Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:50, 6 March 2022 editJoJo Anthrax (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,746 edits →Hob Gadling: statement← Previous edit Revision as of 19:54, 6 March 2022 edit undoHob Gadling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,501 edits →Statement by Hob GadlingNext edit →
Line 495: Line 495:
There is nothing wrong with bringing forth valid arguments for downgrading the SI source, but as soon as bad reasoning is used for that purpose and the refutation of that reasoning sidestepped, the encyclopedia is not being improved. Not retracting bad reasoning is bad behaviour, and I will continue to stand up against it. Criticizing user behaviour is not a personal attack, and neither is pointing out that a certain user behaviour is not helping the encyclopedia. That is what I did. There is nothing wrong with bringing forth valid arguments for downgrading the SI source, but as soon as bad reasoning is used for that purpose and the refutation of that reasoning sidestepped, the encyclopedia is not being improved. Not retracting bad reasoning is bad behaviour, and I will continue to stand up against it. Criticizing user behaviour is not a personal attack, and neither is pointing out that a certain user behaviour is not helping the encyclopedia. That is what I did.


This is just another instance of ACS trying to get people punished for contradicting her. She will probably continue doing that until nobody contradicts her. --] (]) 16:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC) <angry comment withdrawn> --] (]) 16:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


====Statement by MrOllie==== ====Statement by MrOllie====

Revision as of 19:54, 6 March 2022

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    Click here to add a new enforcement request
    For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
    See also: Logged AE sanctions

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

    • request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
    • request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
    • request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
    • appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

    For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

    Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

    To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

    All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

    The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

    Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

    A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

    An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

    • The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or
    • The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
      • the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
      • the restriction was an indefinite block.

    A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

    • a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
    • a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
    • a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

    Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

    Standard of review
    On community review

    Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
    On Arbitration Committee review

    Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
    3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
    1. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
    2. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
    Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

    Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

    No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

    Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

    Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

    Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

    Important notes:

    1. For a request to succeed, either
    (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
    (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
    is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
    2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
    3. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
    4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
    Information for administrators processing requests

    Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

    A couple of reminders:

    • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
    • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
    • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
    • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

    Closing a thread:

    • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
    • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
    • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
    • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

    Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

    Arbitration enforcement archives
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346347

    Baxter329

    Baxter329 indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Baxter329

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Baxter329 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 23:33, 23 February 2022 At Patrisse Cullors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), adds text In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist." They had been informed here and here of the Rfc at Talk:Patrisse Cullors#RfC:Mentioning Marxism/Marxist?, and after saying here that I am considering adding the Politifact quote of her saying she's a "trained Marxist" to the Patrisse Cullors article they were also told here that I would strongly recommend against adding the quote at Patrisse Cullors. But they went ahead and did it anyway.
    2. 23:15, 21 February 2022 Adds WP:LEAD violation at Black Lives Matter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    3. 22:03, 22 February 2022 Re-adds material from diff#2 without consensus (I'd probably give them a pass on that since it was removed without any explanation, just including it for thoroughness)
    4. 22:52, 22 February 2022 Re-adds material from diff#2 despite it being specifically challenged on WP:LEAD, lack of consensus from previous talk page discussions and WP:ONUS. See also talk page post made prior to that revert detailing more discussions about that particular quote.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    n/a

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

    Notified

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    There's a general cluelessness and failure to listen at Talk:Black Lives Matter in general. FDW777 (talk) 23:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

    Conveniently demonstrating the general cluelessness and failure to listen I mentioned, they twice say here that no one has given any valid explanation as to why the content couldn't be included at Patrisse Cullors. I'm pretty much speechless. FDW777 (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

    In the last 15 minutes, Baxter329 has restored disputed content relating to Black politician Winsome Sears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) accusing her of being a white supremacist, with one of the references being Fox News. This is despite their November attempt to add the same content being reverted. I remain speechless. FDW777 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

    @Dennis Brown: At 23:20, 26 February 2022 Baxter329 was still claiming they haven't been given an explanation as to why the content shouldn't have been added. Either they are being intentionally disruptive or they don't have the competence to edit. FDW777 (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified


    Discussion concerning Baxter329

    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 Baxter329

    I stand by all of my additions to Black Lives Matter. My additions to Black Lives Matter are relevant and reliably sourced.

    At the same time, I also respect the consensus to not include the content. I will not add any of those things to Black Lives Matter again. I disagree with the consensus. But I will obey it.

    I also stand by my addition of the following to Patrisse Cullors, in the section titled "Ideology and policy positions."

    In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist" . In 2020, after this quote became widely reported across the internet, Cullors went into further detail on the subject in a video that she posted on her own YouTube channel.Am I A Marxist?

    No one has given me any valid explanation for why the above content should not be included in the "Ideology and policy positions" of Patrisse Cullors.

    I added that content to Patrisse Cullors exactly one time. After someone removed it, I never put it back.

    And again, no one has given any valid explanation for why the above content should not be included in the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors.

    My only defense of any of my additions to either Black Lives Matter or Patrisse Cullors is the following:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

    "Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view"

    "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

    "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages and of other Wikimedia projects."

    Given that Patrisse Cullors has a section called, "Ideology and policy positions," why should that content not be included in the article?

    Baxter329 (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


    I was not aware that I was not allowed to add that content to my sandbox.

    On 23:08, 23 February 2022, at Talk:Black Lives Matter, I said:

    "while I still think both quotes should be included in this article, I will not bring up that subject in any new talk page discussions for this article. I acknowledge that the consensus is against including them in this article. I don't agree with that consensus, but I must respect it."

    But this arbitration section was created on 23:43, 23 February 2022.

    In other words, this arbitration section was created 35 minutes after I promised to respect the consensus regarding Black Lives Matter. So that issue had already been solved before this arbitration was created.

    Thus, the only remaining issue is my addition of the following to the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors:

    In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist." In 2020, after this quote became widely reported across the internet, Cullors went into further detail on the subject in a video that she posted on her own YouTube channel.

    I added that content to Patrisse Cullors one time. Someone removed it. I never put it back in.

    No one has given a legitimate explanation for why the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors should not include that content.

    I still maintain the following as my only justification for adding that content to the "Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

    "Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view"

    "All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

    "NPOV is a fundamental principle of Misplaced Pages and of other Wikimedia projects."

    Baxter329 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

    I wasn't trying to show that Winsome Sears was a white supremacist. Instead, I was trying to show that some of her opponents had accused her of being a white supremacist. I stand by my edit.

    My edit to food desert is relevant, notable, and reliably sourced. Numerous reliable sources have reported that shoplifting and rioting are major causes of food deserts. Before I added this content, the article made zero mention of shoplifting and rioting as causes of food deserts. I stand by my edit.

    The video that I cited gives an extensive explanation by Patrisse Cullors, in her own words, of what she meant when she called herself a "trained Marxist." I stand by my edit. And I stand by my comment that no one has given a legitimate reason why this content should not be included in the section of her article titled, "‎Ideology and policy positions."

    Baxter329 (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

    I see that User:FDW777 just said, "Conveniently demonstrating the "general cluelessness and failure to listen" I mentioned, they twice say here that "no one has given any valid explanation" as to why the content couldn't be included at Patrisse Cullors. I'm pretty much speechless."

    That's the problem - you're "speechless."

    I have repeatedly asked for a reason why Patrisse Cullors's explanation in the video - in her own words - for why she called herself a "trained Marxist," should not be included in the "‎Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors. It is precisely your being "speechless" that I am objecting to. I have repeatedly asked why this content should not be included in "‎Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors. And you have not given a legitimate reason. You are indeed being "speechless," and that is the problem. Please "speak." Please give a legitimate reason why Cullors's explanation in the video - in her own words - for why she called herself a "trained Marxist," should not be included in "‎Ideology and policy positions" section of Patrisse Cullors.

    Baxter329 (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


    What's wrong with me citing two different New York Times articles which blamed Joe Biden for creating a policy of institutional racism that was ALREADY mentioned in the wikipedia article?
    What's wrong me citing info on the recall of George Gascón?
    The New York Times wrote extensively about the overcrowded housing where the Philadelphia fire occurred. According to the New York Times, three mothers and their 11 children (no fathers were mentioned in the New York Times article) were all living together in a 4 bedroom home. This is relevant because it's what led to the death count being as high as it was.
    Without fossil fuels, we'd still have an average life expectancy of about 30 years.
    The New York Times reported that it was racist to give a literacy test to prospective teachers, so the test was abolished. That's what it said in the New York Times. I even quoted the New York Times word-for-word to make sure I was getting the meaning of the article accurate. Are you saying the New York Times is not a reliable source?
    You posted the wrong diff for my edit on voter ID laws. This is my actual edit. I stand by that edit as well.
    (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

    References

    1. Is Black Lives Matter a Marxist movement?, Politifact, July 21, 2020
    2. Am I A Marxist?, Patrisse Cullors, YouTube, December 14, 2020

    I apologize for posting in the wrong section before.

    I understand that YouTube videos aren't always a reliable source. But the video that I linked to was from Cullors's own channel. I thought that would make it a reliable source.

    I agree that the phrase "trained Marxist" is vague, but if you watch the video, she explains what she meant.

    My other edits all cited reliable sources.

    Someone cited this diff of mine, and said, "I'm particularly concerned by the repeated conflation of anti-semitism and pro-Palestinian sentiment."

    That is not an accurate description of my edit. In my edit, all I said was, "Here are some reliable sources that address this topic," and then I posted some links to reliable sources. I never took any side on the issue involved. I posted those links because I thought they would be useful. I was not taking sides.

    Baxter329 (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


    User:Kire1975 said, "I discovered this issue when I was moved to look into Baxter329's editing by this exchange: Talk:January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation#I_propose_changing_the_name_of_this_article_to_"Media_defamation_of_Covington_Catholic_High_School_students". I agree with DanielRigal. There is a broader pattern of POV editing here. Baxter329 appears to be intentionally WP:NOTGETTINGIT, regularly ignores consensus. If a topic ban is warranted, it would have to cover a lot more than just Black Lives Matter."

    At that link, on 5 December 2021, I started a section on the talk page where I proposed changing the name of an article. I did that because I wanted to hear what other people thought of my proposal. I didn't want to change the name without seeing what other people thought of it. It's been more than two months since I proposed my idea, and so I far have not changed the name of the article. I was waiting (and hoping) for more people to respond.

    Given that I started that section on the talk page because I wanted to hear what other people thought of my idea, I find it very odd that User:Kire1975 uses this as an example of me "ignoring consensus."

    Baxter329 (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


    I am requesting that someone please post a link to a diff where anyone gave me a legitimate reason why the Politifact article should not be cited in "Ideology and policy positions" of the Patrisse Cullors article. I'm not talking about the Black Lives Matter article, where people did link to previous discussions. I'm talking specifically about the "Ideology and policy positions" of the Patrisse Cullors article. Please cite a diff where someone explained to me why the Politifact article should not be cited in the "Ideology and policy positions" of the Patrisse Cullors article. Thank you.

    Here's the content with the link:

    In 2015, Cullors referred to herself as a "trained Marxist." In 2020, after this quote became widely reported across the internet, Cullors went into further detail on the subject in a video that she posted on her own YouTube channel.

    I can understand why the video might not be a reliable source. I thought that since it was Cullors's own YouTube channel, it was a reliable source. If it's not, I understand.

    But there has never been any doubt that Politifact is a reliable source.

    Baxter329 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


    Regarding this edit that I made: There is a huge correlation between life expectancy and the amount of energy a person uses. It doesn't have to be fossil fuels. It could be nuclear, hydro, wind, or solar. But my point is that we do indeed live a lot longer because of our increased use of energy. I would also add that regular garbage collection did not become the norm until we started using fossil fuels. Prior to that, most people just dumped their garbage wherever was most convenient, and so typical cities had massive amounts of garbage everywhere. There's also the fact that fossil fuels brought an end to the huge problem of massive amounts of horse feces being all over the place.

    Regarding this other edit that I made: I quoted a report from NASA. The info that I quoted is highly relevant, and the source is highly reliable.

    Baxter329 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

    References

    1. Is Black Lives Matter a Marxist movement?, Politifact, July 21, 2020
    2. Am I A Marxist?, Patrisse Cullors, YouTube, December 14, 2020

    Statement by EvergreenFir

    I am WP:INVOLVED but I was thinking of bring an AE request against Baxter if they continued their disruption. I support an AP2 topic ban. I will add some more diffs in a couple hours to demonstrate the pattern of disruption by this user. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

    Previous ANI report - Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1090#Baxter_329_WP:GREATWRONGS_WP:NOTFORUM

    POV against liberals, solely negative edits
    Black Lives Matter
    • Perseveration on looting - deserts&oldid= , , , ,
    • Donations investigations -
    • Family structure - ,
    • Antisemitism - , ,
    Racial antagonism?
    Other SYNTH and CIR

    EvergreenFir (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

    Comment - Baxter329, please only comment in your section. Unlike talk pages, this board is set up to have each user/commenter use only their own section and not reply in others' sections. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by DanielRigal

    I discovered this issue when I was moved to look into Baxter329's editing by this exchange: Talk:Rebecca Watson#Defending shoplifting?. I think we may have a broader pattern of problematic POV editing where they are constantly trying to spin sources (see Talk:Food desert#Shoplifting) or just confect complete non-issues (e.g. the issue on Watson's article) into something to support obvious POV narratives and possibly even grudges against BLP subjects. I suspect that this is indicative a general WP:NOTHERE attitude but, if it is not, then WP:CIR becomes the issue. What I don't see is much editing outside of these problematic areas. If they were doing good work in other areas then I'd be happy let them continue with that but, as they are not, I wonder whether there is any point in any sanction other than a block.

    As for the "trained Marxist" thing, I think it is a pretty much meaningless phrase with very unclear implications and I suspect that that is the intent. I also find it funny because it makes Marxism sound like some sort of martial art and inadvertently makes it sound way cooler than it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

    To clarify. I don't think that the "trained Marxist" thing is the main issue here. I think that the other POV editing is far more problematic.--DanielRigal (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Kire1975

    I discovered this issue when I was moved to look into Baxter329's editing by this exchange: Talk:January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation#I_propose_changing_the_name_of_this_article_to_"Media_defamation_of_Covington_Catholic_High_School_students". I agree with DanielRigal. There is a broader pattern of POV editing here. Baxter329 appears to be intentionally WP:NOTGETTINGIT, regularly ignores consensus and WP:SEALIONs. If a topic ban is warranted, it would have to cover a lot more than just Black Lives Matter. Kire1975 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

    Result concerning Baxter329

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • This all seems centered around Baxter329 continually adding "marxist" or "trained marxist" against a well established consensus. I'm a bit confused over how that consensus developed, and could see how the term could be used in a very limited circumstance, but it doesn't matter what I think. The RFC was valid and very clear that the threshold to use that term hasn't been met, not by a lack of sources, but from a lack of the term being properly defined in those sources, as "Marxist" is a bit of a catchall phrase that could mean many things. It seem that Baxter329 was aware of it before inserting it in the article multiple times. So Baxter329, the ball is kind of in your court. Please shed some light on this so we don't have to assume the worst. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
      I totally agree that saying "trained Marxist" in Wiki voice would be a no no, but this is how they described themselves in a reliable interview, so this is a reliable primary source. I don't even know what a "trained Marxist" is supposed to mean. If they refuse to come and discuss, I would be inclined to say a 30 day tban from the topic to start, simply because they knew there was an RFC and they ignored it. You can't just ignore an RFC in contentious areas. If you disagree, you have to take the long way and see it overturned. I prefer to hear from them, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
      The RFC really bugs me. If someone claims their idiology is $x, and you are making a section on idiology of that person, but you get a consensus to NOT put in that fact, a "trained Marxist", that doesn't make sense. It is almost like a bunch of editors are trying to protect her from herself in this article by voting to exclude information that you would THINK is relevant, sourced, and clearly material to the section. We don't have the authority to override the RFC here, but something stinks. That said, Baxter, you MUST abide by a consensus. You can work to get it in front of a bigger audience and form a new consensus, but you can't ignore it. All that said, I'm hard pressed to sanction because something just feels very wrong about this situation. We're being asked to sanction for activity that is usually considered normal. I don't feel I can do that. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:09, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
      Using the term as a self described label, but stating the term isn't well defined, or defined at all is a valid way. Or simply saying Marxist without the meaningless modifier. But withholding information from a bio when the source is clearly primary AND secondary, seems wrong. It seems like sanitizing, whether or not there is a consensus to do it. This doesn't take away from our friend's other problems, but again, something seems off here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Agree with Dennis with the caveat that I can see why "trained Marxist" could be a POV statement. If we fail to hear from Baxter329 some sort of action (a tban from AP2, which is pretty much the only area they edit in?). --RegentsPark (comment) 22:59, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
      @Dennis Brown: "Trained Marxist", as DanielRigal points out, is a meaningless term and should not be used in any article, whether or not someone describes themselves that way (also, a youtube video?). We would definitely need to explain what the term means and would probably need other people to use it before we start taking it seriously. Regardless, I started reading Baxter329's rather confused explanations above and the numerous "I stand by" statements and the frequent homage to NPOV, all lead me toward a support for a NOTHERE block. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Without that RfC, these edits would be within the bounds of normal content editing; given that Baxter329 was aware of that RfC, though, the first diff appears disruptive. I note they have also added the same content to their sandbox after being told of the RfC. I'd like to hear from Baxter329 here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
      I don't necessarily have a problem with someone whose edits reflect "one side" of a debate; it becomes an issue when the edits aren't individually defensible. Some of EvergreenFir's diffs are quite concerning. This, this, and this are all edits not compliant with WP:NOR and/or WP:V. I'm particularly concerned by the repeated conflation of anti-semitism and pro-Palestinian sentiment. With respect to the RfC: Dennis Brown, I don't see how disliking its conclusions in any way invalidates concerns over ignoring prior consensus. The policy on due weight allows for any individual piece of information to be kept out by consensus. If you dislike the result of an RfC, you challenge it, not ignore it. I think a logged warning is the bare minimum here; I would prefer a time-limited AP2 TBAN over a warning or a block, but there's also concerns with Baxter329's ability to respond to what they're being told, and I will not stand in the way of a block. Vanamonde (Talk) Vanamonde (Talk) 01:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      I'm not disagreeing with you in any way. That doesn't change my skepticism over the RFC. Even a bad RFC is expected to be followed until overturned, so again, I'm not arguing against your logic. I am disturbed a bit by the RFC and what, at a casual glance, looks like an unbiased result in that one RFC. But again, I've said he shouldn't have added it when he knew, and the patterns you speak of bother me as well. The RFC bothers me more, but that isn't on the table, I'm simply opining. Loudly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:32, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      That's reasonable, thanks for clarifying. What would you have us do with this request? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      I can't close. I will respectfully accept whatever the consensus is. I get you must do at least a logged warning (they did screw up), and if you do more, again, I will respectfully say nothing. There is just a lot wrong with the situation, enough that I don't feel comfortable slamming the hammer. I don't have a good answer here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      Fair enough. I think I'm going to wait another day, to see if anyone else chimes in; I'd also like to hear from RegentsPark again. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
      I reread their responses above and clicked through to some of the edits that they "stand by" and think a not here block is probably the best alternative. Nothing particularly productive is likely to emerge from this editor except for an overall waste of time. But, perhaps I'm being overly harsh so I'll leave this to you. I do want to commend FDW777 for a textbook AE filing (brief but with the right amount of detail, and easy to read and follow). They should consider giving a masterclass on "Commenting at AE"! --RegentsPark (comment) 00:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I have reviewed the evidence once again. I now think an AP2 TBAN would be inappropriate; the behavioral issues are not confined to AP2. To me, the most concerning diff is this one; it's violating several core policies, implying as it does that CO2 emissions raise human life expectancy, without sources. this isn't great either; it's cherry-picking a fact from a primary source, without context, to imply a positive consequence for humans. There's also a serious listening deficit here. That said, the circumstances that led to this being brough to AE aren't ideal, leading to at least one admin being uncomfortable levying sanctions based on those alone; and absent obvioust consensus I'm torn between a final warning and an indefinite block as an ordinary admin action. So I'm going to give Baxter329 a chance to respond to the life expectancy diff (this one). I would like to hear if they see any problems with that, and if so, how they plan to avoid those in the future. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ypatch

    Appeal declined. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

    Appealing user
    Ypatch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ypatch (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    Indefinite Topic-ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

    Statement by Ypatch

    I am requesting my topic-ban to be lifted or modified.

    I was given a topic ban for my involvement on the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page, where I’m currently taking part in 3 different content disputes:

    • In the second content dispute, I’m at a disagreement with User:Vice regent about how a section in that article should be organized. Since we are at a disagreement, I have proposed that we get others to vote about which version should remain in the article.

    My topic ban concerns “stalling out the consensus-building process”, but I have proposed alternative solutions that have at times been met with violations of the article's Consensus Required Restriction. Nevertheless I have tried to steer arguments towards WP:DR (what I thought we were supposed to be doing in such cases).

    • Vanamonde, I believe a bigger picture is being overlooked, but I don't want to fill this appeal request with whataboutery. I will instead open a separate case in an attempt to explain further. Thanks. Ypatch (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I have now read BANEX. To confirm, am I allowed to make a separate report here about someone else's conduct? It’s difficult to explain my approach in these disputes as an isolated event (takes two to tango). Ypatch (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
    Vanamonde, I didn't come to that conclusion, that is why I was asking. Ypatch (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Iskandar, since the ArbCom case, you have made twice as many edits to the article than I have, which would make you involved. My objections with your edits have been that you have tried to add things like "Holy Warriors" as the MEK's other official names, which it isn’t. In other edits you give a deceptive edit summary saying that "Relocating more Amnesty reporting on government treatment of the PMOI to the appropriate section", but instead you removed sourced material from the article. You removed that the U.S. "designated members of the MEK to be ‘protected persons’ under the Geneva Convention" from the lead, even though this is backed by numerous reliable sources. You also removed that the reasons behind the MEK-Iranian regime conflict from the lead, even though this is backed by numerous reliable sources. You also removed that Khomeini prevented the MEK from running for elections, even though this is backed by reliable sources. Despite warnings, you again violated the article's "Consensus Required" restrictions . Ypatch (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • RegentsPark, without diving deep into the subject, User:Vice regent's edits have involved WP:ARBIRP violations like wikivoicing that the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran is the confirmed culprit behind the assassinations of Paul R. Shaffer, John H. Turner and Louis Lee Hawkins (the article already made clear that there are different suspected culprits surrounding those assassinations). I did not report them to avoid a battleground mentality. Instead, I have been advocating the use of RFCs. Vice regent, on the other hand, was recently warned against civil edit warring, yet recently violated the article's Consensus Required restrictions again . Ypatch (talk) 03:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • A clear reason for my topic-ban has not been given. Mainly for this reason, it is difficult to address it. Ypatch (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Vanamonde93

    I believe that Ypatch's recent contributions to People's Mujahedin of Iran and its talk page are aimed at preventing content they dislike from being included by any means necessary, rather than at discussing disagreement in good faith. This isn't based on any single diff, but on the totality of their recent behavior. I am happy to answer questions from uninvolved admins, but I doubt I will change my mind about this. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

    Ypatch, please read WP:BANEX before you spend a lot of effort on a report about someone else's conduct. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    Ypatch, how did you read that page and come to the conclusion that you are permitted to make a behavioral report against someone else in the area of your TBAN? It's pretty explicit. You may discuss the topic only in the context of appealing your ban, or clarifying its scope. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
    Ypatch, for the last time, you may not discuss the behavior of other editors if it relates to Iranian politics. Seriously, are you not hearing me, or are you trying to provoke a reaction? I'm giving you some leeway because we're discussing your ban at AE, but it will be a block without further warning, next time. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Iskandar323

    I am far from a regular in "post-1978 Iranian politics", and my principle interaction with this page has been to effect a name change in a move request with unanimous support, but, based on my limited experience I would have to agree with Vanamonde93's assessment that the editor in question would benefit from some time away from the subject (as I have in other areas). Ypatch seems to tread a particularly fine line between neutral and tendentious editing with regards to the PMOI, and appears very much overly invested in the subject. In the diffs cited above by Ypatch, which they are presumably upholding as an example of good editing, we see them boiling down existing material on the funding of either terroristic/militaristic activities into a bland statement about funding. You also have them deleting substantial reliable, secondary sources such as Guardian long reads that make use of detrimental terminology about the group, while adding less ironclad/no consensus sources such as Daily Beast material to reinforce sympathetic viewpoints. In the active discussion on names, Ypatch is pushing back against the mentioning of a term that reliable sources say was a standard name for the group prior to the 1990s, at which point the PMOI made an active public relations (PR) push to change its image. Content aside, Ypatch, based on no particular Misplaced Pages policy or guideline (but heavy reference to the discretionary sanctions, and the need for consensus/an RFC to undo anything that they have reverted), takes a position that aligns with that PR. Meanwhile, on Commons, Ypatch has also been trying to bring about the deletion of public domain images that I suppose might arguably be construed as portraying the PMOI in a negative light - here the group's leader meeting with Saddam Hussain. Make of all this what you will. I'll leave it at that, but, as I began, I believe Vanamonde93 is well merited in having concerns over this editor's current ability to edit neutrally in this subject-matter area. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

    @Ypatch: Yes, I did edit the lead. The page is currently tagged as 'lead too long', and likely still requires further shortening. About half of those edits removed material that was inexplicably in the lead despite not being in the body copy, in clear violation of MOS:LEAD, as was clearly stated in my itemised edit summaries. Others were just edits weighing what is likely to be more or less due. Just basic editing really. As no one has reverted any of these diffs, I can only assume that none were objectionable (present company excluded). There has also been no indication from any editors that any of this has violated consensus, so I would request that you desist from this insinuation. In response to your specific personal attack that I made a 'deceptive' edit summary, you are wrong. If you scroll down the diff in question, you will find exactly where the material was relocated to. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ypatch

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

    Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

    Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

    Result of the appeal by Ypatch

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • This sort of a t-ban is very hard to judge because that would involve a deep dive into the article edits and the article talk page. But I did take a look at two threads on the offending talk page (this and this and there is some evidence of what could be disruptive behavior (particularly in the second thread with the not responding and then reverting after someone added/changed the summary). I think it better to defer to accepting Vanamonde93's topic ban, ceteris paribus.--RegentsPark (comment) 00:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Decline WP:NOTTHEM appeal. I can personally attest to the appellant's reoccurring problems in the topic area. See also the log in the former WP:GS/IRANPOL. El_C 14:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Decline appeal - There seems to be good reason to have put the tban in place. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:10, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

    Benyamin2006

    Rendered moot: blocked by User:Black Kite as WP:NOTHERE - a normal admin block - after yet more revert warring.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Benyamin2006

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:20, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Benyamin2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBPIA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 20:41, 8 May 2021 Me, giving discretionary sanctions alert to Benyamin2006, adding "Please especially note that you should not edit controversial areas in the IP-area before you have 500 edits," (they have less than 20 edits, as of writing)
    2. 21:34, 27 February 2022 Benyamin2006; (changing "Palestinian" to "Israeli" in a place occupied by Israel since 1967)
    3. 20:40, 28 February 2022 Me, giving Benyamin2006 a stern warning ("If you do more edits like the one you did at At-Tur (Mount of Olives): expect to see youself reported to WP:AE, This is my last warning,"
    4. 20:38, 28 February 2022 Benyamin2006, repeating the change of "Palestinian" to "Israeli"
    5. 06:17, 1 March 2022 Benyamin2006 change "Palestinian" to "Israeli" on At-Tur (Mount of Olives)
    6. 21:05, 1 March 2022 Benyamin2006 change "Palestinian" to "Israeli" on At-Tur (Mount of Olives)
    7. 21:32, 1 March 2022 Benyamin2006 change "Palestinian" to "Israeli" on At-Tur (Mount of Olives)
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    20:41, 8 May 2021
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


    Discussion concerning Benyamin2006

    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 Benyamin2006

    Statement by Selfstudier

    Continuing to edit war and paying no attention here says it all, I think.Selfstudier (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Benyamin2006

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • With so few edits, it's easy to search their entire history, which is largely edits to change Palestine to Israel or simply adding Israel tags. This seems like a WP:NOTHERE situation, and I'm ready to simply indef if someone doesn't beat me to it. Given the use of "short description" tags and other semi-advanced editing methods, I don't think this is their first account. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Indeffed as WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin block after going on yet another revert war on the same article. Black Kite (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

    Proletarian Banner

    Thank to PB themselves, this was a pretty easy report to handle. Indef blocked, email and talk page revoked, all as a standard admin action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning Proletarian Banner

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Mhawk10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Proletarian Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    The user has broadly and disruptively been engaging in a widespread change of the descriptor used for the Marxist-Leninist states (often the Soviet Union and the Albania) from "communist" to "socialist" across a grand number of articles without seeking consensus. At the time of writing, the user has made 46 edits to the article space, of which 21 have removed mentions of the term "communist" or "communism". This disruptive behavior, which began before they were aware of the sanction, continues after they were made aware.

    Albania:

    1. 29 December 2021 Removing Communist government and replacing it with Socialist Government
    2. 29 December 2021 Removing Communist and replacing it with Socialist
    3. 30 January 2022 Removing communist and replacing it with socialist
    4. 16 February 2022 Removing Communist regime and replacing it with socialist nation
    5. 16 February 2022 Removing communist and replacing it with socialist
    6. 16 February 2022 Removing Communist and replacing it with socialist
    7. 1 March 2022 Removing Communism and replacing it with Socialism
    8. 3 March 2022 Removing Communism and replacing it with Socialism

    USSR:

    1. 17 February 2022 Removing communist regime and replacing it with socialist state
    2. 18 February 2022 Removing communist regime and replacing it with socialist government
    3. 3 March 2022 Removing comunist and replacing it with socialist

    Hungary:

    1. 10 February 2022 Removing communist and inserting socialist

    Multiple countries, including at least one Eastern European or and/or Balkan state:

    1. 30 December 2021 Removing communist in four places and inserting socialist
    2. 30 December 2021 Removing communist and inserting Socialist
    3. 30 December 2021 Removing communist countries and inserting Socialist states
    4. 20 January 2022 Removing communist and inserting socialist
    5. 21 January 2022 Removing communist in three places and inserting socialist
    6. 6 February 2022 Removing communist regimes and inserting Socialist States
    7. 14 February 2022 changing displayed text from fall of Communism to dissolution of most socialist nations
    8. 15 February 2022 again changing displayed text from fall of Communism to dissolution of most socialist nations (though they later self rv)
    9. 2 March 2022 deleting totalitarian communist
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    N/A

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above or this diff.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    The editor is clearly not here to build an encyclopedia in a consensus-based manner and is being rather disruptive across the Eastern European and Balkans topic area. The editor is engaging in clear POV-pushing and repeatedly insists upon using their own definition of communism when writing articles and rejects basically all sources they personally disagree with as being biased right-wingers or by claiming that mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP is all right-wing propaganda. As can be seen in the edit summaries of many of the diffs listed in the diffs section, the user is a WP:POVPUSHer who has been making changes en masse that have by and large shown the editor's inability to engage productively in these areas. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

    Update: the user is also somewhat uncivil, referring to me as an ignoramus and claiming that I write for the Newspaper of Mentally Disabled Persons. I think that sharp discretionary sanctions are warranted. — Mhawk10 (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC) See also: this vandal edit to my userpage. — Mhawk10 (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    diff


    Discussion concerning Proletarian Banner

    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 Proletarian Banner

    Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

    Just block now and save the time and drama. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Lee Vilenski

    Just as a note, due to the recent contributions, I've handed a block to the user to avoid further harasment. Feel free to extend. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 22:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

    Result concerning Proletarian Banner

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • He was blocked for 31 hours by Lee Vilenski, but the real problem is that they were just given an Arb alert today. That doesn't prevent normal admin actions (which Lee did), but it does limit what we can do as AE actions (topic bans, etc). Thems the rules. Needs a closer look and a bit of creativity with standard admin actions, I think. It would help if Lee participated here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
      Duh, just notice Lee did com here (thank you, been a rough day...) and is giving us freedom to modify without consultation, which helps. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)I think looking at the recent contributions, I'd be happy to endorse an indef block, and talk page privileges being removed. My block was more preventative while this gets looked at, as it was clear there was some proper harasment going on. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski 22:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

    Hob Gadling

    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 Hob Gadling

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Hob Gadling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 5 March 2022 Questioned if ScottishFinnishRadish is WP:HERE, which I see as a gross personal attack;
    2. 6 March 2022 Implied the ARBCOM case was started to punish the user and his family and friends and all who supposedly think like them;
    3. 6 March 2022 Accused me and SFR of being out to get the skeptics no matter what and doing something he calls "donalding" (i.e. dodging and/or attacking when someone caught you making a mistake).
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 3 February 2022.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    His continued battleground behaviour and gross incivility even as SFR and I try to discuss the matter as civilly as possible is grossly disruptive to the discussion on SI, and is impeding the resolution of the Skepticism and coordinated editing case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

    Dennis Brown, I fail to see how Hob was "pushed" and would appreciate some clarification there. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the clarification, I see your point. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Bishonen, my intention is not to take out an opponent from a topic, nor did I expect that to be the result of this request. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Bishonen, seeing how editors like Roxy did not receive a topic ban and his conduct was much worse than Hob, I expected a formal warning or reminder along the lines Roxy and I received. Of course, I personally believe both Roxy and Hob to be engaging in a level of personal attacks that should not have and should not be permitted to continue in the way it had or has. However, I understand that arbitration is particularly careful about enforcing sanctions unless necessary, so I did not nor do I expect any serious sanction to come out of this request. Nonetheless, I still believe it should be considered and addressed so that editors don't think they have a free pass to just question others' motives for editing without justification just because the Arbcom case has ended. By "impeding the resolution", I meant that I see the RSN thread as the last step in the whole resolution process (an epilogue, if you will) and by igniting tensions through uncivil comments he is making it more difficult for the issues raised in that thread to be properly discussed. I hope it wasn't understood as me accusing him of disrupting arbcom itself. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    diff

    Discussion concerning Hob Gadling

    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 Hob Gadling

    There is nothing wrong with bringing forth valid arguments for downgrading the SI source, but as soon as bad reasoning is used for that purpose and the refutation of that reasoning sidestepped, the encyclopedia is not being improved. Not retracting bad reasoning is bad behaviour, and I will continue to stand up against it. Criticizing user behaviour is not a personal attack, and neither is pointing out that a certain user behaviour is not helping the encyclopedia. That is what I did.

    <angry comment withdrawn> --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by MrOllie

    Since you brought this discussion up for wider comment: When discussing things 'as civilly as possible' in the future maybe don't help escalate or use phrases like 'petty piss-fighting.' MrOllie (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Shibbolethink

    @A. C. Santacruz, my sincerest advice is to withdraw this case proposal. You seem a very well-reasoned editor with a calm demeanor. Someone who occasionally holds opinions contrary to the tide of the editor base, but who does it with aplomb and kindness. I would say this ARBE proposal is uncharacteristically reactionary.

    1) It appears some of these complaints of behavior arise from @Hob Gadling's essay. It's good to keep in mind that wide latitude is given in user essays, especially in preliminary ones. It's entirely appropriate for HG to collect their thoughts, understand disagreements, and set down what they think. Nothing untoward there.
    2) With regards to comments HG made towards @ScottishFinnishRadish, I see these as benign and part of the normal back and forth of disagreements. The #1 thing I tell users who are transitioning from "new" to "seasoned" (as many of us do, present company included): develop thick skin! When someone is rude (on any side), you don't always have to escalate. In fact, it makes wikipedia worse if you do. Most things can be handled without Admin, without ArbE or Arbcom. They have better things to do than to review this case.
    3) It makes sense if you want to make rights right, wrongs wrong, we all have that inclination. But this is likely not the place. Even if HG was rude (and I'm not sure from the diffs that they were), a certain low level of rudeness is permitted on all sides of any debate, as participants become frustrated. I think it would be an excellent thing if you stuck around here for many moons, and I think not letting such things bother you will help. For your own sanity! When one brings a case here, it should probably be a slam dunk. Otherwise very little is likely to happen. The more fruitless ArbE cases are made against an editor, the less likely each subsequent case is to succeed, in my experience. And even when you do bring what you think is a slam dunk, don't be surprised if nothing happens or little happens. ArbE is still a high bar, even if a lower burden than the drama board.
    4) I think the Skepticism case got a lot of feathers a little ruffled, on the side of proposers wishing/hoping for more drastic measures, and on the side of skeptics/adjacent, who see TBANning of Rp2006 as excessive. It would do us all good to let things lie and resist inherent urges to play out these frustrations on other boards. The debate over SI is not the place to air grievances, nor is it the place to start looking for any and all reasons to score more "points." Not saying you are, not saying anyone is, but noting instead this tendency is perennial on wikipedia. It happens any time a user is TBANned (e.g. I have seen this play out multiple times in COVID origins). It also happens any time a well-crafted and intricately written ArbCom case doesn't go precisely the way one hopes. We must resist this tit for tat tendency, for the sake of the project.
    5) This ArbE proposal has very little merit on the WP:PAGs and should be retracted or dismissed.

    Shibbolethink dismounts ungracefully from the high horse he has no business riding.--— Shibbolethink 17:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by JoJo Anthrax

    The OP's wholly hyperbolic statement here ("His continued battleground behaviour and gross incivility even as SFR and I try to discuss the matter as civilly as possible is grossly disruptive to the discussion on SI, and is impeding the resolution of the Skepticism and coordinated editing case."), and their posts here and here, provide ample justification for quickly declining this case. A. C. Santacruz, please follow the excellent advice of Shibbolethink above and withdraw this case now. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Hob Gadling

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • The diffs you provided don't really show anything sanctionable. Saying "Geez, people, are you really here to improve the encyclopedia?" is benign and I can't see it as a personal attack. I will have to dig and look at the entire discussion to get a fuller picture, later on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Link to discussion for my fellow admins. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    Ok, after reading the entire discussion, I still see no problems. Hob can be a little abrasive when pushed (so can I) but that is hardly unique. We are here to build an encyclopedia, and that means sometimes there is some friction and heat. The worst of it is the above quote, which I see as a question, not a personal attack. In short, I see no merit in this report, and as such, I recommend taking no action in this case. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    A. C. Santacruz"Pushed" should be self-explanatory. It's a heated debate, everyone is pushed. That's why we don't sweat minor things, as the goal isn't perfect etiquette, but solutions. None of this is relevant, however, as you've filed a report, and the key is demonstrating policy violations within an Arb sanctioned area, and you haven't. You've linked to some mild words. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    • A. C. Santacruz, could you please provide actual diffs, rather than whole page versions where it's difficult to find the material you wish to refer to? I've dug it out now, but it's a bit of a bother to have to do that. Please see Misplaced Pages:Simple diff and link guide for how to create diffs. As for your request, "gross incivility" and "grossly disruptive" are gross exaggerations. Taking out an opponent from a topic isn't what discretionary sanctions are for. Bishonen | tålk 13:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC).
    • A. C. Santacruz, thanks for the diffs, that was very prompt. But I'm surprised you say your intention with this request is not to take out an opponent from a topic, nor did you expect such a result. May I ask what you did intend and expect, then? You accused Hob Gadling of being "grossly disruptive to the discussion on SI" and even of "impeding the resolution of the Skepticism and coordinated editing case"? That's strong sauce. If the AE admins had agreed with you that HC was doing that kind of harm (which they don't seem to be doing so far, but you never know) — impeding an arb case! — how could you not have intended/expected a topic ban at the least? I'm baffled. Are you perhaps back-pedalling? Do you wish to withdraw this request? Just asking. Bishonen | tålk 14:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC).

    CapnJackSp

    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 CapnJackSp

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    CapnJackSp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBIPA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    • 16:33, 3 March 2022 Removes the lines "The users of the app utilized the database of citizens categorized using multiple attributes and sent automated hate messages as replies on social media. The phrases in these automated messages were decided in a centralized document to harass prominent persons." from Tek Fog#Automated messaging with the edit summary "rm material covered in detail in the sections above", when the material isn't covered anywhere else in the article.
    • 16:47, 4 March 2022 Removes the same lines with the edit summary, "Added information back that had been removed in my previous edit. Removed the rest of the redundant material. WP:ONUS, W:BRD should be followed by editors wishing to introduce material. Kindly ping me if making a talk section." The edit also introduces the word "centralised" in the section on "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment". Note that the word had never existed there unlike what they claim in the edit summary.
    • 17:13, 4 March 2022 They insist that "the exact same stuff is covered in much more detail in the same section, in the sub sections above it" The sub-section at the time of their second removal contained the lines, "Tek Fog had an extensive centralised database of private citizens with information about their "occupation, religion, language, age, gender, political inclination and even physical attributes like skin tone and breast size." The Wire had received screenshots that showed these parameters. The Wire verified the existence of database by monitoring harassment messages that were sent with extreme granularity to "female journalists", who were among the targeted groups."

    Following this, Venkat TL tells them its not the same and Toddy1 restores the first part (on the link between the automated messages and the database) and removes the unverifiable "centralised" from the section on database of private citizens leaving explanations for both on the talk page (see Talk:Tek Fog § Removal of content from section on Automated messaging).

    • 21:15, 4 March 2022 They demand explanation on how it isn't the same despite one being already provided and it being apparent. I leave a warning on their talk page (User talk:CapnJackSp § March 2022) after seeing all this, where they deny any fault and continue to insist that the material was the same. I eventually restore the second part of it (on the central document of phrases being used for the messages).
    • 16:11, 6 March 2022 They immediately revert and re-introduce the unverifiable "centralised database of citizens" while on their talk page, they make a retaliatory accusation (Special:Diff/1075546791) of "disruptive editing" and state that "The third editor seems to have removed it, which I have added back for your benefit".
    • 17:50, 6 March 2022 Apparently I want to introduce something else altogether, according to them on the article's talk page.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I'd think this is just trolling and WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Note that the account became active on 10 January, commented on the article's AfD pushing for deletion on the same day, and has since been persistent in trying to skim off content, introduce expressions of doubt and badger people on the talk page. The Tek Fog article isn't the only one, there is similar behavior on every article they have significant involvement in; for instance see the retaliatory accusation in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092 § BLP violation by Venkat TL after receiving a copyvio warning in User talk:CapnJackSp § February 2022. The date and time in the above diffs are in IST. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Special:Diff/1075580590

    Discussion concerning CapnJackSp

    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 CapnJackSp

    An apology to the admins - This has gotten elongated to 600 words, and I feel I would be removing relevant material if I cropped out more. Kindly bear with me.

    This seems to me to be a content dispute being brought to DE, but I will nevertheless answer the points raised by Tayi below.

    (As a sort of "background" for points 1-3, this issue cropped up after Venkat TL made an edit to the article, Tek Fog. I saw that the material introduced had been repeated earlier in the article, and removed the sections that had been repeated. Venkat, without discussion, reverted my edit and his edit summary suggested that the onus lay with me for the material - I removed it and reminded him of the current standard procedures at Misplaced Pages.)

    (1) The points about the database and the automated messages being sent were covered in the section "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment" and the first sentence of "Automated messaging". Here, I had also mistakenly removed the point about "centralised document", which I subsequently, in my later edits added back to the article (see point 2).

    (2)Here, I reverted Venkat's edit (which had reinstated the material, without any attempt at following BRD) while addingthe part about the centralised document to the section for the database. The same is reflected in my edit summary, which Tayi seems to have misunderstood. The "centralised document" is explained in the original report by The Wire to be a Google Sheet, and that it was only accessible through the database. The information has now been included in the article with much more clarity.

    (3) The section quoted covers two of the three points - The third being covered by the first sentence of "Automated messaging". No idea what the issue is here.

    (4-6)

    After this, editor Toddy1 pointed out that while the material had been individually covered, the Misplaced Pages article had not linked these two as the cited source had. Toddy and I settled on a version with minor changes after his edit, here.

    A day later, Tayi put a warning on my talk page. I responded politely, and again in more detail when asked. Following this, Tayi, without making any attempt to take up his issues with either Toddy, Venkat or me, reinstated the material. I reverted, pointing out that he needed to discuss before reinstating material removed with consensus. The comment on the talk page refers to the "centralised document" being a google sheet per The Wire - Here I am forced to speculate as Tayi did not engage on the talk page at all despite my ping.

    As both Tayi and Venkat have talked about my ANI report on Venkat, I think I need to clarify. The report was about Venkat repeatedly calling a murder victim a "terrorist" after being asked to stop doing so, a few days after he was reported on ADE by Abhishek0831996 (where he was asked to tone down his rhetoric) and more recently on ANI by Kautilya3. It was pointed out to him (by Kyohi and Chess) there that my report was indeed correct and Venkat was wrong to use such language.

    The report can hardly be misunderstood to be as a "retaliation" when it happened two weeks after the warning, with Venkat and I having multiple constructive discussions in the meantime, ending with both of us reaching a consensus. Venkat's claim that I revolve around his articles, seems to be unfounded - Many spaces I edit are untouched by him, and I haven't edited in many areas he frequents. Our "intersection" lies around topics that are featured prominently in Indian media, where sometimes I edit an article first, and sometimes he does.

    If the admins do want any further clarification, I would be open to them. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

    1. The point about Toddy removing the part about centralised, was referring to him changing the "centralised" to "dynamic cloud" - I added Centralised back later, with citation as Tayi had been asking for it to be included repeatedly on my talk page. I do not understand why he was offended by it. As a note to admins, my last two messages in my talk page discussion with Tayi have been moved out of order by Tayi, presumably to preserve the continuity of Tayi's comment. They are replies to separate paragraphs, as in

    Statement by Venkat TL

    I am an involved user as CapnJackSp has multiple disputes with me and has targeted me on admin boards.

    I agree with the observation by the admin User:Black Kite on ANI case that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build. But the case for Boomerang did not get enough traction there.

    So far I have tried my best to assume good faith with CapnJackSp but I have become tired by the incessant sealioning and tendentious editing by this user. Some of which are borderline trolling. Tendentious editings of whitewashing and censoring reliably sourced information. CapnJackSp's edits on Misplaced Pages mostly revolve around the articles that I have created/edited, associated talk pages, and admin boards where he comments only to target me. I can add individual diffs, but they are all available on this Xtools page.

    Based on the talk page interactions, I cannot decide if this is competency related issue or deliberate refusal to follow the policies like Copyright violations, close paraphrasing and edit warring. He argues ad nauseam and is a total time sink for the wikipedia contributors. I will welcome some action. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning CapnJackSp

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions Add topic