan over a year now. You have defended him for too long. In fact, I wish I had the same level of support and guidance that Dan generally has - to me, criticism is usually delivered as a threat. But Dan Palraz, as we all can see, rejects that friendly guidance and patience.

In conclusion, I completely disagree with the comparison the editors here make between Dan and myself. Yes, we both have very strong opinions, but I think our mindsets and actions are really different. While I strive to become more familiar with the rules and always prefers to assume good faith, Dan's record demonstrates that he repeatedly breaks the same rules, many of them violations for which he has previously been blocked twice in the past (and here's another complaint making the same claim, July 2021). He had too many prior opportunities to behave better but chose to disregard them. It is abundantly clear to me from Dan's disruptive behavior, prior blocks, and what can only be described as a complete rejection of all criticism directed at him that his objective is not to improve Wikipedia but rather to advance his own opinions at all costs, making him unqualified to edit articles related to the ARBPIA. Tombah (talk) 07:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * While this AE is still active, Dan continues to push the same edit, also adding a personal attack—now for the sixth time in Judaean Desert. After being reverted for a sixth time, he finally started a discussion. Tombah (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dan Palraz: A few corrections and clarifications: (1) I didn't modify "Palestine" to "West Bank" after filing this AE, check again the link you provided. I edited it on December 14th, two weeks before this AE. Since then, you've made anoter attempt to force the same edit, and Elmidae has undone this action (as he also did in the past, before I did it). (2) The issue is not "general behavior"; rather, general behavior is the only way, in my opinion, to characterize a long history of specific violations, such as edit-warring, disruptive and misleading comments, and occasional vandalism, despite being aware, despite numerous friendly warnings, and despite being blocked in the past for the same violations. (3) I didn't ask for a permanent ban; all I did was point out your past and present violations, along with examples. This is why we have AEs: so that uninvolved admins can choose the best course of action. Tombah (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved to own section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Discussion concerning Dan Palraz
''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 Dan Palraz
Hi, sorry I did not check the page yesterday. I cannot properly defend myself as I do not understand what I am being accused of; yes, I moved Rock-cut tombs in ancient Israel to Rock-cut tombs in ancient Palestine and Ring Neighborhoods, Jerusalem to Ring Settlements, East Jerusalem, and I would do it again, as I believe these are the proper names for both articles; if anyone disagrees with it and has valid arguments against it, one undoes the move, and I understood that is how Wikipedia worked. So if the accusation here is that of "agenda-pushing" I will refer to the three other users who I don't know, but whose support below I thank for, that if "agenda pushing" is an infraction, the same sanction should be applied to Tombah, whose history can be checked at any time to confirm it is more agenda-pushing than mine. If, however, having an agenda isn't an impeditive to editing per se – and I hope that is the case, for I can't find any single person editing Wikipedia who doesn't have their own positions and "agendas" –, I will be glad to refrain from any behavior that is pointed out to me as being infractions or against Wikipedia rules. Thank you. Dan Palraz (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * @Tombah: You are the one who changed "Palestine" to "West Bank" in said article after you filed this report:, which, again, just shows you do exactly what you accuse me of – and which makes it seem like you made it on purpose to get the reaction you wanted. Also, as can be proved quickly, you have consistently done on me for months, reverting several edits by me in way different topics every time you log in, which should be a reason for punishment against you as well. As all users who have interacted with us both for months agree here above, there is nothing I have done that you haven't. Either way, I don't think "general behavior" should be a reason for a permanent ban forever (even real crimes expire after years everywhere, so any punishment forever for honest editing without any bad words or real crimes sounds like a little too much), and as each bad behavior should get and does get its own immediate punishment: if I or anyone breaks the 1RR rule, there is a specific punishment for that. You have admitted you are basically requesting to have me permanently banned for pushing an agenda that is opposite to the one you are trying to push. I believe Wikipedia's general rules and automatic punishments for 1RR etc are capable of dealing with us both, and I here promise not to interact with Tombah, undo any of Tombah's edits or meddle with topics they are currently working on, I will do it for the sake of my own mental health above all. All I ask for is that Tombah also stop their months-long  on me. Dan Palraz (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved to own section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but just please take note that this edit was simply a reaction to [this]. Still, I can't see how reverting a change that had changed Palestine to West Bank is a reason for a permanent ban. But yes, if I was smarter, of course I shouldn't have done that right after Tombah had filed a report against me. Yes, I am impulsive, but have I committed any serious crimes here that warrant a ban *forever*, which is more than you what you get for killing someone? I plead guilty to falling for such provocations, I plead guilty for being impatient and getting too emotional, I never hid I have panic attack issues which sometimes make me unable to read messages posted or that make me go for weeks without being able to open Wikipedia, and I therefore commit to self-banning myself from the I/P conflict area for at least three months from now on and to exercise way more self-restraint and patience if I ever go back to the topic, if given a chance, especially as most users who commented above did speak up on my defense rather than on the OP's defense of my banning. I therefore ask for another chance, committing to avoiding any confrontation of the kind in the future, no matter how sure I am to be doing the right thing. Dan Palraz (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Moved to own section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier
I wanted to wait for DP to defend himself but since we are already talking tban, I will say something now.

The principal charge here is disruption over an extended period. Complainant writes extremely disruptive conduct and agenda-pushing. It is true on several occasions I and others have reminded DP of things they ought not to do but I submit that if that description applies to DP, it applies equally to complainant. T writes Me and other editors have warned him about his disruptive behavior previously but I and other editors have warned T about their disruptive behavior, so? T speaks of DP blanking their page, when shortly after filing this complaint, they blanked their own, which points up complaints about their own behavior.

I was not a participant but let's take the recent content dispute at 6 day war. DP broke 1R and so did another editor, an editor that T had earlier canvassed See here in respect of another article. T and the same editor appear again at the second editing dispute mentioned and again, backing each other up, with DP in the middle.

T also recently breached 1R at another article. They actually broke it twice but because 2 of the reversions were contained in one edit, they were not required to self revert twice. See the short exchange here The two reversions were part of a large edit with edit summary "Styling". Is that not "disruptive"? T frequently, when reverted, simply reinserts the original edit without any attempt at discussion, essentially the same behavior complained of with respect to DP. I will let someone else comment more specifically about that but I can produce the diffs if needs be.

The point about page moves seems incidental, it is desirable to discuss/RM for page moves in a CT area, not sure there is an outright rule against bold moves, I actually agree that a page move is needed in both cases cited by T. In any case, such undiscussed moves are simple enough to deal with and both moves were reverted by T (after this filing).

DP does their homework even if they go a bit ott on occasion. T is a decent editor as long as they are in their comfort zone (Jewish history) but outside of that, exhibits a very strong POV, to put it mildly. (Examples here, here, here and here, all from one talk page (there are others similar).

I rather think that the outcome here, whatever that might be, should be the same for both of these editors.


 * I want to check that you are aware of and fully understand the one revert rule for this topic area? That you cannot do what was done at the 6 day war article. I seem to remember this being mentioned to you previously.Selfstudier (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ReWP:WIKIHOUNDING, that is a serious accusation, what evidence do you have for that? Selfstudier (talk) 09:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Recent statement should go in your own section, under "Additional comments by editor filing complaint". Dan's reply, too, I left them a note at their talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Iskandar323
I don't have a great deal to add, but I would echo the observations of Selfstudier has Dan Paltraz has certainly not acted in a vacuum. E.g. Dan has only been able to edit war on a certain point at Six-Day War because another user, Dovidroth has been there every step of the way edit warring back. Dovid has been made aware and since apologized. Dan, however, was not extended the same courtesy by Tombah. I was actually already in the process of gently explaining the rules to both editors when Tombah jumped in and went all Rambo. This despite Tombah being caught red-handed for breaching WP:1RR limits at least three times in recent months and being extended an extraordinary degree of courtesy by other editors. I would add that, despite being repeatedly encouraged to self-revert, I'm not 100% sure if Tombah ever has. Other editors have nevertheless refrained from biting them, as a relatively new editor. In the context, it honestly takes some real cahunas for Tombah to file this case. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Some of Dan Palraz' edits have been problematic, but as others have noted one would be hard-pressed to find a sin that Dan committed which Tombar has not also committed. Tombar's talk page history contains one complaint after another of 1RR violations, edit warring and disruptive editing. This is just a garden-variety attempt to get rid of an editor with an opposing POV. Zerotalk 00:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Number 57
Based on what I've seen from Dan Palraz's edits when they've appeared on my watchlist (particularly, a village partly in Israel and partly in no-man's land, which Dan repeatedly tried to (incorrectly) change to stating it was in the West Bank), I concur with Callanecc's view that he is unable to contribute to this topic area in an NPOV fashion, and an indef topic ban is appropriate. Number  5  7  20:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Result concerning Dan Palraz

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


 * I'm keen to hear what Dan Palraz has to say but on the face of it the evidence of edit warring and controversial page moves indicates to me that they aren't able to contribute constructively in this topic area. Given that I'm thinking that an indefinite topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted, would be appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet seen anything that would convince me that the TBAN I suggested isn't appropriate, especially considering edits like [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Judaean_Desert&diff=1136851965&oldid=1135209913 this] yesterday, but I note that there have been a number of comments about Dan Palraz's conduct being very similar to Tombah's (not in a vacuum for example). Can I ask that those who've made statements to that affect provide evidence for them? Alternatively, if you believe that there is a pattern of problematic conduct from Tombah a separate AE report can be filed to better document it all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please only add comments in your own section ("Statement by Dan Palraz") rather than in different sections. It helps us keep track of what different people are saying. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Based on Dan Palraz's recent statement here I've settled on a 6 month topic ban. I would strongly caution you (Dan Palraz@undefined) though that if there are any problematic edits in this topic area after the topic ban expires you will almost definitely end up with an indefinite topic ban and that given that the behaviour continued it would be difficult to successfully appeal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Jim Michael 2
''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 Jim Michael 2

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Discretionary sanctions, as authorized by Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons (as amended by Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons


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

has been bludgeoning a discussion on Talk:2022 with extremely repetitive comments regarding whether or not a recently deceased person, Barbara Walters, warrants mention in our 2022 article. He has continued to do so, despite repeated warning from other editors on both on his user talk page (26 January 2023) and in the discussion itself (29 January 2023, again on 29 January 2023, a third time on 29 January 2022 and 30 January 2023). For the sake of convenience, I've broken out some of the repetitive diffs by type. A number of diffs from contain responses to multiple users, so they may be repeated in the different subsections below:

Repeating the same stuff about Christiane Amanpour over and over:
 * 1) 16 January 2023 You're greatly overstating her international influence. You portray her as having been at the top of her field, but her international notability is well below that of Christiane Amanpour.
 * 2) 16 January 2023 ...but few know much about her because she's primarily a domestic figure. Amanpour is far more international, but most people don't know much about her.
 * 3) 22 January 2023 ...Amanpour is significantly more internationally notable
 * 4) 26 January 2023 compare her to the more internationally notable Amanpour, or say why Walters should be included but Amanpour shouldn't.
 * 5) 29 January 2023 I need to mention Christiane Amanpour again. No-one here has tried to refute that she outdoes Walters in everything but length of career
 * 6) 29 January 2023 I mention Amanpour's notability to refute claims that Walters is - as some here claim/imply - the most notable female journalist
 * 7) 30 January 2023 Amanpour is far more international & often broadcasts in both countries (and in a response to another editor in the same diff) Amanpour - whose career is in the UK & US - will receive a great deal of media coverage in many countries when she dies.

We don't do tokenism/quotas/discrimination:
 * 1) 22 January 2023 We don't have quotas & don't practise tokenism or positive discrimination
 * 2) 22 January 2023 If you mean 'positive' discrimination, quotas or tokenism, we won't be doing anything like that.
 * 3) 26 January 2023 There's no quotas, tokenism or positive discrimination, nor should there be.
 * 4) 26 January 2023 a few people want to radically change things by using quotas
 * 5) 29 January 2023 I agree that there shouldn't be quotas


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * N/A


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


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 26 January 2023 (see also the system log linked to above).

At the time of my writing, he has responded to precisely zero of these warnings, and has continued to bludgeon the discussion at will. Long-term editors generally shouldn't need to be warned by four separate editors that they are bludgeoning the exact same discussion in order to knock it off, and I'd ask that the user be given a logged warning as a discretionary sanction as a formal reminder to not bludgeon future discussions involving recently deceased people and a deterrent against repeating this sort of behavior in the future.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

On a more procedural note, it looks like has made exactly 20 diffs in this RfC when the one at 2023-01-16 00:46 is included. I am requesting an extension in both length of my complaint and in number of diffs I can link to (if need be; I'm not sure if my linking to the warning diffs counts) so that I can better demonstrate the extent of bludgeoning present.
 * I will separately note that Jim Michael 2 was warned for edit warring over this exact topic on the 2022 page less than a month ago. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

30 January 2023
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Jim Michael 2
''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 Jim Michael 2
I'm not going to even read that discussion on Talk:2022 again, let alone edit it, so this is action is pointless. I'm not going to revert any additions of Walters to 2022, including adding her to the lead & adding a photo of her. All further comments by me on that talk page will be unrelated to her. I'll no longer disagree with people who say that she was at the top of her field & should've been on ITN between Pelé & Benedict. Therefore, any restrictions imposed on me on that page are unnecessary.

The discussions on her have taken a ridiculous amount of time. I wish I'd stopped editing that discussion much sooner & had I known it'd continue for so long & be deluged with many people arguing for her inclusion I wouldn't have started contributing to it. I haven't edited any of the articles about Walters or Amanpour & don't intend to, so there's no point blocking me from editing those. I'm sorry for any problems I may have caused & for breaking any guidelines. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Shibbolethink
As someone completely not involved in this situation and who doesn't know the accused, I think this is a pretty clear case of bludgeoning. If others don't find your arguments convincing, it isn't helpful to keep bringing them up. If others have warned you about bludgeoning, it is your perogative (and at your own peril) that you continue to bring it up. At some point, if others aren't carrying the banner for your arguments, they aren't worth making. I would agree this merits sanctions (and perhaps most of all preventative to stop this user from disrupting the discussion). I would recommend a temporary page block from this page until the RFC is closed or archived, whichever comes first. I say temporary only because this is a time-based discussion and the most narrow sanction is usually the best in cases like this.— Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 17:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
Jim says he quit the discussion sometime between 13:29 (his most-recent comments) and 17:15 (when this AE was filed). What a coincidence. Levivich (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by MarioJump83
This should bear mentioning that Jim Michael 2 used Anne Heche repeatedly when arguing about inclusion based on fame and popularity. I don't have any other comments, other than being involved in these discussions, which I staked a moderate position but I also noticed repetitive arguments which created the hostile environment for people in other side of the discussions. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by WaltCip
I am involved, so I am not completely without bias in this discussion. However, the bludgeoning diffs are there for all to see. A logged warning is probably the best idea, since there appears to not be any further disruption that would be suppressed by a block. As I mentioned in my thoughts on the village pump, consensus can change, and just because a local consensus has been long-standing without controversy for years, that does not mean it will stay in place forever. We undergo similar sea changes at WP:ITN from time to time, and while change might be difficult, resisting doggedly and disruptively is not a good look. --🌈<span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">WaltCip - (talk)  14:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Thebiguglyalien
I've been heavily involved in these discussions with Jim. Similar behavior is occurring at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years. All from this month: dismissing inclusionists as "fans" of things they're adding (1, 2, 3, 4, 5); enforcing local consensus as policy (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8); accusing of bad faith arguing for offering multiple compromises that would take the articles in different directions: (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). See also: Village pump (policy). It's also worth nothing that this is part of a larger systemic issue at the WikiProject; the WikiProject talk page has a long series of arguments with other users engaging in similar ownership behavior going back well into the archives. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by InvadingInvader
(Disclaimer: involved) If anything, the core of the issue to me seems like a failure to assume good faith and violations of WP:OWN across the board. Admittedly, I originally viewed allegations of WP:OWN violations with skepticism, though at this point, I'm particularly concerned not just at the frequency of repeated arguments but also the hostile tone (such as "new editors proposing radical changes" and similar phrasings, as seen in the cited diffs), both of which creates an environment hostile to anything that goes along with "the regulars". Extraordinary Writ's statement is one I fully agree with; we all need to tone it down and look to reach middle ground more often.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 21:29, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
After a long time editing the current years pages I finally gave up during this discussion about Robbie Coltrane, the discussion may be enlightening regarding this case, or not. Black Kite (talk) 10:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Result concerning Jim Michael 2

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


 * Jim Michael 2's behavior in that RfC is...suboptimal, to say the least, and I agree that it crosses the line into bludgeoning/tendentiousness, particularly in light of all the warnings that weren't heeded. A block probably wouldn't have much preventative value at this point given his promise to disengage, but a logged warning along the lines of what RTH is suggesting seems appropriate to me. More broadly, there's been a lot of bickering and unhealthy conflict (bordering on WP:BATTLEGROUND) at Talk:2022 and related pages, and I'd strongly encourage the "regulars" there, especially Jim Michael 2, to dial down the temperature significantly if they want to avoid being sanctioned in the future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Jim Michael 2's conduct at the RfC isn't acceptable fits well into bludgeoning. Given that Jim Michael 2 has committed to stay away from the discussion I agree that a logged warning is sufficient at this point. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't attempted to read through the relevant discussions in detail yet, but I do want to note that the bludgeoning behavior appears to be continuing in a related ANI thread at Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. I am thus a bit skeptical that a logged warning is enough, but that concern may be moot here if said ANI discussion imposes sanctions. signed,Rosguill talk 22:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with NewYorkBrad below that this seems to be outside the spirit of the sanctions authorized for BLP, and would recommend that the ANI thread be used to resolve the dispute rather than passing a sanction here. signed,Rosguill talk 23:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the consensus that (1) Jim Michael 2's behavior in the cited discussion were unacceptable; (2) we welcome his promise to stop behaving that way; but (3) that promise needs to apply to all discussions, not just that particular one. (As a minor point, I'm not sure this discussion is best framed as enforcement of the BLP discretionary sanctions, though I don't propose to move it at this point. Read literally the DS/contentious topics remedy for BLPs applies to all content about recently deceased people, so this request is technically on-topic. However, the reason that recently deceased people counterintuitively were included in the biographies of "living" persons policy was to avoid anyone's thinking "so-and-so died this morning, so the protections of BLP no longer apply, so it would be a good time to add bunches of thinly sourced negative information and unduly weighted crap to their article." (This was especially important years ago when the sourcing requirements for non-BLP articles were much weaker than they are today.) The bludgeoning behavior here will warrant strong sanctions if it happens again, but the same would be true if that behavior occurred on any page, and BLP isn't necessarily the best framing of the problem.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, Mzajac and Jeppiz
''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 Super Dromaeosaurus, Mzajac and Jeppiz

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 04:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBEE


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


 * 1) Users like promoting rhetoric like that Ukraine is a genocidal country run by neo-Nazis should get blocked on the spot. IMO, this is WP:UNCIVIL and rises to a WP:PA (by Super Dromaeosaurus) Cinderella157 (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC))  (Add Users like to inadvertently truncated quote which is from the diff given. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC) )
 * 2) Shows the subsequent posts [ie subsequent to the first diff. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)] by Mzajac, Jeppiz and Super Dromaeosaurus. Viewed overall, the posts by Super Dromaeosaurus, Mzajac and Jeppiz have collectively acted in a concerted way that can reasonably be characterised as: WP:BULLYING (specifically intimidation); uncivil; and, rising to the level of a personal attack.


 * Other relevant diffs:


 * 1) Deletion of OP by Jeppiz
 * 2) Reinstatement of OP by  with summary: Removing comments from an ECP user in good standing as far as can see is probably not appropriate and as to the general issue raised, it is not resolved. issue raise
 * 3) "Warning" posted to User talk:Ianbrettcooper by Jeppiz
 * 4) ANI matter closed by, and linked in the subject thread at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine by Mzajac. Mzajac was warned against using the term "hate speech" inappropriately. and other participants were generally cautioned: ... others who, intentionally or not, are stoking the flames [emphasis added] are also cautioned to dial it back. Jeppiz and Super Dromaeosaurus participated in the ANI discussion. (Added emphasis to phrase in quote that has been subsequently quoted. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC) )
 * 5) a recent edit at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine evidencing that the matter of "falsely claimed" is not a settled matter.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
In my view, the OP has directly addressed a matter of content and therefore, it does not rise to WP:NOTFORUM. The ANI thread link clearly and directly relates since it was linked in the subject thread. I am following the recommendation of the closer by bringing this matter here rather than ANI.

Like most people, I abhor the Russian invasion. I firmly believe in the principles at WP:OUTRAGE. I believe we should be circumspect in our writing and avoid the appearance of being partisan. My position does not mean that we must give undue weight to fringe theories but sometimes we must discuss them - civilly. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

, the first diff was by Super Dromaeosaurus (which I have just clarified) and not Mzajac. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC) This would suggest the OP's thousands is not unreasonable. AGF? Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with 's characterisation, that Mzajac's first post was not unreasonable - except that their first post is not a subject of the report. I think Paul has misunderstood. The first diff by Super Dromaeosaurus is fairly clearly a categorical allegation of misconduct against the OP coupled with a threat (blocking). There is no AGF. P&G would tell us that such rhetoric has no pace on an article TP. Each subsequent post (in my view) both affirms and builds on the afore, thereby acting in concert (jointly, together). This does not assert collusion. Collectively, this is something like the dynamics of a lynch mob. In my view it is bullying and stoking the flames per 's caution. (Clarifying intent. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC) )

I have responded to Paul (TOTAL BULLSHIT!. Where the figures of "thousands of civilian deaths" came from?) saying: This would suggest the OP's thousands is not unreasonable - no more, no less. Mzajac says: [I] appear to give credence the “genocide by Ukrainians” libel by stating “the OP’s thousands is not unreasonable.” This is a strawman misrepresentation and consequently uncivil. The OP didn't start the discussion insisting that wiki voice [emphasis added] should allow that yeah, [Putin] may have had some good ideas - another strawman.

I won't dispute 's assessment that Jeppiz's reverting the OP was a line call. Jeppiz states Cinderella157 reinstated it, and that was that, except it wasn't and that is the substantive reason I have included Jeppiz in this report. I (and other editors) have had quite a few occasions to strike or delete comments by non-ECP users from internal project discussions (RMs and RfCs) hosted on the article TP in accordance with WP:GS/RUSUKR. I have reverted Jeppiz twice: once to reinstate the OPs edit and then, to reinstate one of my edits that had been reverted by Jeppiz. Jeppiz's allegations are a misrepresentation by omission. Cinderella157 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 1) Super Dromaeosaurus
 * 2) Jeppiz
 * 3) Mzajac

Discussion concerning Super Dromaeosaurus, Mzajac and Jeppiz
''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 Super Dromaeosaurus
No idea what I am doing here. Apparently I've been brought because I said Users like Ianbrettcooper promoting rhetoric like that Ukraine is a genocidal country run by neo-Nazis should get blocked on the spot. And I do not see anything wrong with this. This user clearly made insinuations on Neo-Nazis leading Ukraine or something. Notably see their comment The claim that Putin "falsely" claimed that the country is run by neo-Nazis is questionable - we have no idea who is pulling the strings in Ukraine. See also Also, the bombings of civilians in Donbas between 2014 and 2022, which caused thousands of civilian deaths, clearly meet the UN definition of genocide. This is referring to Ukraine. This user was stating that Ukraine has "clearly" committed genocide in Donbas.

That Ukraine is led by neo-Nazis and that it has committed genocide against Russians in Donbas are some of the main points Vladimir Putin has invented to murder thousands and displace millions. Cinderella157 may believe these inventions have a place in a rational, serious discussion; for me, they are absolutely unacceptable, and I do not understand why they believe calling out this propaganda deserves sanctioning.

I find the unfounded accusation of organization or whatever by Cinderella157 or of bullying made in the initial comment here against the three of us more serious. I don't understand what this user is trying to achieve with this. It causes me distrust in their intentions. Super  Ψ   Dro  14:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cinderella157 claims that by "acting in concert" they meant that thread first started by Ianbrettcooper, however they previously claimed we three "acted in concert over perhaps a half-dozen post" . It is evident to me that after seeing that their report has not received any support from other users, they now try to rewrite what they originally meant in order to continue being able to stand their ground. To this we can add a random reference to a quote ("stoking the flames") by an admin done on an ANI report unrelated to the issue of Ianbrettcooper. Or maybe this is one of the other posts where Cinderella157 believes we three have "acted in concert"? I will not comment on this lynching allegation because there I think there's no need to. And yes, I believe insinuating Neo-Nazi influence over Ukraine's leadership or stating that Ukraine has clearly committed genocide in Donbas is misconduct. I have not "threatened" anyone with a block because I have no power to do so, I am an equal to Ianbrettcooper.
 * Cinderella157 believes that Michael's comment regarding their statement "the OP’s thousands is not unreasonable" after this OP accused Ukraine of genocide (completely ignored by Cinderella157) is uncivil. I am going to ask Cinderella157 to desist from their alienating vocabulary through which they have accused the three of us lynching, bullying, threatening, uncivility and acting in concert. The lack of good faith and respect for the other is far more evident in these to me. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Mzajac
The complaint alleges that the OP “addressed a matter of content,” and that the encyclopedia should cover issues of WP:OUTRAGE. Well, the encyclopedia could, for example, reflect any notable coverage of people who say Hitler had some good ideas. But if someone starts a discussion insisting that wiki voice should allow that yeah, Hitler may have had some good ideas, I think it’s reasonable for several editors to state that we don’t agree with that and we should not. I think several editors believe that’s what happened here.

Except the OP actually wrote “The claim that Putin "falsely" claimed that the country is run by neo-Nazis is questionable - we have no idea who is pulling the strings in Ukraine, and neo-Nazis have had a strong influence in the past” and “the bombings of civilians in Donbas between 2014 and 2022, which caused thousands of civilian deaths, clearly meet the UN definition of genocide.” Advocating Putin’s racist thesis used to demonize and dehumanize Ukrainians, which has been cited as evidence of his incitement to genocide (see Accusation in a mirror and Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine). I see the OP’s statement more like Hitler was right.

I believe this kind of speech is harmful and should not be seen as acceptable. It’s been my experience that even slightly off-colour remarks in major discussions have tended to multiply, and have made a point of drawing attention to them to keep a lid on it. Well this is way beyond that.

I believe this is an administrative or disciplinary matter. As I am involved in the subject and the discussion, I did not act as an admin. I left one comment to make my view available to the community and to any admin that should choose to act. I left another agreeing that the OP had crossed a line and disciplinary action is appropriate (I imagined a warning or brief block). And I left one complaint about a separate enforcement, which I probably ought to have kept to myself.

I did not coordinate with anyone or try to pile on the OP. I don’t believe anyone else did either.

I want to express my shock and disappointment that @user:Cinderella157, who doesn’t appear to have participated in the original discussion, would choose this as a forum to appear to give credence the “genocide by Ukrainians” libel by stating “the OP’s thousands is not unreasonable.” I won’t discuss content questions here, but if anyone is interested I could address that inaccurate and irrelevant statement in an appropriate place. —Michael Z. 15:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Speculation about my ancestry, country of origin, citizenship, or residence are personal information and subject to WP:PRIVACY. They are also extremely inappropriate for this or any public discussion. I could go on but will leave it at that. I refer to responses by user:Paul Siebert and user:GizzyCatBella, below.

[I have yet to respond to other statements]

Statement by Jeppiz
It seems the only complaint filed against me is that I once removed a post as per WP:NOTAFORUM. As Rosguill points out below, it was indeed a "borderline call". I first answered the user, but then corrected myself and removed it as forum-violation. In doing so, I clearly stated my reason in the diff: the actual matter at hand (bias in the use of wikivoice) was already under active discussion:, the comment didn't add anything. Instead, most of the comment was, in my eyes, just meant to smear Ukrainians. For those reasons I made the call that it violated WP:NOTAFORUM and removed it. Cinderella157 reinstated it, and that was that. My only further interaction was to provide the same argument as above for why I had made the call to remove it. I respect anyone disagreeing with my call that it was a forum-violation, but I must say I find it to be appallingly bad faith by Cinderella157 to go the AE merely for that. I also wish to draw attention to the very pronounced WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour Cinderella157 is displaying related to the Ukraine war. To date, Cinderella157 has close to 600 edits to the talk page this AE enforcement concerns, has repeatedly reverted other users on the talk page (I've been reverted twice already by Cinderella157) there, and has a strong tendency for WP:IDHT in discussions about bias (the | sub-thread on POV has been going for two weeks. Even though consensus against Cinderella157 is clear, Cinderella157 refuses to walk away from it). I am perfectly content for my close call on whether the comment was a WP:NOTAFORUM violation or not to be scrutinized, although it was done in good faith. Again, that one close call seems to be the only charge against me. I hope Cinderella157, as the filer, is equally content for their battleground behavior on the same page, to which I ascribe this request to silence multiple users whose only common trait is to have argued against Cinderella157 in the past weeks. Jeppiz (talk) 22:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter
It is clear to me that Mzajac is not capable of editing in the topic area impartially. They are completely uncritical to what they say and hypercritical to what others say, often not really listening and assuming everything their opponents say is a personal attack. As a result, we see things like this (linking the whole thread, from two days ago), this, or this (whitewashing a Holocaust perpetrator). As something else, note for example low quality of argument here: This is a good example of IDONOTHEAR. I would also argue that this behavior is incompatible with being administrator (for example, the last link was doubling down in response to this, which contradicts ADMINACCT), but this is not an AE story. I would argue however, that Wikipedia would benefit from a topic ban of Mzajac from anything related to Ukraine. And this topic ban must be not time-limited, like it was last time - the topic ban expired, and Mzajac continued the same behavior - but unlimited, only lifted after an appeal.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To clarify, since Mzajac is basically an inactive admin (I believe I once counted admin actions, and, deletion of redirects during moves subtracted, I got smth like less then 10 admin actions since 2010 or so), I do not particularly care whether they have the admin flag or not. On the other hand, I find their behavior as an extremely active user in the topic area disruptive, as explained above. I started avoiding discussions they participate in, or just replying once and disengaging, because I feel uncomfortable with their pushing. Ymblanter (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if Mzajac added their user page in category Category:Wikipedians in Canada (and has it there since at least 2005), it is a bit strange to hear complaints about "doxxing" related to the country of residence. Ymblanter (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Paul Siebert
I have a long history of disagreement with Michael, and he even submitted a totally ridiculous complaint against me whish was immediately closed. That demonstrates that I by no means is sympathetic to Michael. However, upon having looked at the evidences presented by Cinderella, I have to concede that they are unconvincing. Thus, the first diff is the Michael's reaction on the statement [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1136028379&diffmode=source Also, the bombings of civilians in Donbas between 2014 and 2022, which caused thousands of civilian deaths, clearly meet the UN definition of genocide. The word "falsely" should be taken out of this section.] Come on, that is a TOTAL BULLSHIT!. Where the figures of "thousands of civilian deaths" came from? As far as I know, the number of civilian deaths in 2018-20 didn't exceed 10-20 people annually, and that were the figures provided by separatist authorities! Therefore, my conclusion is that Michael's rhetoric was even redundantly soft (in this case). The second diff actually redirects to the same talk page discussion, so I see no need in this duplication. Other diffs are not related to Michael, but they also seem relatively innocent.

I partially agree with Ymblanter that Michael's behaviour is somewhat problematic. He is editing Ukraine related topics from the positions of Primordialism, which is a generally discredited concept. He does not understand some of our policies (thus, he repeatedly accused me of OR during talk page discussions, despite the fact that, as I already explained to him, WP:NOR does not apply to talk page space (so, as soon as I am not posting this information in the article's space, I cannot be accused of NOR violation). However, all these problems are minor and forgivable ... for an ordinary user. But Michael is an admin! IMO, the fact that the admin is being discussed at AE (and, Michael was even topic banned once) is hardly consistent with WP:ADMIN. I disagree with Ymblanter that Michael should be banned from Ukraine related topics. However, his redundantly emotional behaviour and insufficiently competent judgements are hardly consistent with his admin status.

I may be wrong, but Michael's user page information suggests he has relatively close ties with Ukraine. There is a war in his country, a terrible and a totally unprovoked war. Therefore, Michael's redundantly emotional behaviour is totally understandable and forgivable. I think, a correct solution in this situation would be if Michael voluntarily suspends his admin rights (or just takes an obligation not to use them) until the war in Ukraine ends (with Ukrainian victory, of course). After that, when all passions settle, we may return to this story.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by GizzyCatBella
@Paul Siebert, note that there are two more editors against whom enforcement is also requested. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  05:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding Mzajac:
 * Since my recent unpleasant encounter with Mzajac was already carried up here by Ymblanter, please note my renewed appeal to provide a diff or strike accusations of - repeating disinformation and defending lies (in this discussion concerning Valerii Zaluzhnyi, Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine) My comment will depend on further developments in the issue, but I'm already mostly agreeing with Paul Siebert. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: The issue has been satisfactory resolved. I have no further comments. Please also note that due to the everyday situation in Ukraine (I’m assuming Michael is from there) I fully understand the emotional approach of that user. I would advise Michael however, to comment on matters related to Ukraine with some delay, which will allow possible irritation to fade. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Tamzin
I comment just to discuss one particular habit of Mzajac's that I find concerning. I neither propose nor oppose any particular remedy for it, and I note that I have had both pleasant agreements and pleasant disagreements with Michael on the topic of Russia and Ukraine. But in light of the quote above about "UN definition of a genocide", I do want to raise two past interactions I've had with Michael: At, he argued that the list should include several items that no reliable sources characterize as invasions or occupations of Ukraine. When I objected, he referred to the dictionary definition of "invasion" and an appeal to common sense. And at Articles for deletion/Atrocities in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, regarding a disambiguation page he'd made, he argued to keep because the page was in keeping with the legal definition of "atrocity". Whether or not any sanctions are needed, I do think this is a troubling misunderstanding of all three of our core content policies (No original research, Verifiability, and Neutral point of view)—one that has apparently come up in three separate contexts now, all related to Russia and Ukraine. All editors in such a sensitive topic should understand that general definitions of a term do not give you license to add unsourced and/or non-neutral material. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 07:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Andrevan
I must say, I am involved in the dispute (I reverted this edit that was included in the report) and a non-admin, but I do not see a lot of substance in this report. Also a little surprised to see some of the other comments focusing on issues entirely unrelated to the report given. I do not think there is a civility or bullying issue in evidence here. I think there is a content dispute and a few users who are advocating for fringe POVs or making claims that Wikipedia is biased etc., and these should rightly and appropriately be rebutted. It seems clear that Michael Z. is WP:INVOLVED and acting as a non-admin in this dispute, so I do not see any usage of his admin rights in this report or any ADMINACCT issue. Folks who come to a talk page to criticize Wikipedia's alleged bias should indeed be warned that this isn't a productive tack to engage in constructive improvements to the content. They have to offer specific and actionable changes on the talk page or WP:NOTFORUM may indeed be invoked, and if this was a misinvocation because there was something good faith to discuss, that is still not rising to the level of this AE report IMHO. I think the OP's allegation of coordination is unfounded and lacks good faith. Andre<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">🚐 16:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Red-tailed hawk
has repeatedly used his administrative tools to delete Battle of Kyiv so that Battle of Kiev could be moved to it, even after objections from other administrators who asked him to go through the RM process. This all despite the fact that he is clearly WP:INVOLVED in this naming dispute. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The user has also undeleted Kyiv junta and undeleted Ukronazism. Both undeletions were undertaken seemingly without any on-wiki discussion with the deleting admins, despite the user being clearly WP:INVOLVED in this dispute. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Does I'd be hard pressed to consider that an abuse of admin tools also apply to the repeated deletions of Battle of Kyiv? I agree that those two undeletions I listed are not abusive per se (the undeletion of Ukronazism is a bit odd though, given that Mzajac created that redirect in the first place, and I don't think undeletion was warranted to preserve attribution), but it does show that the user is willing to use admin tools in areas close to the dispute even when WP:INVOLVED is pretty explicit that editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Statement by ValarianB
No involvement. But noting that the speculation of another editor's ethnicity and/or nationality (as pointed out by Mzajac), and the suggestion that their edits are motivated by this, is a rather significant accusation to levy. These should be supported with evidence or withdrawn.

Result concerning Super Dromaeosaurus, Mzajac and Jeppiz

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


 * This report has drawn a lot of criticism directed exclusively at Mzajac, with participants raising WP:ADMINCOND concerns that go far beyond the details of the original report. I think it's appropriate to refer these concerns to ARBCOM, which would be the body actually empowered to do anything about it, whereas the rest of the report can be investigated here. I do think it's worth noting that there's some practical concerns with Paul Siebert's suggestion that Mzajac voluntarily give up the tools pending the end of the war--this would essentially be resigning under a WP:CLOUD, so as AE we can't guarantee that Mzajac would simply be able to pick up where they left off after the war, to say nothing of the complication of conditioning a Wikipedia sanction on the conclusion of a war that does not have an end in sight, and where grievances may well continue past its conclusion. signed,Rosguill talk 16:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , the pair of undeletions you're pointing out appear to have essentially just recreated redirects deleted in a shuffle of G8s and G6s following/preceding page moves. I'd be hard pressed to consider that an abuse of admin tools, as the end result is effectively the same as if they had simply created a redirect, and their actions do not appear to contradict any explicit consensus. signed,Rosguill talk 19:09, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , my above comment was just in regard to Ukronazism and Kyiv junta. Battle of Kyiv seems like a much more complicated example that I haven't examined in depth (and don't particularly intend to within the confines of this report, per my other suggestions to kick that case up to ArbCom). signed,Rosguill talk 19:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, having read through the actual allegations and diffs raised by Cinderella157, I agree with Paul Siebert's assessment of them. The suggestion that the three editors are intentionally working in concert appears entirely spurious, and the editors' responses to Ianbrettcooper seem within the realm of propriety given the extent of distortion of the Donbas conflict casualties made by Ianbrettcooper in their original post. Jeppiz removing IBC's post entirely was a borderline call and Cinderella157 reverting the removal was defensible (although I'm not sure I would have done the same myself), but following that with an AE report seems unnecessary. I think that the substantive case filed here should be closed without action, and that the other concerns with Mzajac's conduct brought by participants other than Cinderella157 should be referred to ArbCom. signed,Rosguill talk 19:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Largely agree with Rosguill on all counts. The dispute involving Ianbrettcooper perhaps could have been handled better, but it's a long way from being sanctionable, and I'd suggest that Cinderella157 should be much more hesitant to throw around phrases like "collectively acted in a concerted way". The concerns revolving around Mzajac's administrative status would need to be addressed by the Committee, as noted here last year. There's a suggestion above that we should consider some sort of topic ban, but given the history here I'd be inclined to punt that to ArbCom too: a structured arbitration case would be a better way of investigating the enormous amount of evidence here (countless edits over many years) than having a few AE admins weigh in. I'm leaning toward pressing our shiny new "refer to ArbCom" button, but it could also be argued that someone should just file a new case request at WP:ARC given how tangential this issue is to the original complaint. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Extraordinary Writ: Speaking only as a singular arb, I would much rather an admin conduct-related case request go through ARC rather than ARCA due to how this isn't an issue with the underlying EE sanctions. -- In actu (Guerillero)  Parlez Moi 14:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Also speaking as a single arb, I think the Committee needs to give AE admins more guidance about how the referrals work. I've added it to the agenda for our monthly call but I think there's a good chance we won't get to it and it may take us a few months to produce this guidance. That said, in this instance, and only speaking about the venue not weighing in on the substance, I agree with Guerillero that ARC would be the right forum to request an examination of an admin under admin conduct. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with closing this as no action with a comment that any concerns about Mzajac's conduct should be taken up with the Committee at ARC. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Softlemonades
''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 Softlemonades

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 13:08, 8 February 2023 (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) 8 Feb 2023 13:26 violates "Consensus Required" applied to the page in October 2021; adds new material to the page a second time that had been challenged and was under discussion
 * 2) 8 Feb 2023 14:54 violates "Consensus Required" and 1RR, re-adding the same material
 * 3) 9 Feb 2023 06:32 violates "Consensus Required" and 1RR, re-adding different material without discussion and without establishing consensus


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


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 5 April 2022 and again on 27 January 2023


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The page has been a particularly contentious area for some time. At one point the talk page reached some half a million bytes. The restoration of the Consensus Required sanction has done much to reduce this, and has meant that significant changes have had the backing of clear consensus or by RFC. Softlemonades has sidestepped this by generally simply ignoring it, despite reminders of the page restrictions.


 * As Softlemonades has raised the issue of a closely related page, it's worth discussing here. Here are the reverts made by Softlemonades on that page in one 24-hour period:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5)
 * 6)
 * and within the next four hours after that


 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3) <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 13:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Softlemonades, accusing someone of "edit-warring" after they make a single edit to a page is prima facie absurd. Edit-warring by an individual needs *at least* two edits to the page. None of your claims address your problematic behaviour at the article Julian Assange. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 14:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Drmies, you say you are uninvolved, yet when there was an edit war at the closely-related page Wikileaks, you blocked one editor but took no action at all against the other (who breached 3rr first and by several more edits). Why? This seems to be deciding a content dispute by administrative fiat.
 * Drmies you make a claim of an "inveterate edit warrior" and refer to a breach of 3rr two years ago on an unrelated article – the ip editor's insertion of unsourced content had already been reverted before me by two other editors and would subsequently be reverted by two others. Where have I incorrectly signalled a lack of consensus? You give no diffs to support that claim, which has not in fact occurred. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 16:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Drmies your baseless characterisation of a neutral and polite edit summary as pompous and misleading is not objective or constructive. "In accordance with WP:CR applied to this page, please gain affirmative consensus for the addition of new material". The only misleading aspect a reasonable person could find is that WP:CR is not the correct link to consensus required - I should have checked the shortcut first. The phrase "affirmative consensus" is taken from the restriction's talk page template, which says . The notion that one person giving a single-sentence response represents affirmative consensus is a narrow interpretation, to put it mildly. Over the year since restored the restriction, all other editors have interpreted it to mean a wider, more explicit consensus than "2 for, 1 opposed".
 * You say you p-blocked me on the Wikileaks page but not the others - there was only one "other" - Softlemonades. Their violations of the same policy that you blocked me for, and those that I've listed above, you've simply ignored in both cases. You've also gone to some length to dig up a 4rr warning from two years ago on a completely unrelated matter (the IP editor whose unsourced claims I reverted was indeffed for personal attacks and edit warring a week later). This does not seem like the behaviour of an uninvolved, disinterested admin.
 * As to whether I edited "neutrally" - always a value term - my edits at Wikileaks and at Julian Assange have invariably been to uphold BLP standards for a living person. A highly, highly unpopular person in the US, granted, but that does not negate the need to adhere to mainstream secondary sourcing. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 18:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If you recall, I immediately emailed you about this, you responded, and I replied to you. I had hoped that had resolved the matter, but if not please reply to my email of the 21 Jan 1:41 pm UK time. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 18:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in my email, that edit to my talk page was in no way a response to the DS notice you placed, nor to anything else. As you can see there was a near-18-month gap between you placing the DS notice and those edits. They were not a response to it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 18:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * HJ, what is the basis for your characterising my approach to editing that way? Apart from adding scholarship - very rarely a source of conflict - I spend the majority of my other edits either removing unsourced material or poorly-sourced BLP content. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 15:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Softlemonades, you raise an earlier set of edits. As has already been discussed in the conversation immediately following those diffs, a conversation in which you took part, that content was added three years earlier by . Consensus Required was added in late 2021. It means that if an edit, such as yours on 7 December, has been challenged, a consensus that your edit on 7 December should be carried out needs to be established on talk before anyone does the edit a second time. It's odd that you say you dont think they brought it to talk when you commented multiple times123 in that conversation. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#4682B4 0.1em 0.1em 1.5em,#4682B4 -0.1em -0.1em 1.5em;color:#000000"><i style="color:#999900">Cambial </i>— <b style="color:#218000">foliar❧</b> 00:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Discussion concerning Softlemonades
''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 Softlemonades

 * Cambial is constantly edit warring and has been repeatedly warned and recently banned on a related page, and removed RS material and used CR to try to control the page. An admin User:Drmies talked to them about this on this page a week ago. diff


 * Cambial has been removing selective assessments. Cambial removed an assessment saying the source wasnt secondary when it obviously was. I told him that if you use this reasoning you need to use it on all of them and not just assessments that arent positive and he said The claims you make about what I need to do are not accurate. diff
 * Ive asked Cambial to stop edit warring. He reverted it as absurd.
 * The last revert Cambial cites didnt involve him but a different editor, and it addressed in Talk where the other editor says they didnt see two of the sources. It also wasnt just a revert because I added stuff addressing the editors issue Softlemonades (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * not saying that Softlemonades isn't quick to revert Ill work on it and try to be better Softlemonades (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * HJ Mitchell


 * I ignored Cambials warnings because he overuses them. Example February 7 2022, he warns me about template abuse for asking him to stop edit warring. diff


 * I thought the 1RR and sanctions policy was less strict because of how Cambial used it


 * Diff 1, 03:44, 7 December 2022 I delete text


 * Diff 2, 22:20, 11 December 2022 Cambial restores text edit summary says its RS


 * Diff 3, 23:42, 11 December 2022 SPECIFICO deletes text, edit summary says I removed it so it needs consensus to restore and cites page restrictions


 * Diff 4, 06:44, 12 December 2022 Cambial restores text again, edit summary says it needs consensus to restore and cites page restrictions


 * I dont think they brought it to talk. So when Cambial was the only one who said anything, I didnt take it very seriously. And when Burroberts edit summary, That's an odd quote to pull from a long essay., made it clear they didnt see the other two sources, one had it in the headline, I reverted it and then explained on talk.


 * Ill be less quick to revert whatever happens. But I wanted to explain. Softlemonades (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2023‎ (UTC)


 * It's odd that you say you dont think they brought it to talk I just looked at the talk page which went to before the edits and saw nothing about it. I didnt think I had to check the archives since it had discussions older than the edits. Softlemonades (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Sideswipe9th
the "lying cunt and a piece of dogshit" is in relation to these two diffs;, where over two edits Cambial first inserted "a lying cunt" into Doug's signature, then replaced it with "a lying piece of dogshit" a minute later. It remained in that signature until it was removed twenty days later by another editor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what prompted Cambial to do that though. A quick check of the interaction analyser doesn't reveal anything obvious to me in the interaction data between Doug and Cambial in the three months prior to making the edit. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Statement by NadVolum
If you're going to do anything can you do it to both at the same time thanks. I'd prefer the Assange article not be left to the tender mercies of just one of them. As to the accusaion of NOTHERE I believe that is quite wrong for either of them. They are both valuable contributors in their own ways and they try to respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They can also be a pain in the neck in their own ways, but Wikipedia is full of pains in the neck and many far far worse that nothing is done about. They do seem to try to collaborate with others. I have not seen either deliberately trying to do others down or use everything in WP:DISRUPTIVE as a guide to how to get their way in pushng their POV. NadVolum (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Result concerning Softlemonades

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

*::@Drmies On the other hand, if you were accused of that, and it wasn't true, wouldn't you deny it and ask me to prove it? Almost anyone would. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Cambial Yellowing is an inveterate edit warrior (not saying that Softlemonades isn't quick to revert) who consistently misapplies terms like "consensus"--or incorrectly signals a lack of consensus. They're p-blocked from WikiLeaks; they should be p-blocked from the entire area. And perhaps it's time for more serious sanctions, as I suggested earlier. I just don't think they are capable of editing impartially. Going through their talk page history (which they usually blank) is instructive too: warnings are all over the place, esp. for edit warring--here was one from, for edit warring on United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, so this has been going on for years. User:Doug Weller, do you care to expand on this, "a lying cunt and a piece of dogshit"? The more I look at their edits, the more I am thinking of NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I can't find it. I've looked but don't want to waste any more time searching. Doug Weller  talk 16:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oops, I missed the fact that the clever User: Sideswipe9th found it. It was Cambial Yellowing's response to my DS notice last April. I'll support more serous sanctions. Doug Weller  talk 18:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Cambial Yellowing, I picked up on one slightly older warning to indicate that this is an ongoing problem. That's what "inveterate" means. That I p-blocked you and not the others is precisely because it has become clear to me that you cannot edit neutrally etc.--as opposed to those you keep fighting with. Anyone can look through the archives of ANI and ANEW to find that this is not a new thing. And you could have protested my p-block, or even my later warning, but your only response for that block was this--in keeping with how dismissively you treat communications, warnings, and notifications. You also never responded to 's rather detailed ANEW report, which resulted in that p-block for WikiLeaks. I am not going to give an exhaustive list of diffs of all your disruptive edits, but this diff, placed above by Softlemonades, is instructive, pointing as it does to a talk page conversation where you were opposed by two editors--and your response is to revert, with the rather pompous and misleading summary "'n accordance with WP:CR applied to this page, please gain affirmative consensus for the addition of new material". Drmies (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @User:Cambial Yellowing yes, but you never explained the three week gap between posting and deleting when i asked. Your explanation made sense but didn’t convince me you should be editing. Doug Weller  talk 19:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel some sort of sanction for Softlemonades is necessary based on the diffs presented above. They have clearly edit-warred and violated the "consensus required" restriction and the 1RR. An article ban or narrow topic ban may be in order, unless there's a suggestion that they have misconducted themselves in the broader topic area. As for Cambial Yellowing, I'd love to hear an argument for why their combative approach to editing doesn't necessitate an indefinite block. <b style="color: teal; font-family: Tahoma">HJ Mitchell</b> &#124; <span style="color: navy; font-family: Times New Roman" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts? 13:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)