Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:53, 16 March 2022 editShrike (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers14,544 edits removing IP comment as it internal noticeboard discussion as per WP:PIATag: Reverted← Previous edit Revision as of 10:36, 16 March 2022 edit undoSelfstudier (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers41,298 edits Undid revision 1077435958 by Shrike (talk) Wait for the ARCA to concludeTag: UndoNext edit →
Line 312: Line 312:
Tombah is also ] due to a ] DS/alert notice. Adding this in case others were as unsure as I was if Doug Weller's block was an Arb enforcement action or just a regular admin action. ] (] | ]) 14:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Tombah is also ] due to a ] DS/alert notice. Adding this in case others were as unsure as I was if Doug Weller's block was an Arb enforcement action or just a regular admin action. ] (] | ]) 14:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)


====Statement by IP====
If nothing else, this editor should be sanctioned for making verifiably false claims right here in this very discussion. They say, first, that the category "Palestinians" should only ever be treated as "one of the sides in a conflict", and dismissing positions because "Palestinians" are the source is not the same as dismissing an "Arab" source, and therefore is not racist. Yet they seem to say that "Israeli" is a synonym for "Jewish", and therefore disclaiming a position as being held by "Israelis" is the same as disclaiming a position as being held "by Jews". They claimed here that an article made a reference to some town only being called by some alternative name by "Jewish scholars", with the implication that this was antisemitic (which it '''would''' be '''if it were actually true'''). Yet as shown by Nableezy's diff, the article didn't say "Jewish", it said "Israeli". And this editor is implicitly claiming ''that'' as racist, anti-Jewish bias, yet in the very same post is arguing it would be perfectly fine to write articles that treat Palestinians in the exact same fashion. That is to say, "it's racist if the statement is about Israelis, but not if it's about Palestinians." Aside from this being a ''blatant'' double standard on its face, they also tried to mislead this discussion by claiming the article said "Jewish" when in fact it actually said "Israeli". This is, at best, an editor incapable of editing neutrally due to inability to recognise the fact that they are applying an obvious double standard, and at worst an attempt to deliberately mislead this discussion. ] (]) 23:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
====Statement by Zero0000==== ====Statement by Zero0000====
Tombah is one of those many editors who come to the I/P part of Misplaced Pages with a strong POV and then get upset that they meet resistance from editors who don't have that POV. So far Tombah has not learned how to navigate this situation in a collegial fashion, instead accusing other editors of bias while not judging himself by the same standard. Tombah has a good knowledge of the subject and could be a valuable editor. I often agree with him on content issues. But statements like the last part of "a clear anti-Israel bias in many articles on these subjects, and in some places, even anti-semitic" (see above) are utterly unacceptable and should bring a sanction. So should the that a common name should be omitted because it is only used by Arabs. As Nableezy pointed out, someone who wrote that about Jews would be out the door quick smart. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC) Tombah is one of those many editors who come to the I/P part of Misplaced Pages with a strong POV and then get upset that they meet resistance from editors who don't have that POV. So far Tombah has not learned how to navigate this situation in a collegial fashion, instead accusing other editors of bias while not judging himself by the same standard. Tombah has a good knowledge of the subject and could be a valuable editor. I often agree with him on content issues. But statements like the last part of "a clear anti-Israel bias in many articles on these subjects, and in some places, even anti-semitic" (see above) are utterly unacceptable and should bring a sanction. So should the that a common name should be omitted because it is only used by Arabs. As Nableezy pointed out, someone who wrote that about Jews would be out the door quick smart. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:36, 16 March 2022

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

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

    Important informationShortcuts

    Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

    Reports are limited to two individuals: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

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

    Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

    Standard of review
    On community review

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

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

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

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

    The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

    Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Important notes:

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

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

    A couple of reminders:

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

    Closing a thread:

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

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

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

    CapnJackSp

    First, thanks to Kautilya3 for bringing up some interesting points, in particular that it is fine to have a bias, as long as that bias isn't permeating your edits. We all have biases of one kind or another. In the end, I'm not inclined to sanction CapnJackSp, although I am going to warn them firmly about copyright infringement in particular, as well as behavior. This means you have a short piece of WP:ROPE and you will simply be blocked without warning for either. You ALL need to discuss more, in good faith, before editing. This report went off in so many directions, I'm not sure I can summarize it fully except to say there is a lot of misbehaving in the WP:ARBIPA area, and no one on this page is perfectly innocent. So aside from the warning, I'm closing with no hard action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

    Request concerning CapnJackSp

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

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

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

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

    • 21:15, 4 March 2022 They demand explanation on how it isn't the same despite one being already provided and it being apparent. I leave a warning on their talk page (User talk:CapnJackSp/Archive 1 § March 2022) after seeing all this, where they deny any fault and continue to insist that the material was the same. I eventually restore the second part of it (on the central document of phrases being used for the messages).
    • 16:11, 6 March 2022 They immediately revert and re-introduce the unverifiable "centralised database of citizens" while on their talk page, they make a retaliatory accusation (Special:Diff/1075546791) of "disruptive editing" and state that "The third editor seems to have removed it, which I have added back for your benefit".
    • 17:50, 6 March 2022 Apparently I want to introduce something else altogether, according to them on the article's talk page.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I'd think this is just trolling and WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Note that the account became active on 10 January, commented on the article's AfD pushing for deletion on the same day, and has since been persistent in trying to skim off content, introduce expressions of doubt and badger people on the talk page. The Tek Fog article isn't the only one, there is similar behavior on every article they have significant involvement in; for instance see the retaliatory accusation in Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092 § BLP violation by Venkat TL after receiving a copyvio warning in User talk:CapnJackSp/Archive 1 § February 2022. The date and time in the above diffs are in IST. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

    I was suggested to elaborate a bit more on my report (here) but I'll try to keep it as short as possible since this is starting to get a bit bloated.
    I'll point out the primary issue in the above series of edits and conversations. If one goes through it, you'll see CapnJackSp is trying to confuse the material related to the database with those related to automated messages. For instance, they repeatedly remove "a central document of phrases used for the automated messages" which is verifiable from the given citation, replace it by adding "centralised" to the "database of citizens who were targeted" which is unverifiable and then justify the former's removal by pointing at the latter. This is essentially dishonest trolling, or if you want wiki-lingo tendentious editing.
    In addition, to give some examples of their conduct beyond this on the page, I'll present a couple diffs. For their behavior on talk pages though, individual diffs aren't going to be very useful and one would have to go through the conversations they have participated in, at length.
    • Special:Diff/1066320740 Introduction of expressions of doubt with a edit summary claiming that they had reached a consensus. The talk page at that point only contained a discussion on merging a section.
    • Special:Diff/1067628839 More sneaky attempt at the same, no edit summary. It's coupled with re-arranging some sections and wiki-link removals while adding phrases like "claimed" and "said to have", pushing a couple sub-sections further down and removing some in-line citations. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Special:Diff/1075580590

    Discussion concerning CapnJackSp

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

    Statement by CapnJackSp

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

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

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

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

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

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

    (4-6)

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

    A day later, Tayi put a warning on my talk page at User_talk:CapnJackSp#March_2022. I responded politely, and again in more detail when asked. Following this, Tayi, without making any attempt to take up his issues with either Toddy, Venkat or me, reinstated the material. I reverted, pointing out that he needed to discuss before reinstating material removed with consensus. The comment on the talk page refers to the "centralised document" being a google sheet per The Wire - Here I am forced to speculate as Tayi did not engage on the talk page at all despite my ping.

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

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

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

    1. The point about Toddy removing the part about centralised, was referring to him changing the "centralised" to "dynamic cloud" - I added Centralised back later, with citation as Tayi had been asking for it to be included repeatedly on my talk page. I do not understand why he was offended by it. As a note to admins, my last two messages in my talk page discussion with Tayi have been moved out of order by Tayi, presumably to preserve the continuity of Tayi's comment. They are replies to separate paragraphs, as in
    I did not want to elongate this even further, but the diffs by Tayi need to be clarified here. Diff 1 is my edit after the editor with whom I has an edit conflict told me to "go ahead and edit it", when they had previously not allowed me to edit it. The changes reverted by tayi, were reinstated with minor changes, and extended to the rest of the lead by editors more experienced than me . The edit summary could have been more clear, I accept that much. It was fairly early in my editing, and I have gotten much better since. Diff 2 is not the same as Tayi claims - It was merging an awkward section to another to reach a more readable form. This was done after the discussion on the talk page - See Talk:Tek_Fog#Merging_the_section_"Military_grade_psychological_operations_weapon"_to_Reactions.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Dennis Brown: Regarding the diffs of supposed closed paraphrasing provided by Venkat TL, which are more than 1 month ago, came after the warning he made to me on 10 February. I am not sure why he is bringing up these old and outdated violations to derail the report which concerns nothing more than content dispute as accurately described by Kautilya3. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    I was originally not going to reply to Venkat's allegations as my answer was getting too long, but since he left me a ping on Talk:The Next Civil War: Dispatches from the American Future, I have replied to him there. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    Venkat has in his edits introduced even more off topic material against admin advice, thus forcing me to respond. I had refrained from responding to his edits due to size constraint and excessive off topic bloating of this report, but I would like to ask admins for a size extension here since it seems he is trying to force as many trivial points in to try and make his statement sound more credible. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Venkat TL

    Apologies as entire Statement approx 600 words. (excluding quotes)

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

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

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

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

    @Dennis Brown CapnJackSp edits with a bias (POV) that is anti-liberal and anti-Muslim and pro-far-right, pro-Hindutva, pro-BJP government. (Diff C1 = Diff number 1 of edit by CapnJackSp)
    Violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:Original research, Source misrepresentation
    Diff C1 made up stuff not supported in the article. Please provide quote from source if you disagree.
    Diff C2The author does not say anything about the ideology, yet CapnJackSp adds stuff he made up.
    Diff C3 misrepresents current decade as "next decade"
    WP:COPYVIO and WP:Close paraphrasing
    Diff C4
    Source Quote=

    "Wherever there is a uniform at schools, there should not be a place for any other dress other than that."

    Line added by Capjackspr (without quote)

    Aaditya Thackeray, state minister of Maharashtra, told journalists that if there was a uniform at schools, there should not be a place for any other dress other than that,


    Diff C5
    Source Quote=

    Two people have been arrested in Kundapur in Karnataka's Udupi district for allegedly carrying lethal weapons during a protest at a government college over students' right to wear a hijab in classrooms... According to police officers, out of five men carrying weapons, three managed to flee from the spot.

    Line added by Capjackspr =

    Two men were arrested when they were found carrying lethal weapons during a protest about this issue. Three others managed to flee.

    Apart from WP:CLOP, CapnJackSp Inappropriately dropped 'allegedly' to confirm the alleged crime in Misplaced Pages voice. Attribution was also dropped.

    Diff C6
    Source Quote=

    Ten Pakistani soldiers were killed when terrorists attacked a security forces’ checkpost in Kech district of the restive southwestern Balochistan province,

    Line added by Capjackspr =

    10 Pakistani soldiers were killed when terrorists attacked a security forces’ checkpost in Kech district of the restive southwestern Balochistan province.


    Source Quote=

    " The hijab row follows a string of online attacks against Muslim women in India."

    Diff C7.1
    Line added by Capjackspr =

    The hijab row follows a string of online attacks against Muslim women in India

    Diff C7.2

    This hijab row followed a string of online attacks targeted towards Muslim women in India.

    Diff C7.3

    This hijab row followed a string of online attacks targeted towards Muslim women in India.

    CapnJackSp did not just violate copyright here but also edit warred three times to restore the same copyright violation. It was explained to him at 3 places 1 2 3 Moreover Kautilya3 then used diffs of my reverts of removal of copyright violation ( WP:NOT3RR) to file a false Edit warring case against me for sniping me)

    Violating internal copyright without providing attribution.
    Diff C8 The content added, was copied by CapnJackSp as it is from India–United States relations without giving attribution as required by copyrights.
    Diff C9 The content added was copied by CapnJackSp as it is from India–United States relations without giving attribution as required by copyrights.

    User:Kautilya3 failed to mention below that he is not an uninvolved bystander, he is deeply involved in these disputes. Kautilya3 is acting alongside problematic user CapnJackSp. Kautilya3 has attempted to target and snipe me at Admin board. (false edit warring and false ARE case). So, I am not at all surprised that Kautilya3 is attempting to sweep this case under the carpet. Venkat TL (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    Kautilya3, I apologize. I stand corrected about the ARE case diff. I have struck it down. I had in mind this ARE case started by Kautilya, which was about Hemantha and not me, yet CapnJackSp had used that ARE case to target me.
    I have noted CapnJackSp's bias that I have assessed based on reviewing CapnJackSp's Misplaced Pages edits, and provided diffs. I believe this is WP:Tendentious editing and the admins should take note of this behavior as it violates neutrality of Misplaced Pages. Venkat TL (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
    CapnJackSp has answered about Diffs C1-3 on Article talk page due to word limit here. I invite the admins to look at it . His answers will give you a good idea of what we are dealing with here. You have to see it to believe it. Now I believe more strongly that WP:CIR applies.
    1. C1 = CapnJackSp did not answer the question and added yet another massive copyright violation Diff C10.
    2. C2 = Claims that he is not responsible for the source misrepresentation he had added,
    3. C3 = CapnJackSp doubles down and says "This decade = next decade." Venkat TL (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
    Black Kite had said on ANi "Looking at their contribs, they are practically all either in contentious areas or contentious themselves. There are ten notices on their userpage about concerns with their editing, and they've only been contributing since 10 January." Another editor STSC had suspected this user to be a sock. Though CapnJackSp denied. Venkat TL (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by TrangaBellam

    This is subtle trolling, at best. Suggest a TBan. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Kautilya3

    This seems like a storm in a teacup. CapnJackSp's first deletion was technically correct. The sentence he deleted was already covered in the earlier section titled "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment" (as the section title itself makes clear). But his later claim that somebody else should follow "BRD" while he was reinstating his deletion is not correct. (If your edit was already reverted then you are in the "D" stage.)

    Likewise, when Venkat TL demands on the talk page, "please explain your undue removal of valid sourced content here", (i) "undue" is not something that applies to removals, and (ii) the sourcing of the content was not stated as an issue. (Never mind that that paragraph never cited a source to start with!)

    There are newish users on both sides, who have only hazy understanding of procedures and are not being very cooperative with each other. I would recommend closing with warning to both sides to collaborate more sincerely.

    I also think that page is in a mess and quite disorganised and incomprehensible. The content should be junked and rewritten fro scratch. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

    Venkat TL is trying to enlarge the case by bringing in a big laundry list of edits (C1, C2, C3) which have nothing to do with the present case. But the main thrust of his argument is the allegation of "a bias (POV) that is anti-liberal and anti-Muslim and pro-far-right, pro-Hindutva, pro-BJP government". If he start with that kind ideological profiling of editors, what kind of collaboration can we expect from him? And, what if CapnJackSp has pro-BJP leanings? There is nothing in Misplaced Pages policies that says pro-BJP people cannot edit Misplaced Pages. As far as I can see, CapnJackSp is quite aware of his own biases and is cautious in pushing for them. See this comment for a recent example.
    That is more than I can say about Venkat TL. Even though I probably agree with him 90% of the time, he needs to attack me for the remaining 10% disagreement. (By the way, the lead of the Tek Fog article was almost entirely rewritten by me, by bringing in better WP:SECONDARY sources. Is there anything there that Venkat TL found disagreeable?) He claims that I brought "two falses cases" against him. For the first, a straightorward 3RR violation, we have only his own claim that it was "false". And for the second, the so-called "false ARE", I neither brought it here nor participated in it! So, it seems that Venkat TL is imagining enemies everywhere and waging ideological battles with them demanding 100% agreement with his own views. Not a good recipe for being a decent Wikipedian. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning CapnJackSp

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Looking at one or two comments, I don't see much, but if you put the puzzle together, starting with CapnJackSp being the only person to vote Delete at an AFD that closed as a Snow Keep, then the types of arguments being bandied about on the article talk page, it looks like a death by 1000 paper cuts. Bogging down the discussion. That's the vibe I'm getting anyway. Passive-aggressive obstructionism. One last thing, I noticed in his deleted contribs four AFDs that he started (plus the other he voted in), which isn't related but highly unusual for someone that literally just started a couple of weeks ago. Curious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
      Venkat TL, you mentioned copyright violations; do you have any diffs or links that could shed some light on this particular issue? It isn't in the initial report, but that is a bigger issue if it is a continuing problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    • You guys are meandering here, out of scope, and using way over your limit of words (do not delete, just don't add unless there is a VERY good reason). I'm not sure what to make of all this mess. Yet. Much of this looks like poor editing, not specific to India/Pakistan topics. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

    Clean Copy

    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 Clean Copy

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Clean Copy (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:ARBPS
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    16:50, 6 March 2022 — breach of topic ban, mentioned the S-word

    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    14:44, 3 February 2022 — topic banned

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

    Not applicable.

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    @Dennis Brown: Not only he violated his topic ban once, he violated it twice, as shibbolethink stated. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Clean Copy

    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 Clean Copy

    Statement by Shibbolethink

    Further example of Clean Copy breaching his TBAN: 06:11, 17 February 2022. — Shibbolethink 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Clean Copy

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    I think 48 hours is very reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
    Looks like they've come back, but I will let another admin apply the sanction. Don't like to see my name on so many of these.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    Tombah

    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 Tombah

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Tombah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    Revision as of 21:52, 13 March 2022 Added "excluding the United States"

    Revision as of 00:07, 14 March 2022 Reverted by Onceinawhile.

    Revision as of 08:40, 14 March 2022 Readded.

    Revision as of 09:48, 14 March 2022 Reverted by Selfstudier.

    Revision as of 10:10, 14 March 2022 Readded.

    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Indef for not responding on talk page to concerns about copyvio and ARBPIA violations, appeal to blocking editor accepted.


    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.


    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Subsequent to the appeal above, in February 2022, discussed with this editor the need to faithfully represent sources.

    Warnedby the previously blocking admin about disruptive editing at Talk:Al-Khader and assuming bad faith in March 2022.

    Warned editor about making false statement.

    I have asked the editor to self revert several times, which they have refused to do, instead making accusations that I am being abusive and making personal attacks in requesting same.

    This could/should have been resolved by way of self reversion at the first opportunity. The response in general seems not to address the issues, which go beyond the relatively straightforward 1R matter. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notification


    Discussion concerning Tombah

    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 Tombah

    I have joined Misplaced Pages a few months ago, aiming to expand and democratize knowledge regarding the history and archeology of Israelite period and Second Temple period. However, since I have joined I am repeatedly exposed to a clear anti-Israel bias in many articles on these subjects, and in some places, even anti-semitic. I try to assume good faith, I really do - but it's getting harder seeing how deep the problem is. In some instances, these edits border re-writing history - with the purpose to erase Israelite/Jewish/Israeli history. Here are few examples:

    • In the article Decapolis, a group of Hellenistic cities from the Roman period, it was mentioned that most of Palestine was inhabited by Canaanites, Nabateans and Arameans at that time, while in historical research, the Canaanites have disappeared from history centuries earlier, during the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age. I later found the original study, which actually lists these nations as Jews, Nabataeans and Arameans. It is pretty clear what happened here.
    • According to the Al-Khader article, ancient water systems built by Judean rulers during the Roman period were terminated under the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a mosque which was built only hundreds of years later. According to the same article, they were named for Suleiman the Magnificent, where in fact they are traditionally named after King Solomon. When I corrected this to reference the correct site which occupied the Temple Mount during that period - the Second Temple - my edit was quickly reverted, with some editor claiming that "Solomon's Pools" should not be described in this article, in a move that essentially seems like Temple denial.
    • In the article for Sebastia, a West Bank town which was originally founded as the capital of the Kingdom of Israel in the 8th century BC, editors repeatedly remove the ancient Israelite connection providing no explanation, sometimes preferring to base the lead on places such as ‘Lonely Planet’ instead of proper academic sources.
    • Seeing that bias is so rooted, the fact that Israeli settlements are described in the article’s lead with "colonies" as a synonym, a term used almost exclusively by Palestinians (as explicitly mentioned in one of the sources) - comes as no surprise. There surely no problem in showing various point of views, but referring to "Israeli colonies" as a mainstream title is of course POV. In the article's talk page, @Nableezy claimed that "the term 'Israeli colonies' is used in countless sources to describe the, well, colonies Israel has established outside its sovereign territory," an explanation that seems like Misplaced Pages:No original research; Later, @Selfstudier, the issuer of this arbitration request, based his opinion on the French language: "Colony is a synonym and they have no official name so not ridiculous, the French even use colonie for settlement."

    The same article, Israeli Settlements, also stated that "the international community has rejected any change of status in both territories and continues to consider each occupied territory." While in fact, the US has recognized Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights. I edited the article to point that out. This was quickly reverted by Selfstudier, who deemed it as a "false statement", removing the US reference along other material I added to the article. Some hours later, I re-added the US reference, and provided more citations for that reference. My previous edit incorrectly mentioned Jerusalem along the Golan Heights as one of the territories the US recognized as part of Israel, so I left that out, and kept only the Golan Heights reference, which is indeed correct. Upon learning this was a violation of the 1R rule, I manually reverted my edit.

    Since I'm relatively new to Misplaced Pages, I'm still gradually learning the rules. I don't claim for expertise, but as someone with experience in UX design, I can confirm Misplaced Pages is a platform with a very steep learning curve. Honestly, up until today, I didn't fully realize how the revert rule works, especially regarding edits (as distinct from re-reverts). Unfortunately, it seems that tolerance for mistakes made by new editors who try to challenge the biases is non-existent, even for someone who asks for mentorship. I'm afraid there is a small group of editors here who are systematically trying to discredit other editors whose editing might oppose their point of view. I believe that a quick visit to my talk page showcases that quite vividly. Even if the final decision is indeed to block this account, I hope from the bottom of my heart that Misplaced Pages will investigate this matter in greater detail and create more sophisticated solutions mechanisms to protect its neutrality and reliability from editors trying to game the system, especially in articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    @Nableezy, this is not an issue of ethnicity. When speaking on the Arab-Israeli conflict, a term which is used predominantly by one of the sides - in this case, the Palestinians - should be seen as it is - one-sided. I haven't seen a single document written by the United Nations, for example, calling the settlements "colonies". Drawing inspiration from pre-1948 namings, the French language, or historical comparisons is irrelevant for that case. I have no problem with mentioning "Israeli colonies" as part of the Palestinian POV that can be surely described in the article and even have its own section. You are welcome to create an article and call it "Israel and the Colonialism analogy". But using the term "colonies" as a synonym in the article's lead not only confuses users, but turns this whole platform into a propaganda site. In any case, this is far from being a precedent. The article "Tel Rumeida" mentions that one of the synonyms, "Tel Hebron", is used by Israeli settlers exclusively (while many academic studies use this title). In addition, the same article previously mentioned that "Some Jewish scholars believe it was the location of biblical Hebron".

    Statement by Shrike

    Was a request to self revert was made? --Shrike (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    The user have self-rv Shrike (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    Nableezy, There is nothing outrageous here I was told numerous times that there is a heated enjoinment and users that have made far more serious accusation were not sanctioned. Shrike (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    Seems to me like content dispute. The user have valid concerns that some of our articles are biased, that's are usual practice Shrike (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Nableezy

    Yes, a self-revert request was made (here), and ignored in favor of claiming phantom personal attacks when being told they are in violation of the 1RR. Been consistent edit-warring and accusations of bad faith against others (see for example edit summary here, and this outrageous accusation.) nableezy - 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    Yes, saying "What do you have against ancient Jewish history?" is in fact outrageous. nableezy - 14:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    Saying that sources call the settlements colonies so we should include it as an alternate name is the very opposite of original research. Whereas dismissing sources because of the ethnicity of the authors, well that seems like something more serious. Imagine somebody saying we cannot include some material because the authors that support it are Jewish. Somebody saying something like should be booted out faster than they can press save page. But saying the sources are all written by Arabs, well nobody bats an eyelash at that display of, ummm well what would you call it if somebody dismissed sources because they were written by Jews? nableezy - 16:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    No, the source says Tel Hebron is used by Israeli settlers exclusively, and you removed that, presenting a fringe sized group within an involved party as an anodyne alternative name. Here you have no such sourcing saying anything about a term being used by a minority group, but you excise it entirely. There the sourcing says explicitly it is used by a fringe sized group and you promote it without qualification. And have the gall to imply others are racist with your "what do you have against ancient Jewish history" quip. nableezy - 16:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Firefangledfeathers

    Tombah is also WP:AWARE due to a December 2021] DS/alert notice. Adding this in case others were as unsure as I was if Doug Weller's block was an Arb enforcement action or just a regular admin action. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by IP

    If nothing else, this editor should be sanctioned for making verifiably false claims right here in this very discussion. They say, first, that the category "Palestinians" should only ever be treated as "one of the sides in a conflict", and dismissing positions because "Palestinians" are the source is not the same as dismissing an "Arab" source, and therefore is not racist. Yet they seem to say that "Israeli" is a synonym for "Jewish", and therefore disclaiming a position as being held by "Israelis" is the same as disclaiming a position as being held "by Jews". They claimed here that an article made a reference to some town only being called by some alternative name by "Jewish scholars", with the implication that this was antisemitic (which it would be if it were actually true). Yet as shown by Nableezy's diff, the article didn't say "Jewish", it said "Israeli". And this editor is implicitly claiming that as racist, anti-Jewish bias, yet in the very same post is arguing it would be perfectly fine to write articles that treat Palestinians in the exact same fashion. That is to say, "it's racist if the statement is about Israelis, but not if it's about Palestinians." Aside from this being a blatant double standard on its face, they also tried to mislead this discussion by claiming the article said "Jewish" when in fact it actually said "Israeli". This is, at best, an editor incapable of editing neutrally due to inability to recognise the fact that they are applying an obvious double standard, and at worst an attempt to deliberately mislead this discussion. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:60F7:9667:FE24:3EE (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Zero0000

    Tombah is one of those many editors who come to the I/P part of Misplaced Pages with a strong POV and then get upset that they meet resistance from editors who don't have that POV. So far Tombah has not learned how to navigate this situation in a collegial fashion, instead accusing other editors of bias while not judging himself by the same standard. Tombah has a good knowledge of the subject and could be a valuable editor. I often agree with him on content issues. But statements like the last part of "a clear anti-Israel bias in many articles on these subjects, and in some places, even anti-semitic" (see above) are utterly unacceptable and should bring a sanction. So should the assertion that a common name should be omitted because it is only used by Arabs. As Nableezy pointed out, someone who wrote that about Jews would be out the door quick smart. Zero 06:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Tombah

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

    JustinSmith

    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 JustinSmith

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    JustinSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19
    • Suggest indefinite TBAN from COVID-19, broadly construed.
    Violation

    John Campbell (YouTuber) is an article about a retired nurse who has made a number of controversial COVID-19 videos, sometimes containing misinformation as documented by RS, and the Misplaced Pages article accordingly.

    JustinSmith arrived at the article and immediately started bombing the lede with a factoid about how Campbell is apparently vaccinated. Despite pushback from multiple editors and on the Talk page this has now become full-on edit warring, per the diffs below:

    Warned about DS and the risk of sanctions, JustinSmith said "... Banning me, after 16 years editing Misplaced Pages, might be doing me a favour anyway, it takes up so much time. I will only accept an edit that acknowledges that Campbell cannot be "anti vax" because he is triple vaccinated".

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

    The editor seems productive in unrelated areas, hence a TBAN seems appropriate.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning JustinSmith

    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 JustinSmith

    I think that Dr John Campbell page is just about the most biased, and frankly inaccurate page, on Misplaced Pages. It is implying Campbell is anti-vax, yet he himself is triple vaccinated ! I put a link on to one of his Videos where he states that and was told that was not acceptable as it's original source and what I need is another source saying Campbell said it. Quite bizarre and an obvious attempt to push a censorship agenda. As it happens there are other sources quoting Campbell :

    Pollard also said he was hopeful that a new vaccine, if needed, could be developed "very rapidly." Pollard's comments come after UK-based health analyst Dr. John Campbell told DW that omicron is "not likely to completely invalidate the vaccines." "It might reduce the efficacy but it's looking like the vaccines will continue to prevent severe illness, hospitalization and death in the vast majority of cases.'" https://www.dw.com/en/coronavirus-digest-oxford-chief-says-omicron-unlikely-to-reboot-pandemic/a-59954236

    and

    Dr John Campbell says Oxford AstraZeneca Covid vaccine is safe https://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/19165658.dr-john-campbell-says-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-safe/

    Quite obviously not the comments of an anti-vaxxer.

    The additions I made are provably factually correct. Furthermore I think a sentence in the opener needs to confirm that Campbell is not anti vax as not to do so is misleading. Campbell repeatedly states that vaccination of anyone at significant risk from Covid is very advisable, but he is against mandating vaccines and advises caution regarding vaccinating younger people who are at lower risk. I cannot see anything controversial about this.

    Can you please explain why I add provably correct cited content, then some biased editor repeatedly removes it, yet, when I try to replace it it's me who is accused of a reversion war. How does that work exactly ? JustinSmith (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2022 (UTC) moved from Firefangledfeathers' section Firefangledfeathers (talk
        • TBH I am not sure I follow all this esoteric Misplaced Pages speak, but what I do know is this edit has been reversed for no reason I can possibly think of :
          defined by numbers of deaths of people whose death certificate mentioned COVID-19 as one of the causes
          This is a direct quote from the gov.uk website, so can anyone explain to me the justification for this ?
          It is absolutely obvious to me that certain editors are pushing a biased narrative here.
          How do we try and get a more balanced article and protect edits from their reversion war ? JustinSmith (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
          I have replaced the cited official gov.uk definition of a Covid death as used in the 175,000 stat. There is no reason for it not to be there at all, other than for editors who do not want anyone to know that a Covid death has to be closely defined if it to mean anything. Might I suggest that any editor removing this is the subject of restraining measures ? JustinSmith (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    Moved from the admin section. You need to keep your comments exclusively in this box with your name. This is a formal admin board, and that's how we do it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    References

    1. "GOV.UK Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the UK". Retrieved 15 March 2022.

    Statement by (slatersteven)

    Was going to launch this myself comments like this ] and this ] worry me, after 16 years they seem to think OR and RS are "obscure policies" ] is also troubling. It is clear that (on this issue at least) they have a serious POV problem which means they have a battleground mentality. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

    I have a POV problem ? What about yourself !
    You are deleting cited information because it does not agree with your agenda, that's censorship and you should be ashamed of yourself. JustinSmith (talk) 11:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    No I deleted it because we do not say he is anti-Vax, so it does not address anything we say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    I also note his doctorate is in education, not medicine, he is not an MD. Hell he does not even have a scientific doctorate (as I said it is in education). Slatersteven (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    That whole page is totally biased and does not reflect Campbell's views or many of his videos. The attitude of those reverting factual provable additions are obvious. JustinSmith (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    To answer the point about why there are so few sources, as far as I can tell he was not really notable until RS picked up on his Covid comments. Prior to that he was (in effect) just another Youtuber. So there may be an argument for him not really being notable, except as a Covid denier of some shade. Slatersteven (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    The problem is that the only sources we are getting are with third party sources calling out his Covid comments or primary sources about what he saying (or sources that do not even mention him but seem to be being used to give support to his claims (which RS have debunked). What none of his "supporters" have really produced is that much in the way of positive third-party coverage of him. Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    And with this ] they are still edit warring. Note that despite starting a talk page thread up, no one who has inserted this has actually bothered to explain exactly what it has to do with what RS has said about the subject. Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    And this ] strongly implies it is an attempt to imply the official figures are wrong, how else are we to read "other than for editors who do not want anyone to know that a Covid death has to be closely defined if it to mean anything.". Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Firefangledfeathers (re:JustinSmith)

    @Dennis Brown: I'm glad to have your thoughts on the article overall. I urge you to reevaluate the conduct issues at hand here. JustinSmith did not make only "a couple of reverts", and they definitely edit warred. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:10, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    Dennis Brown, I am ok with a little rope here. If there are further issues, would you be open to a ping, or are you watching the article and talk page closely? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Ping me and I will look, keep a link to this if its been a while. Yes, I get to break the rules, but simpler this way ;) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    JustinSmith, please keep your replies in your own section. You asked me about what constitutes edit warring. Please carefully read the edit warring policy. I am sympathetic to misunderstanding of the policy, and I'd be happy to answer questions at my user talk page. In this case, I felt comfortable describing your actions as edit warring because you broke the 3RR rule, a bright-line violation. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning JustinSmith

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Need to dig into this deeper. I will say this, the lede on this article is extraordinarily negative, enough that it kind of shocked me. NPOV and DUE are considerations, and I need to dig around a lot deeper here. After all, our goal is to provide a balanced summary of the individual, not discredit them wholesale. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
      Ok, I've gone through some of JustinSmith's additions, and the content seems to be consistent with the sources. That doesn't mean they automatically should be included, but what I've checked is consistent with the claims he is making. To get an idea of what Campbell thinks, I went and watched a video by him. This doesn't exactly match what the article is saying about him. And yes, Primary sources can be used (if you don't go WP:SYNTH) to state some's positions on a topic. Even if sources conflict and you need to qualify the statements. This makes me a little empathetic to JustinSmith. This doesn't mean I approve of his methods.
    • Let me make one thing clear: While this article is under COVID-19 protection, first and foremost it is a WP:BLP, and that takes precedence. Are we being fair to the subject? Are we showing only the most negative things in an WP:UNDUE manner? Where the sources are conflicting, and are we stating they are in the body of the article? In short, I'm more worried about how we treat Dr. Campbell than how we treat COVID. And I would assume most editors and admins feel the same, as that is what our policies dictate.
    • I'm not here to determine content, but I am here to recognize and solve problems. Frankly, the article (and lede) doesn't strike me as balanced. I don't get the feeling it was written dispassionately by objective eyes. I don't question the sources used, but I can't help but wonder what sources are missing. This is why it's important to have differing points of view on the talk page. I would not take action here and certainly wouldn't support a topic ban. I would recommend that everyone go back to the article talk page, remembering first and foremost that this is a BLP: This is a real human, so we need to be careful in how we represent them. JustinSmith needs to be careful how they edit and try to get consensus first, although a couple of reverts isn't exactly an edit war. Use the talk page first, and learn to start an WP:RFC to get outside opinions if needed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    • JustinSmith, I think, understands they have been given a little WP:ROPE by me this one time. If I didn't make it clear, I will in that if they continue to edit war, they will be blocked. I think they have good motivations, but like I said, I don't approve of their methods. I prefer to not sanction in cases like this if I think there is a chance to move them to the talk page, and frankly, that article needs some balance. It that one respect, I am being too generous, but my concern is with the BLP aspects, so if he will use the TALK page instead, I can overlook one spat of edit warring. Of course, another admin can come in and do something completely different, that is within their rights. Instead, I'm hoping we leave this open long enough to see JustinSmith actually go to the talk page and discuss in good faith. Otherwise, yes, and I tend to block hard when I've extended a lifeline to someone and they take advantage of it. Again, my goal is to find solutions, not just dole out sanctions. Sanctions are easy, solutions take a bit more effort by all concerned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Slatersteven I can believe that, that his stance on Covid is what made him notable. Looking back at previous edits, I saw where some organizations misrepresented what he said, and we said so here, but we still need to balance this out. Regardless of what made him notable, BLP applies and we need to be very careful in how we present the information. Again, this is a real person, and we want facts, but we want to be sure we aren't playing judge and jury as editors. I don't think it would require that much effort to stay neutral, as he is very public, but it does require a bit of diligence in how we present that info. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Nothing wrong with using Primary sources, as long as we are not talking in Misplaced Pages voice. That is what we have to be careful with when there is conflicting info, and... it can lead some folks into overreacting when trying to "correct the record". I'm saying if the article was a bit more balanced, you would have less problem with that. It doesn't excuse edit warring, but I can at least "get it" when the article seems lopsided. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    • JustinSmith BINGO! You just answered your own question and didn't know it. You don't know all this Wikispeak, and frankly, I feel your pain. It is difficult and takes time. Here's the deal; when you are editing a "normal" article (not under Arb protection, like Dog, Car etc) it can be intimidating, but in Arb protected areas, it can be dangerous. Let me explain it as short as I can. Some areas, like the Palestinian conflict, COVID, BLP (biographies of living persons) have special protections that are enforced.....here. If you are new and not up on Wikispeak and rules, you are risking getting blocked, banned, slapped, whatever, when editing those articles. It's easy to not even understand WHY. You will learn why, and how to edit in protected areas in time, but for now, how do you keep out of trouble? Don't edit the article. It's that simple. Use the talk page, talk about what changes you want, start an WP:RFC (formal discussion that gets advertised around the place, so fresh people come in and give opinions). Use the talk page until you get up to speed. There are a lot of rules, so I empathize with your confusing. I've been here close to 16 years and I still don't know them all. So, in keeping with my original thought, to find a SOLUTION, I'm recommending you simply don't edit directly and use the talk page and work with people and moderating the tone of the article some. Don't dig in, stay humble, and you will learn. Otherwise, if you go back to edit warring, I will simply block you, which prevents you from editing anything. I would rather not do that, I think you might have something worthwhile to add to the discussion on the talk page, but I will. I'm being extra lenient today (at least half of admin would have already just blocked you), but to keep me smiley and all nice, you need to listen and follow my guidance. Be patient with the other editors, and they will be patient with you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Onceinawhile

    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
    Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Onceinawhile (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
    Sanction being appealed
    One week block, imposed at here
    Administrator imposing the sanction
    El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
    Notification of that administrator
    The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

    Statement by Onceinawhile

    I made a mistake. And the block was a mistake too.

    My mistake was to use a phrase which was too strong, and too easily misunderstood. My choice of wording was poor. I was trying to summarize in half a sentence something that happened four years ago, and I used unnecessarily elaborate words which I had not fully thought through. I certainly did not mean to make an allegation (and actually I do not believe) that there was any unusual coordination between the three editors back in 2018. Two links to support this: (1) an explanation of why I did not anticipate the word "concerted" being read literally, and (2) proof that in almost 40,000 edits here I have never used the word "concerted" before and so had never really thought through its implications.

    The block was a mistake because:

    • It was made extremely quickly without me being given a chance to provide my own view or remedy the three words I had written. The notifying editor and / or the blocking admin could have saved a lot of time by asking me to clarify my words. I believe over many years of building high quality articles in a difficult topic area, I should have earned the right to have administrators hear me out before making these kind of judgements.
    • All parties involved appear to have incorrectly thought that I was operating under a final TBAN warning, which as kindly acknowledged here, was not the case. I was given an ABAN warning over a year ago on a very different article and topic, in a very different situation.
    • The original post at ANI included a number of false characterizations about editing at the page in question. Since those were not given as reasons for the block, I will not distract from this by addressing them. But they served to create an overall misleading sentiment, which will have affected the decision to block. Exactly the same thing happened at the AE which got me the unrelated “ABAN warning” a year ago – it was submitted with multiple falsehoods (by an editor who turned out to be a sock). Perhaps a case of Brandolini's law, an article that I wrote.
    • It serves no purpose, other than stopping me in the middle a discussion about maps of the Golan, and stopping me from thanking the two other people who came to my talk page today, one to thank me for what he called my “amazing article” about some bowls,, and the other to inform me that my DYK about obelisks was one of the most viewed of the month. The last time I was blocked was eight years ago, and that block was quickly rescinded. Perhaps I have an overall “mistake rate” of one a year. I am trying my best guys; I am not perfect, but I am trying to be.

    Since the spectre of a TBAN warning was raised, I should also point out that such a warning would be equally inappropriate:

    • A TBAN warning should be a last resort, for editors who are being disruptive, not handed out in response to a first mistake in a year.
    • Judging exactly how our words are to be interpreted by other people is incredibly hard, and we can only ever hope for 99%. With the 1% of mistakes that as humans we will make, we simply need a chance to immediately remedy them. I have made this same point to El C a year ago, and again today, and he has stated a belief that in doing so I am WP:NOTTHEM bludgeoning. So I apologize, but I do feel very strongly about this.
    • It would mean that if I ever again misjudge how my words are going to be understood, by any person who chooses to read them, then I must be kicked out of this part of the project. I could not write anything under those circumstances, and certainly could not risk engaging with any editors who would like to see me topic banned. I pride myself on being a thoughtful and collegiate partner to other editors in a difficult topic area, and as I have always said I prefer working with those who have a different perspective to me because we build more impactful articles together. As I wrote many years ago at WP:IPCOLL, "our encyclopedia has the opportunity to become the subject's most balanced reference point, with a truly bilateral narrative"; we cannot make that happen whilst living in fear.

    El C was kind enough to write "But you know what? Maybe I'm the one who has gotten it wrong here. We can see what others have to say.", and I appreciate his open-mindedness. For the avoidance of doubt, rescinding the block would not change the fact that I made a mistake, which I fully accept and apologize for. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by El C

    Statement by Drsmoo

    I just don't see how one can claim that "I remember finding the concerted attack frightening", is anything other than an intense statement of us-vs-them and tendentious editing. Regarding alternate definitions of concerted, the word was applied to the cumulative actions of three different editors, so it can't be claimed that it was meant in the singular sense. The usage fits the standard definition perfectly. And even, for the sake of argument, if a conspiracy wasn't being alleged, it's still being referred to as an "attack" and "frightening". How is one supposed to edit constructively with someone who views standard edits that reflect another viewpoint as "frightening" and an "attack"?

    I also resent and reject the claim that there were "false characterizations" in my post, there weren't.

    It may be worth pointing out that hostility and personal attacks are absolutely nothing new from this editor, I have personally, (along with others) been the recipient of a large amount of vitriol from this editor over a long period, some of which has been recorded in noticeboard posts, some of which remains strewn across talk pages. As an example, being baselessly called a racist just over a year ago (which is partially what inspired the previous warning), along with all of the other vitriolic comments Onceinawhile made across that talk page.

    The below are some examples copied from an AN/I filed back in 2016(!), so this is nothing new:

    And here is the A/R/E submission from roughly a year ago, particularly, the additional examples posted by Levivich, the aggressive editing has continued. Drsmoo (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Onceinawhile

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

    Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

    Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

    Result of the appeal by Onceinawhile

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