Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

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

Gillcv

The consensus here is that the partial block which has already been applied is appropriate. Gillcv is warned that further disruptive editing may result in a topic ban from the pseudoscience and/or CAM areas, or other additional sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:14, 3 September 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 Gillcv User who is submitting this request for enforcement Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Gillcv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBCAM WP:ARBPS Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [1] 29 August 2022, 15:34 UTC—edit warring to reintroduce crappy POV source [2] 29 August 2022, 16:11 UTC—obstinate edit warring to reintroduce crappy POV source [3] 31 August 2022, 02:21 UTC—they still think they were right [4] 31 August 2022, 03:11 UTC—refuses to apologize, they think they were right Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. [5] 29 August 2022, 15:22 UTC Additional comments by editor filing complaint About from my own experience, I know that the therapy, applied correctly, is useful: sorry, that's not knowledge (Greek episteme), that's opinion (Greek doxa). It's just a testimonial. Wikipedia has no obligation to conflate a sincere statement with the scientific truth. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC) Hi GoldenRing. You have misread the time. They were warned at 15:22 UTC, not 16:22 UTC. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC) @Gillcv: See law of holes. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [6] Discussion concerning Gillcv 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 Gillcv I the wikipedia entry "Cupping therapy" I introduced the following paragraph; However, this is not the first situation when folk medicine is unjustly blamed by "scientific" medicine. The negative effects of suction cup therapy may also be due to improper handling of the suction cups. It is true that there are also negative effects of suction cup therapy, but which "scientifically" designed drug does not? But there are also scientific studies that rehabilitate this therapy. This paragraph was deleted twice. On the second re-introduction, in the motivation, I wrote that, from my own experience, I know that the therapy, applied correctly, is useful. The last deletion was motivated as follows: the source is not reliable. In other words, the author of the second deletion allows himself to make me a liar. In addition, without documenting himself, he says that the journal is not reliable! Here is the journal information: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-acupuncture-and-meridian-studies. Gillcv (talk) 16:08, 29 August 2022 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu Mi statement is what: is an opinion?! So, according to your knowledge of logic and language, is a testimony an opinion? If it is not an opinion, then it is the testimony of many own experiences (with positive results). quote @Tgeorgescu : Wikipedia has no obligation to conflate a sincere statement with the scientific truth. Well: 1) logic, again! This is not a statement is an affirmation. 2) This affirmation was not inserted in the body of the paragraph in the Wikipedia article, but in the motivation for reintroducing that paragraph. 3) The scientific truth is supported by the citation of an article from scientific journal (not crap!) Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies. Finally, did you read something about this journal? There! 1) Quote: The Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies is a bimonthly, peer-reviewed, open access journal. (my emphasys). 2) Quote: It includes new a paradigm of integrative research, covering East and West, and traditional and modern medicine. (my emphasys). 3) Quote: The journal is indexed in MedLine/PubMed/Index Medicus, SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, Google Scholar, DOI/Crossref, Korea Citation Index(KCI), SHERPA/RoMEO, EZB, and Research Bible. Gillcv (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC) @GoldenRing Nevertheless please read my statement and the reply to @tGeorgescu. Gillcv (talk) 02:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC) @Black Kite please read my statement and the reply to @tGeorgescu. Gillcv (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC) I don't have time to continue this argument endlessly. Maybe only if you recommend me to the Dutch Commune Zwolle so that I can also receive some money. Gillcv (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC) References Statement by GoldenRing As far as I can tell in the mishmash of timezones the site presents me with, the DS notification (at 16:22) comes after the diffs (15:34 and 16:11), so this request is not actionable no matter what the merits of it might be. On a very quick glance it looks like it would have merit, but pseudoscience is not my bag. @Gillcv: I'd take this as your warning to go careful. GoldenRing (talk) 18:13, 29 August 2022 (UTC) PS I'd close this myself but I forget what the propriety is of doing this kind of admin action where I don't actually hold the bit. GoldenRing (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC) @Tgeorgescu: you are right, my bad. I'll go figure out how to get wiki to always give me times in UTC. GoldenRing (talk) 18:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Gillcv This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I have just seen this. I had already partial blocked Gillcv from Cupping therapy for disruptive editing - not as an AE action. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC) As for discretionary sanctions, the article talk page isn't tagged with DS notice, although I don't think that is required. Not sure which area would be best, as tagging them isn't what I normally do. In all events, I think BK's block was the right move, under the right authority. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC) This is disruptive and I agree with the partial block. The same end could be achieved with a topic ban. Hut 8.5 18:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Pranesh Ravikumar

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 Pranesh Ravikumar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Pranesh Ravikumar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS 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

1. 04:17, 28 August 2022 Removes a reliably sourced addition claiming it's RGW. (1st revert)
2. Follows it up with this intimidation/accusatory message to the editor who added it over what's essentially a comment dispute at this stage. Warned for disruption. They copypaste the warning message, claim that I'm hounding them and other things in retaliation (diff).
3. 05:13, 30 August 2022 Removes it again. (2nd revert) Warned for edit warring.
4. [13:28, 30 August 2022] (revdelled) Removes it again and replaces it with a cherrypicked copypaste while citing a different source. (3rd revert)
5. [15:39, 30 August 2022] (revdelled) Same as above but this time they cite the real source. (4th revert) Warned for copyright violation.
6. In the meantime we have a long winded discussion on my talk page which ends with them insisting on a personal standard that for "verification doesn't guarantee inclusion" to apply, one must present a refutation to the source.
7. 13:10, 2 September 2022‎ Partial restoration of their addition which includes similar close paraphrasing (Compare with source) and without any attempts to gain consensus through a third opinion or an RFC for it. They are well aware of ONUS due to the above discussion but they simply dismiss the dispute by claiming that it "wasn't sensibly disputed". (5th revert)

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 on 15:43, 29 August 2022 and 13:01, 27 May 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Discussing something with them itself is a pain due to the fact that they just tend to double down whenever a mistake is pointed out, argue against straw men and it's ultimately fruitless when they just go IDHT. In addition note that this behavior may be motivated by the nature of the content itself, the initial addition reflected negatively on the Premiership of Narendra Modi which they first tried to remove and then tried to minimise/distract from by adding tangential material. They have also previously been blocked for POV pushing and warned for copyright violations.

Overall a particularly frustrating combination of uncollaborative combative behavior, edit warring, copyright violations and a general refusal and/or inability to understand and follow policies and guidelines. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 17:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Now you're just lying. I didn't admit to anything, all I accepted was that there was minor error, a difference between "15 out of 16" and "16 out of 16". The content you were trying to remove is much more than that. Neither Libreravi nor TrangaBellam who introduced and restored the section seem to agree that it included "misrepresentation of sources, over-exaggeration, and exceptional claims". No one else supported your position, you clearly didn't have a consensus and you were arguing against things no one said. Case in point saying that "Claims like Indian government is operating a Gestapo would require peer-reviewed scholarly sources" (diff) when there was no mention of any gestapo in the addition.

And the objection against your addition is simple, that it deviates from the subject of the article. You can't wish that away by claiming that "there can be no sensible objection". Tayi Arajakate _Talk 06:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding D4iNa4's statement, I'll stand by my messages at User talk:D4iNa4#September 2022, the evidence is linked in the messages themselves for anyone to see what's what.

I should point out though, the discussion had 5 editors who all opposed inclusion at the time when D4iNa4 decided to comment at 16:17, 3 September 2022 (after reinstating the disputed content) and pinged 4 different editor of their choice while seeking support for inclusion; not an RfC, 3O, Wikiproject or noticeboard. Even then I gave it quite a bit of latitude. It's also irrelevant whether those being canvassed are in good standing. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 10:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Deepfriedokra, do you consider any of my messages to D4iNa4 unjustified? I try my best to discuss content disputes but it becomes a problem if all I get is a complete dismissal of policy based concerns and forceful insertion of disputed material without seeking appropriate venues of dispute resolution, which is something both Ravikumar and Di4Ni4 did and continue to do so.

For instance, Ravikumar's present response to something being undue or coatracking is that it's just JDL, earlier it was "not sensible", Di4Ni4 argument was an unfounded accusation of stonewalling and followed by a comment saying that there was no "actual explaination". Both of them tried to restore the material while the discussion was ongoing and largely against inclusion.Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark, to see what they think about this. I should also add, since both Ravikumar and Di4Ni4 keep bandying them around claiming that they support inclusion (as if it takes away from the conduct issues), as far as I can tell all they have said is that there may be scope for inclusion which is not something I even disagree with, rather my position is that it isn't due at the present state of the article. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Deepfriedokra, I said "now you're just lying" because Ravikumar said "Tayi Arajakate admitted their edits involved misrepresentation of sources and over-exaggeration not supported by sources." What am I supposed to say if someone puts words in my mouth? And where's the evidence that I was stonewalling? This is not battleground behavior, throwing accusations over a content dispute is. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• D4iNa4, 2 of those reverts are of copyrighted material and "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" (see WP:ONUS). It wasn't my responsibility to open the talk page discussion in the first place but on those who want to include it, yet I did. And yeah I'll stand by the message because you made a serious conduct accusation sans any evidence which is a personal attack and used it as a justification to restore content that was removed on policy based objections. This was your very first action in the dispute and you didn't even bother to join the talk page discussion until the material was removed again.

And just because something is sourced does not mean it has to included, the same policy linked above clearly states that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, this has already been stated in the discussion. It's ironic that you are talking about CIR and IDHT. This conduct pretty much mimics that of Ravikumar's. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

And "Conflict between India and Pakistan" does have a lot to do with "Indian government", both also fall under ARBIPA. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 14:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

Discussion concerning Pranesh Ravikumar

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 Pranesh Ravikumar

Why this report is being filed when the content dispute has been already resolved? I am saying this in the sense that there can be no sensible objection to the content that exists in the present version.

The content which I had removed included misrepresentation of sources, over-exaggeration, and exceptional claims.

But the content which I wrote was in fact expansion and was based on quality sources like Christophe Jaffrelot.

I admit I had to focus more on rewriting, but I haven't breached copyrights since.

Tayi Arajakate admitted their edits involved misrepresentation of sources and over-exaggeration not supported by sources.[8]

After this, I discussed reliably sourced content backed with multiple sources with Tayi Arajakte on their talk page, but only to see them failing to provide a sensible reason to remove the reliably sourced information. After nearly 3 days of discussion I restored the content.[9]

I was following WP:BRD here and gave every opportunity to Tayi Arajakte to provide a good explanation behind the removal of the content backed with quality sources. I also told Tayi Arajakte how they can justify the removal.

If the community was consulted over this content then I am sure it will favor my position that the reliably sourced content should not be removed. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• @Deepfriedokra: Depends on the claims that are being made but scholarly sources are more ideal supporting the text which is exceptional, though the dispute was not just about the use of news sources but also the misrepresentation of the existing sources. I had 3 DS alerts this year, 1 was about ARBIPA, 1 was about BLP and 1 was about South Asian social groups. But that is clearly not indicative of any 'disruption' because alerts are notifications, not warnings, the message box of DS alert clearly notes "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
• @Seraphimblade: I wanted to address the reverts and warning on my talk page this is why I made the message on user's talk page to address all this together but from next time I will ensure addressing content-related issues on the talk page of the article. I am not brushing off the copyright violation but stating how it could be avoided. Isn't it more important to show how one has recognised what went wrong and try to avoid making the same mistake next time? I had a reading of WP:COPYVIO and WP:PARAPHRASE and I promise not to violate copyrights again. You should see Talk:Premiership of Narendra Modi#Use of investigative agencies where Tayi Arajakte is aggressively relying on his WP:JDL-based explanations to get rid of the content reliably sourced to the best available source of this subject after edit warring to remove it here without gaining consensus. At least 3 far more experienced users (including 2 admins) have agreed with my position. You shouldn't be topic banning a user who is on the correct side in this dispute. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC) was

• @Deepfriedokra: You can trust me with another chance. I read the new inputs provided here, especially that of Vanamonde93. Once again I am reassuring you that I will be more careful and the problems that have been highlighted about my editing with regard to handling content dispute and copyrights won't emerge again because I am capable to avoid any further issues with my editing. Pranesh Ravikumar (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Statement by D4iNa4

Making my statement here because of 2 frivolous warnings I received from Tayi Arajakate right after I made my comment on talk page.

First warning falsely claims that I violated WP:NPA because of the word "WP:STONEWALLING" I used here, followed by the false claim of having a "rough consensus", despite no consensus is developed in less than 2 hours for removing reliably sourced content. No evidence of WP:NPA violation was ever provided.

Second warning falsely claims that I violated WP:CANVASSING by notifying the long term contributors in good standing who have edited this article for years.

Either this is a WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior or a WP:CIR issue, or a combination of both. You can't go around spamming frivolous warnings just to get discourage your opponent in a content dispute. Admins need to take a look at this misconduct of Tayi Arajakte. D4iNa4 (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

• Tayi Arajakte adds in response to my comment above that "I'll stand by my messages at User talk:D4iNa4#September 2022", and this is after being already told how they are wrong with their battleground mentality. This shows there is not only a competence issue with Tayi Arajakte but also IDHT. You don't hold high ground when you have yourself made 3 reverts[10][11][12] to remove reliably sourced content just before you are starting the discussion on talk page.[13] D4iNa4 (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
• @Deepfriedokra: "Conflict between India and Pakistan". Though it has nothing to do with this particular subject. D4iNa4 (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Statement by TrangaBellam

It is ridiculous that Tayi —who is one of the most competent and cooperative editors about Indian topics— is being considered for a TBan. That too, based on flimsy evidence from someone who is under an indefinite AE sanction (since 2018) and has since commited less than 500 edits. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93

(I had intended to sit this one out *sigh*). I read the section of Jaffrelot's book that's under dispute. That source is indeed the best on the topic that I am aware of. It constitutes three substantial paragraphs discussing how the administration of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has used its investigative agencies to intimidate and/or harass political opponents. The section begins with a passing mention of a historical instance when a politician of the opposing party used the same tactics. If I were interested in genuinely improving that section, I would summarize what the source had to say about the Modi administration. Instead, PraneshRavikumar has decided to lead with the single sentence that's critical of a different politician. This was after he first tried blanking the section. His edit-summary was dreadful, too. I can't help but believe PR has an axe to grind here, and would benefit from some time away from this dispute. A logged warning is the minimum I'd recommend: South Asian politics requires more collaboration and less belligerence, and his attitude toward the copyvio situation was...cavalier. I see no substantive evidence here against Tayi Arajakate. The templated warning wasn't necessary; no attacks were made; but I don't think highly of D4iNa4's choice to jump right into an edit-war after 2+ years of not touching the article. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

I haven't followed all this carefully (RL busyness) but I don't think a tban for Tayi Arajakate is a good idea. No comment on Pranesh Ravikumar. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Result concerning Pranesh Ravikumar

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

• Since when do we require peer reviewed scholarly sources? What we require is content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking."-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Looks like Pranesh Ravikumar needs a TBAN from ARBPIA. Notice they have three(?) DS alerts. Will await further input. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

  Still waiting for more input. Noting @Seraphimblade:'s comment. Is Pranesh Ravikumar's counter argument sufficient? However, I now wonder if Tayi Arajakte does not need a TBAN, based on D4iNa4's statement. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Pranesh Ravikumar's comment on my talk is germane here -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Looks like enough battle behavior to go around. I will say that, "Now you're just lying," falls below my expectations for the conduct of members of the Community. So, I'd like another admin to unravel this knot of naughtiness. Maybe TBANs for Pranesh Ravikumar and Tayi Arajakat? Yes, Vanamonde93 and RegentsPark will offer the needed insight. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  @D4iNa4: Are you under an indefinite AE sanction? For what area? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you, Vanamonde93, for bringing light where there was darkness. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  So, with that, the false trails of the red herrings have been cleared away and I am back to my original impression-- that Pranesh Ravikumar needs "some time away from the subject area" . I apologize to @Tayi Arajakate: to whom the false trail had led. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not impressed with Pranesh Ravikumar here. I'm not sure why they brought the content discussion to a user talk page rather than the article talk page; that's generally unproductive. And I'm even less impressed with repeated copyright violations, and then characterizing that with a brushoff I admit I had to focus more on rewriting.... I'm inclined to agree with a topic ban here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Carter00000

Carter00000 is indefinitely topic banned from Xinjiang, broadly construed --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:42, 6 September 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 Carter00000 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Carter00000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it At WP:ITNC, the user has bludgeoned arguments for excluding any link to Uyghur genocide in the blurb, essentially resulting the same argument being restated about 8 times. These include: 08:41, 1 September 2022 The relevance of the bolded article is also in question, given the scope of the report and the fact that the report make no mention of genocide. 12:43, 1 September 2022 The word "genocide" does not appear anywhere in the report and the allegations don't come close to that either 13:29, 1 September 2022 I think that the link to the article is already questionable, given that the reports scope is on counter-terrorism strategies, while "Uyghur genocide" implies much more serious actions. 14:59, 1 September 2022 the scope of the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism related operations of the government, and makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all, 15:59, 1 September 2022 I would like to reiterate that the report makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all. 15:13, 2 September 2022 the scope defined in the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism & extremism related operations of the government, making no references to genocide, or include the word "genocide" at all. ... Given the above, it seem to be a significant exaggeration of the facts for the link featured in the blurb to be "Uyghur genocide". 16:55, 2 September 2022 Given that background information already exists in the report article as previously noted, suggest to remove the link to the now redundant Uyghur genocide article, as per my previous concerns on the accurate reflection and the fact that genocide in not alleged or mentioned in the report. 09:01, 3 September 2022 Given that background information exists in the bolded article, the link to the Uyghur genocide article is now redundant. Per my previous concerns on accurate reflection of the report contents, and the fact that no genocide is alleged or mentioned in the report, the link to the article makes the blurb WP:SYNTH, as it combines material in a way which is not reflected by the report. Furthermore the blurb is WP:SENSATIONALISM, as it effectively presents allgations of potential actions as a genocide, which is a very large escalation in magnitude. After being cautioned about bludgeoning on their talk page and about beating a dead horse in the discussion itself, the user continued to bludgeon the discussion and then pinged a bunch of editors who were involved at a discussion on another page: 12:29, 4 September 2022‎ wall of text 16:07, 4 September 2022‎ pings to 5 editors Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any N/A If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about generalsanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see this diff. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested diff and diff Additional comments by editor filing complaint I believe that the above shows that the editor has bludgeoned, has been warned about bludgeoning, and has no interest in stopping bludgeoning. I'd ask that the user be blocked under general sanctions for 72 hours for repeatedly bludgeoning at WP:ITNC with respect to the Uyghur genocide article. I believe this will allow time for the user to calm down and will prevent further disruption in this thread. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC) @Deepfriedokra: In the past, the user has gone to WP:ERRORS when the ITNC discussion was briefly closed and again made the same sort of argument for why they didn't like the blurb in an effort to get it pulled (i.e. The scope defined in the report focuses exclusively on counter-terrorism and counter-extremism related operations of the government and makes no references to genocide, or the include word "genocide" at all). A partial block from ITNC would likely just push the bludgeoning back to WP:ERRORS based off of the user's past behavior in the thread. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC) My rationale for 72 hours is that it's the standard first-offense edit warring sanction; I think that bludgeoning is somewhat akin to talk page analogue of edit warring (i.e. using brute numbers of edits to try to get one's way). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC) @Deepfriedokra: A topic ban would also work to prevent disruption and, given that the editor doesn't really edit articles in that topic area anyway, I don't have concerns about it unduly impacting the editor's editing. It might even be more narrowly tailored than the block. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC) @Carter00000: Is there a reason you canvassed ITNC about this AE thread? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Discussion concerning Carter00000 Statement by Carter00000 On the initial edits, I would like to note that the edits linked were made at different stages of the ITN nomination. I felt that given that the discussion had entered into new stages, it was reasonable to address the same concerns again, given that each stage was for a separate action. I would like to note that I stopped making the above argument after being warned. The two subsequent edits made related to the nomination in general, and was to address issues with the process of the nomination, given the number of concerns raised by other editors. The concerns were cited to editors who had raised those issues in brackets, pinging them at the same time as a means to request their comments on the discussion. The pings to the five editors in the second comment was to request comments from all participants of a concurrent discussion on the subject on a different page. Carter00000 (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Please find my clarifications on the points mentioned. I would like to note that I don't edit much in ITN, with only occasional contributions. I have also mostly limited myself to a few comments for each nomination commented on in the past. I have previously not made any edits relating to this DS topic, these were my first edits to this topic. As per my previous comment, I would like to re-iterate that I did stop making the point which I was warned for, after I had been warned. My understanding is that sanctions are only imposed for continued disruption after being warned. Given the reaction here at AE, it has been made clear that I have overstepped in a topic of contention, which should have been apparent to me given the topic DS. I would like to signal my willingness to take a step back, re-assess my actions, and to contribute appropriately to this topic area going forwards. Carter00000 (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC) @Deepfriedokra Please note that the previous cases relate to actions initiated by myself against the conduct of other editors which I felt was against policy. In this case, my actions are in relation to content issues on an article. I feel that these issues are of a different nature, and that it is obvious that I would be more proactive in the former case. I further note that this noticeboard is for enforcement of DS's on specific topics, so it seems unreasonable to constantly bring up my actions in other parts of WP not related to this topic area. Carter00000 (talk) 02:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC) @Deepfriedokra Noted on your further comments and understand your concern on my recidivism. FWIW, I do want to note again that upon being warned on the initial set of eight comments I made on the nomination, I did not bring up that point on the nomination again. I feel that this shows that I am in fact capable of heeding warnings. As explained earlier the subsequent posts I made were an attempt at summarizing other editors concerns on the nomination and to ask for further discussion on those concerns, which I felt was separate from my previous point. As per the above, I am similarly willing to re-assess my actions and to contribute appropriately to this topic area going forwards. @InvadingInvader Noting that (1) this is our first interaction on WP and (2) you were not a participant in the main nomination, it is my opinion that your suggested sanction may be too extensive, given your limited background knowledge (as you yourself noted) on the situation. I would like to emphasize again that this is the AE board. I note that I previously have not edited in the topic area of concern, nor have I received any sanction in the topic area (or received any sanctions at all). I feel that as a matter of due process, I should receive only a formal warning for this filing, given my limited and clean record in this topic area. As I have mentioned above, I am capable of heeding warnings and am willing to contribute appropriately to this topic area going forwards. Carter00000 (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by WaltCip Whatever sanction that is deemed necessary, I'll support, ncluding a topic ban from WP:ITN/C for extraordinarily disruptive conduct, even after being asked to stop. Yes, I recognize I may have partially prompted this by closing the discussion here, but these closures are not atypical on ITN/C once a consensus is reached, as it had been, and the proper thing to do then is discuss any changes to the blurb at WP:ERRORS. Even when he is the sole voice of opposition, Carter00000 has been dominating the discussion both on WP:ERRORS and WP:ITN/C in a way that represents battleground mentality.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 17:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC) @Deepfriedokra: My only other encounter with Carter00000 was on WP:ANI when he opened up two threads: once against Citobun and again against Alsoriano97. In the latter case, there was a great deal of suspicion regarding his own conduct. It seems he also opened up an ArbCom request which was also quickly shut down. I'm not sure if that means he also needs to be topic banned from WP:ANI and WP:RFAR, but it's clear he is overzealous and quick to instigate drama in areas where it would be more prudent to disengage and mediate. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC) I went back to the declined ArbCom request to refresh my memory, and given what took place there, I now believe his disruptive conduct was and is such that an indef WP:NOTHERE block may be more appropriate.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 20:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by Dennis Brown After filing multiple Arb cases and ANI cases, I think it's time for a topic ban from ITN. This is just ridiculous. Since they dragged me to Arb (which was immediately declined for not having merit), I will comment in this section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Statement by InvadingInvader I have not had any direct interactions with Carter outside of this most recent debacle on Xinjiang, but I'm not hearing happy notes about this guy. I do think he frequently disrupts consensus, and if he/she/they had spent more time on Talk:2022 with regard to Xinjiang, I believe many arguments he would bring up would be redundant and unproductive. Most people seem to be suggesting a TBAN or Block; my recommendation would be to TBAN Carter from Xinjiang permanently and a block of at least 9 months followed by a permanent "probation" period. He's caused problems before, but I'm one who believes in reform. If he's able to prove himself after he/she/they block to be a constructive editor who respects consensus, I think he could be an awesome contributor, but if more stuff pops up about him disrupting consensus, "playing Karen" and dragging people to arbitration, acting in a manner in which he demonstrates behavior contrary to WP:OWN, or anything else that would show he's WP:NOTHERE, the permablock may be needed. What I'm personally worried about is if he does get permablocked too early, he's gonna IP sock vandalize since a permablock could be interpreted by Carter that he can't go lower on Wikipedia, giving him motivation to have a grudge against us forever. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Result concerning Carter00000 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Statement by Deepfriedokra A 72 hour block seems like a milder sanction than is usually doled out here. Would a WP:partial block of 72 hours duration for that page (WP:ITNC) not serve as well?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2022 (UTC) I see. Welp, I'll go one better as a partial block would not work. How 'bout a WP:TOPICBAN on anything to do with the Uyghur genocide, anywhere at all on Wikipedia, broadly construed, of three months indefinite duration persuaded by my colleagues.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Perhaps Carter can find a constructive way to contribute apart from that area. I'll support almost anything. I'm easy to get along with. 😀 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC) I think that it's the overall content here that is in question. Changing focus not withstanding. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC) @WaltCip: If I remember correctly, Carter00000 mostly edits mostly in the ITN area. Hast here been other disruption not about the Uyghur's? If so, that should be the focus of any TBAN. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2022 (UTC) I think if we accept Cart0000's assurances and do not impose a TBAN now, we will just find ourselves back here again. Past experience with three ANI's and two ArbCom requests tells me Carter0000 just cannot recognize when to stop without more structure. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC) A 72 hour block is going to do very little in my opinion. It appears that Carter has a bee in their bonnet about this issue outwith ITN (e.g. here) and therefore I think that a TBAN from the topic area of some duration is what we should be looking at. No real opinion on the duration, but I'd happily support DFO's suggestion of three months. firefly ( t · c ) 18:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC) If there is going to be a tban, it should be indef -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC) Carter0000 just cannot recognize when to stop without more structure opines DFO above - I tend to agree. And I also agree with my colleagues here that a TBAN should probably be indefinite - on further thought a definite TBAN can lead to it being "waited out" with little resultant change. firefly ( t · c ) 16:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC) I think an indefinite TBAN is warranted given Deepfriedokra's valid concerns. Indefinite is not infinite--or the other way around, whatever it was. Drmies (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Support indef TBAN. Which is still permitted, though the new changes to AE, mercifully, may not encompass WP:GS (i.e. gonna suck, ARBCOM disconnect). El_C 16:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

MrLag525

Blocked indef by GeneralNotability as a regular admin action. El_C 18:38, 5 September 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 MrLag525 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested MrLag525 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff) Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it MrLag525/sandbox (now deleted - both versions) Ad hominem against user issuing DS alert Statement of intent to continue aggressive POV-pushing attempts Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any N/A If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MrLag525&oldid=1108136542 Additional comments by editor filing complaint MrLag525 has made it crystal clear their goal is to aggressively push a pro-Trump POV, and have written two sandbox screeds to that effect, excoriating editors who would push back against them. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Discussion concerning MrLag525 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 MrLag525 Statement by (username) Result concerning MrLag525 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. AE should be saved for people who might actually be productive elsewhere given a topic ban. MrLag's contributions are solidly in the realm of WP:NOTHERE, and I have blocked them as such as a normal admin action. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC) Agreed, Dark Brandon, etc., not nuanced enough for AE. El_C 18:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)