Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive284
Noteduck[edit]
| Noteduck receives a logged warning to be careful and to abide to policies while editing in the topic area of American politics--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2021 (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. Request concerning Noteduck[edit]
Edit warring Reverted editors include myself, Conan The Librarian, Shrike, Visite fortuitement prolongée, Mcrt007, Pincrete, Kyohyi. While wp:ONUS puts the burden of making the case for inclusion on the editor trying to include new content, Noteduck feels the burden is on those rejecting the change. Behavioral Standards: Bludgeoning
Behavioral standards: Edit summaries disparage editors (trimmed)
Behavioral Standards: Casting aspersions/inappropriate talk page comments: (trimmed)
NA
Noteduck account created 19 Dec 2020 (prior account Spungo93 from April 2020). Battleground mentality including include edit warring, uncivil talk page behavior (unrelated comments about editor, tendentious editing, refusal listen to others). Editors have reached out to discuss issues [[23]], Callanecc (uninvolved) commenting[[24]][[25]]. Myself before filing this complaint [[26]]. Noteduck complaint at the Treehouse. An uninvolved editor said Noteduck needs to listen to others[[27]]. Dialog was ignored or treated as examples of the unreasonableness of other editors. Noteduck does not follow concepts like BRD and CONSENSUS, repeatedly reintroducing disputed content absent consensus or sometimes discussion. This resulted in extensive, slow edit warring. Noteduck is quick to use article talk pages/edit summaries to cast aspersions and or inappropriately focus on editors. Affected articles include PragerU, Roger Kimball, Douglas Murray (author) and Andy Ngo. Edited for length Springee (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Replies[edit]
Reply to jps[edit]jps, It's interesting to note that you also felt Noteduck's behavior has been sufficient that you warned them to be careful[[29]]. Noteduck's comment here [[30]] suggest they still do not understand the difference between commenting on the content vs the editor. Springee (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC) Generalized reply to Loki and Shadydabs[edit]If you look at the diffs in most cases Noteduck isn't reverting my edit or replying to my comments. Absent diffs claims that I was edit warring, POV pushing etc have no merit. Springee (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Loki, your edit here fails to noted the talk page discussions that went along with the edits. Most of this talk page is about the content in question[[31]]. Note there were more editors in the discussion. Can you say there was a consensus for any of the edits you cited?[[32]] Why have a consensus policy if we don't expect editors to respect it? Springee (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Reply to Cedar777[edit]Cedar777, your accusations against me misrepresent the facts but also miss the point. For example, when looking at the examples of casting aspersions, Noteduck is attacking a large number of editors, not just myself. Even with this active ARE they decided to accuse Hipal of ROWN just a few hours ago. Springee (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Reply to dlthewave[edit]Dlthewave, I think you are confusing disagreements regarding content with editors casting aspersions etc which is the heart of the issue here. Your last point, saying I refused to review a list of sources, is not entirely accurate. Noteduck dumped a large list of possible sources on the talk page and asked which I would reject which is already borderline failing to AGF. Since there was no text to accompany the source we have no way to know how the sources would be used. I did provide an answer [[34]] but it had to be limited to just the sources which were either not green or not green for this topic. You also neglected to mention that you are an involved editor. Springee (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Reply to El_C[edit]El_C, I've thought about what is the correct remedy here. As I said to Noteduck here [[35]] I want the problem to stop. I think a clear warning that comments about users are not acceptable on talk page. Any comment that is about the editor not the content of the article should not be on the talk page. The one sanction I think would help is a consensus required restriction. This would force Noteduck to slow down and listen to editors who object to changes but aren't willing to engage in the edit wars. Being forced to slow down and trying to address objection or otherwise establish consensus is only going to make Noteduck a better editor overall. Springee (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
El_C, even with this AE open, Noteduck's edit warring and failure to follow BRD continues. Just last night they added new content [[37]]. The material was removed, ND restored it with a demand that the objecting editor make the case for removal [[38]]. {u|Peter Gulutzan}} subsequently agreed and removed the content. Noteduck's failure to discuss disputed edits and expectation that others should have to justify removals is contrary to ONUS and BURDEN and leads to more edit warring. A BRD restriction or similar on ND's edits would be helpful. Springee (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC) @El C, Rosguill, and Ymblanter:, this has been open a while with little traffic in March. Is it appropriate to request a close with warning which appears to be the admin consensus? Springee (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
[[39]]
Discussion concerning Noteduck[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Noteduck[edit]I believe 1RR allegations are factually incorrect, as LokitheLiar said. Given block reverts and vandalism I will concede that I got somewhat cranky around the Douglas Murray (author) page. As a newbie I was sometimes ignorant of policy - eg I know now Springee can delete material from talk page even if I'd prefer they didn't - and I apologize. It seems I edit-warred on several occasions and I apologize - happy to learn from any arbitration decision. A counter-claim - if not the right forum I will happily withdraw it for now: I contend Springee is highly partisan and doesn't edit pages with any objectivity. Springee's talk page history has many claims of partisan bias and misunderstanding of policy (these just from the last 3 years),[40][41][42][43][44] including worrying claims of firearm advocacy,[45] behavioral problems,[46][47] edit-warring,[48] vandalism,[49] and canvassing[50][51] Springee's twin fixations seem to be conservative politics and firearms. Stalking has been raised by another editor.[52][53] Springee has followed me around Wiki, aggressively editing pages they previously had no involvement with right after I edit them.[54][55] I believe Springee sometimes follows my user contributions, looking for material to challenge. Springee's MO seems to be stonewalling any potentially unflattering material from pages on conservative subjects. It's worrying that Wiki pages of powerful conservative groups have become one-sided and whitewashed thanks to Springee. Full disclosure - I have discussed these problems with other editors via email who have concurred. I appreciate Loki's criticism - it's ironic of Springee to accuse me of ignoring requests for help. On several occasions my posts on Springee's talk page were rapidly deleted without engagement.[56][57] As Loki mentioned this is a boomerang but I believe Springee in fact has serious behavioral and POV problems that need addressing. Noteduck (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hipal, I've presented robust claims of partisanship, POV-pushing, stonewalling and behavioral problems from multiple editors on Springee's part in formal and appropriate language, based on dozens of diffs (with more still being added). I've taken two days off my new job to make sure my arguments are as thorough as possible. This is a forum for resolving disputes between editors, and I hardly think presenting my side of the case constitutes "battleground behavior" Noteduck (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi Rosguill talk and Ymblanter, thanks for taking over this matter. Is there a usual timeframe for wrapping up these arb request decisions? Thanks Noteduck (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Furthermore, I just want to confirm that it's okay to criticize persistent editorial bias and tendentious editing if the editor feels that it's justified, including on talk pages of contested articles when necessary. I'm not sure how else it can be communicated. Cheers Noteduck (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Statement by LokiTheLiar[edit]As someone who's been involved in some of the disputes above, I would like to say that Springee's above portrayal of themselves as neutral or justified in all the above is not true. So for example, take the PragerU page from January 5th to January 7th. It's my contention that that history pretty clearly describes a two-sided slow moving edit war, with one of the sides being Noteduck and the other being Springee and Shinealittlelight, and that it's eventually ended by the edit-protection of the page by Callanecc and the starting of this RfC a few weeks later. Or in other words, Springee was also edit warring, they just had a partner making their edit warring less obvious. I also think the characterization of Noteduck as having broken 1RR on PragerU is incorrect. This edit, which Springee characterizes as a revision of this previous edit adding that entire sentence to the page, is not in fact a revert. It's just an edit. A revert, according to WP:3RR is an I'm less familiar with the situation on Douglas Murray but a cursory glance at the page history reveals a similar slow motion edit war that Noteduck is only one of many participants in. Several editors, most of whom appear to now be blocked, remove large parts of the page without going to the talk page, and Noteduck and several other users add them back in, including Springee themself at one point. My impression here is that the side mainly at fault is the side with all the socks that repeatedly tries to remove large sections of the article without talk page consensus. Some of the above behavior from Noteduck is still concerning. Obviously, edit warring is not good even if many other people are also edit warring on the same page, and I'd really rather Noteduck had just gone to ANI with their complaints rather than cast all the WP:ASPERSIONS they've been casting. But TBH I'm tempted to call for a WP:BOOMERANG here because Springee's case against Noteduck is pretty directly parallel to a similar case that could easily be made against themselves. At the very least, this is not a problem with Noteduck, it's a content war across multiple pages that Noteduck is one member of one side of. E: Quick reply to Shine: I don't believe that anyone here is casting aspersions, nor do I believe that aspersions can even be cast here,as this is one of the E2: Because both Springee and Shinealittlelight again have asked me to provide evidence, I am providing a timeline to substantiate my accusation of a slow motion edit war on PragerU (and fixing the broken link above, sorry, my mistake):
In total, over a three day period, that's two reverts each for Springee, Shine, and Hipal (for a total of six reverts by their "side") and four reverts by Noteduck, for a total of ten reverts over 3 days. @El_C: Could you be a little clearer about what part of Pudeo's comment is causing you to lean towards sanctions? I'm personally not seeing anything interesting/new there. Statement by Shadybabs[edit]Having come into conflict with Springee in the past I can say pretty confidently that it is Springee, and not Noteduck, who is the primary problem with contentious edits and extremely biased application of wikipedia policy to whitewash factual information with respect to right wing individuals or organizations. [61] Another diff by Springee undoing edits where I try to move language away from PragerU's self-published claims to those made in RS, as well as re-inserting edits that were still under dispute in the talk page. He provided no specific justification on which edits were sourced poorly. Alarmingly, PragerU's disinformation regarding climate change is removed from the content about their fact-checking spat against youtube, highly biasing the article against youtube in favor of PragerU, against what is reported in third party sources.Shadybabs (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Shinealittlelight[edit]Noteduck admits to being @LokiTheLiar: accuses me and Springee of slow-motion edit warring. This is an outrage. I'm extremely careful not to edit war. If evidence cannot be produced, then I'd ask Loki to strike that statement. I thought Noteduck was pushing content about Douglas Murray and Robert E. Lee into the article against consensus, which I politely removed one time each here and here. Because Noteduck kept reintroducing this content against consensus, other editors, including Springee but also notably the most experienced editor on the page, Hipal, removed the material, e.g. here. These additions went to arbitration, which produced a massive RfC which seems to be split at present (no consensus so far). This is how editing contentious pages works: we slowly improve the page. Casting ASPERSIONS and editing stuff into the article against consensus is going to drive good editors away. I'd like to also note that Hipal and I have often disagreed in the past; there's no attempt to "team up" here. I see Springee, Hipal, and I just trying to do our best to deal with a disruptive editor. @Shadybabs: do you have any diffs showing what you're saying about Springee? Otherwise that's more WP:ASPERSIONS. Noteduck is new, and I don't want to be too hard on new editors. But Noteduck needs to apologize for casting aspersions, and to be sternly warned that continued editing against consensus and casting of aspersions is unacceptable. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC) @LokiTheLiar: The "evidence" you allegedly provided is that broken link to the history page? That's not evidence. And no, we can't cast aspersions, even here at AE, without evidence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Hipal[edit]Per the evidence offered by Springee, Noteduck needs to be constrained from involvement with AP2 topics, otherwise we're going to be back, after even more disruption from Noteduck. Noteduck's statement above shows what we can expect until it is stopped: bad faith assumptions of others, an inability to respect content and behavioral policy, and the battleground attitude typical in AP2 topics. --Hipal (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Noteduck's subsequent comments above show an inability to take responsibility for their own behavior, in addition to what I wrote above. --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Noteduck is now arguing above, without any diffs, that editors agreeing with Springee ( On January 27, I provided Noteduck with 13 diffs showing evidence Noteduck has redacted the accusations against me made here.[65] Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Dlthewave, we're dealing in this discussion here with an editor, Noteduck, that I think would be best blocked or banned from PragerU completely for the reasons already given. In this context, I believe my very slow and cautious approach to his latest comments at Talk:PragerU are perfectly fine, especially if one were to assume good faith. Even if this discussion wasn't happening and there was no problematic editing going on, slow and cautious is always advisable. --Hipal (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Pudeo[edit]Noteduck could have been blocked as a "sock of someone" (seen such a block rationale), after Spungo93 was CU-blocked and their explanation for that did not make sense. Noteduck explained: Noteduck has used self-published / WP:PRIMARY sources to make contentious claims: 1) Using Dennis Prager's own National Review column to say he rejects scientific consensus on climate change 2) Using Roger Kimball's own columns to say he has "repeatedly" contended that there was voter fraud, then after someone changed "fraud" to "irregularities", they changed that and their own original wording to say he has repeatedly made "false and debunked claims", while claiming white-washing in the edit summary. They once reverted the removal of these primary sources, accusing Springee of hounding. One of Kimball's own columns that Noteduck used as a source was in The Epoch Times which is a deprecated source in Wikipedia. 3) Using Maurice Newman's own column to say he rejects consensus on climate change 4) Using Adam Creighton's own column to make critical claims on his lockdown stance. I think it's unusual that someone would link to The Epoch Times or the person's own columns to make negative claims about the subjects, so it's clear these were WP:OR claims, and editors should err on caution per BLP like Springee has done. They also initiated a declined RFAR with a focus on four editors on January 7. They seem to be constantly accusing other editors of partisanship: "partisan politicking", "problem with partisan bias", problem with politically partisan editing" "ideologically motivated -- sabotage" etc. Some of their statements had to be hatted in the PragerU DRN thread due to personal comments. While this isn't too unusual in the topic area, it's usually done by ranting IPs, not by regural editors. --Pudeo (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Cedar777[edit]My familiarity with this dispute is limited to the Andy Ngo article. Noteduck has made a number of constructive, if imperfect, comments and edits. The article has benefited after Noteduck pointed to WP:ROWN and MOS:LEADCITE. I do not agree that there was a 1RR violation or that Springee is a faultless party here. Springee has repeatedly removed reliably sourced content from the article that, if retained, might reflect unfavorably on conservatives. The bar set by Springee (with support from Shinealittlelight) for inclusion of content critical of Ngo is impossibly high such that they have disallowed content from the NYT, the WP, along with a number of other sources listed in green at WP:RSP when the content is not flattering to conservatives. In observing these patterns and engaging with editors on the talk page over several months, the phrase "moving the goal posts" comes to mind. Even innocuous statements such as Ngo has been the subject of wide ranging media coverage (when there were already 77 citations) have been sanitized from the article by Springee as in this edit. Meanwhile, the door has largely been left open to contributors sympathetic to Ngo where the quality of their sourcing receives limited scrutiny, as with this edit sourced to Sky News Australia followed by more disparagement of RS at talk where the NYT & Wapo were referred to as "fourth rate sources". This pattern is also reflected in efforts to enforce 1RR: sympathizers get gentle proactive advice from Springee here, while opponents are warned and/or scolded here and here where a user restored sourced content that happened to mention a political figure. Overtime, these actions add up to a skewed article that does not reflect what the bulk of RS actually say. Sanctioning Noteduck is not going to address this underlying issue. Noteduck has been direct at times about the reverting of unfavorable content but is otherwise respectful. Springee and Shinealittlelight have had issues with what is known as "talking out of both sides of your mouth". For example, Springee claims this NYT article can be used to support that Ngo must be called a journalist diff. . . but once a summary of what this same NYT article was discussing about Ngo was added, the source was deemed no longer usable or relevant when it came to criticism. Diff A second instance is where user Springee, in a slow motion edit war, reverted content that was added by 3 different editors, sourced to WP, Bellingcat, and Daily Dot:
Noteduck is a newer editor, with much to learn. While I cannot speak for the disputes at the other pages, in my view their contributions have been a net positive at Andy Ngo. Cedar777 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]User:Noteduck filed a Request for Arbitration concerning PragerU. I said that I was willing to mediate the content dispute, and the arbitration case was closed, and a DRN case was opened, which was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_201#PragerU The result of the mediation was a six-part RFC, which is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PragerU#RFC_on_Various_Proposed_Edits The calendar is about to run out on the RFC, so that the bot will remove the tag, and the RFC will be ready for closure. One editor took issue with the RFC, saying that the sources were unreliable. My view was that reliability of the sources could be considered by the community in the RFC discussion. The same editor, User:Hipal, also said that there were behavioral issues that needed to be addressed. The behavioral issues were not addressed at DRN because DRN is a content forum. I don't have a strong opinion on either the content, because I was maintaining neutrality in order to mediate, or on conduct, because DRN is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Request for Closure If any admin here (or other experienced editor) hasn't become involved in this case, they could help by closing the RFC. On the other hand, I am willing to close the RFC if no one objects, and if the parties agree that I have not become involved and am neutral. Of course, "closing" the RFC doesn't mean performing some housekeeping task such as archiving it. It means assessing consensus, which requires judgment. Do the other editors want me to assess consensus and close the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC) Update on Closure User:ProcrastinatingReader has closed the six-part RFC, evaluating the consensus on each of the questions separately (which is what was needed). I thank ProcrastinatingReader. I would also like to comment that my own opinion is that no action except maybe a caution is needed, but I try to stay neutral if I have taken an actively neutral role. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC) Statement by Dlthewave[edit]I have concerns about whitewashing at PragerU, where it appears that several editors are working to block any negative content. The general attitude towards Noteduck comes across as condescending and there seems to be no effort to work collaboratively or help Noteduck develop their editing skills. Example #1:
References
Example #2:
I've seen this abuse of the consensus-building process before and it's a very effective way for a small group of editors to control article content while maintaining superficial civility and complying with 3RR. I'm concerned that a "Consensus Required" restriction would only grant Springee, Hipal and others more power to block content by refusing to reach consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 04:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC) I also wanted to address Pudeo's BLP concerns. I would generally argue against the use of these primary sources, since they would need secondary coverage to establish WP:WEIGHT and The Epoch Times has been deprecated. However, I fail to see how Noteduck's edits [68][69][70][71] can be construed as contentious or negative. They're literally repeating what the subjects say about themselves which falls under WP:ABOUTSELF from a verifiaility standpoint. Again, this content shouldn't be self-sourced, but it's not the big BLP brouhaha that Pudeo is claiming. –dlthewave ☎ 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Statement by PaleoNeonate[edit]My involvement at PragerU has been minimal so far and I'll avoid commenting on specific editors at the moment. I comment to share that I did notice particular resistance and whitewashing in relation to the promotion of climate change denialism by the org, despite reliable sources being clear about it. There's a tendency to present a WP:GEVAL view like if ideology and science were equal or that sources that comment on it are only opinions. —PaleoNeonate – 18:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC) Statement by jps[edit]I am appalled by User:Springee's approach on the Talk:PragerU page. It looks to me like we have a case of WP:Civil POV-push as a source is being blackballed from a respected university on the flimsiest of bases. When I pointed out that this is the hallmark of an ideological game, Springee decided to come to my user talkpage to wag his finger. Perhaps Springee should take a break. jps (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC) Statement by Username[edit]Result concerning Noteduck[edit]
Gah, I still seem to be the only one contributing to this section, so maybe a couple of additional notes. Noteduck, you should make your case here. If you are to file a new AE request, it is likely to be viewed negatively. Folks may well end up asking: why didn't they just present their case in the original complaint? I'll stress that the filer of an AE complaint faces no less scrutiny than the its subject. Springee, you still need to trim (hopefully, with no more collapsing). The requirement is an upward of 20 diffs, whereas you are now approaching 40. El_C 17:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
|
3Kingdoms[edit]
| 3Kingdoms is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. — Newslinger talk 05:42, 30 March 2021 (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. Request concerning 3Kingdoms[edit]
1RR violation is a general sanction that only requires the edit notice (here) to be enforced, but the user was notified of DS in the topic area.
The editor asks others to go to the talk page, despite my having already done so and having not joined the discussion. Straightforward 1RR violation, along with a peculiar understanding of what edit-warring is in his or her edit summary claiming that material first added by the user a few days ago may not be removed because only that is edit-warring. The user declined to self-revert when offered the chance, claiming the onus is on people removing material and he or she will just follow the 1RR next time. The user recently had an indefinite block for edit-warring reduced to a page block, it appears that did not have the desired effect. The latest response to asking them to self revert was how about you act like an adult.
No, the problem remains a 1RR violation that you apparently refuse to self-revert. nableezy - 18:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC) FYI, the self-revert has been re-reverted, despite 3-1 opposition to the edit through either reverts or the talk page, and despite the prohibition on using sub-standard sources in BLPs after they have been removed and explicitly cited as BLP violations. nableezy - 01:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning 3Kingdoms[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 3Kingdoms[edit]Hey I'm sorry that I did not notice the 1rr will not happen again. However, the guy doing this really needs to calm down, I explained why I would not revert it again. My reply about being an adult was about him trying to be a tough guy by saying he was going to report over something not needed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning 3Kingdoms[edit]
|
Gilabrand[edit]
| This is pretty cut and dry, an obvious violation of the topic ban. Blocking for the same period as last time, 3 months. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:04, 4 April 2021 (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. Request concerning Gilabrand[edit]
Gilabrands first topic ban violation was reverted by an administrator: [73] I asked Gilabrand to self revert her third topic ban violation of the First Zionist Congress image: [74], her next edit after that was to re ad the Aliyah template, she had previously removed: [75], she did not revert the addition of the First Zionist Congress image she added that was also against her topic ban.
Not applicable
Notified:[76] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Discussion concerning Gilabrand[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Gilabrand[edit]Statement by Huldra[edit]
Statement by ZScarpia[edit]Note that the Israeli Foreign Ministry is listed as the source for the Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) article which was added as a citation in the second diff. The JVL has been discussed multiple times at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. The cosensus arrived at in the last discussion was that it should be regarded as a mostly unreliable source. In addition, the JVL is a tertiary, rather than secondary, source. ← ZScarpia 02:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by JzG[edit]I concur with the analysis above: this is both a topic ban violation and POV-pushing, i.e. recidivism, so enforcement is warranted. I have no strong opinion on how long the block should be, but given the time since the last one it should probably be no longer than mine was. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Gilabrand[edit]
|
Katafada[edit]
| 30/500 rule explained to Katafada on their talk page in a logged notification/warning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 7 April 2021 (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. Request concerning Katafada[edit]
Katefada has less than 100 edit; they have been told "Please note especially the 30/500 rule" when given the ARBPIA-alert. Still they continue to make extremely controversial ARBPIA-edits, with inflammatory edit-lines. Also; I am very disappointed that Sir Joseph (talk · contribs) re-adds [[Category:Archaeological discoveries in Israel]] about discoveries done outside Israel (link): he should know better than this, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Now that the Cave of Horror has been included in the Dead Sea Scrolls article; I withdraw this report. (Although; noting the opinions/attitude that Katefada has shown on the Talk:Dead Sea Scrolls-page: I suspect that Katefada will find themselves back here soon), cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Katafada[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Katafada[edit]I am new to Wikipedia. I am not a political activist or a keyboard warrior. As you can read on my profile, I am allergic to propaganda. I'm mainly interested in linguistics. Some years back (2015 if I remember correctly) I edited the Modern Hebrew page which had been vandalised by anti-Israel editors who gave undue weight to fringe theories in order to classify Modern Hebrew as "Relexified Yiddish", I provided most of the sources that enabled other editors to fix the article, its classification section is largely based on my initial draft. I had no account back then. What prompted me to create an account was the appearance of the [[Category:Archaeological discoveries in the State of Palestine]] category on the Dead Sea Scrolls page, this category was created in February 2021, ostensibly with the intention of granting undue weight to the Palestinian Authority's ownership claim (which is entirely spurious, what Huldra conveniently ignores is that the "West Bank" was under illegal Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967, and that the PLO made no claims on this area until 1968). To make sure the article is more balanced, I have added the [[Category:Archaeological discoveries in Israel]], which Huldra seems quite keen on removing, using Huldra's logic the "Archaeological discoveries in the State of Palestine" category should also be removed as there was no "State of Palestine" when the scrolls were discovered. As for the other edits, I have no issue if the Palestine infobox were added as well in the Jund Filastin and other articles, that being said Huldra should have no problems with the Palestine infobox's absence, after all if we are to follow her logic none of Jund al-Urdunn was in the territory normally assigned to Palestine (Gaza & the West Bank) , most of it was in what is now Northern Israel. Replacing the Israel infobox with the Palestine infobox obviously is a political edit. The impression I'm getting so far is that I've stirred a hornet's nest and am being unfairly targeted for it. Katafada (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]Note to Huldra who decided to mention me here, you'll notice I didn't remove "State of Palestine" from the article but it's just silly to not have Dead Sea Scrolls as part of the Israeli archeology cat. Not everything has to be a conflict. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy[edit]I dont know how anybody reads the edits, talk page comments and hell the response on this page and doesnt say WP:NOTHERE and good bye, but thats just me. Beyond the 500/30 violations, which the user continues to repeat despite being informed of, the actual POV being pushed here goes well beyond fringe. But if you feel that AGF is in fact a suicide pact, at least make sure that the user understands the 500/30 rule, and uses the time to learn that WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not in fact the purpose of Wikipedia. nableezy - 00:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]Whether Katafada is actually "relatively new" or not (per HJ Mitchell below) is thrown into doubt by their statement that they edited the Modern Hebrew article "Some years back (2015 if I remember correctly)". There is indeed an IP who made edits which fit their description in May 2015. If Katafada was that IP, and they were editing with proficiency 6 years ago, then it seems wrong to treat them as if they were a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Shrike[edit]The only edit that could be under scrutiny is the last edit as other edits were before an alert--Shrike (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Result concerning Katafada[edit]
|
Elijahandskip[edit]
| Elijahandskip is warned that their topic ban applies to User space. signed, Rosguill talk 02:04, 7 April 2021 (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. Request concerning Elijahandskip[edit]
While probably outside the scope of this request, the editor has been problematic elsewhere as well, with Draft:Torino Walter Bickmore created and deleted G10 only yesterday as well. This from a week ago also highlights some problematic (though hardly sanctionable in themselves) actions. I think that, apart from strict application of the AP2 topic ban, some mentoring by someone more patient than me is needed here. Fram (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Elijahandskip[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Elijahandskip[edit]Let me discuss each of the 3 edits in question. 1. The edit in question was a recognized violation by me and I self-reverted after the edit. Basically I was on new page patrol and saw an article (that is now deleted) that at a quick glance, was about a ceo of some small burger place. What I missed was a small section with I think 2-3 sentences about an attempt to run for 2020 President of US. Fram thankfully saw it and messaged me about, so I self-reverted a PROD that I had on the article. I would like to point out that Fram in the link he said above said "I don't tend to try to get people blocked for what seemed like a genuine mistake." 2. The second edit in question sort a shows that I didn't want to violate my T-Ban. I have a comment on my userpage, "I am not allowed to talk about all of these recognitions until September 2, 2021." which I have had on my userpage since the t-ban started. On my talk page, someone asked a question to a pre-tban edit that was on my user page, and I just told them that I can't talk about it until September 2. This shouldn't even be in this discussion as it was a pre t-ban edit. 3. The 3rd edit in question confuses me and I have been confused on this for a while now. When my t-ban started, [[82] I was told by an admin that linking to things related to the t-ban was a violation. Recently, another [83] admin told me that as long as I didn't edit articles/discussions related to the t-ban, I was ok. I really don't want to violate the t-ban and will be happy to self-revert, but can an admin just say in plain terms what the rule is for userpages & admin talk pages? I have asked before and never got a straight answer. The answers were all in paragraph form, not just a straight answer. Update: I just self-reverted the edits in question. 4. The additional comment made by fram in my opinion just shows that I improved as a Wikipedia editor since the t-ban. One comment in the t-ban discussion was that I went and created articles way too quickly. A few days ago, a CBS reporter was doing some breaking news on a US citizen arrested in front of hundreds of spectators in Puerto Rico. I started a draft on the guy and decided to wait to see how it turned out before either g7'ing the draft (deleting) or working on the draft. While I was asleep, it got g10'ed and to not cause problems (even before this discussion), I decided to not restart the draft. The case is a unique one as the guy in question only got a $100 fine, however, the judge ruled that "He cannot be charged, since he is drunk", which got I think the President of Puerto Rico judges involved. Honestly, that control for me to not create the draft into an article on day 1 shows that I improved a lot since the start of my t-ban. In my defense, the first edit shows I wasn't trying to violate the t-ban. The second is irrelevant to this discussion (pre t-ban edit). And the third is just confusion for me and I have requested guidance. I don't believe I should be blocked more or anything as I have really tried to to not violate the t-ban. Since the t-ban started back on March 2, I have started 7 articles and I am working to improve them all. I hope the admins that read this see that I don't have bad intentions on Wikipedia and that I shouldn't have a longer t-ban or have a real block. Elijahandskip (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Reply to Fram[edit]
Statement by Grandpallama[edit]I'm fairly sure this edit, which precedes the ones noted by Fram, was also a clear violation of the TBAN; however, I suspect Elijahandskip didn't realize it would be considered as such. That said, in line with Fram's concerns about greater editing issues that are outside the scope of this enforcement, but which lend credence to the idea that Elijahandskip needs mentoring, is the "unofficial" Wikipedia Current Events Twitter account Elijahandskip has created (he appears to have scrubbed mention of it from his userpage[84]). Apart from the questionability of a relatively new user under sanctions creating what looks like a WP-sanctioned account is the fact that Elijahandskip name-checks editors on the account who suggest certain current events aren't notable, which seems tied to prior complaints of him discussing user conflicts off-wiki. There do seem to be competence issues at play here. Grandpallama (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Reply to Grandpallama[edit]Wait, that is a violation of the t-ban? How. I was told as long as I didn’t edit articles about the post 1992 US Political realm, then I wouldn’t be in violation. I didn’t know that mentioning I had a t-ban was a violation. Does that mean I violated it on my talk page (in #2 of Fram’s original reasons) since I mentioned I had the t-ban? Elijahandskip (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Reply to Dennis Brown[edit](See below for his statement in the “Result” area.) I would be perfectly fine with a strong warning. I hope that other editors allow me to show that I don’t want to violate the t-ban again, so hopefully (Crossing fingers) no one starts that ANI during this or even right after this discussion. It isn’t too hard to live with the t-ban as there is millions of articles that I can still edit and improve. The difficult comes from a stray edit that is accidental or done without really thinking about it, which can result in a full on Wikipedia block. Thank you for your comments! Elijahandskip (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Elijahandskip[edit]
|
50.84.151.82[edit]
| Blocked as a standard administrative sanction by Dennis Brown. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:00, 10 April 2021 (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. Request concerning 50.84.151.82[edit]
Reference the article Shooting of Tony McDade - the person shot and killed was a transgender man, as discussed by reliable sources. The IP user edited the article to intentionally misgender the person - changing
Discussion concerning 50.84.151.82[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by 50.84.151.82[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning 50.84.151.82[edit]
|
Grandmaster[edit]
| The series of events described are not an issue for Arbitration Enforcement, and instead should be handled on the article talk page using standard conflict resolution methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:06, 11 April 2021 (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. Request concerning Grandmaster[edit]
The complete misrepresentation of the RFE/RL source was especially alarming. Given that the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war article already has the Very Long and Controversial templates and has the 1RR applied, it is both very harmful for false information to be included like this and very easy to overlook it. --Steverci (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Grandmaster[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Grandmaster[edit]This report is simply ridiculous. None of the diffs provided show any rule violation on my part. Regarding RFL source, if Steverci disagrees with it, he could have discussed it with me at talk of the article. He never raised any objection or concern about it, but took it here instead. Second diff, Steverci used an EU parliament resolution to support the claim that Turkey was a belligerent, while the source clearly says Turkey was "offering military support to Azerbaijan". So in this case Steverci blatantly misused the source, and reported me for fixing the problem. Regarding the third diff, indeed, as it was mentioned here, my comment only meant that the presence of Turkish jets in Azerbaijan does not make Turkey a belligerent, as those planes did not take part in hostilities. I don't see how this comment could be a violation of the rules. But this is a good opportunity to look at POV editing of Steverci himself, who was repeatedly permanently banned from WP for POV editing and sockpuppetry (please see his block log). I find his activity on 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war to be quite disruptive. He tried to have Turkey included as a belligerent, despite the overwhelming majority of reliable sources only mentioning that Turkey provided support to Azerbaijan. When his proposed edits received objections from other involved editors, he started an RFC, and the consensus was that Turkey could not be listed as a belligerent. Then Steverci demanded a closure review at WP:AN, without notifying other involved editors. To me it looks like forum shopping. The result was that the closure decision was upheld, and Steverci's demand was not satisfied. That still did not stop Steverci from trying to include Turkey as a belligerent into the infobox. He tried to list Turkish generals as commanders, even though Turkish generals cannot be listed, if Turkey itself is not a belligerent. 3 rvs to have the article his way, despite no consensus from other editors: [86] [87] [88] I understand that Steverci will not accept Turkey not being listed as a belligerent, and will continue editing against consensus, forum shopping, etc. This report here is an attempt to get me removed as a perceived obstacle to having the article his way, though I'm not the only one who disagrees with him. Please see the discussion at talk of the article, where his attempt to list Turkey and Turkish generals as belligerents does not get any consensus from other involved editors. I think it would be good if admins looked into Steverci's own activity, and consider banning him from AA topics due to disruptive behavior. Grandmaster 16:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC) @Steverci. Again, if you disagree with a source, the way to go is to discuss it at the talk, and not to take it to WP:AN. You have been here long enough to know that WP:RSN is the venue where you can request a review of reliability of a source, after you fail to reach a consensus on it with other involved editors. But since you did not make any attempt whatsoever to discuss it with me or other involved editors, and this is the first place where you discuss it, I have a good reason to question your intentions. I was being bold by adding a source, but if you disagree and revert my edit, you must take it to talk and explain what you think was wrong with the source, and that never happened. Coming to RFL as a source, it contains no controversial info, and does not bash or slander any sides of the conflict. It merely informs that Azerbaijan used robotic warfare doctrine developed by Turkey, and commando tactics employed by NATO in Afghanistan. There's nothing controversial about this information, and it is quite in line with what other sources quoted in the article say, for instance Forbes magazine and others. So I don't see how my edit could be something so outrageous that merits an immediate admin intervention. Grandmaster 22:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC) @Steverci. Regarding your edit about Turkish generals, it goes well beyond being bold. You made an edit, it got reverted, received no support at talk, yet you made 2 reverts to restore it. Grandmaster 22:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC) @Steverci. That is not OSCE report, it is "Statement by the delegation of Armenia". Not a neutral third party source by any stretch of imagination. It does not justify your frivolous report here. We can continue discussing RFL source at talk of the article, which is the normal way to proceed when you have a problem with a particular source. You cannot take every minor editing dispute to WP:AE, and I would appreciate if admins gave their assessment of the recent activity of Steverci. Grandmaster 17:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Grandmaster[edit]
|
Vojtaruzek[edit]
| Vojtaruzek has been indefinitely blocked, which, as a result of this discussion, becomes an arbitration enforcement block.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:10, 20 April 2021 (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. Request concerning Vojtaruzek[edit]
The Project Veritas page has received some renewed attention lately, apparently due to some new video relating to CNN. Vojtaruzek, who has largely been inactive since their January block for disruption at the page, has evidently also found renewed interest in using the talk page as a place to denigrate Wikipedia, its editors, etc. It's pretty clear that they can't edit productively in this topic area and especially on this article. Whether or not they can edit productively at all I'll leave up to the AE admins, though their apparent disdain for Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy and our other "far left policies" does not give me much hope in that regard. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Vojtaruzek[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Vojtaruzek[edit]
Statement by (slatersteven)[edit]I was going to post a message on their talk page about this [[89]] to tell them if they are not willing to abide by wp:rs this might not be the best place for them to edit (I did not pick up on the NPA violations until now). They are not here.Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC) I think the comment they have posted here is chock full of not here and right great wrongs. Its about as clear a statement of POV pushing as I have even seen.Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Vojtaruzek[edit]
|
Pkeets[edit]
| While AE isn't a consensus board, sometimes consensus is helpful. I see this as a "no consensus" case, and after a long enough delay, I'm closing as such. Pkeets, I will give two informal (unlogged) warnings. 1. This case proves that good, experienced admin can disagree on what the outcome of a case should be, all in good faith. In this case, some want an indefinite topic ban, others want no sanction. Most of the time, policy is very clear, but less so here. Admin are authorized to act without conensus at AE, we are given that authority, but generally work well with each other. The next time you are in a similar situation, you may be subject to a single admin who may see things differently, which could have a very different outcome. Warning 2. You need to be careful in how you question sources. Really, the proper place is generally WP:RSN, but they aren't going to kick out CNN, you have to be realistic. You would do good to pick your battles, and then make sure you don't actually battle when you raise the issue, but continue to be respectful and provide solid reasoning, with links. Questioning sources that are generally considered reliable, can be irritating to people; it seems a waste of their time. That isn't a policy violation by itself if done from time to time. If you do so continuously, in a way that inteferes with normal article editing, then that is a violation of WP:DE, and you WILL be sanctioned, without question. Some feel you already crossed that line, others do not. That should tell you that you need to tread carefully. This doesn't mean you are blameless, it only means there are legitimate disagreements about your conduct. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:49, 24 April 2021 (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. Request concerning Pkeets[edit]
The most appropriate course of action, given that the memo apparently hasn't gotten through after three months and that their recent edits are even more egregious, would be an indefinite topic ban from the subject area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
01:52, 17 April 2021 Discussion concerning Pkeets[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Pkeets[edit]Since suspension lapsed, I have made only good faith posts about issues I feel are important and supported these appropriately. I have made no changes to actual articles, but only made polite recommendations on various talk pages. Besides this Request, I notice that some editors have been changing my posts and then making raucous comments. I'm wondering when this kind of harassment became acceptable at Wikipedia? Pkeets (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by GorillaWarfare (Pkeets)[edit](Posting here and not below as my editing interests overlap with Pkeets' somewhat substantially). I have seen Pkeets cross my watchlist a few times recently and thought "aren't they topic banned from AP?" only to remember that their previous topic-ban was time-limited. I almost filed this myself last night after seeing their comments at Talk:Project Veritas (which, as I mentioned above, is a bit of a nightmare right now), but didn't have the energy for it. It's pretty clear that they treated their topic ban as a timeout after which they could return to their previous behavior, and didn't actually learn or change their approach. Their goals here seem to be pushing the things they read in unreliable, hyper-partisan sources, and attempting to reject the sources that are generally considered reliable on Wikipedia in talk page comments I would also like to echo my comment above about the difficulties at the PV talk page, if any uninvolved admin has ideas for how to improve things there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Statement by Drmies[edit]I was alerted by Orangemike, who commented on Pkeets' claim that CNN was claimed to be unreliable based on some Veritas video. The "raucous comment" is probably this one (they're conflating me and RandomCanadian, I think)--I didn't merge the sections, but "Recommend reducing reliability rating of the NY Times and Washington Post over repeated failure to verify reports" is indeed presumptuous since "repeated failure etc." is hardly a fact, yet it is stated as one; I assume Orangemike's cn tag pointed at the same thing. In my edit summary here I indicated why I thought their comment (another indictment of the NYT) was a forum post--and that is precisely why I think we should go for a longer topic ban.I didn't impose one myself, since I couldn't find the energy to do it, and log it, etc., and I figured that since the last one came from an ANI discussion it would not be a bad idea to have this one not be imposed by one administrator, especially since I think this one should be longer. And I asked RandomCanadian to file this since they need the practice. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Orangemike[edit]Pkeets persists in disingenuous insistence that they are just raising questions of reliability, when what they are doing is trying to argue that two of the most reliable sources in North America have been "exposed" by a fraudulent operation run by a notorious conman specializing in deceptive editing of recorded images. Obviously, they understand nothing of why they were topic-banned before. How long do we have to tolerate this nonsense? --Orange Mike | Talk 03:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Hemiauchenia[edit]Pkeets seems to have not learned their lesson from their prior temporary topic ban, and has subsequently engaged in similar behaviour to what got Yurivict indefinitely topic banned Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive276#Yurivict. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Atsme[edit]I reviewed the evidence, and did not find anything that Pkeets did that could be considered non-compliant with WP:PAG. I'm also of the mind that bringing up a prior t-ban is being misused by some editors who represent the opposition to gain advantage and amplify the obvious lack of a smoking gun; it has a chilling effect. Yes, mud sticks and WP:POV railroad is real, but each t-ban case is different; therefore, using a wide-sweeping net as a catch-all to rid a topic area of opposition is not what I would consider to be the original intent of DS/AE. Having an opposing view is not automatically considered disruption, I hope.
Statement by MastCell[edit]I kind of get the people who are saying we shouldn't punish Pkeets for just asking questions about sources. But I have to tell you that it is exhausting to deal with people who constantly raise frivolous objections to and try to undermine clearly reliable sources on these political articles. These people are poison to any attempt to cover a contentious, nuanced topic. It's like trying to write about linear algebra and constantly having to deal with people arguing that 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc have been discussed to death at WP:RS/N, and they are clearly and unarguably considered reliable by the community. Of course anyone can question that consensus, but a serious good-faith effort to reassess their reliability doesn't look anything like this.Regardless of personal political views, as Wikipedians we need to accept the community's judgment on source reliability or try to change it. Pkeets clearly isn't willing to accept it. As to whether his efforts to change consensus are serious and thoughtful, or partisan and disruptive, well... I guess that's the question. And yes, continually trying to undermine reliable sources without any sort of compelling argument is, ultimately, disruptive.(For that matter, it's also disruptive to routinely and reflexively attack the motives of people filing complaints, and to claim without any evidence that they're trying to "silence the opposition" etc. Noticeboard misuse is a real thing, but these are unsupported accusations and assumptions of bad faith which violate our behavioral standards and degrade discourse.) MastCell Talk 17:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)Result concerning Pkeets[edit]
|
Airpeka[edit]
| Blocked indefinitely by Ymblanter as a standard administrative sanction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:56, 24 April 2021 (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. Request concerning Airpeka[edit]
I recently noticed this editor then evaluated their edit history as WP:NOTHERE but they admitedly were not always properly warned on their talk page when their previous WP:NOTFORUM or spam were replied to or reverted at article talk pages, except once on February 2021. I made sure to issue a very clear warning but it seems to have been ignored. That warning pointed at evidence of previous problematic behavior, notably that since the start they were apparently only on Wikipedia to campaign and complain about WP:RS (example). I propose either a fringe topics and American politics ban or a non-AE NOTHERE block. Also noting that this user is autoconfirmed and can edit the recently protected Project Veritas talk page. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 11:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Airpeka[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Airpeka[edit]Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Airpeka[edit]
|