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

Casperti ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Casperti ( talk) 20:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Sanction being appealed

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan, here: [8] based on the comments of a user (Aman Kumar Goel) on El_C talk page here: [9] because of my edit here: [10]

Administrator imposing the sanction

El_C ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[11]

Statement by Casperti

1 March: Dear @ Swarm:, @ The Blade of the Northern Lights:, @ Johnuniq:, @ El C: and others;

I hope you are all doing well. I am writing a shorter appeal for my TBAN, my apologies for the last appeal. It was indeed too long. I have a personal natural tendency to write longer paragraphs.

As stated in my TBAN template, the Admin believed I have been against a consensus and have repeated my behaviour, since the reporter claimed as such. According to the talk page (which you can check) I have not been against the consensus at all since there was no consensus (2 vs 3). Secondly, the claim that I have violated the previous reasons for my TBAN (edit warring/attacks) is not true since I only made this 1 edit based on a WP:DRN here [diff] and acted upon the advice to solve the 2 year-long dispute and opened a DRN. To delete this “interview source” claiming 3.2M Pashtuns [12] 
Furthermore I opened this DRN to solve this dispute with the Editor who added the source in the first place. Dispute for the source’s reliability is going on for 2 year:

• Talk page 2019: Talk:Pashtuns/Archive_19#Edit_warring_and_unreliable_source_being_forced_into_this_article
• Talk page 2020: Talk:Pashtuns/Archive_20#Infobox
• WP Reliability board RSN 2020: [13]
• WP:DRN 2021 on where I Acted: [14]

Regarding the WP:SYNTH question: I have reinstated the Indian census source that was used for 10 years before this source addition in 2019 see intervals, : 2019 Jan [15] (worth to mention India notes Language for ethnic measurements in their censuses and it is used for every ethnic group of India for counting)

Based on the dispute resolution board advice I made this edit out of good faith based on advice and in order solve. I have not violated anything given by the reasons above. the Report that led to the TBAN was missing much information.

In light of these facts, I request a reconsideration of the decision about my TBAN.

I greatly appreciate you taking time to read this and the attached diffs. I am happy and ready to discuss this further incase of any questions.

Respectfully,

Casperti ( talk) 12:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Answer to @ Rosguill:, Something important to note is that I actually advocated for a " ^{better source needed}" template in the talk page of 2020 [16], that was the preference. And that the dispute was regarding the deletion (and reliability) of the "interview source of 3.2M", since 2019 (you can check it) and not about the Indian census. Since the Indian census source was the previous source used, I reinstated it but I do not care if it gets replaced since the main problem was the WP:RS of the interview source. Important to note is that India does only measure it's ethnicities/ethnolinguistics by language and never by race/ethnicity, that is whole issue here actually (you can check it for any ethnicity in India, only this is used). So briefly, the deletion of the 3.2M source was the dispute. Forgot to highlight this in my statement, many thanks in advance. regards. Casperti ( talk) 16:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Answer to @ Rosguill:, Thanks for your comments. I do not want to come over as a “Bad guy” since I am certainly not. I only wanted to solve the dispute regarding the interview source. I think there is a misunderstanding. Look here [17], in the RSN we wanted to have a “Better source needed” template. And that language census source was the previous source before this 3.2M “interview source” was added in which I also mentioned in the RSN. So, whatever the case the source of the 3.2M Pashtun figure was stamped unreliable. I only reinstated the source. Besides, again India does not have a census for ethnicity since that is forbidden. Therefore they carry out language censuses. You can check here South_Asian_ethnic_groups#Indo-Aryan_people & Demographics_of_India#Ethnic_groups and click on any random Indian ethnic group. We only have the Indian lang census source for ethnicity counts. I did not have bad faith in mind for performing this edit, is there a way we can have a better solution because now the issue still stands (so does that unreliable source) and I come over as a “bad person”. Since, it is my main topic. Isn’t it a harsh punishment? Remember all the information that I gave in the appeal was not told by the reporter who reported to El_C. That is the main reason I wanted to appeal. Is there a way to solve this? @ Rosguill: @ Swarm:. Or should we wait for more commenters? since I shortened the appeal the others have not seen it yet. Many thanks in advance. Casperti ( talk) 21:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by El_C

First, seeing this lengthy appeal, it does remind me of the sort of filibustering which prompted me to tell the appellant on my talk page that I expect better reading comprehension from them (having had to do so on more than one occasion). Regarding the reasons behind their (2nd, this time, indef) topic ban, I don't really have much more to add at this time beyond linking to the discussion on my talk page ( here) and my sanction notification text itself ( here). If any other reviewers of this appeal have any further queries for me, please don't hesitate to ask (and also ping). El_C 21:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Casperti, I mean this with the best intention, because I don't think your appeal will succeed (I'm basing that on the 7 or so AE appeals concerning my actions which were filed during the last month or so, all declined) — but your appeal seems emblematic of the same problems that editors had with you, in addition to your re-insertion of SYNTH data after it was clearly deemed as such by all of the other participants. That problem, again, is all of this filibustering and your overall tendency to WP:BLUDGEON, at length. I submit to you that so long as you are unable to condense your appeal to its salient points, it basically amounts to a collective waste of everyone's time. El_C 17:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Casperti, sure, sure. Not trying to badger you, really. What I am trying to say (still), just in a breath, is that condensing your appeal further to concise summaries (and paragraph breaks) supported by a detailed collection of relevant diffs, would be in your best interests. I'm basing that assertion on my ample experience in all matters AE. I'll stress that I don't mind being proven wrong, believe it or not (truly), so, if you do have a case, I'd rather see it presented skillfully than less so (i.e. rather than in a way that would contribute to it otherwise faltering).

I'm just saying that, though it doesn't happen often, there are AE appeals that are declined virtually without comment, simply with a closing note that says: since nobody has shown interest in the appeal, it is declined. So, that has happened before, and I would rather it wouldn't here. I'd much prefer for it to be reviewed. Now, it's only been a few days, so hopefully, it doesn't. But maybe help even the odds by condensing and amending, is all I'm saying. One final note about something I just noticed. Above, you've written : hopefully it is not personal from El_C side towards me. I'd like to clarify that, not only isn't any of this personal for me, but I didn't even remember who you were (I don't mean that unkindly, I just didn't), and had to refresh myself with the background. I mean, I've blocked close to 8,000 users, I only remember the details of a very small number of them (obviously). El_C 16:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Casperti

Result of the appeal by Casperti

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

• @ Casperti: The notice at your talk included "I don't know what you're thinking by repeating that 21,677 piece of SYNTH, even after it was explained to you by multiple participants at Talk:Pashtuns/Archive_20#Infobox that it was in error." That concerns your 12 February 2021 edit at Pashtuns which changed the Pashtuns population in India from 3,200,000 to 21,677. I find this incident to be very confusing but that seems to be the central issue. Your statement above lacks focus and I find it hard to follow. I think you are saying that the DRN close justified your edit because the close said that a quote from a person is not a WP:RS for census information. That might justify removing 3,200,000 (I agree that using an advocate's number is inappropriate in an infobox) but I see no acknowledgment of the WP:SYNTH problem, namely that the number of Pashtuns is not the same as the number of Pashto-speakers. Unless I am missing something in the rambling statement above I would decline the appeal because even if the edits were good, it is necessary that someone repeating edits in a contentious topic is able to communicate concisely and engage with key issues. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• TL;DR. If anything, this borderline stream of consciousness appeal reinforces the need for this topic ban; unloading gigantic walls of text on talk pages is hugely disruptive. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 19:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Glad it's not just me who finds this appeal rambling and incoherent. Casperti, no offense, but we don't have all day to read excessive, rambling walls of text. This is a CIR issue, you need to learn to be concise. If you want something, just say what you want and why we should give it to you. If you're confused about something, just ask the question without a massive wall of text. Walls of text are disruptive and are actually several different types of policy violations. I would decline this, for lack of a coherent appeal. If the user can formulate a more reasonable, coherent appeal, they can submit a new appeal. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I've looked into this more now, and it's a bit of a tough case. The argument that the census info he was trying to insert is useless, that seems pretty straightforward. That being said, was the info he was removing reliably sourced to begin with? That's another story. Casperti seems to have done the right thing here, he took it to RSN and DRN, where the only feedback he got was that it wasn't a reliable source. True, he didn't get a lot of feedback, and he didn't get a consensus, but the feedback he got rejected the info he removed. Is the census info a good substitute, no, but is the other figure good if multiple uninvolved editors are opining that they don't think it's coming from a reliable source? Was Casperti perhaps wronged by these uninvolved editors for definitively stating that the source was not reliable? Perhaps. There doesn't seem to be a consensus one way or the other. Substituting it the census info may have been the wrong answer, but there is a bit of backing to where he's coming from if no other sources exist. Then again he was already sanctioned for POV-pushing in the topic area. I don't know. To me the aggravating and mitigating factors break even. I guess I'd err on the side of an unban, given the fact that he received ample uninvolved third-party advise conclusively telling him that the figure was unreliably sourced and that census info is preferred. Even if that advice was not fully informed. I'm not saying he did nothing wrong, but it was one edit and there's enough here to give him the benefit of the doubt. I'd be inclined to throw him some more rope, to further reinforce the need for a TBAN if nothing else. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 22:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Rosguill: Fair points. I certainly trust your instincts. I'm fine with a decline, while allowing for an appeal in a few months, on the condition that Casperti can demonstrate constructive editing in other areas. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• Reviewing this now that the appeal has been made significantly shorter, I'm inclined to decline. There still doesn't seem to be any recognition that the problem with their use of the Indian census source is the conflation of the Pashtun ethnicity with speakers of the Pashto language. The discussions that Casperti cites to establish that consensus is on their side seem to me themselves somewhat problematic, as the framing Casperti uses in the RSN and DRN discussions appears to misrepresent the nature of the underlying dispute. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  While acknowledging the concerns raised by Swarm, I think I take a less favorable view of the RSN and DRN discussions because of Casperti's use of leading questions that misrepresented the dispute. Setting that aside, there's still the serious concern that Casperti reinstated content that conflated language proficiency with ethnic group membership despite that equivalence having already been contested in discussion. Stating now in this appeal that they are fine with other editors removing the census source in favor of another RS does not negate the original problems with misrepresenting the source. I am still of the opinion that this request should be declined, although I'd be happy to hear an appeal in a few months provided that Casperti is able to make constructive edits elsewhere in the meantime. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Absent other opinions, I am going to decline an appeal in about a day.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 11:23, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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 BirdZilla

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2

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

1. 10 March 2021 Removes sourced, consensus-approved material from the lede of Ben Garrison.
2. 10 March 2021 Engages in edit-warring to continue to remove the material, even when reminded of consensus for that material.
3. 10 March 2021 Declares their intent to edit-war this material indefinitely.

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 by Doug Weller in January 2021: [21].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

BirdZilla is effectively a single-purpose account; 19 of their 25 total edits are related to Ben Garrison, beginning with an edit-war to remove far-right from the article lede.

Contrary to their declarations, a consensus at an RFC they themselves opened supports the sourced description of Garrison as "alt-right". That RFC contains three users supporting "alt-right", one supporting "far-right" (which BirdZilla had previously objected to), and one inconclusive but which did not support either.

This is far from the strongest RFC consensus, but when the RFC an editor opens comes to a result that they disagree with, the solution would be to request a broader RFC, or more participation. What BirdZilla decided to do was disappear from the encyclopedia for a month and a half, before reappearing today to simply edit-war that same material again.

Out of their 14 total article-space edits on Wikipedia, nine of them are reverts on Ben Garrison.

I submit that this behavior is not compatible with continued editing in the American politics space, and request an indefinite topic ban from Ben Garrison, broadly construed. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 00:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Again, starting an edit war is not a valid remedy for an RFC that you disagree with. You have lots of valid options to pursue; revert-warring with false declarations and personal attacks of "dishonesty" leveled toward other editors is not one of them. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 00:51, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 00:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Discussion concerning BirdZilla

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 BirdZilla

I'll do my best to address this then.

I stumbled across the article on Garrison a while back, and was somewhat shocked that the artist was described as "far right". "Pro-Trump" could certainly be supported, but "far right" struck me as more of a smear. I checked the page sources, and indeed none of those sources supported such a label - it appeared to have been quietly injected in an older edit. I attempted to remove this, only to find that NorthBySouthBaranof showed up to repeatedly revert my changes without any discussion whatsoever. A similar pattern occured with some other users, who insisted that "far right" was supported despite none of the sources actually saying this if you read them.

I raised this issue on the talk page. Eventually this was changed to 'alt-right' with at least some attempt at sourcing, though I noted that sources which use "alt right" are in the extreme minority. The editors were essentially cherry-picking sources with what they wanted to say. Within the talk discussion NorthBySouthBaranof was again dismissive and suggested an RFC, which I did. The RFC did not seem to get much attention. NorthBySouthBaranof was unsurprisingly for alt-right, two users also supported this (though more from their personal opinions than what the sourcing said), and two others were against - three if you included myself. I understood that RFCs are not a straight vote, so the lack of any real discussion was a let down. I left the article as-is hoping that eventually someone else would come along.

During this, multiple users have attempted to alter the wording with various alternatives. I've also tried myself, only to be immediately reverted by North once again. I'm sorry, but trying to declare a split vote to be a consensus in your favour is just ridiculous.

What's important here is that Garrison, the subject matter, has had his work deceptively edited by third parties to imply support for positions he rejects. Considering that Garrison has publicly denounced the groups in question, labelling him as "alt right" is particularly outrageous. I'm not sure if there's a Wiki policy on this, but it is worrying if there isn't.

Regarding my account, I've had it a few years but I don't edit Wikipedia often. The sheer effort I've had to put in on this one small matter against editors who show little will to engage doesn't make this a single-purpose account. It should not be so difficult to get extremely dubious statements corrected, but considering the hostile reception it's not surprising that the only users who tried to tackle this problem have been new to editing and quickly pushed out. Indeed, I hold that NorthBySouthBaranof's raising of this case is more of an attempt to keep control over the article by slinging administrators at any new user who challenges his control over areas of the site. To my understanding a user is allowed to revert 3 times per day, and thus I did not exceed that in the article. I did however want to support another user's proposal which had, once again, been immediately reverted without consideration. I went through the talk page and RFC systems without much engagement, so I feel I've done everything as I should. I doubt that a random scattering of newer editors could really challenge the one or two established users who are so keen to mould the article as they desire, but it was worth a try.

@ GorillaWarfare: I did not simply ignore the discussion. While one of the respondants suggested "far right" or "pro-Trump" in bold, their full comment made note that it's not appropriate to sling the term around without strong sourcing and so would be unwise. The policy link is appreciated, and I would highlight that the policy is use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources - which would be "Pro-Trump", instead of selectively including sources to push "alt-right". So I do maintain that the RFC was inconclusive and doesn't support blindly shutting down any attempt at revision. BirdZilla ( talk) 01:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ GorillaWarfare: I agree that trying to revert North was the wrong direction to take, but reading the RFC responses carefully I don't think I'm unjustified in concluding that there was not a firm consensus for "alt right". I do see that users are now searching for more sourcing to support alt-right in response to this being disputed further, but if you're having to go out of your way to find sources which say what you want, while ignoring countless others which don't support your desired wording, that's really not an attempt at representing what's most commonly found in the sources. On the contrary, I feel that North and others are overinterpreting a limited discussion to feed what they desire for the article. One user suggesting that "alt right" is a fair descriptor because they'd personally describe half of the US population as "alt right" really isn't compelling. BirdZilla ( talk) 16:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ GorillaWarfare: If I'm being repeatedly accused of "editing against consensus", then I have every right to defend myself on the basis that there isn't actually a consensus. I think I'm done with editing at this point, it seems clear that the editorial process on anything remotely political is just a farce. BirdZilla ( talk) 17:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Rosguill: I would say that it's proved difficult to get newer users to engage on the talk page. Despite many people trying to improve the wording most are immediately pushed out by the way these editors zealously revert changes. Honestly I think I'll just step away from the article. It sucks for Mr Garrison but it's been a strong lesson in how Wikipedia struggles with contentious subjects. BirdZilla ( talk) 01:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Beyond My Ken: You'll find that there's no relation between myself and all the other accounts. I expect what you're seeing is other users who don't usually edit trying to correct what they view as an egregious mistake. I still don't regard the RFC as providing a clear consensus, and so was taken aback to see North declaring consensus based on it in order to suppress other users' attempts at fixing the article. Regarding "sheer effort", my point was that a newer user going through the expected motions to dispute content doesn't make them a single purpose account. BirdZilla ( talk) 13:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Personally, I'd like to know if there is any connection between Birdzilla and H 19rayy or the indef blocked editor Imtransilovebiden, both of whom made similar edits. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

And user 218 forever as well. What is the connection between these 4 accounts, 3 of which have only edited Ben Garrison. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 06:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not terribly sympathetic about the "sheer effort" Birdzilla had to put into this dispute: when you edit against consensus, you're asking for people to object to your editing. It's clear that Birdzilla knew what the result of the RfC was, and so knew they were, indeed, editing against a formal consensus. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 02:52, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning BirdZilla

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

• It is misleading to describe the talk page discussion as a "split vote". Participants in the talk page discussion, excepting yourself and one who left a general comment, have all supported describing him as either alt-right or far-right, and that there was not solid agreement on which of those two descriptors should be used does not mean the term should be removed entirely. I understand that you disagree with the way the discussion went, but that does mean you can simply ignore it. If you think the RfC did not get sufficient participation, you can relist it.
  As for your question about a policy existing, I think you may be looking for MOS:IDENTITY: When there is a discrepancy between the term most commonly used by reliable sources for a person or group and the term that person or group uses for themselves, use the term that is most commonly used by recent reliable sources. We quite regularly refer to people using terms that they have said they do not use for themselves—many white nationalists, for example, do not self-identify as such ( WP:MANDY).
  Regarding your comment that To my understanding a user is allowed to revert 3 times per day, you are misunderstanding WP:3RR somewhat: "While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a block.... The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." (bolding in the original). GorillaWarfare  (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Your interpretation of the results of the discussion appears to be colored by your own personal views on what the outcome ought to be, which is why we prefer the results of RfCs to be determined by outside parties. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
    • BirdZilla's continued insistence that their actions were reasonable because "I still don't regard the RFC as providing a clear consensus", and describing NorthBySouthBaranof's reverting of edits that contradicted the RfC as "suppress[ing] other users' attempts at fixing the article" makes me think a warning will not be sufficient here. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
      • reading the RFC responses carefully I don't think I'm unjustified in concluding that there was not a firm consensus for "alt right". You are focusing on this, but you were not warring between the various supported terms at the talk page—you were removing "alt-right" to war in "libertarian", which it appears only you really supported. Please remember that AE is about your behavior, and not about relitigating the RfC. The time for discussing the strengths of arguments would have been before deciding to edit war, by beginning a new discussion and/or seeking outside opinions. It is concerning to me that you are continuing to justify your behavior, and does not give me faith this won't happen again.
        I think a partial block from Ben Garrison is the minimum action here; given BirdZilla's limited editing history it's hard to say if something broader like an AP2 topic ban is necessary. My instinct is no at this point in time, but it's probably worth noting to BirdZilla that if no such TBAN is put in place, continuance of this behavior on similar articles will almost certainly result in one. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
        • @ Rosguill: Fair point, I think that's reasonable. I'll plan to leave this discussion open for a while for any additional input, unless you want to action it sooner. GorillaWarfare  (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• ( edit conflict) I think it's pretty clear from the state of the talk page that edit warring against the current wording is disruptive. At this point in a content dispute, it would be appropriate to join a discussion started by another editor (such as the ones BirdZilla mentions in their statement) or if additional new evidence is found. Edit warring once an RfC has concluded, even if in support of edits made by a previously uninvolved editor, is disruptive. If I'd come across this behavior on my watchlist, I would probably have issued a temporary partial block from Ben Garrison. But since this has made it's way to AE and BirdZilla is making a good faith effort to participate, if they promise to stop edit warring I think this could potentially be resolved with a warning. Otherwise a topic ban is warranted. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  I agree with GorillaWarfare that the responses here unfortunately don't inspire confidence that a warning will be enough. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  GorillaWarfare, I think a TBAN from Ben Garrison, broadly construed and with the additional warning regarding escalation that you suggest, is probably the way to go here. Implementing it as a p-block at this point would just create unnecessary gray area around content related to Ben Garrison elsewhere. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• At this point, I think an AP2 topic ban is necessary. The interpretation of that RfC is clearly tendentious; no reasonable person could read that and think "libertarian" was the consensus outcome. If BirdZilla could gain some experience editing in less fraught areas and learn a bit more about how things are done here, we could revisit whether the ban is still necessary after some time has passed if they want to appeal at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• I agree with Seraphimblade that a topic ban makes the most sense here -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• The evidence shows that BirdZilla should be topic banned from the topic of Ben Garrison, broadly construed. However, BirdZilla has a total of 31 edits, consisting of 6 from 2015 to 2020 and 25 in 2021 (all of the 2021 edits being related to Garrison). The point of that is that there is no evidence regarding how this editor might approach AP2 topics other than their approach regarding Garrison. Therefore, I support an indefinite AP2 topic ban. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

J.Turner99 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – J.Turner99 ( talk) 21:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Sanction being appealed

topic banned from editing or discussing anything to do with the post-1992 American politics topic area (WP:AP2) for 6 months, broadly construed

Administrator imposing the sanction

El_C ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[22]

Statement by J.Turner99

All I can do is say I have no intention of doing it again. There is no way for me to prove this with out a topic unblock. I now understand that the 3RR rule is not an entilement to revert. I also understand I shoud've of listened to warnings. I was foolish and I did not.

With all due respect, I don't understand what is wrong with saying "foolishly". I have said I am sorry. I have no intention of editing anywhere else, so you have banned me from the whole site as far as I am concerned.

I understand the point of these blocks is to prevent damage to wikipedia. I have said sorry and have said I will not do it again, this feels more like a punishment. J.Turner99 ( talk) 22:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

"By your very own admission", this suggests you are trying to catch me out or something. J.Turner99 ( talk) 22:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

To reply to Jaybee. You said it yourself, my edits on other areas are fine. J.Turner99 ( talk) 22:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

The reasons are not self-evident J.Turner99 ( talk) 23:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I have always edited constructively in all other topics. J.Turner99 ( talk) 23:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by El_C

J.Turner99, you were warned ( diff), gave the impression you understood the warning ( diff), but then failed to follow through on that promise, by your very own admission, "foolishly" ( diff). Therefore, you've lost some trust and now you should try to earn it back by editing any one of the millions of articles that do not fall under the WP:AP2 purview for a not inconsiderable (but not that prohibitive, either) length of time. Not sure why you view this as such a hardship, considering the circumstances. El_C 21:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

J.Turner99, neither did I say that there was anything "wrong" with you saying "foolishly," nor am I trying to use your own words as a means to trap you. I topic banned you so as to prevent further disruption from you to this fraught topic area. Again, you've lost trust, which now you need to earn back. I can't help that all you're interested in editing is post-1992 American politics. That isn't something that is within my control, but regardless, it isn't a valid reason to lift the sanction. If nothing else on the project interests you, then that is indeed unfortunate. Anyway, if other admins here do feel that your assurances are enough for you to immediately return to editing the topic area, then that is what will be. Not sure there's much else to it, really. El_C 22:29, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by JayBeeEll

This is silly and obviously premature. J.Turner99 should edit constructively on other topics for a while. Also it would be great if they would try to understand what the phrase "assume good faith" actually means, since they chronically fail to do it while demanding that others do so. Also, for the convenience of others, here's the relevant discussion on ANI. -- JBL ( talk) 22:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by Bilorv

J.Turner99 says I have said sorry and have said I will not do it again. Unfortunately, as I said on their talk page to a similar statement, this is not an explanation in your own words of what you did wrong and what measures you will take to avoid such behavior in future (which is needed because without this crucial step what often happens is someone is unbanned, does the same thing again immediately, and then says "but it was different this time!" because they didn't actually understand what they did wrong). J.Turner99 has expressed very little understanding of what behavior they did that was wrong (though this is a small step in the right direction), so any reassurances "I will not do it again" are not based on a shared knowledge of what "it" is. Even in the filing of this appeal they display a thoroughly superficial reaction to all criticism levelled against them: El_C said you have the option of immediately appealing [...] Maybe it will go your way, though I tend to doubt it [23] and J.Turner99 then said I have done as you suggested, and appealed [24]. Except that El_C is explicitly not suggesting this as a desirable course of action, only a permitted one. — Bilorv ( talk) 23:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by J.Turner99

Result of the appeal by J.Turner99

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

• I would choose to decline this appeal for reasons that are likely self-evident. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Decline, there's enough concerning behavior identified in the ANI case such that I think the onus is now on J.Turner99 to demonstrate that they can edit constructively in less contentious areas before returning to AP. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:28, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• I would decline the appeal. The editor here had plenty of opportunity and warning to stop edit warring before the sanction was applied. Given that, I don't give much credence to an immediate promise not to do it again. The ban is for a limited period of time, so gain some experience editing in less contentious subjects for those six months, and then if you wish to return to AP2 after them, hopefully that will be without any further problems. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• I would decline -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 05:28, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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 Lilipo25

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Newslinger ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

Lilipo25 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

1. 02:35, 12 March 2021: Discriminatory screed on user talk page, including the text "Nonbinary is made-up bullshit for people who desperately want to be able to say they're oppressed minorities when they aren't. Everyone on earth is either male or female (and if your only priority when it comes to women's rights is people with dicks but you still call yourself a feminist, you're almost certainly the former). Wikipedia may accommodate your need to feel special, but biological reality never will." For context, Lilipo25 was banned from interacting with Newimpartial on 28 February 2021. Newimpartial identifies as non-binary on their user page as of 21 February 2021, which Lilipo25 had previously acknowledged on 27 February 2021. This 12 March comment also includes aspersions directed against me, Armadillopteryx, Black Kite, Chillabit, and DanielRigal.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 28 February 2021: Interaction ban with Newimpartial (two-way converted from one-way), applied as a discretionary sanction in the gender and sexuality topic area ( log)

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on 28 February 2021 by El_C ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I submitted a report on certain aspects of Lilipo25's conduct in the gender and sexuality topic area to the Arbitration Committee on 3 March, and was told that it is being considered. Since the report involves off-wiki evidence provided by other editors, I am unable to discuss many of the details in a public venue per WP:PRIVACY. However, while the status of the report is presumed to be pending, Lilipo25 is continuing to attack other editors on-wiki, as shown in the 12 March edit above.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/1011697042

Discussion concerning Lilipo25

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 Lilipo25

That comment has nothing to do with Newimpartial, who isn't the only person in the world to claim 'nonbinary' as a personality because they don't have one worth relying on. Now stop pinging me and leave me alone, Newslinger. Or ban me. Or delete my account or whatever, I don't give a shit.

Humans can't change sex and every human on earth is either male or female. Reality is less scary than you think. Lilipo25 ( talk) 09:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by Black Kite

I'd suggest this might be better at ANI, as it's fairly obviously become a WP:NOTHERE issue now. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Girth Summit

Please note that I have blocked Lilipo25 for 72 hours for the above comment, which I interpret as a personal attack against the person they are IBanned with. I have no view on the original request, this block is purely about this comment, seen above. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:00, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Result concerning Lilipo25

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

• So, after having an AE complaint filed for transphobic personal attacks, this editor comes to the AE to make more transphobic attacks against an editor with whom they have an interaction ban. Quite honestly, I cannot think of a reason not to just flat out indef block as a regular administrative remedy, for severe personal attacks and NOTHERE. If not that, a complete topic ban from gender and sexuality related topics would certainly be in order. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:04, 12 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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 SpicyBiryani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Aman.kumar.goel ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

SpicyBiryani ( 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:ARBIP

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

Since his return from a 3 months topic ban from WP:ARBIP:

1. 4 December 2020: Removes "thenews.com.pk" with false edit summary "figures are Indian claims".
2. 20 January Unsourced WP:OR and marks such a major edit as 'minor'. Not sure how I forgot to add this diff earlier. Aman Kumar Goel ^{( Talk)} 11:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
3. 25 January 2021: Changes "93,000 captured" to "90,368 captured" by marking such a major edit as 'minor' and inserts false edit summary that "Pakistani POW count now matches the rest of the page", despite the lead mentions "Approximately 90,000[36] to 93,000 Pakistani servicemen were taken prisoner by the Indian Army".
4. 20 February: Falsely accused me of adding "unsourced figures to the infobox", and when he was provided clarification and additional sources, he still fails to agree with the validity of the "93,000" figure.
5. 23 February: Misrepresents source and makes the edit without edit summary.

   • SpicyBiryani: "Pakistan gained control of roughly a third of Kashmir ( Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan), whereas India retained the rest ( Kashmir Valley, Jammu and Ladakh)."
   • BBC source: "To the west of the ceasefire line, Pakistan controls roughly one third of the state."

6. 21 February: Adds report from months back to decide about a conflict that is currently on-going and has gone through series of changes including widely reported " complete pullout". See WP:CIR.
7. 23 February Doubles down with his WP:OR. Claims that thenews.com.pk is a "random article from 2014" and asking me "how exactly is GlobalSecurity not a reliable source". See RSN discussion for globalsecurity. In this message he also mocked me by imitating my earlier message ("Your personal research does not carry weight here.") by saying "assumption you made is your own personal WP:OR and carries no weight here". See WP:BATTLE. Aman Kumar Goel ^{( Talk)}

@ El C: One of the discussions I linked above is from RSN, and now I would link another one from Military noticeboard. Both discussions agreed that Globalsecurity.org is not reliable and also showed that it has been subjected to undisputed mass removals after these discussions. [25] [26] Having observed these edits earlier, this is why I claimed that globalsecurity.org is not reliable. The website itself notes: "While we make every effort to ensure that the information on this site is accurate and up to date we accept no responsibility whether expressed or implied for the accuracy, currency and completeness of the information."

But I would like to know how SpicyBiryani concluded below that RSN discussion showed the website to be reliable? This is further evidence of comprehension issues of SpicyBiryani.

Since this report, SpicyBiryani has continued to make problematic edits. Here is yet another recent diff where this user added "most neutral sources rejected this claim." Of course, none of the sources they cited stated or even implied this conclusion. This is the kind of Original Research/ WP:SYNTH that is explicitly barred under the policy. Whereas one of the sources they cited said "India’s latest release of information is interesting, but it remains too circumstantial and limited to put the issue of whether or not the IAF shot down an F-16 to rest for good". [27] Aman Kumar Goel ^{( Talk)} 13:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

• Topic banned for 3 months WP:ARBIPA on June 2020. [28]
• Blocked for violating the topic ban on June 2020. [29]

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

[30]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note, that this account has only 107 edits. Aman Kumar Goel ^{( Talk)} 16:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[31]

Discussion concerning SpicyBiryani

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 SpicyBiryani

NOTE: Since the above request was modified after I made this statement, the numbering here may be slightly off. Refer to this diff to match the old numbers. SpicyBiryani (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Infobox: See this diff. ^[1]

6: Here are some excerpts from the RSN discussion on GlobalSecurity.org, which is what I based my argument on:

• It is a reliable source. It is used by the mainstream media as a source, it is cited in 240,000 books in Google books and by 17,600 articles in Google scholar. It has a page showing support from third parties[82] and despite its disclaimer for errors, bills itself as "reliable source of background information and developing news stories in the fields of defense, space, intelligence, WMD, and homeland security."[83] Its director is John Pike, a leading expert.
• Examples from NYT of links to globalsecurity.org: 2014: An NYT "editor and researcher" selected reference to the site as a resource on Iran's Guardian Council, Also in 2014 as a resource on Pakistani ISI director Ahmed Shuja Pasha, 2013: globalsecurity "Iranian rocket expert" cited in NYT article, 2012: Cited as a "defense website" for historical information on a US military exercise. There are several other references that can be found by searching globalsecurity.org on NYT. Washington Post has used them more recently: 2016, 2015, 2014. Reuters has most recently used globalsecurity as a source in 2016, CNN in 2015 and Fox in 2016
• globalsecurity.org is cited in:

1. Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War / Oxford University Press
2. Gulf Military Forces in an Era of Asymmetric Wars / Preager
3. Handbook of International Electrical Safety Practices / Wiley-Scrivener

• John Pike, one of the founders, "directed the Space Policy, Cyberstrategy, Military Analysis, Nuclear Resource and Intelligence Resource projects" [1] at the Federation of Atomic Scientists. In terms of reputation and expertise it appears better than the average RS.
• [81] Edwards Air Force Base usage of source

In short widely used by reliable sources, and by a US government agency.

1/6: As for Aman's source, last I checked, according to WP:HISTRS, a single news article from nearly a century later is not considered as a reliable source. If it is, then I don't see how GlobalSecurity, a prominent defence website widely cited by mainstream media and thousands of articles and books on military history, is not. The rest of what he said is completely WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS so I'm not going to bother with that. To me, his refusal to accept sourced content and belief that his personal opinion carries more weight looks like a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.

Aman countering original research with his own original research resulted in me, assuming good faith, reminding him that that his WP:OR is not considered RS either. Obviously, the wording will be somewhat similar, since you can only phrase "Original research does not carry the weight of a reliable source" in so many ways.

POW count: See this diff. ^[1]

China-India Skirmishes: See this diff. ^[1]

Other: See this diff. ^[1]
SpicyBiryani (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply
All sections except those still under discussion have been removed to reduce the wordcount. See the previous diffs to view their content. SpicyBiryani (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Previous replies: See this diff. ^[1]

@ El C: I've collapsed everything except the GlobalSecurity section of my statement to reduce the wordcount and make it easier to refer to. Since you asked specifically about GlobalSecurity, here's what happened: The infobox contained Indian claims for the casualties of both sides, and these were presented as neutral claims. So, I started this discussion on the talk page to find neutral figures, and cited two sources, the Researchgate one, and the GlobalSecurity one.

Researchgate turned out to be unreliable. I had no issues with this. It didn't give any figures anyway, just stated there were no reliable numbers. Aman claimed that GlobalSecurity is unreliable but didn't specify why. To prove it was indeed reliable, I headed over to RSN, and ended up at the same discussion which he has only now decided to link. In the above statement, I already quoted excerpts from the discussion which concluded that GlobalSecurity is reliable, so I'll post them here in collapsed form.

As you can see, the discussion concludes that GlobalSecurity is a reliable and widely cited source run by experts. So unless Aman didn't read past the first few paragraphs where people were confusing it with other random websites, I don't see why he is citing RSN. Additionally, the GlobalSecurity article also cites these sources:

• ^[2]
• ^[3]

So, even if GlobalSecurity's credibility as a source is under question - which it shouldn't be, considering the points made in the RSN discussion - in this specific article it is further citing other neutral and reliable sources. Therefore, I believe GlobalSecurity qualifies as WP:RS, especially in light of the RSN discussion. SpicyBiryani (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ El C:

1. Aman calling GlobalSecurity unreliable ^[4]

2. My response ^[5]

I did insert these diffs as links above but for some reason they aren't appearing on your end. Maybe it's a formatting error or something.

SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Aman.kumar.goel:, User:El_C stated they are no longer following up over here.

Instead of claiming that others have comprehension issues, you could try reading the vast amount of quotes I cited here to prove GlobalSecurity's reliabliity, which were sufficient enough to be termed excessive. Or, you can go ahead and tell NYT, Reuters, and the authors of more than 20,000 articles and books that their work is unreliable because of that seven line discussion (which took place before the RSN discussion concluded GS is reliable) you just posted. If you still insist on resorting to WP:ICANTHEARYOU by ignoring all of the things I cite, then I can't really help you.

As for the thrilling story of an F-16 being shot down by a MiG-21: Almost every neutral source I know of, even prominent scholar Christine Fair who is renowned for her harsh criticism of Pakistan's military, has rubbished this claim. (Fair specifically termed it "dubious," said it doesn't pass the "Rubbish test," ^[1] and called the IAF narrative "deployed by politicians to win elections." ) ^{[2] [3] [4] [5] [6]} This claim has only been propagated as credible by Indian officials and media. Hell, the pilot of the MiG-21 himself stated he got shot down while looking for a target ^[7], and never that he downed an F-16, even after returning to India. SpicyBiryani (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Swarm: See the diffs of the content I removed - while they are lengthy, you'll see all my arguments in content disputes are supported with sources. (I'll provide specific examples of this again, if you'd like.) CIR is also covered in those - To summarise, I am competent per WP:CIR and haven't exhibited the consistent total incompetence required to justify requesting sanctions. WP:RCD and WP:RUCD also state that sanctions should only be requested when all attempts at civilised communication about the article's content have failed, and the argument has been reduced to an exchange of personal attacks - which again, is not the case. SpicyBiryani (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Guerillero: @ Rosguill: Another thing which I'd like to restate is that the core point of the allegations against me is "SpicyBiryani doesn't agree with my POV on the talk page." Per WP:BRD, WP:CIR, WP:RCD, and WP:RUCD I have done nothing that violates Wikipedia's policies, let alone repeated actions severe enough to justify sanctions. Furthermore, quoting my edits out of context as Aman.Kumar.Goel has in allegation 2 is the behaviour expected of a WP:BULLY. And having the audacity to call me incompetent and claim I have comprehension issues (as if WP:NPA doesn't apply to them) on top of that, is resorting to the deplorable tactics of WP:SMEAR. Such behaviour is worthy of WP:BOOMERANG. SpicyBiryani (talk) 08:11, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SpicyBiryani

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

• Barely 100 edits and already having been subject to a 3-month IPA TBAN and blocked for violating it? That's not good. There are valid concerns relating to the misrepresentation of sources, some fairly innocuous, but others less so. For such a fraught topic area focus that Kashmir and the 2020 China–India skirmishes represent within IPA itself, an indef BROADLY IPA TBAN is probably the only way to go here. Let this inexperienced user prove that they are able to edit other areas of the project productively and without incident. Then, after a considerable time period has passed, a convincing appeal may be considered. So, that is my recommendation. El_C 17:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• SpicyBiryani, two things. First, you are responsible for familiarizing yourself with the scope of any sanctions, otherwise, querying anything that is unclear. Secondly, charging that an user lacks editorial competence isn't necessarily a personal attack — see WP:CIR. El_C 13:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• SpicyBiryani, I'm sorry you went through that (truly), but with respect to editing, dispassionate detachment is expected in any and all mainspace submissions. Also, I'm not sure why you're going on and on about CIRNOT — I submit to you that it is a distraction from the matter at hand and isn't worthwhile pursuing further. El_C 17:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• SpicyBiryani, also, not intended as a CIR reproachment, but please sign all of your comments. El_C 17:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• SpicyBiryani, in your relatively short tenure on the project, you have already been sanctioned about the topic area before, so, though Aman.kumar.goel may ought to have engaged further with you (if they, indeed, had failed to do so), I don't think that annuls this complaint. Further, you are still going on at length on matters which do not seem that germane to this dispute — also with you having grossly exceeded the word limit at this point, so please trim accordingly to align with that requirement. Finally, as a followup to my first point, diffs are missing for some of the more important issues raised, like the GlobalSecurity.org matter (diffs, please), while quite a few others which seems largely irrelevant, are quoted at length. So, please be more selective with your submissions here, overall. Thank you. El_C 19:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• SpicyBiryani, way too lengthy, still, including quoting to an excess, quite unnecessarily so. And, the key matter of Aman.kumar.goel challenging GlobalSecurity is still without diffs, for some reason. I'm not sure how to articulate this better, but your response to this complaint is still highly lacking. I would recommend that you condense, a lot more. There's simply no need to expand in this much detail. Brief, concise summaries with a detailed collection of relevant diffs attached, that'd be best. As a side note, I'll point out that I, myself, had used GlobalSecurity as source for various military and weaponry -related pages for many years without incident. El_C 17:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• SpicyBiryani, I'll leave the matter of the word count enforcement to the next admin to handle as they see fit, since I will not be following up on this or any other open AE complaint. But I will say that Aman.kumar.goel just saying that GlobalSecurity was deemed unreliable, without supporting that assertion with anything (whatsoever) — that does make me go hmm. Best wishes to all. El_C 01:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• While some of the diffs provided by Aman.kumar.goel appear defensible, I concur with El C that the misrepresentation of sources is an issue. Given that the last sanction was for incivility, not OR/CIR issues, I'm inclined to simply suggest a long tban, rather than an indefinite one, 6-months to a year. Incidentally, I did some digging through RSN archives and my impression is that there is no consensus one way or another on GlobalSecurity.org (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#GlobalSecurity.org), so that dispute is a bit of a red herring as far as this case is concerned. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• I don't really see a reason to not impose indefinite topic bans in 2020 -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• I agree with Rosguill that some of the diffs do appear to be defensible, and that that doesn't excuse the fairly serious problems of misrepresenting sources, synthesizing sources, rejecting good sources, and making unsourced edits. The violations themselves do appear to be fairly minor and not necessarily in bad faith, this appears to mostly be a CIR issue. I'm on board with a 6 month TBAN to avoid railroading a new and inexperienced user. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 21:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply

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 Steverci

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

CuriousGolden ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

1. 16 February 2021 - Removing war crimes category from an article about bombing of a city during a war.
2. 16 February 2021 - Removing war crimes category from an article about bombing of a city during a war.
3. 25 February 2021 - Saying that "bombing of a city during a war is a war crime" is WP:OR, even though HRW has called it that, while going on to defend that another bombing from the same war is a war crime.
4. 5 February 2021 - Failing WP:AGF and calling improvement of a map a "nice try", implying that I had bad intentions.
5. 6 February 2021 - Replying with "On the contrary, you should consider yourself lucky that I haven't decided on showing this blatant example of POV pushing to the administration noticeboard yet." when I tell them not to accuse me of bad faith for their previous comment (previous diff). See rest of the discussion to understand that the map change isn't remotely close to POV pushing.
6. 22 February 2021 - WikiHounding. Steverci commenting on my contributions (in an area where he hasn't edited in), saying that the information I've added is UNDUE. See my comment.
7. 28 February 2021 - "you and your off-Wikipedia contacts were WP:GAMING the system by abusing consensus, turning it into a vote against something you don't like." Clear case of WP:ASPERSIONS.
8. 28 February 2021 - Saying "you should stop if you don't want to share the same fate (as another banned user)" for trying to keep the WP:ONUS.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 12 March 2015 - Indefinite topic ban from Armenia-Azerbaijan and Turkey articles following this report.
2. 8 December 2015 - Indefinite topic ban from articles relating to Armenia for "misrepresentation of sources, POV pushing and editing logged out to avoid scrutiny".

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Steverci's indefinite topic ban has been lifted only recently. Their contributions since the lift have almost exclusively been focused on deleting information, nominating articles for deletion and getting in disputes. From their uncivil behaviour and constant threats, it is clear to me that the previously imposed topic ban did not give the desired effect.

@ Steverci: At 786 words, your comment is way past the AE word limit of 500. I'll reply briefly to some of your points and I don't plan on replying further to your next possible comments until a third party is engaged in the report, as arguing back and forth with walls of text isn't helpful.

1-3) The discussion you've linked had no consensus and it's not a Wikipedia policy. It really doesn't take much to realize that bombing a city during a war is a war crime, it's common sense and not undue, like you said, as another uninvolved editor, User:Jr8825 pointed out in their comment. What's more baffling for me is that, while arguing that this bombing isn't a war crime, at the same time, you also argued that another bombing is a war crime, even though HRW also does not explicitly say "X is a war crime" about that, as you required. You seem to quite enjoy showing my one comment everywhere as "proof" that me and Solavirum "worked together". Contacting people off-wiki to exchange resources is common and instead of accusing me (and others like User:HistoryofIran), as you've done here, either use actual proofs or stop spreading ASPERSIONS.

4) Your explanation for this precisely shows how you've violated WP:AGF. Instead of asking me to elaborate on what part you didn't understand or want to be changed, you jumped to the conclusion that it was POV-pushing, reverted the map everywhere (including every single foreign language Wikipedia) and started accusing & threatening me.

7) Campaigned against it? I was the one who added about the Stepanakert bombing without hesitation when I thought that your source was RS and was explicitly saying that |Ganja was bombed because of Stepanakert". However, I later found out that that was your WP:OR.

"CuriousGolden's personal objections are the only thing against me adding my changes again" I think you're forgetting the fact that the volunteer in the DR repeatedly told you that what you want to add is OR ( 1 & 2) and not a single person has come in support of Stepanakert bombing's addition in the lead (Which honestly seems like an attempt to "justify" the bombing).

8) Changes you reverted weren't part of Solavirum's addition. You reverted it even after another, uninvolved person told you that the addition wasn't POV. And the revert was done when you didn't even reply to the comment of mine (you still haven't).

Your comment makes me, even more, convinced that the topic bans that User:Callanecc imposed have not given the desired effect. If my intention was to "witch hunt" and "take you down", I wouldn't have waited until now. The only reason I decided to report now was that I could not take the constant threats and POV accusations by you, even after I asked you politely not to repeat them.

I don't really care about what, if any sanction Steverci gets and my only wish is for him to stop his mean and threatening behaviour (not just me, but also others like here). As long as they agree to assume more good faith and avoid accusatory language (which crosses the line to ASPERSIONS in some cases as I've pointed out above), I'm fine with it. — CuriousGolden (T· C) 13:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notice

Discussion concerning Steverci

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 Steverci

1–2. The consensus for classifying an article as a "war crime" is that it is: a term with legal implications, in that if some country or other international body has ruled some action as a war crime, we can factually state that (and categorize it as such), but without that type of ruling, it must be treated as opinion. These edits were part of a clean up for the recent misuse of categories that resulted in the topic banning of User:Solavirum, a user that CuriousGolden just so happens to have contact with outside of Wikipedia and tried to speak in defense of for his enforcement request.

And in that same discussion, CuriousGolden was scolded by an admin for browbeating my enforcement request, so CuriousGolden accusing anyone of not AGF is quite ironic.

3. The article says nothing about the HRW classifying it as a war crime. The article states only Azerbaijan and Turkey classified it as a war crime, which is not enough due weight for Wikipedia to do so. And like #1–2, this was also part of a misused category clean-up.

4. CuriousGolden didn't explain why he was changing the names in his discussion opener, he just vaguely called them "problematic and inaccurate", which seemed to be WP:POVPUSH (the presentation of a particular point of view in an article). Even if he was trying to change the names to be what the common names were at the time, there were a number of location names that he neglected to change, as I pointed out.

5. As explained above, CuriousGolden's changes had signs of POV pushing because his name changes weren't consistent, as CuriousGolden partially admitted. If CuriousGolden actually said why he is making his changes, he would probably find a lot more good faith. He had also already added the image to many different language Wikipedias, which made the possible POV pushing seem aggressive.

6. Of the couple dozens of articles that CuriousGolden edited, some of them were on my watchlist. Rather than engage in edit warring by reverting them all, or starting the same talk page discussion for dozens of different articles, I did the most productive option: discussing all of the identical changes with CuriousGolden on his talk page.

7. I've been extremely patient in trying to resolve this per how the WP:DR guidelines suggest. Even though my edit had many reliable sources, when CuriousGolden reverted it, I decided to just go to the talk page to resolve it. Despite the sources being clear, both CuriousGolden and Solavirum (who often appeared in the same discussions) campaigned against any mention of the 2020 bombardment of Stepanakert. I tried opening a dispute resolution, which failed it get another opinion. I also opened an RfC on the talk page twice, but still no one else has come to give another opinion. Now that Solavirum is topic banned, CuriousGolden's personal objections are the only thing against me adding my changes again, yet still I'm waiting for another opinion rather than edit warring.

8. Interesting that CuriousGolden only quoted part of what I said and out of context. The changes I was reverting were done on February 5th by Solavirum, and were part of his arbitration enforcement request. I chose to wait until the enforcement request for Solavirum was finished before reverting it, in order to prevent an edit war. Solavirum was topic banned on February 14th, and I reverted the changes on February 15th. It is a shame that CuriousGolden's subsequent edit warring caused the back-and-forth diffs that I tried to prevent. So yes, CuriousGolden was quite literally doing exactly what another recently topic banned user had done, and I was giving him a fair warning.

Contrary to what CuriousGolden believes, I've been very conscious about adhering to all of the guidelines ever since my topic ban was removed. Ever since my ban was lifted, everything I've proposed adding has had reliable sources, I've been careful to get a consensus for anything that might be disputable, and I've only been editing with this account. I have even been occasionally emailing User:Airplaneman for advice when I wasn't sure how to go about a dispute.

I've been very careful with everything I've said and careful not to make any edits I couldn't defend. I hope the above list makes it clear how much thought actually went into each situation. This list of edits CuriousGolden provided seems to really be scraping the bottom of the barrel, with #1–3, 6, and 8 in particular having very dishonest explanations. I admit I should've been more polite/patient with #7, but otherwise this seems to be a WP:WITCHHUNT in retaliation for the enforcement request I recently made for CuriousGolden's friend. -- Steverci ( talk) 00:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

@ CuriousGolden: I didn't realize how long my first comment had gotten and tried to trim it below 500 words, but you already replied to most of it so there isn't much I can remove now without this discussion getting confusing. I'll find a way to if an admin requires it however.

1–3. WP:ASPERSIONS isn't a Wikipedia policy either. But virtually every comment agreed that it isn't something that can be decided by WP:OR. What you're neglecting to mention is that Category:Armenian war crimes went from being created to one of the largest 'war crimes by country' categories in a few months, due to a user's misuse of categories that resulted in them being topic-banned. I removed most of them, and you tried to keep many that had no source for war crimes whatsoever. Examples are on the 1991 and 1992 shootdowns. In both cases, you accused me of WP:JDLI, demonstrating a lack of good faith by assuming I had malicious intent, when it was actually just your WP:OR. Naturally, when removing the categories from so many articles, it's possible that one may have actually been appropriate.

4. It's your responsibility to explain why you are replacing the map in the first place. How was I "threatening" you? Lol.

7. You mean that you did your own version of the edit in WP:SCAREQUOTES calling it retaliation, while my edit simply said the Stepanakert bombing happened first. It's not my fault you don't bother to read sources before you cite them. This is actually very similar to what you claim the war crimes issue is about, because the HRW source provides an assessment but never actually declares it to be a war crime, which was your WP:OR conclusion.

The volunteer also stated "I would like to remind those involved that back and forth discussion should be limited". I then replied to the volunteer to explain why the sources confirm a link, as they had asked me to. But you continued trying to have the discussion there even though the volunteer asked you not to, so they just closed the case as failed.

8. That is blatantly a lie, the whole text was part of his addition. And once again you're giving a dishonest summary of a diff. Jr8825 was only referring to the "result of the Armenian offensive" line, not the majority of the changes, such as the war crime category. I explained to Jr8825 why trying to "blame" either side is unencyclopedic and can easily be cut out, and he didn't dispute that. Didn't notice your response because I got 3 different pings from you, I'll get to it soon.

And while CuriousGolden is apparently now "convinced" that I should topic banned, during Solavirum's enforcement request he said neither genocide denial or ignoring category definitions " suggest any serious behavioural issues and seems more like content disputes". -- Steverci ( talk) 23:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Just to note for the archived record, CuriousGolden said he won't won't reply to any more comments after I made the comment above. -- Steverci ( talk) 05:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by Jr8825

Just throwing in my two cents as someone who has been working with both parties in this topic area, I'm generally in agreement with Vanamonde93's thoughts on this – I think this is a case of both editors being sensitive to edits they perceive as favouring/disadvantaging one side of the conflict over the other. My impression is that both CuriousGolden and Steverci have been making consistent efforts to adhere to the policies relating to sources and NPOV, but that both editors made a number of misjudgements with their edits at the two main articles linked here, Battle of Kalbajar and 2020 Ganja missile attacks. It's essential that we remind ourselves to assume good faith on each others' part in these cases, and when they occur address each other respectfully and patiently. As a personal suggestion to both editors, linking the relevant policies and explaining in a clear, friendly manner where we think the other editor has made a mistake, then thoughtfully taking into account the other editor's explanations, will hopefully make such mistakes less frequent as the nuances of the core content policies become more familiar through repeated references to (and reading of) them.

I think a gentle reminder to both parties of the principles established at ARBAA2, as well as the civility policy's requirement for editors to treat each other with consideration and respect, might be helpful here. Jr8825 • Talk 12:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC) _{(edited: Jr8825 • Talk 19:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC))} reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Steverci

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

• With the caveat that this is not a topic I am very familiar with; I am seeing some evidence that Steverci needs to be better about assuming good faith; but I'm not seeing anything else here that is more than a content dispute. Everyone clearly has strong feelings about the topic, as is the case for most nationalist conflicts on Wikipedia; we cannot sanction someone solely for that reason. Vanamonde ( Talk) 22:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• The diffs included in this case report seem largely defensible. Steverci needs to tone down the terseness a bit but I don't think this report warrants a sanction. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:59, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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 Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TimothyBlue ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

I believe this is the appropriate and latest version of AE sanctions for Palestine-Israel articles

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

Per "You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs" I link to this ANI discussion [32]. It contains an abundance of diffs and comments, and the recent discussions on this talk page [33]

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

• [34]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I write this reluctantly as I've largely decided to leave, but I returned this afternoon to see if anyone had closed the recent ANI thread here. I expected no action, but to my surprise Wikieditor19920 had received a topic ban and Nableezy had received a "final warning". I definitely do not believe a "final warning" is adequate given the entire situation and that this is a DS area, and I cannot see how this outcome is anywhere near equitable. Wikieditor19920 may well merit a topic ban given the entirety of the circumstances, but for them to receive a topic ban while Nableezy skates away with a warning is beyond believable (but it does validate my thinking about the dysfunctional mess at ANI).

Yesterday I was planning to post to AE for a review and was waiting for the ANI thread to close because I've seen AE requests rejected because of an open ANI, but several admins had seen multiple editors requests to close and move to AE and not taken action and the situation continued to get worse. I came to the conclusion this entire mess was a waste of time, no one was taking the mater seriously and walked away. But because I think this is an inadequate and inequitable outcome, I am requesting the conduct of Nableezy be reviewed by AE. That the ANI report was allowed to spiral out of control (again) is absolutely inexcusable; its outrageous editors cannot expect orderly civil discussions at ANI.

I think AE needs to consider the discussions as a whole to determine if DE/TE is a problem. I ask that the discussion at ANI and at Talk:Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran as the most recent be examined in this regard. If Nableezy's editing is acceptable, this should be made clear to all; if it is not acceptable, it merits a topic ban since this is a DS area. If Wikipedia allows a Lord of the Flies atmosphere to reign, they will get editors that thrive in this type of environment and will continue to lose editors that want an orderly civil atmosphere to build and improve.

One final note: If you look at their user page you will see the collapsed section "A trip down memory lane". Along with the comment here You can consider me perpetually aware of the sanctions lol., AE should consider why this is posted if there is a message and attitude here about ANI and AE.  //  Timothy ::  talk  23:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• User talk:Nableezy#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Discussion concerning Nableezy

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 Nableezy

I already received a logged warning for all this. And I acknowledged how thin the ice I skate on is, and I acknowledged my own shortcomings both in that ANI and in past edits. Not sure what else I am supposed to add here. I dont think Ive done anything wrong at Talk:Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran, Timothy has been upset that I decline to wait a month to remove what even he agrees is material that fails verification. Our standards for content get more stringent in contested areas, not more lax, and the idea that we should retain potentially false material for a month doesnt have any policy basis and so I declined to follow that plan. I dont see how linking to an entire talk page is useful either in showing problematic conduct, but if there is some specific diff there that somebody would like me to address please let me know. nableezy - 23:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Also, to preempt any editor in this topic area who thinks they are doing me a favor by chiming in here, kindly dont. Obviously I cant say that to anybody who wishes to jump in to support a ban. nableezy - 23:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by Huldra

TimothyBlue: You really need to post some diffs here, preferably some diffs that hasn't come up before (and which gave Nableezy a logged warning.) I believe Double jeopardy still holds? Huldra ( talk) 23:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by Nil Einne

I agree with those who suggest it is problematic to ask for a different outcome at AE than one that was achieved at ANI from the same evidence. But also, what I saw at ANI is that in a short space of time, TimothyBlue went from supporting a topic ban of both, to then supporting the eventual outcome, to now demanding action against nableezy again. There's nothing wrong with that but TimothyBlue surely you can provide some diffs from those 2 days or so when you came to your final conclusion rather than expecting people to read a very long ANI etc to find whatever it is that lead to that conclusion. I mean what's the point of people reading stuff from the part which would lead the your middle conclusion i.e. in support of the outcome you are now unhappy about? Nil Einne ( talk) 12:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by Zaathras

Hello, just an observer. As an ardent, personal supporter of Israel I have hesitated to toe-dip into articles in the topic area, but have read some of these debates with interest, including the WP:ANI. I boldly removed the filer's closing of the WP:ANI discussion as a rather naked conflict-of-interest, was surprised to see it went unchallenged until (properly) re-closed by an administrator. I have never to my knowledge interacted with Nableezy, and I must say this Enforcement filing smacks of vexation. The matter was settled there. Zaathras ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nableezy

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

• I am unconvinced that the best way of resolving a long and contentious ANI discussion is to open an AE discussion that will inevitably end up being an extension of it. Also, given this ("Nableezy it looks like you won. Congrats, run wild, have fun. Its sad for Wikipedia your tactics have won") it looks a bit like trying to get different admins to impose a sanction because the first one didn't. Black Kite (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• Like Black Kite, this feels to me like asking the other parent. -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 02:05, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• I made four comments in the lengthy ANI discussion and I am sorry that at least one of those should have been expressed more clearly to indicate that I was talking about activity by the regulars on the article talk page, not the comments by participants in the ANI discussion, and not the comments by TimothyBlue. I still think that Talk:Arab states–Israeli alliance against Iran#Morocco shows standard procedure and no battlegrounding. I haven't examined all of the over 100K bytes of text since that section started but the key point is that I cannot see an answer to Nableezy's initial (and very polite) question about whether there is a source supporting the very strong claim that Morocco is a member of an allianceagainst Iran. Again, I haven't examined the 100K bytes but at least the initial discussion shows model behavior from Nableezy and misguided suggestions from others that support sources which plainly fail verification. El_C closed ANI with the appropriate result and this request should be closed in 24 hours if there are no precise details of a problem that was not addressed by El_C. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC) reply

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

Request concerning Leechjoel9

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Boud ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

Leechjoel9 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa

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

NPOV: refusal of NPOV in RfC on "current" population of Eritrea

1. 6 March 2021 ignored the statement by a previously uninvolved editor of "two historical gov't figures: 3.56M in 2002, and 3.2M in 2010" based on the two most recent Eritrean National Statistics Office (NSO, demographic institute) estimates (2010, 3.2 million; see pdf page 31 = page number 3);
2. 6 March 2021 used own calculation to exclude the Eritrean NSO 2010 estimate
3. 7 March 2021 responded to the five in-depth demographic, UN DESA research results from different research cycles in 2010, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2019 by ignoring the pre-2019 research results' existence;
4. 8 March 2021 refused to acknowledge that the old demographic (secondary) sources (UN DESA 2010, 2012, 2015, 2017) agree with the non-demographic-institute, ( tertiary) sources that s/he calls "six credible independent sources" (three of which pre-date 2019, explaining why they have high estimates);
5. 8 March 2021 claimed that demographic history is irrelevant to projections of the "current" population: "chart is not needed to explain this";

Wants to remove sourced, core information: argues for removing the demographic history of Eritrea table from Demographics of Eritrea without a strong reason:

1. 10 March 2021 reason: the most recent research gives a surprising result ( explained here), so all Revisions (2010, 2012, 2015, 2017, 2019) of the total population history should be excluded
2. 12 March 2021 reason: histories of population should be excluded because tertiary-source projections, each of a single "current" value, disagree with secondary-source full historical estimates/projections

Discouragement of participation by uninvolved editors:

1. 12 March 2021; removed {{ disputed inline}} tags and made false edit summary stating Currently already consensus in reference to the RfC; (later accepted restoral of the tags);

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 9 March 2021 AN/I warning

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 on the Horn of Africa on 28 January 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Gaming the system? The user's average contribution of live edits is negative (-73 bytes/edit). S/he frequently refers to Wikipedia policy in an apparent attempt to bypass a core policy: NPOV. The population of Eritrea is a sensitive issue because there are about 0.5 million Eritrean refugees (pre-2019 estimate). The demographic history of Eritrea should not be censored in Wikipedia. Boud ( talk) 23:26, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• @ Power~enwiki: "NPOV" means not excluding the "UN" estimate. Boud ( talk) 00:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• 14 March 2021 is an example including several objectively false statements (others are only misleading, not objectively false): WP:NOTHERE. Boud ( talk) 17:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• @ Rosguill and Power~enwiki: WP:GAMING is point 5 of DS expectations; see the negative average edits and check the typical content of the edits. Boud ( talk) 15:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC) ( Boud ( talk) 16:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

13 March 2021

Discussion concerning Leechjoel9

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

Statement by Leechjoel9

Ive experienced several issue with Boud. All in some way related to the Tigray War in Ethiopia. A very politicised subjected which goes under the discretionary sanctions WP:ACDS for Horn of Africa articles. The user Boud has been informed and is well aware of the sanction for related pages. Despite this the users have been involved in some incidents:

1. Eritrea- Overall the issues started when user added content related to Tigray War in this article. The user then went on questioning the population estimates of Eritrea. I responded and asked for engagement in the discussion section created by this user [35], still this user made the edits prior to even beginning responding in the discussion thread [36]. I urged the user to engage in the discussion and reach consensus before making these edits, [37]. After that the user started engaging in discussion but repeatedly added content relating to the population est. of Eritrea with out reaching consensus several times, while the discussion was ongoing 1) [38],2 [39]. See talk page for discussion.
2. Then the user took the discussion to the Demographics of Eritrea article. User then decided to add a huge section to this article knowing that the same issues about population of Eritrea is being discussed in Eritrea article and also that this subject is under Discretionary Sanctions which makes it even more important to reach consensus when making so big changes. Still the user again preceded doing changes to this article. See [40]. Boud have since created 8 section relating to the same issue (pop.est) in these two articles which makes it time consuming and hard for users, outsiders and admins to keep up in the discussions. Boud lacked support to reach consensus for proposals in the discussions per WP:NOCON despite extensive discussion ongoing for weeks. Boud also created an RFC with the aim of involving more users for getting support and input for proposals. Which has yet resulted in nothing. See talk page for discussion.
3. Eritrean Defence Forces - User added content not relevant to the article. See talk page for discussion.
4. Tigray War- Boud have been heavily involved in editing this politicised article despite knowing its under sanctions WP:ACDS. See talk page for discussion.

The users own behaviour and overall edit style should be questioned when editing these articles. I.e handing out sanction warnings to those who disagrees with the users, doing changes before reaching consensus, and not respecting when the user haven’t got consensus. I think it’s good to inform users about the sanctions but I don’t think they should come from users involved in ongoing disputes. This may discourage the users who receives the warning from contributing. I have politely engaged in discussion and showed great patience towards this user in all of the talk pages of the articles. Despite this the user made up assumptions about me (like the edit bytes) several times. I have refrained from reporting the user myself and I have urged user to focus on content and discuss these kind of matters in the talk pages, since this is related to dispute over content and nothing else. It should also be solved through discussion which it has so far and currently there is not any issue of concern. For the estimate issue there is currently an open RFC. Leechjoel9 ( talk) 10:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by power~enwiki

The population of Eritrea is disputed; the CIA currently estimates 6 million [41] while the UN currently estimates 3.5 million [42]. No official government census has been conducted. The choice of estimates is politically charged.

I don't understand what the repeated claims of "NPOV" in the filing refer to, and having a average diff size that is negative is completely irrelevant. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree that some mention of the dispute over the population figure should be in the article; but advocating otherwise on the talk page certainly isn't cause for Arbitration Enforcement. I don't see anything else to do here; posting to some WikiProject might be a way to get participation on the open RFC. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 03:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Leechjoel9

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

• I'm not seeing any clearly sanctionable behavior in the report, with the possible exception of the brief edit war over the disputed tag, which seems a bit trivial. The description of NPOV diff #2 provided in the report in particular seems like a rather creative interpretation of the diff in question, which itself may deserve a formal warning. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:04, 14 March 2021 (UTC) reply

  Boud, as power~enwiki states above, negative average diff size is not evidence of GAMING. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply

• To correct a couple of above errors, it does not matter whether an editor has a negative average diff size, and there also is nothing wrong with editors involved in a topic area giving discretionary sanctions notices. Those aside, this looks to me like a content dispute which should be resolved via RfC, not AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC) reply
• I am not impressed with Leechjoel's behavior and edits, but as Seraphimblade says, this is a matter more for RfC. It's probably a good idea to do that in the formal way, to attract a broader audience besides just the in-crowd. I'm wondering how many such content disputes with partisan aspects would be resolved quickly if more uninvolved editors would assist in deciding RfCs. Drmies ( talk) 14:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC) reply