Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:50, 18 June 2024

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Pofka

Pofka's indefinite TBAN is narrowed to articles and edits about the Holocaust in Lithuania, broadly construed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

Appealing user: Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – -- Pofka (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: I was topic banned from Lithuania, broadly construed.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Proof that Barkeep49 was informed by me about this appeal.

Statement by Pofka

Hello, I was topic banned from Lithuania in early January 2024 (see: HERE) due to my expressed opinion in a discussion (see: HERE) in which I stated that the Holocaust in Lithuania was executed by Nazis (who occupied Lithuania) and Lithuanian Nazi collaborators, but not by the State of Lithuania, which at the time was occupied by Nazis. The request to sanction me (see: HERE) did not include any of mine changes in English Wikipedia's articles, so I was sanctioned purely for expressing my opinion there, but not for POV pushing in any articles. Moreover, I was never before sanctioned for Holocaust-related changes in articles/discussions and as far as I remember I was not even reported for that during over 13 years of participation in Wikipedia before this. I was previously sanctioned quite long time ago for wrongly describing other editors mass removal of content from articles as "vandalism" (and reverting it) and for personal attacks against a user with whom I did not agree in topics not related with the Holocaust (I still have active interaction ban with that user, which I did not violate).

For contributing exceptionally high-quality content to the English Wikipedia about Lithuania (see examples: HERE) I was recognized in 2022 as one of only two best editors in "Lithuania" topic (see: HERE, the other identically recognized editor is sysop Renata3).

Over 6 months had already passed after this sanction was applied to me and I did not violate it. However, my aim in English Wikipedia always was to contribute high-quality content about Lithuania and with this broadly construed sanction active I simply cannot contribute anything to English Wikipedia in a field where I have exceptional knowledge of information and sources (due to my extensive capability to research Lithuanian language sources, etc.), so for me this sanction is equal to a total block in English Wikipedia and I believe that it is too strict given all the circumstances. Sadly, with this broadly construed sanction in Lithuania's topic active I plan to quit Wikipedia completely.

Consequently, I appeal this sanction and request to reconsider it and to allow me to again contribute exceptionally high-quality content about Lithuania. I would like to stress that I never had plans to POV push malicious content about the Holocaust in Lithuania and I fully condemn horrific crimes which were committed against Jewish people in Lithuania (including those that were committed by Lithuanian nationality representatives). If Barkeep49 and other participants of this request procedure think that I am not trustworthy enough to edit articles related with the Holocaust in Lithuania, I request to at least narrow this broadly construed sanction to "anything related with the Holocaust in Lithuania" because per report this imposed sanction is not associated with other Lithuania-related topics (e.g. Lithuanian sports, culture, etc.). -- Pofka (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

Just noting that this sanction was placed by me, acting on behalf of ArbCom acting as its own AE. As such I think it can be appealed and considered as any other AE placed topic ban would be. A major factor here was what had occurred after a previous topic ban was lifted. Beyond that while I'm happy to answer questions, I'll leave it to uninvolved administrators to consider the appeal. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Pofka

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 MKW100

Pofka used contribute nearly endless HIGH QUALITY EDITS in the Lithuania topic and was OFFICIALLY RECOCGNIZED as a FINEST EDITOR in this topic. Banning him from the same is a contradiction. Since 99% of his overall edits happened to be in the Lithuania topic, of course this is the topic where any type of conflict could appear at all.

Banning him from his topic of expertise equals like a global perma ban to him. Obviously, this punishment is way too harsh, and his finest editor status was not considered in the first discussion.

(see)

In this almost automatic process, nobody defended pofka's position in the first discussion.

I hope we can get a different result this time. MKW100 (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Pofka

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

I'm generally favorable to loosening the tban to the holocaust in Lithuania, but I'd like to hear a bit more from people with more familiarity with the situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the same boat as SFR. I see that at least one Arb considered narrowing the TBAN to Holocaust topics, but they rejected that option given that the full TBAN's successful appeal had been approved partially on WP:ROPE grounds. If we grant such a narrowing here, I'd want it to explicitly note that it's based on similar grounds, meaning that future problematic edits or comments in the broader Lithuania topic area would likely result in a restoration of the full TBAN or a site block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am mostly uninvolved with Lithuanian topics, and I remain concerned about this editor's appeal. The whole tone here is that "I got topic banned because I voiced an opinion" which is not how I read the conversations about the topic ban. I'm not seeing anything about how they are going to change going forward to avoid the issues that originally came up. And I'm also a bit concerned about the whole "For contributing exceptionally high-quality content to the English Wikipedia about Lithuania ... I was recognized in 2022 as one of only two best editors in "Lithuania" topic..." which award is actually one of Gerda's "precious" awards which are not "officially recognized" awards of any kind. They are just Gerda's view of something. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did mostly gloss over that puffery. I think their point about being sanctioned for expressing their opinion at ARCA, as opposed to being involved in any problematic article editing, is correct. As far as I can tell, they were sanctioned because their opinion was broadly held to be incorrect, and distastefully so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with ScottishFinnishRadish: I am not prepared to lift the topic-ban entirely at this stage, but I agree it may be overbroad. As an analogy, if an American editor proved unable to edit neutrally about some aspect of American history, we might topic-ban them from that aspect or conceivably from American history as a whole; it is less likely we would topic-ban them from "articles concerning the United States, broadly construed." Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylanvt

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 Dylanvt

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dylanvt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

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

Violated 1RR at:

Nuseirat refugee camp massacre:
1. 01:22, 9 June 2024 (partial revert of 00:01, 9 June 2024)
2. 13:08 to 13:15, 9 June 2024‎ (reverts of various edits, including these)

When asked to self-revert refused, and instead made another revert in violation of 1RR (13:02, 10 June 2024; reverted 08:01, 10 June 2024)

2024 Nuseirat rescue operation:
1. 19:13, 8 June 2024 (reverted 18:38, 8 June 2024)
2. 13:32, 9 June 2024 (reverted 04:40, 9 June 2024)

When asked to self-revert refused, and instead made another revert in violation of 1RR (13:08, 10 June 2024; reverted 10:58, 10 June 2024)

Tel al-Sultan massacre:

Only agreed to self-revert once an admin asked them to.

Genocide of Indigenous peoples:
1. 19:38, 27 May 2024
2. 15:32, 27 May 2024

Only agreed to self-revert once an admin asked them to; they were unable to as the page had been protected because of the edit warring.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

12:03, 13 May 2024 Warned to mind 1RR in the ARBPIA topic area, and remedy any violations as soon as possible when they are pointed out

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 07:36, 22 December 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Dylanvt: I didn't raise the reverts at Tel al-Sultan massacre; that was HaOfa. BilledMammal (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is on my watchlist; when you incorrectly claimed an exception to 1RR I tried to help by explaining what the actual exceptions are.

Regarding Nuseirat refugee camp massacre, I only noticed the violations because I was trying to find the editor that introduced the WP:CATPOV issues; I then checked your recent contributions to see if it was an isolated incident and found it was not. BilledMammal (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylanvt: How did you expect an uninvolved editor or admin to pass judgement when you removed the requests to self-revert? BilledMammal (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: For example, they deny that 01:22, 9 June 2024 and 13:02, 10 June 2024 at Nuseirat refugee camp massacre are reverts, but both manually reverse other editors' actions by (among other things) removing clarification that the Gaza Health Ministry is controlled by Hamas (Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry → Gazan Health Ministry, Hamas Health Ministry → Health Ministry)

Bright-line violations are disruptive by definition, but repeatedly removing clarification that multiple editors believe is required is disruptive even without that context. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: That's not accurate. I've requested self-reverts from two editors who violated 1RR while removing it from that article, including Dylanvt, and one who violated 1RR adding it. As a general note, I'm good at noticing 1RR violations, but not perfect - I do miss some, although in this case you haven't linked any that I did miss. BilledMammal (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I bring them up to show a pattern, having previously been told that demonstrating a pattern is useful. In general, I do try to avoid coming here; had Dylanvt not removed my requests to self-revert I probably would still be on their talk page trying to explain why these edits were a violation. For an extreme example of this, see this discussion with Irtapil - where an admin in fact told me that I should have brought the issue here sooner. BilledMammal (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: You proposed the gentleman's agreement here; it was linked at the Irtapil discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: That it's so easy to accidentally breach 1RR is why I think ScottishFinnishRadish's gentleman's agreement is such a good idea; refusing to self-revert is, in my opinion, a strong indicator that there is an actual issue that needs addressing. BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: At the risk of engaging with content, as far as I know the only formal discussion regarding whether we provide context around the relationship between Hamas and the GHM found that we should. BilledMammal (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylanvt continues to violate 1RR at Nuseirat refugee camp massacre:

13:09, 11 June 2024 (partial revert of 08:01, 10 June 2024; "698 were wounded" → "400 were wounded" → "698 were wounded")
13:25, 10 June 2024 (partial revert of 08:01, 10 June 2024; "Gaza Health Ministry" → "Health Ministry in Gaza" → "Gaza Health Ministry")

They have also still not self-reverted their previous violations, despite asking other editors to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylanvt: Your edit reverted that aspect of the article to a previous form, away from the format implemented by an editor you are in a dispute in. That is a revert.

Even if it wasn't 13:09, 11 June 2024 would still be problematic as it is just 24 hours and 7 minutes after your 13:02, 10 June 2024 revert; very close to 1RR WP:GAMING. BilledMammal (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

13:49, 10 June 2024

Discussion concerning Dylanvt

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 Dylanvt

The edits billedmammal linked are not reversions, they are merely edits made to the articles. He even went scrolling back two weeks into my edit history to bring up old and already resolved actions. If you look at my edit history you will see I'm clearly not engaged in edit warring on any of the articles he linked.

Nuseirat refugee camp massacre first "revert". An editor added "according to the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry" and I later removed only "Hamas-run", not a revert, just a small contribution to an article that was about six hours old. And it is common practice in articles in this topic not to write "Hamas-run" before every mention of the health ministry.
Nuseirat refugee camp massacre second "revert". Yes, this was a revert, and the only one I made on the page in a 24-hour span (specifically, re-adding the "reactions" section, and removing the "cleanup" tag).
Nuseirat refugee camp massacre third "revert". First, this is 24 hours after the last one, so couldn't be a violation of 1RR. Second, it's not clear what this is a reversion of. The text removed was mathematically contradictory and nonsensical ("killing more than 30 people, including 12 women and children and around 30 militants"). When it was rewritten in a much clearer way shortly after I removed it, I didn’t touch it, because now it makes sense ("targeting 20-30 Hamas Nukhba militants... Local health officials reported the deaths of more than 30 people, including 12 women and children").
2024 Nuseirat rescue operation first "revert". Like the first one above, this is clearly not a revert. I merely replaced "Hamas-run" with "Gaza's". If that's a revert then every edit (that doesn't add new information) is a revert, since every edit is a change of something previously written.
2024 Nuseirat rescue operation second "revert". Also not a revert. I simply reworded to more neutral wording. The information added by David O. Johnson's edit (the IDF casualty claim) I did not touch. I simply adjusted the way it was introduced, from the less neutral "The death toll is disputed, with A claiming B and C claiming D" to the more neutral "A reports B. C claims D." Clearly not a revert.
2024 Nuseirat rescue operation third "revert". This is the first and only actual revert I've made on that page. In any case, I reverted to the status quo, which had been removed without discussion. It's now been removed again without discussion, so instead of reverting again, I've started a discussion which will result in it being restored.
The other two articles were already discussed and resolved on talk page. No idea why they're being brought up again.

Ultimately I think everybody's time would be better served by making actual contributions to Wikipedia, instead of wasting everybody's time with petty punitive arbitration. When BilledMammal brought up the reversions I'd made at Tel al-Sultan massacre, e.g., it contributed nothing to the project and instead resulted in me being forced to move the article back to the wrong title in the middle of a move discussion, creating havoc in the talk page for everyone involved, when instead we could have just moved on and continued to do useful things for the project. Dylanvt (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, he didn't raise the concerns, but he contributed to the discussion, joining in just 2 minutes after my initial reply. It seems pretty apparent that he's just waiting and watching for any inkling of a violation so he can swoop in and warn and report people. Dylanvt (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, a gentleman's agreement would be great, I agree. Yet in every case I've waited for someone less involved (and/or an admin) to pass judgment, because I've seen that warnings like this are often weaponized, as you say, by people with opposing viewpoints and agendas. Dylanvt (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I didn't know that officially reporting people for abuse of 1RR complaints was an option before today. I'll do that in the future as needed. As anyone can tell from my edit history, I'm very new to "contentious issue" editing and also for pretty much all of my 12-ish years on Wikipedia have never been involved in any of this under-the-hood stuff. Dylanvt (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also still don't see how edits like this one count as reverts. If Editor A writes in a (very young and rapidly changing) article, e.g., Putin's government passed law X [ref1], and Editor B goes in many edits later and changes it to The Russian government passed law X [ref1]... That's really considered a revert? Because that's what the above edit was. Dylanvt (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there's a pretty significant difference between the two, same as attributing something to Putin rather than Russia, or Biden rather than the US No there's very much not a significant difference. Hamas is a political party. Putin and Biden are leaders of political parties. Even if you think that difference is significant, I can just give an even more comparable example: According to the United Russia-run government media office being changed to According to the Russian government media office. There's no way it can be argued that that change is a "revert". If it were, then every edit would be a revert. Dylanvt (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not at all what I said. The difference between “Hamas-run” and “Gazan/Gaza’s” is significant. It’s the two scenarios that I said aren’t significantly different. Namely, the one in my edit (Hamas-run to Gaza’s) vs. the one in my example (Putin’s to Russian).

(I’m writing this as a reply because I’m on mobile now and it’s complicated to do it the other way.) Dylanvt (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
jfc billedmammal what tf do you think you’re accomplishing here???? CLICK THE REFERENCE NEXT TO THAT SENTENCE. holy hell is this some asinine behavior on your part. Dylanvt (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: revert back to the initial comment I replied to. It is against policy (WP:TALK#REPLIED) to change comments after they have been interacted with. Dylanvt (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you genuinely cannot be serious claiming that "Health Ministry in Gaza" → "Gaza Health Ministry" is a revert. That is adding a link. You are not acting in good faith and I'm done interacting with you. Dylanvt (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

Posting up here because I suppose I'm involved - I initially restored the edit which Dylanvt is now accused of edit-warring over at Genocide of Indigenous peoples. I don't think any admin did advise them to self-revert; if BilledMammal is referring to my comments on the edit war I said that I was ignoring it and had started an RFC instead but I didn't tell anyone to do anything; the page was then full-protected by PhilKnight.

In looking for that warning I went to Dylanvt's talk page and reviewed this warning and discussion, which was regarding the edits listed above on Tel al-Sultan massacre, in which BilledMammal and ScottishFinnishRadish demanded that Dylanvt self-revert a page move which was a 1RR violation. It is accurate to say that Dylanvt refused, but that also grossly oversimplifies the situation: Dylanvt had good reason to refuse, as there was an ongoing discussion about the move and at least one other editor (Vanilla Wizard) objected to reverting because of the ongoing discussion. As Dylanvt tried to explain, a separate move review had directed that the article be kept at that title pending the result of the ongoing discussion, and had Dylanvt reverted their move someone else would just have to move it back per WP:TITLECHANGES. Eventually, after more IDHT and bullying from BM and SFR, Dylanvt did revert their move, which as predicted created a technical mess which had to be reverted again by a different administrator, who cited the exact rationale Dylanvt had been trying to explain the whole time. It was all a bureaucratic waste of everyone's time because two experienced editors care more about enforcing one particular rule because "it's teh rulez" rather than use some discretion and common sense (we have WP:IAR for a reason).

I see that trend repeating in the report here. BilledMammal has gone out of their way to classify these edits as "reverts" when, as Dylanvt also has tried to explain, they are edits in the course of constructing a rapidly developing article being edited by many editors at the same time, and happen to have changed information added by someone else previously. By that overly-broad definition, nearly every edit to these articles since their creation is a revert; of course they are not, this is just the normal editorial process. The 1RR rule is meant to limit disruption; these edits were decidedly not disruptive. The rule is certainly not meant to be a "gotcha!" rule whereby any two edits that look superficially similar can be used to eject an editor from a topic, nor is it meant to be used as a tool for harassment as seems to be happening here.

The edit war on Genocide of Indigenous peoples was actually a revert war (in that case Dylanvt was intentionally undoing a previous edit, as was I) but that situation was dealt with. We can waste more time bureaucratically arguing over whether or not the highlighted edits to the other pages are reverts to the extent that the policy is violated (they aren't) or we could skip all that and simply acknowledge that no disruption has occurred. In fact the situation would be greatly improved overall if BilledMammal were sanctioned against anything to do with 1RR enforcement in this topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that BilledMammal was warned in the closing statement of a separate report still visible on this page against "weaponizing arbitration enforcement". It should be observed that the dispute (which is hardly even a dispute) at Nuseirat refugee camp massacre is over whether or not to qualify the Gazan Health Ministry as being "Hamas-run". Dylanvt started a discussion on that article's talk page to seek consensus on the matter, in which BilledMammal is (as of this edit) the only editor suggesting that it should be qualified. Observe that BilledMammal has issued 1RR warnings to three editors besides Dylanvt who removed the qualification, and has issued no warnings to editors who added or restored it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: (and others): by Ealdgyth's reading from the 3RR policy, yes, despite the interaction being entirely civil and constructive and arriving at a consensus stable edit, Y is in violation of this stupidly-defined bright-line rule. The idea that the proper approach to this normal and expected editorial process is to demand editor Y self-revert under threat of sanction and wait for someone else to make the obvious and not-contested compromise edit (or else wait 24 hours) is asinine. If that puts me in a position of "second guessing the Committee" then consider yourselves second-guessed. But we have a slightly different situation here anyway: we have an article with A, B, and C. and in a separate section, D, E, and F.. Editor X changes the first bit to A., editor Y reverts, editor X restores their version, then both editors leave the section saying A. and move to the talk page to discuss. Then later the same day, editor Q changes the second part to D. and editor Y reverts. Editor Y has reverted twice in the same day, though each is unrelated to the other. Now is editor Y in violation of 1RR? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: one more hypothetical, and then I promise I have a meeting to get to and won't keep on this. Say in the example above, editors X and Y have left the article reading A. and have discussed their compromise on the talk page, run a quick straw poll in which 100 editors support the compromise (it's the fastest and most well attended straw poll in the history of Wikipedia), and following an experienced and respected neutral observer closing the discussion as obvious consensus for the edit, editor Y implements the compromise; this all happens within 22 hours. For how long should editor Y, the monster, be blocked for this flagrant violation of the letter of 1RR? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: respectfully, that's an absurd way for an administrator to act, butting their heads into a normal editorial process and chastising a user for reaching an effective compromise and implementing consensus. I assert that the only disruptive action that occurred in that entire hypothetical interaction is the administrator's intervention itself - we're supposed to prevent disruption, not cause it. Wikipedia draws a lot of criticism that our admins behave like wannabe cops drunk with power to enforce our pantheon of confusing and often contradictory rules just for the sake of enforcing them, but even the real police are (or ought to be) trained not to needlessly escalate a conflict, and don't charge everyone with every conceivable offence just because of an act that technically meets the written definition of a crime. There are plenty of ways to resolve disputes without immediately threatening everyone who technically violates a rule, even "bright-line" rules; nuance and discretion are essential skills for administrators, especially those purporting to work in dispute resolution, and they are sorely lacking here. Clearly we're at odds in our approaches to this and neither of us is going to convince the other, so I'm bowing out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

I know content is not the thing here but this nonsense with the GHM needs to be resolved once for all. Afaik, across various discussions at articles and at noticeboards, it has been resolved and the consensus is that the GHM is reliable and editors that persist in adding "Hamas run" in front of that are only intending to provoke/cast doubt on that assessment, attribution to GHM is all that is needed, nothing more. So on the behavioral front, while in general it would be better to ignore the provocation and start a talk page discussion, I do sympathize with removing the unnecessary. Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#Are Hamas and Gaza ministry numbers reliable? The sources are clear cut on this issue. Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dylanvt

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

I'll start with a quick reply to Ivanvector about the request to self-revert. If we allowed every editor to break 1RR on the basis of policy as they see it then 1RR becomes worthless. WP:3RRNO and WP:CTOP outline what is exempt from 1RR and move-warring based on WP:TITLECHANGES isn't covered. If the issue was covered by policy and needed to be moved back it would have been moved by another editor (as it was) without anyone breaking 1RR.
WP:CTOP also contains under Dismissing an enforcement request, Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions. The Arbitration Committee placed the topic area under blanket 1RR. Arbitration enforcement isn't the place to say, "sure, it's a 1RR breach but it's not very bad so meh." The threshold for not sanctioning a violation is the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate.
The said I haven't taken the time to review these specific allegations of a violation, although I'll try to get to that soon as to avoid another multi-week clusterfuck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dylanvt, what you do is self-revert right away and if it turns out it wasn't a violation and there's a pattern of that you come here and say "they're abusing requests to self-revert" and they get banned from 1rr reports or topic banned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, yes. That is two reverts. Same as 3RR, reverts are by article, not by specific content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, I wouldn't block for that, but I would expect them to self-revert if there was an objection and ask one of the hundred other editors engaged in the topic to make the edit, or wait a couple hours. No deadline and all that.

Dylanvt, there's a pretty significant difference between the two, same as attributing something to Putin rather than Russia, or Biden rather than the US. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dylanvt, if it isn't a significant difference then why did you change it? The fact that it's edit warred over is a clear demonstration that people believe the specific wording matters. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, going by Wikipedia:Edit warring, under WP:3RR which defines the term "revert" for the WP:1RR rule, a revert is "any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually". So, yes, this edit is the first revert - it changed the article partially back to a previous version. So when this edit was then made by Dylanvt within 24 hours of the first revert, it broke 1RR. The fact that I think the actual definition of a revert is stupid has no bearing on both those edits actually being reverts. I do, however, know that there is a great deal of confusion about this whole situation about what qualifies as a revert. (And I acknowledge that I may actually have this wrong, that's how screwy things are with this whole definition of revert) So I'm not thinking this needs any sort of giant punishment, but a warning is probably an acceptable situation. I'm not going to get into the other diffs raised because frankly - the edits from 27 May are old enough I'm not feeling the need to deal with them and they bring up point #2 I'd like to say.
And that is, BilledMammal - on 4 June I addressed you with this diff at SFR's talk page where I advised you that you need to learn to let things go. The diffs you brought up here from 27 May are an excellent example of why I made that comment at SFR's talk page - these 27 May diffs feel like "someone trying desperately to find ANYTHING that can possibly stick". My advice is to .. not bring anyone to AE for a month. At least. You're overdoing it and frankly, you're about to get totally banned from AE reporting if you can't grasp that you need to learn to just let things go a bit. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of The fact that I think the actual definition of a revert is stupid has no bearing on both those edits actually being reverts. I do, however, know that there is a great deal of confusion about this whole situation about what qualifies as a revert. (And I acknowledge that I may actually have this wrong, that's how screwy things are with this whole definition of revert), that is why I suggested a gentleman's agreement back in (I think) December to request a self-revert on user talk pages, and to revert your own reported 1RR violations. Better safe than sorry, it's easy to make mistakes on fast moving articles, and it can be confusing. Unfortunately the BATTLEGROUND tendencies make this difficult because it's normally someone on "the other side" requesting a revert and how dare they! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to think that applying the definition of "revert" developed for 3RR in the context of 1RR is problematic. Suppose an article under 1RR says A, B, and C. Editor X changes it to just A. Editor Y reverts to A, B, and C. Editor X reverts to A with the edit summary C isn't true. Editor Y then changes it to A and B with the edit summary okay, we'll leave out C, but restoring B which no one disagrees with. All this happens within the space of a day. Has Y violated 1RR, and if she technically has, would other admins feel the need to do anything about it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally such compromises don't get reported. It is certainly an issue with fast moving articles, though. That's the rub with 1RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(This is moving in the direction of a general discussion of enforcement philosophy rather than the specifics of this request, so I'd be open to moving it elsewhere.) There always remains the question of literal versus more flexible interpretation, especially where the letter of a ruling has been violated but its spirit has not been. It bears emphasis that no set of rules, whether simple or complicated, can anticipate in advance every situation that might later arise. As I have in the past, I refer everyone to my essay here, or better still to the best law review article ever. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The solution isn't to make the rule more wishy-washy, and make editors unsure of it will apply. That's why it's a bright-line rule. If they had said no to the water at the beginning there wouldn't have been a problem. You're suggesting the path that leads to milkshakes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bright-line rules can be attractive, but as a certain online encyclopedia tells us, critics often argue that bright-line rules are overly simplistic and can lead to harsh and unjust results. And here the "bright-line" rule is illusory in any event; the current discussion on your talkpage reflects several ways in which our definition of "revert" remains ambiguous even after 20-plus years.

These ambiguities don't normally interfere with enforcement on the edit-warring noticeboard, because by the time one has made four edits on an article within 24 hours that could reasonably be considered reverts, there often (not always) is an actual problem. But it is far easier to make two borderline edits on an article within 24 hours while editing appropriately and in good faith, especially when editing a fast-moving article reporting on current events.

I'm also not confident that innocuous edits and already-resolved disputes won't be reported; you and I can both recall at least one prior, troubling episode in a different 1RR topic-area where that is exactly what occurred. There is always going to be some element of administrator discretion in arbitration enforcement, and I believe there has to be.

On the merits of this particular report, as with the next one below, I am actually less concerned about the debatable 1RR issues and more about potential POV editing, and not just by the editors on this thread. By this I don't mean blatant and blockable POV-pushing, but the understandable tendency of many editors to see everything on this group of articles from either one side of the conflict or the other. That being said, beyond the advice I gave 16 years ago, I don't have an easy solution for what is to be done about this problem: peace will not come to our Israel-Palestine articles until peace comes to Israel and Palestine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KronosAlight

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 KronosAlight

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Dylanvt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: KronosAlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Well isn't this ironic.

Violated 1RR at:

2024 Nuseirat rescue operation

08:02, 11 June 2024 Partial revert of this and this.
20:55, 10 June 2024 Revert of this.
20:26, 10 June 2024 Combined revert of this and this.
14:03, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of this.
13:49, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of this.
13:46, 10 June 2024 Revert of this and partial revert of this and this and this and this and this.

Al-Sardi school attack

07:39, 11 June 2024 Revert of this and this.
14:52, 10 June 2024 Combined partial revert of this and this and this and this and this.

Nuseirat refugee camp massacre

08:14, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of this.
08:01, 10 June 2024 Combined partial and complete reverts of this and this and this and this and this and this and this.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

20:35, 28 March 2024 Indefinitely topic banned from "flood myths".

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 00:06, 11 June 2024 (see the system log linked to above). When I explained that they were constrained by 1RR and must self-revert their response was "No." They didn't dispute that they had violated 1RR or indicate that they did not understand it in any way. They simply flat-out refused.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KronosAlight also has a history of making incendiary, belligerent, aspersive, and off-topic comments on talk pages.

lol. Some of the revisions, like 20:55, 10 June 2024, aren't even manual reverts. They're literal "I clicked the undo button to revert someone else's edit" reverts. I don't have time to deal with this further. The reverts and belligerent talk page behavior, and previous arbitration decision, all speak for themselves. Kronos can keep grandstanding for all I care, it doesn't change the facts. Dylanvt (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here.

Discussion concerning KronosAlight

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 KronosAlight

None of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising and filled out citation data in existing citations, and added new ones.

Editing an existing page, clarifying what the sources cited actually say, is not a revert and there is therefore nothing to answer for here.

You can avoid this problem in future by better complying with NPOV and related Wikipedia rules on editorialisation, bias, and editing wars.

By way of example, in the Al-Sardi school attack article, the complainant initially used the infobox: civilian attack, has repeatedly sought to editorialise it and similar articles, nor did their version include even one mention of the IDF's official statements in which they claimed to have identified at least 9 terrorists killed in the strike. One needn't take them at their word - their claims should be couched as just that, a claim, that cannot be independently verified. But to omit any mention of this? And to seek to revert edits clarifying that the Gaza Health Ministry are Hamas-run (without removing any of their claims) and make requests that articles about strikes be renamed as "massacres", suggests that this is simply a vexatious complaint by a user engaged in a political campaign with Wikipedia's neutrality the victim.

Wikipedia is not a place for you to wage political wars, it's a neutral space for information.

To be honest I wasn’t familiar with the 1RR before this complaint, I don’t usually edit articles about recent events. The policy seems a bit odd to me, just seems to let trolls off the hook, but yeah, I obviously didn’t comply with that rule. I’m happy to own that and ensure going forwards that my edits respect it. KronosAlight (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may also add, a number of editors whom I (implicitly) referenced in some of those Talk comments have since been given indefinite bans on editing articles related to Israel-Palestine.

I accept that I shouldn’t have spoken in that way, but in my defence, a number of administrators clearly ended up independently agreeing with me, substantively, that these users had in fact been editing in violation of NPOV and related rules.

I don't accept that I was doing so, by the way. I was unaware that there had been any sort of high-level Admin/Editorial discussion relating to the Gazan Health Ministry claims, and am obviously willing to go along with that decision now that I'm aware of it.

But I think if you look at the edits I actually made, they were absolutely neutral, they contextualised various claims made by each side, and they were actually designed to address the existing NPOV violations which subsequently got those users banned from further edits.

Again, I accept it’s still not on to just accuse someone of that, but I wasn’t seeing anything being done about it (didn’t even know about some of these rules tbh), which felt frustrating and partly explains what happened there. KronosAlight (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d also of course accept @Newyorkbrad’s request that I refrain from avoiding unnecessary commentary on Talk pages etc. It was counterproductive for me to do that and I certainly was not as polite as I should have been. KronosAlight (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

Kronos, going to the talk page. If an editor is routinely engaged in POV pushing and source distortion then that becomes a behavioral issue that can be addressed here, but it doesn't justify violating 1RR - and violating 1RR to address such issues can simply mean that you are sanctioned, rather than the editor engaging in POV pushing and source distortion.

I strongly encourage you to self-revert your violations now. BilledMammal (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean simply reverting to the version of the article prior to any 'reverts'? KronosAlight (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reverse any of your edits that can still be reversed, but leave any changes made by other editors in place. On a very active page this can be difficult, but as long as you make a good faith effort to undo your violations I don't think the admins will hold it against you. BilledMammal (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've returned the School attack article to how it was before, i.e. the reference to Hamas removed.

I’ll see what I can do about the rescue operation article. That’s obviously more complicated because a lot of edits have been made since that. KronosAlight (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm pretty sure both articles are more or less as they were before this whole 'reverting' thing.

That means there's claims on these articles which some other editor is going to have to inspect re NPOV etc., and some of which already have Talk threads about, but I'm going to keep away from it. KronosAlight (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

The 1R here is a slamdunk so no comment on that, the little BM/Kronos tete a tete above looks like a resolution. However I will just note that we are once again dealing with this GHM nonsense just as in the other complaint. I am convinced these edits are simply intended to provoke and kudos to complainant for refusing to be provoked this time. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KronosAlight

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

I have to say I assumed this report was going to be a tit-for-tat one given the fact that the OP is mentioned in a previous section; however, even a brief reading of the evidence strongly suggests that KronosAlight is not a very good fit for such a contentious topic area. This, this followed by this spectacular lack of self-awareness are not good. The refusal to revert after violating 1RR, and the response above which suggests they don't actually think 1RR applies to them at all ("None of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising" - which is effectively saying "I reverted your edit, but it doesn't count as a revert because I was reverting something which I think is wrong") are merely supporting evidence of this. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since KronosAlight says he was previously unfamiliar with the 1RR restriction on these articles and from now on will comply with it, I would be content to resolve that aspect of the complaint with a warning. I am more troubled by the POV issue, and would also like KronosAlight also to promise to avoid unnecessary commentary and to edit neutrally if he is going to remain active in this topic-area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ltbdl

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 Ltbdl

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Starship.paint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ltbdl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

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

12:26, 12 June 2024 - in an RSN RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues, Ltbdl voted oppositely from User:Springee, despite writing per springee.
12:55, 12 June 2024 - when asked to explain rationale of their vote, Ltbdl wrote: as a rule of thumb, anything springee supports is right-wing pov pushing. This violates WP:NPA as it casts aspersions.
15:22, 12 June 2024‎ - when I warned Ltbdl that they should withdraw the comment, Ltbdl wrote: get me blocked, i deserve it. Springee then asked Ltbdl to strike the comment, but Ltbdl did not respond and has been editing in other areas.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 14:29, 6 August 2023‎

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would recommend a one-way interaction ban.
As can be seen from User talk:ltbdl, ltbdl is the new account of User:lettherebedarklight.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning ltbdl

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 ltbdl

i am aware of this, and have nothing to say. ltb d l (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FortunateSons

This sort of conduct in a heated and contentious area is highly unproductive and should be appropriately sanctioned. FortunateSons (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

I'm concerned that this was an out of the blue uncivil action. If we had been debating or had a long interaction history and they made this claim, well that could just be frustration or opinion built up over time. However, when an account that per the interaction analyzer, I've never interacted with, starts throwing out comments like that, it makes me wonder why they needed a clean start and if granting it was appropriate. Certainly the replies here suggest they don't see an issue with the actions. I think some sort of action should be taken (warning, block, etc) so if this uncivil behavior continues other editors can see the behavior is part of a pattern. Springee (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red-tailed hawk

Because I participated in the RfC where the comments were made, I'm going to write here rather than in the section for uninvolved admins below.

This is an extremely clear case of a personal attack directed at an editor, and the behavior that taunts the personally attacked editor is... bizarre.

I agree with SFR that this is unacceptable, but I'd only recommend a TBAN if there is some broader issue than this one incident, and I'm just not seeing those diffs here. If this is merely a personal attack/casting aspersions against Springee, perhaps a one-way I-ban or a block would be better than a TBAN. (If there were an apology, an acknowledgement that what they did was grossly out of line with WP:CIVIL, and they struck the personal attacks, I might even just recommend a logged warning for civility in the two topic areas. But I just don't see any remorse, nor evidence proffered that the allegations made by respondent against Springee are in any way substantiated, so I do think that something more restrictive is warranted.) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ltbdl

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

I'm thinking an AMPOL/GENSEX topic ban may be necessary as they seem to be unable to avoid disruption, per their own admission. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. An indef WP:GENSEX / WP:AP2 TBANs at a minimum due to expressed unwillingness to engage here. Which I suppose is fine, but them the breaks, then. El_C 13:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riposte97

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 Riposte97

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Riposte97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:AP2
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

2:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Editor edits Hunter Biden to insert new sentence “The contents of the laptop was subsequently submitted in evidence in Biden's criminal trials” into the lead.
4:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC) New sentence is removed by myself from the lead.
6:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Editor reverts to reinsert sentence back into the lead. Hunter Biden article has active arbitration remedies. The notice on talk page states “You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message”.
6:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) I started a new topic on the editor’s user talk advising that they’ve violated the active arbitration remedies which apply to the article and advise that they need to self-revert.
7:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Edit responds claiming that contrary to my advice that they have violated active arbitration remedies, that they reverted to restore consensus. No such consensus exists. Editor does not self-revert.
User_talk:Riposte97#CT violation at laptop page A similar discussion concerning Hunter Biden laptop controversy in which the editor is advised by another editor that they have violated active arbitration remedies on that article. At that time the editor agrees to self-revert.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor has reverted to re-include material at Hunter Biden in violation of active arbitration remedies and then refused to self-revert when advised of their transgression. TarnishedPath^talk 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riposte97 the very fact that I edited to remove your change demonstrates that there was no consensus for your change. Other editors editing about other things, regardless the location in the article, does not demonstrate consensus for your change. The fact is that no one has discussed that specific sentence in talk, so your claim of consensus is completely without merit.
The easiest thing would have been for you to remedy your violation of active arbitration remedies, by self-reverting, when I raised your conduct on your user talk. However you have refused to remedy your violation from the point when I raised it until the present time. So here we are and you are still refusing to remedy your violation of active arbitration remedies.
Ps, I am also on a mobile device as I am away from my home for at least another week. That's no reason for this discussion to stall or for you not to do the correct thing and remedy your violation by self-reverting. TarnishedPath^talk 02:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Riposte97, events have not overtaken us. You refused to self-revert while you had the chance and instead choose to engage in meritless arguments when it was crystal clear that you had violated the active arbitration remedies. That you can no longer self-revert does expunge you of responsibility. TarnishedPath^talk 05:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Riposte97, your argument that 3 days = long-standing and therefore consensus was implied is entirely unconvincing. You ought to have immediately self-reverted when your transgression was brought to your attention. If you had any doubt it would have taken moments to check exactly what active arbitration remedies on the article specify and then self-revert. Instead you choose to refuse to remedy your violation. TarnishedPath^talk 06:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish please note that as of Special:Diff/1228842988 Riposte97‘s ability to self-revert has disappeared. They were provided the opportunity to self-revert a clear violation, they refused and decided to engage in arguments which had no merit. TarnishedPath^talk 15:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1228844302

Discussion concerning Riposte97

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 Riposte97

Good morning,

I maintain that my revert restored consensus. As pointed out above, the sentence in question was inserted on 10 June UTC. A little over three days passed, before the submitter removed it. In that time, the page was edited dozens of times, and the lead extensively discussed on the talk page. I believed, and still do, that the circumstances illustrate consensus for the sentence.

If reasonable minds differ, I’d submit the easiest thing to do would be to raise the substance of any objection on the article talk page, rather than go straight to ANI.

Please note I am subject to the disadvantages of editing on mobile until I get home from work this evening.

Thanks.

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, I am grateful to @TarnishedPath: for pointing out that events have overtaken us, and I can no longer self-revert. I would if I could. Thank you for clarifying the rules, and I don't expect to be back here in future. Riposte97 (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should note, that I did not realise that consensus on CTs could only come from affirmative talk page consensus. I have seen consensus inferred elsewhere by material merely being longstanding. I had thought three days sufficient to assume consensus in the circumstances.

I did not revert after TarnishedPath's messages because he apparently believed that only a day had passed between insertion and deletion. (I attributed this to timezone confusion, but see now we are in the same city.)

In any case, I have now read and understood the policy. Riposte97 (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO I now understand that consensus on CTs must be positively arrived at on the talk page. This won’t be an issue in future. Riposte97 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

@Riposte97: To help advance this to a conclusion, could you please elaborate on your statement, I have now read and understood the policy? SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Riposte. While that is good practice, it is not why you were reported here. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elinruby

I would like to point out the editor's behaviour at Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites where, based on an extremely unreliable source, the editor insisted on inserting into the lead a misleading statement that no graves had been found in archaeological excavations at schools. (See RSN thread) He then rewrote large sections of the article over the protests of other editors:

only to be reverted by @Ivanvector:In the table of suspected graves it describes the finding of the partial remains of a child in a grave at the Qu'Appelle residential school, sourced to [4]. The Spiked source that you provided, which is the successor of a magazine that was run out of business for denying the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides, really shouldn't be used as a source for any information about anything described as a genocide. Ignoring that, it does not say that no bodies were found: it says that none were found in the five specific searches it names, which does not include Qu'Appelle. It also gives its unqualified opinion that "no evidence has been found to support the claims of a ‘genocide’", which is highly suspect given their known history of genocide denial. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Also:

it has become quite clear that you are repeatedly trying to remove neutral information and add inappropriately sourced opinions downplaying the significance of these events, as evidenced quite clearly by your repeated attempts to force in an inappropriately-sourced and provably false narrative that there are no bodies (e.g. [5],[6], [7], [8]) and removing sources that don't conform with that false statement. If you do not stop this, I will seek to have you banned from the topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Elinruby (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87 and DanielRigal: may also wish to comment based on an ANI thread linked at the user's talk page: [9] Elinruby (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Riposte97

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

This is a clear violation of the enforced BRD sanction on the page. A self revert should be the first step, followed by a demonstration that they understand the bounds of the sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a warning would suffice in this instance, though I'd strongly urge Riposte97 to study the policy further as it can be a steep learning curve. El_C 14:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Konanen

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 Konanen

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Konanen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture

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

Talk:Reiki#USE OF TECHNICAL TERMS AS BUZZWORDS - start of discussions about neutrality of calling Reiki "pseudoscience" and "quackery", during which Konanen added a {{npov}} banner to Reiki
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Use of contentious labels in lead of an article - parallel discussion started by Konanen
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threat of Topic Ban after Objecting to Removal of POV tag during ongoing discussions both on Talk Page as well as NPOV/N - complaint started by Konanen regarding perceived personal attacks in response to them insisting on keeping a {{npov}} banner at the top of Reiki
Talk:Reiki#NPOV tag - new discussion following re-adding of the banner, in which Konanen insists they do not need to provide a justification for adding it

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

none known

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, at 19:58, 5 June 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User Konanen is civilly pushing a point of view, promoting false neutrality, and editing tendentiously on the alternative medicine topic Reiki.

Konanen opened the NPOVN discussion linked above, in parallel to a discussion already occurring on the article's talk page, with a request to remove the term "quackery" because they personally found it offensive, and to omit "pseudoscience" because of the term being redundant due to its occurrence in a linked article. Several editors objected, and there was some discussion which led to copyediting some repetitive occurrences of "pseudoscience" and improving the attribution of "quackery", but no consensus is evident for either term's removal. The discussion basically concluded on 30 May, other than one editor who on 5 June added their own biased tally of votes supporting their position and began removing all instances describing the practice as pseudoscience from the article, as well as a large criticism section; the other editor was topic-banned in a different thread here.

In the course of reverting the topic-banned user's disruptive edits, user Valjean restored an earlier revision and inadvertently removed the {{npov}} banner on 13 June. Konanen demanded that the banner be restored, referring to the false consensus and subsequent disruptive editing of the topic-banned user as evidence of ongoing discussion. When Valjean and Tgeorgescu responded essentially that two editors do not a consensus make, Konanen started the ANI thread reporting both users for personal attacks.

At ANI, several users both involved and not observed that Konanen is pushing the same POV as the topic-banned user, and expressed frustration over Konanen's insistence on displaying the neutrality banner. Several editors commented that the NPOVN discussion was concluded (e.g. [10], [11]), that the tag should be removed ([12], [13]), and that Konanen should drop the issue (e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17]), with many already suggesting a topic ban. Valjean did restore the banner some time later in an effort to move on.

Another editor then invited Konanen to identify the issue in a new talk page section. Konanen insisted that they didn't need to provide an explanation for the banner, and implied that the banner should remain until they were satisfied with the NPOVN discussion's outcome. I attempted to explain that cleanup tags are not meant to be used in this way and, referring to the opinion of ANI that the discussion was concluded, removed the banner again, suggesting that they should re-add it themselves only if they had another issue to discuss. Konanen still refuses to accept this, and this morning demanded that I self-revert or cite policy supporting the removal, which is blatant wikilawyering, and posted a new tally of votes at NPOVN which serves no purpose other than to tendentiously relitigate a discussion result they do not agree with.

I therefore propose that they be banned from the topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: yes, I should have clarified: I'm proposing they be banned from the topic of Reiki, not all of alternative medicine. Unless anyone else finds evidence they're being disruptive in the wider topic, which I haven't. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/1229033748

Discussion concerning Konanen

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 Konanen

Interesting to find myself here when all I have done is to advocate for discussion and transparency (by way of a POV tag) about said discussion pertaining to a matter of NPOV.

First of all, I object to the submitter’s falsehoods re two editors do not a consensus make, as I will be showing further below, the tbanned editor and I were not the only ones who had objections to the article’s lead as it stood. I do not agree with their hasty edits, but that is not the issue at hand.

I reject the accusation of tendentious editing. Precisely because I have an opinion on the subject matter, and because I do not think I could do a better job than previous editors in fixing the perceived POV issues, have I not dared edit the article in question except for adding the POV tag. If talking about the content of an article, and taking the matter to NPOV/N for wider input is considered tendentious editing, then I apologise ― I was not aware that its definition had such a wide scope.

Valjean restored an early version, citing accidental removal ([18]), but they were terse and bordered on personal attacks when I asked them to restore, hence the decision to take the matter to ANI, instead of edit warring over the issue (I hesitate to revert reverts, as stated elsewhere).

The discussion on NPOV/N began on the 29th of May ([19]), so alleging that discussion concluded on the 30th of May is disingenuous when there has been some activity since ([20] [21] [22]).

I am partially to blame for the lull in activity between the 6th and 13th of June, but that should not stand in the way of the discussion’s legitimacy, considering that it has continued just fine without my input ([23] [24]) which is further proof that the matter was not laid to rest, and there was no consensus reached that article is NPOV, wherefore there were no grounds for the removal of the POV tag (which Valjean had agreed to reinstate yesterday during the ANI procedure, but above submitter saw fit to remove again, even though the matter had not concluded on NPOV/N nor on the article’s talk page, see diffs below).

All that being said, since yesterday, there has been further opining about the article’s NPOV on its talk page as well as the noticeboard following Valjean’s substantial changes to the lead and my creating a summary of the discussion so far for a better overview ([25] [26] [27] [28] [29]). In my humble opinion, we have come to a good arrangement as to the lead. I am not interested in keeping the POV tag for the tag’s sake, and I think a good discussion has given way to an acceptable compromise less than an hour ago ([30]). I consider the matter satisfactorily discussed and remedied, and see no need for the POV tag to be restored at this time. Cheers, –Konanen (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I am unsure which reply you are referring to, but the first diff is a reply to another editor’s concerns about the lead, and not Ivanvector, (unless my phone’s rendering of the diff is swallowing up the appropriate reply). Anyway, that reply was referring to a completely different edit made to the lead by Valjean, and had nothing to do directly with the POV tag? -Konanen (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by berchanhimez

I believe that I may be the other user referred to by Ivanvector. I opened the talkpage section for the tag to give Konanen a chance (and any other editors, for that matter) to actually clearly state what NPOV issue was so prevalent in the article to merit a tag on the whole article. This way other editors could begin the process of improving any issues. Konanen replied that they do not agree that there needs to be any qualified raison d’être of the POV tag, even though the tag itself says Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page which is what I was attempting to begin. Regardless, a discussion over one word repeated maybe a couple times is not a discussion about the POV of the article as a whole that merits a NPOV tag. Rather than engage with their concerns on the talkpage constructively, they've continued trying to discuss at the NPOV/N. Seemingly now that Ivanvector has opened this thread, they've now backed off and said they have "no further problems" even though they were arguing to hide "pseudoscience" from being used in the article at all only a couple days prior.

Their behavior in the discussions leaves a lot to be desired - and whether they are well-intentioned or not, they've displayed their inability to constructively contribute to articles about pseudoscientific "medical treatments" on Wikipedia. I do not believe that a topic ban from all of medicine is merited necessarily, but a topic ban wider than reiki for sure. They started the discussion at NPOVN based on them finding the term pseudoscience "objectionable", and it is clear that early on they were on a crusade to legitimize reiki as scientifically sound and trusted. That alone should be enough evidence that they cannot contribute constructively to alternative medicine topics on Wikipedia, since they have admitted since the start that their personal objection is more important than the sources and discussion. A topic ban from alternative medicine need not be permanent, but the editor (who is still relatively new) should display their ability to have constructive and cooperative dialogue about article content before they should be allowed into the broader area again after this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Konanen

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

Taking a quick glance at their contribs, this seems to be the only topic where this type of editing has been an issue. A narrow tban for Reiki would likely be sufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in favour of an indef WP:TBAN from Reiki, WP:BROADLY construed. Too many issues, including WP:MEDRS ones. For example, I found their reply (diff) to Ivanvector's caution against using blank POV tags (diff) to have been unresponsive, and as such, WP:TENDENTIOUS. El_C 14:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rp2006

Rp2006 blocked indefinitely for repeated TBAN violations. As per standard, the first year of the block is an AE sanction, converting thereafter to a normal admin action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Rp2006

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rp2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Rp2006 topic ban (2), indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed.

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

[31] Created an article about a documentary about two living people that focuses on Facilitated communication.
[32] Adds that article to the see also section of Facilitated communication.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked by Arbcom motion for topic ban violations and continued COI editing

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Facilitated communication has a Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism tag on the talk page and the first source is Skeptical Inquirer, and many other sources in the article are related to skepticism. There was also a minor BLPvio in the lead, linking a former NFL player as the 33-year-old African-American man with severe mental disabilities who cannot speak, has cerebral palsy, and is unable to stand independently or accurately direct movements of his body. The wikilink to Anna Stubblefield is a redirect to a section of the Facilitated communication article. These are their first edits upon return from a block for topic ban violations. My previous filing Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331#Rp2006 contains a list with many of the warnings they were given before their recent block.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[33]

Discussion concerning Rp2006

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 Rp2006

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rp2006

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

Back off a month long block from ArbCom, and already violating the topic ban again? Rp2006, I'll allow some reasonable period of time for you to say your piece, but unless I'm really convinced this won't happen again, I think another timed block will just lead to this same procedure shortly after that one expires. At this point, I don't believe Rp2006 ever intends to abide by the topic ban, so I think it's time to indef. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. If there's no intention to adhere to the restriction while it is in effect, there's no point in setting the next block to expire only to repeat it all over again. El_C 13:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Seraph and El C. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 439: / Line 439: @@
 Also:
 <blockquote>it has become quite clear that you are repeatedly trying to remove neutral information and add inappropriately sourced opinions downplaying the significance of these events, as evidenced quite clearly by your repeated attempts to force in an inappropriately-sourced and provably false narrative that there are no bodies (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites&diff=prev&oldid=1223297703],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites&diff=prev&oldid=1223431526], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites&diff=prev&oldid=1224285549], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Canadian_Indian_residential_school_gravesites&oldid=1224365003&diff=prev]) and removing sources that don't conform with that false statement. If you do not stop this, I will seek to have you [[WP:TBAN|banned from the topic]]. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 14:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)</blockquote> [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 09:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
+{{ping|Graham87|DanielRigal}} may also wish to comment based on an ANI thread linked at the user's talk page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1145#Riposte97:_user_with_extremely_fishy_history] [[User:Elinruby|Elinruby]] ([[User talk:Elinruby|talk]]) 09:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards