Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:48, 19 September 2020

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

Kolya Butternut

Kolya Butternut is reminded to be more mindful of the boundaries of their TBAN. SPECIFICO is warned to be more careful in their use of gender pronouns, and to avoid the use of object pronouns for human beings. No further action at this time; if anyone wishes to file a broader AE request looking at the general conduct of either user, they are free to do so. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:07, 13 September 2020 (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 Kolya Butternut

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SPECIFICO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kolya Butternut (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

American Politics

Discretionary Sanctions

Gender-related controversies

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

Discretionary Sanctions RE: BLP
BLP "where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be ... that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached"
Decorum Decorum, incivility, gaming the system

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

Aug. 8, 2020 14 possible violations of partial AP2 TBAN regarding Senator Al Franken and his resignation for alleged inappropriate gender-related behavior, subject to Admin interpretation of the scope of the TBAN.
Sept. 7, 2020 partial AP2 TBAN violation. Discussing DeJoy's alleged illegal Trump campaign contributions.
Aug. 8, 2020 Battleground/uncivil talk page interaction RE: Gender-related edits relating to the next link, on an article talk page in which KB bludgeons 95 81 posts in less than a month on the article talk page that editors say appears to COATRACK a contemporary gender agenda into the article. (corrected 81, not 95 posts and added link 13:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC))
August 24, 2020 KB ignoring policy-based objections of many other editors.
August 27-28, 2020 Apparent gaming of unrelated WP:V disucussion of ONUS to justify BLP-sensitive reverts on gender-related BLP article Aziz Ansari.
June 1, 2020 IDHT talk page epic to deprecate NY Times finding on allegations concerning Joe Biden. In the course of this, KB had a lengthy BLPN Sealion discussion trying to justify an edit that was rejected at the article pages. See next diff.
May 10, 2020 BLPN thread attempting to WP:GAME BLP-sensitive information into Biden article.
May 25, 2020 Another long bludgeon and incivility thread. KB sought to include article content disparaging Trump's mental health apparently to establish a precedent to WP:GAME a similar disparagement into the Biden article, after her initial attempt there was rejected. See following link:
April 28,2020 Attempt to insert egregious BLP violation into Joe Biden article after KB attempts to amplify gender-related allegations were rejected.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

May 1, 2020 AP2 Arb Enforcement block by @Bradv:
May 27, 2020 partial AP2 TBAN by @Abecedare:

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

May 1, 2020 AP2 Block by Bradv (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Feb. 14, 2020 Alerted about sanctions in BLP
August 31, 2020 Alerted about GamerGate/gender issues

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has recently begun to disregard their~~its~~ partial AP2 topic ban. This comes on top of six months of disruptive editing in areas related to politics, gender, and BLP. I apologize for posting several links to long threads, but I think this is the clearest way to demonstrate the problem. This account is WP:NOTHERE and regularly fails or does not care to understand policies and guidelines theirit cites to justify tendentious editing. In addition to the sanctions linked above, there were others by @Wugapodes: and @Seraphimblade: that were undone on appeal. I have not listed diffs for the additional instances of incivility, AGF fails, and aspersions in the three subject areas. SPECIFICO talk 20:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following interaction with Wugapodes on his talk page may be illustrative of the sealioning and misappropriation of various policies and guidelines.
1) Regarding KB's one-way interaction ban with SPECIFICO,
2) KB accusations about SPECIFICO, and
3) KB mansplaining Wugapodes regarding his Admin actions.
SPECIFICO talk 21:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 Thank you for pointing out my oversight and misstatement as to the scope of KB's TBAN. I have inserted partial in all instances. In this diff KB deleted article text explicitly related to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's presidential campaign, so that edit is a clear violation of the limited TBAN. Admins might not consider each one of the cited 14 edits a violation, however in light of the wording of the TBAN -- relating to pages -- and given that 2020 Presidential candidate Gillibrand was the prime mover for Franken's resignation, and further in light of the gender-related issues with Biden and Trump, I would personally think these edits do fall within the scope. I can see that Admins might interpret it more narrowly, and I apologize for my imprecision and possibly erroneous interpretation in filing this case. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken the two instances of "it" and replaced them with "they". There's a brief discussion of this on my user talk page. I have made a point of referring to them as KB, acknowledging that to my knowledge KB has not disclosed a gender preference. KB, please accept my changes and apology for the instances you pointed out. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To help get closure on this, I'm going to ping the editors who were involved in retrospective discussion at the bottom of the Anne Frank talk page I linked. This should clarify whether I've misinterpreted KBs behavior at that and the other linked gender-related evidence. @Guy Macon, JzG, Cassianto, and LokiTheLiar:. I presume the Admins here have read the entire page. SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification link here

Discussion concerning Kolya Butternut

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 Kolya Butternut

SPECIFICO just referred to me as "it"...twice, and cites a sanction I don't have. I hope I'm not being baited into an IBAN, I don't need that. This comes immediately after I invited him[1] to discuss his desired changes after he had fought so hard to reverse the ONUS onto me, as observed by El C. Now that I started editing Al Franken, SPECIFICO reverted my clearly neutral edits and does not appear to want to discuss them with me.[2] There are many more false statements I'll need time to look at, but please understand that everything I have done is in good faith, and I believe you can see from Talk:Aziz Ansari that I have tried very hard to do better to avoid unnecessary arguing, even if I didn't always succeed. Everything before my sanction has already been discussed in the past; I am trying to move on. I do see that my last edit to Talk:Joe Biden was actually on May 25th.[3] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Gillibrand text I had removed: Accusations that the forced resignation was unfair were described as a liability to Gillibrand's presidential campaign in mid-2019,[4] and added.[5] I came to the article to edit the sexual misconduct allegation against Franken...I wasn't expecting to run into this and just wasn't thinking. I would not intentionally put myself in the position to be sanctioned. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC) +diffs Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC) wrong word Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that of all the edits I made to Al Franken[6] which SPECIFICO reverted, at the talk page he chooses to discuss[7] the edit most likely to get me sanctioned, without warning me, and then when I respond he replies by bringing me to AE.[8] Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about DeJoy in response to MelanieN is about his campaign contributions to Republicans in general, again, maybe I should have been paying closer attention. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: I assume he called me "it" because of how I identified myself in my old user page,[9] and because I edit trans and gender articles. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO typically calls me "she".[10] and "her" in his diff description #8 just above. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO saw Levivich call me "they".[11] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an IBAN. Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said this to SPECIFICO: SPECIFICO, please do not ever refer to me as "its" again. I take such language as a transphobic personal attack. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC) [12] Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1&2 addressed.

3&4. As Newimpartial saw at Talk:Anne Frank, editors were repeatedly making false statements and misrepresenting my arguments. No evidence of "95" comments. My RfC !vote and comment.[13]Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apology.[14] Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editors and admin present at Talk:Anne Frank who may offer insight into Talk:Anne Frank#Unwatching this page are Bondegezou and Swarm. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5. Ask El C about the conflict at Aziz Ansari where SPECIFICO would not respect ONUS.[15][16] At WP:V I was asking for ONUS interpretation; Masem stated that my reverts were proper.[17] SPECIFICO has been making POV non-V edits with false edit summaries, as I showed.[18] Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:17, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6,7,8,9, These were before my sanction; do I have to defend myself still? Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC) clarify. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that it is SPECIFICO who is violating the gender-related sanctions,[19] as witnessed by Wikieditor19920,Bilorv Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same behavior that SlimVirgin witnessed.[20] Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO's logged warning violation.[21] Kolya Butternut (talk) 12:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 2018, SPECIFICO was told never to refer to any editor as "it", and he responded, that "it" is the preferred politically correct way to address our colleagues of unidentified gender.[22]

This July he was asked to please stop misgendering people.[23]

SPECIFICO is routinely referred to by "they", as by several people in his AE case brought by Ergo Sum this year,[24] and he has been called "they" no doubt for years since adding a w/e pronoun infobox to his userpage in 2013.[25]

SPECIFICO is so familiar with gender topics that he participated in a Sexology arbitration request about "TERFs" in 2014[26] , and also in 2014 participated in a discussion at the WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force where other editors discussed using WP:Xe, s/he, and Template:Gender-neutral as gender neutral pronouns for editors.[27]

There is no reasonable doubt that SPECIFICO is very, very well aware that "they" is the standard pronoun for people of unknown gender. When he called me "it" here he was bullying me to provoke a reaction (perhaps to get me to waste my word count), and when he feigned ignorance at his talk page he was violating WP:CIVILITY 2. (d) lying, which I dare to say he regularly does (just read Talk:Aziz Ansari to observe the master manipulation).

Is there such thing as a "net positive" editor we can't trust? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO's AE warning to follow WP behavioral standards.[28] Kolya Butternut (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of SPECIFICO's ANI warnings: ...User:SPECIFICO is warned that any such anti-community behaviour may lead to a site ban; 3) User:SPECIFICO is also warned that although an IBAN is usually controlled by escalating blocks, the community was already extremely close to implementing a community site-ban, so "pushing the envelope" will not be accepted, and may lead very quickly to a site ban discussion;...[29] The closing admin is inactive, but former admin MONGO was present, and current admin Tom harrison. Kolya Butternut (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see an indef topic ban from sex and gender topics specifically for lying/dishonesty. The misgendering personal attacks towards editors and the misogyny towards women who make sexual misconduct allegations are the influencing factors, but the most toxic behavior to the community is the lying and manipulation. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bilorv

I'm busy in real life so I'm speaking perhaps more off-the-cuff than I normally would, but I am concerned to see this request. I've been pinged by KB, so take note of my POV, but I am a fan of and long-time lurker at Aziz Ansari, which this is about. Here is my perspective: around 24 August, SPECIFICO begins making rapid edits relating to Aziz Ansari, a topic they seem to be relatively unfamiliar with (not an insult, not necessarily an issue—I've edited lots of topics I know little about). Specifically, a woman (Grace) described a date with Ansari in which (both he and she agree) he acted aggressively and sexually towards her in a way that made her deeply uncomfortable. The way that I felt reading SPECIFICO's comments and edits is that they present Grace as a malicious actor, emotional woman or person who should be entirely ignored. For instance, this comment: [...] the tenuous use of #MeToo narratives to describe the woman's having failed to extricate herself from an unwelcome situation before she got to tears. [...] the woman's having held up her personal reactions to public scrutiny on the expectation that people would find them somehow similar to incidents of sexual misconduct. This is not an accurate summary of what reliable sources say—though it is an accurate summary of what half of reliable sources say, the half that SPECIFICO has been focusing on over the last few weeks. Before this, the article was in a relatively stable state given the sheer amount of continued content produced by the alt-right on this topic (not anyone in this discussion), with most conflict being IPs trying to whitewash the article. It was a surprisingly good compromise given the polarised set of reliable sources (particularly given that most editors have strong opinions on the topic).

I left the discussion almost immediately, realising it to be not productive to engage in a conflict which would drain me of energy. KB is the only user who has engaged in the discussion in a comparable level to SPECIFICO. If I were to be uncharitable then I would view SPECIFICO's actions as specifically intended to Gish gallop until all other users had been driven away, and this enforcement action as part of that behaviour. If I were to be charitable then I would view SPECIFICO's actions as a good-faith attempt to improve Aziz Ansari based on a reading of reliable sources that I disagree with, due to our different personal opinions and beliefs; I am happy to recognise mine but I don't know if SPECIFICO has commented on theirs. Either way, there is nothing here that KB has violated but people independent of the situation (not me) should evaluate whether SPECIFICO's use of the pronoun "it", filing of a non-actionable request and behaviour at Talk:Aziz Ansari has been made in good faith. — Bilorv (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon

(Responding because I was pinged.)

At Talk:Anne Frank#Unwatching this page I wrote:

"I have decided to unwatch this and related pages. I have made my point as best I can and don't think more words from me will change any opinions at this point. Also, I have a suspicion in the back of my mind that this just might end up at Arbcom, and I want to be able to say I withdrew from the discussion."

As I predicted, it is now at Arbcom, and I am pointing out that I withdrew from the discussion.

Much of this request concerns current US politics, which I refuse to have anything to do with. If any Arb thinks that the part about Anne Frank is actionable, I can comment, but it seems to me that that particular content dispute was settled by RfC and that the page has been stable and NPOV ever since. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bondegezou

As I was pinged... I have only, as far as I remember, interacted with KB on the Anne Frank article and Talk page. Discussion there has got heated at times, but I saw nothing that warranted any action being taken against KB. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kolya Butternut

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

I have yet to read through the entire request, but I am concerned that the report cites violations of a supposed AP2 TBAN, whereas in fact the ban was from "pages or discussions related to 2020 United States presidential election, candidates, issues and events" [30]. SPECIFICO, in the spirit of AGF I'm assuming this wasn't intentional, but in that case you may want to amend some parts of your report. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Louis DeJoy edit was a violation, and a bad idea. Everything else seems to be part of genuine content disputes, though I'm not going to read through the 95 posts without a clearer reason to do so. 95 posts is veering into BLUDGEON territory, but then again this is an AP2 article, where reams of nonsense are produced on talk pages every day and need to be rebutted. I missed before that SPECIFICO was referring to KB as "it"; I would almost consider a boomerang just for that. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been open three days, during which no one has expressed interest in levying a sanction. The misuse of pronouns is bad (and by "misuse", I mean intentionally referring to another human being as "it"), but I can't see what to do about it besides warning that it may be met with an immediate block next time. I would also remind KB to be more mindful of the boundaries of the topic ban, which is broadly construed. I will close with these warnings unless other administrators suggest anything to the contrary in the next 24 hours or so. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the topic ban relates to the presidential election, issues and candidates and was issued on 27 May. I can't see a full AP2 ban unless I'm missing something. Therefore, the 7 September edit to Talk:Louis DeJoy was a technical breach, though minor, and I can't see any others. Though I can't say I'm impressed with some of KB's editing I don't see a major violation of any AE that they're subject to. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO:, please provide a really good reason why you're repeatedly calling another editor "it". The only reasons I can think of are (a) dehumanizing them, in which I think an indef block is called for until you agree to never do that again, or (b) trying to subtly claim that this is one of several accounts this editor is using, and you at talking about things they've done with this account, in which case, you are not being subtle at all, so provide substantiation or knock it off. I look forward to learning about a completely harmless explanation (c), at which time I will happily eat my words. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- SPECIFICO has changed the pronouns, and explained (?) on their talk page. I understand KB's taking offense, and won't begrudge them pointing it out at all, nor their comments about it so far. But I think KB would be better served focusing on the actual subject at hand, since my understanding is that there is a one-way i-ban with SPECIFICO. Any mention of SPECIFICO that is required to address their claims is allowed, but there is a limit of some kind, and I'd hate for you to find out what that limit is the hard way. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is why I usually don't do AE, i always make a pig's ear out of it. There is no i-ban, I misread the AN/ANI close. The i-ban was overturned by the community 3-4 months ago. Pay attention, Floq. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexiod Palaiologos

User is blocked per WP:SOCK and per WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin action by User:Guerillero. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Alexiod Palaiologos

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

16:56, 14 September 2020 Reverts to replace referenced total with unreferenced total
16:51, 14 September 2020 Reverts to restore information with no verifiable connection to George Floyd protests. The killing of Rayshard Brooks is a separate event to the killing of George Floyd, the references provided make no mention of George Floyd, they do however say The fatal shooting occurred across the street from the Wendy's where Rayshard Brooks was killed by an Atlanta police officer last month
14:55, 14 September 2020. Reverts to restore unreferenced death toll of 40
13:30, 14 September 2020. Reverts to remove addition of " with a slave kneeling to him"
08:05, 14 September 2020 Reverts to restore "perceived" to the lead, removed in this edit
07:02, 14 September 2020. Reverts to restore unreferenced death toll of 40, claiming amending to a referenced total is blatant revisionism
09:29, 13 September 2020 Reverts to restore weasel wording, removed in this edit
20:52, 12 September 2020 Adds unreferenced claim regarding number of deaths
13:59, 10 September 2020 Adds weasel wording to lead
12:58, 14 September 2020 At Talk:2020 United States racial unrest in response to requests for references alleges but the actual number is correct without providing references
13:21, 14 September 2020 In response to a further request for references links to a Wikipedia article
14:47, 14 September 2020 In response to yet another request for references copies and pastes from a previous version (since Secoriea Turner and Michael Forest Reinoehl are included it's definitely not from the version of the article at the time of posting, since they were removed at 22:44, 13 September 2020) of the Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests article.
14:58, 14 September 2020 In response to yet another request for references alleges The citations are clearly in THIS article, if that was the case there should have been no problem providing them, or adding them to the infobox when restoring the disputed, unreferenced, content
19:00, 9 September 2020 Adds unreferenced claim of 31 deaths to infobox at Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, despite the 31 claim being tagged as unreferenced in the article.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive270#Alexiod_Palaiologos. Technically was supposed to have been warned regarding referencing as a result of that complaint, however nothing appeared to have been done. That doesn't change the fact they were clearly aware their editing has been identified as problematic.

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

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 20:16, 27 August 2020 .

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The claim in 2020 United States racial unrest that 30 people have died during the George Floyd protest, and 40 people in total have died is unreferenced, so I removed one claim and tagged the other in this edit, explained on the talk page, both the edit summary and the talk page post explicity mentioning WP:BURDEN. Following an unjustified reversion by another editor in violation of WP:BURDEN, I amended the George Floyd total to a referenced figure here. They ignored this and reverted, can be seen above at diff dated 07:02, 14 September 2020. At Talk:2020 United States racial unrest#Unreferenced breakdown of deaths removed they constantly refuse to provide references while continuing to edit war their unreferenced total into the article. Objections to the total have been made by @Aquillion: here, @Slatersteven: here, @Dlthewave: here and here. We never get any references, instead we get directed to other articles (where the inclusion of certain incidents is disputed to begin with, or told to check references in the article, despite the fact that many references (small sample, others available) don't even mention George Floyd so can't be used to claim those deaths were part of the George Floyd protests, as Aquillion states Whether an individual death qualifies as part of this unrest is obviously a judgment call involving interpretation and analysis, so editors cannot simply add up what they personally consider deaths related to the topic and then list the total as a fact - it is original research. That was said before Alexiod Palaiologos even posted in the section, yet has been repeatedly ignored. FDW777 (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: the specific problem is the editor consistently adds unreferenced information, or uses references that don't mention George Floyd protests. It is not simply a case of adding together, it's adding apples to organges. FDW777 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest anyone believing the figure of 31 is a referenced total for deaths during George Floyd protests looks at the references provided at 2020 United States racial unrest and Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, and see just how many of them don't mention George Floyd (answer: LOTS). I suggest they also read Talk:2020 United States racial unrest#Unreferenced breakdown of deaths removed and the repeated failure to list the references that would confirm all 31 deaths were during George Floyd protests. FDW777 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexiod Palaiologos: that you are still attempting to use Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests as a reference demonstrates you don't get it, and probably never will. You cannot use policy violating content from one article to prop up content in another article, especially when you and other disruptive editors continually edit war to add back policy violating content to the first article. FDW777 (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Alexiod Palaiologos

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 Alexiod Palaiologos

Seems to be just a problem with the death toll. The death toll, of the George Floyd protests, is very clearly listed as 31, in the article Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests. The user in question who is trying to report me, is simply going onto that article, deleting information, then claiming that my edits (on 2020 United States racial unrest) are unsourced, (which they aren't, there is VERY clear sourcing in the article, 2020 United States racial unrest, which gives a complete breakdown of every death]]. The user in question has simply kept on removing my edits, claiming they are unsourced (which they are not, as I explained), and then wants me banned for edit warring? To be honest I am very confused, he seems to not understand that by reverting my edits, he is the one starting an edit war, not me.
I would like to add that this involves the death toll of the 2020 United States racial unrest, of which the George Floyd protests are a part of, so any deaths in the George Floyd protests are naturally included in the 2020 United States unrest, hence why it is so crucial to note that he is editing the Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests with false information (claiming the death toll is 19, when it is clearly 31, another user there has cleared that one up) then using that as basis to claim my edits are incorrect. But a quick look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_racial_unrest#Deaths will show all the sources you need, meaning that the claim that my edits are unsourced, simply doesn't hold up. -User:Alexiod Palaiologos 20:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will stay in my section. User:Guerillero not a single bit of evidence as to why any kind of ban is needed, has been provided. If you actually look at the edits he's trying to get me banned over, it's simply me reverting edits where he randomly deletes stuff without explanation ([31] other users agree with me), or worse, where he randomly deletes my edits, then when I revert my own edits he accuses me of edit warring, which just makes no sense. This user is harassing me, constantly deleting my edits, refuses to talk in the talk section and is now trying to get me banned.

Also the only reason behind deleting my edits, that he ever gives, is there is not enough sources, which is completely false because all the sources are in the article, and have been provided by me. So I really fail to understand this user at all. On top of this, I can see that none of the people providing statements here are actually looking at the edits, just supporting banning me without any reason. If you look at the history of the 2020 United States racial unrest [32] you will see that at least half of the work in the article has been written by me. What exactly do you want to ban me over? This is getting ridiculous. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 09:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also he mentions me removing an edit about the slave kneeling statue. In the very next edit after that I changed it from simply, statue with a slave kneeling, to the actual name of the statue (Emancipation Memorial). So that is a very misleading summary by him. [33], which of course this user fails to mention. So as far as I can tell, none of his lists of edits are legitimate concerns, except for the death toll, which I have explained with citations, and he simply replies with I'm not going to read that. Yes, the [[34]] does list 31 deaths, he removed the 31 deaths but another user added them back, so once again it's the same story of him randomly deleting information from an article and then wanting to get me banned over it. 31 deaths is clearly listed in the [[35]] article, as such 31 people have died, and the death toll is 31. SO WHAT DOES HE WANT ME BANNED OVER? He has gotten into edit wars with atleast four other users over this very same issue, can't he realise that he is clearly in the wrong? User:Alexiod Palaiologos 09:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)

This has been argued about repeatedly. At issue is whether or not you can add up separate sources to come up with an authoritative figure for an ongoing event. I do not believe this is complaint with either wp:or or wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note this also applies to deciding to add deaths that RS do not say are part of the protests.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Socking at an AE should be an indef.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave

In my opinion, the problem is more about how this editor handles conflict in general than the WP:OR issue itself. I've interacted with Alexiod Palaiologos several times over the past few days in the 2020 protests topic area and their responses to legitimate concerns often devolve into personal attacks. In the death toll discussion mentioned above (permalink), they refuse to engage with the argument that we can't do our own calculations to arrive at the total. Instead, they state with apparently increasing frustration that "the citations are there" (none of the citations mention a total of 31) along with a personal attack Please learn to read before going on Wikipedia and deciding your own opinion dictates fact.

Just before this disagreement, I had warned them about uncivil comments at Talk:Kenosha protests. A few examples:

[36] - Sarcastic comment about protesters, accuses editor of political bias
[37] - Comparison to the Holocaust
[38] - Accusation of "rewriting history", another Holocaust comparison
[39] - Accusation of edit warring, going against consensus, spinning words and ignoring facts with no evidence whatsoever
[40] - Accusation of using "own personal opinion" as consensus, along with yet another Holocaust comparison
[41][42][43] - !Votes three times in the same discussion

Taken as a whole, we're looking at a pattern of refusal to engage in collaborative discussion along with a massive failure to assume good faith. This editor continues to demonstrate an inability to work with others in this topic area after multiple warnings. –dlthewave ☎ 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, put quite simply, I was countering your stance sounded by giving comparisons, as to how it is not a useful one. You suggested a random map of Kenosha as a useful image, and it was clearly opposed by several editors. There is no failure to assume good faith there, not a single bit, let alone this massive failure as you claim. And on another note, a talk section has no relation to edits I make on a separate article. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 20:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexiod Palaiologos: You've mistaken someone else's suggestion for mine; I was not the one who proposed the map nor have I voiced an opinion on it. Regardless, if you think that invoking Nazi Germany is in any way useful here, I rest my case. –dlthewave ☎ 21:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: Alright, my bad in that case. The comparison to Nazi Germany was not chosen specifically, but as a look how ridiculous this guy's arguments are type of thing. And here the discussion here is not about a talk page but about edits in an article, where I can quite safely say that the user (who is reporting me) has no actual reason to report me and is simply deleting stuff from Wikipedia and getting mad at me for reverting it, then making false accusations against me (claiming that I have no sources when they are clearly stated, replacing actual sources with outdated sources which are no longer relevant). User:Alexiod Palaiologos 21:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Fredericus Rex mein konig und herr)

Having read through the edits and talk section, I don't understand what the need is to ban the other user. Have a discussion on the talk section, and if you find that 5 other people are going against what you say, you are probably wrong in what you are trying to do. Note that Wikipedia policy does not require you to provide evidence for deleting unsourced material, but in this case material was clearly sourced. From what I can tell, attempts to ban user Alexiod, are due to user FDW777 being angry that he could not provide ground for deleting information from an article. Alexiod also seems to have a poor attitude when it comes to discussion, so my solution is to reach a consensus with other users on the talk page, not trying to ban each other.

User:Fredericus Rex mein konig und herr is CU-blocked as a sock of Alexiod Palaiologos. Guerillero, I think we're in indef-territory here, if you combine blatant socking with edit warring, a battleground attitude, a failure to write material based on reliable sources, and non-neutral editing. If the latter two claims are found credible, an indef-block, rather than a topic ban, is appropriate. Drmies (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Alexiod Palaiologos

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

@Alexiod Palaiologos: Please only edit your section. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking we are in topic ban territory here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: I blocked them --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albertaont

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 Albertaont

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :

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

16:07, 14 September 2020 Restored death removed here clearly stating unreferenced as anything to do with George Floyd protests. The reference provided makes no mention of Black Lives Matter, George Floyd or racial unrest. I mean, seriously, is every single death in America fair game for being classed as being part of a George Floyd protest?
06:37, 14 September 2020 Amends total from 19 to 23 at George Floyd protests, using references that don't mention George Floyd specifically this, this, this, and this
22:17, 13 September 2020 Restores unreferenced figure of 30 people killed during George Floyd protests despite it being specifically removed mentioning WP:BURDEN
02:51, 5 September 2020 Adds the death of Michael Reinoehl to the table at Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests. While a case could be made (by references of course) that the person he allegedly killed was during a George Floyd protest, Michael Reinoehl's subsequent shooting by police wasn't during a George Floyd protest
02:47, 5 September 2020 As diff above, only adding Michael Reinoehl to the article text. The reference makes no mention of George Floyd.
16:19, 1 September 2020 Restores information previously removed. The killing of Rayshard Brooks is a separate event to the killing of George Floyd, the references provided make no mention of George Floyd, they do however say The fatal shooting occurred across the street from the Wendy's where Rayshard Brooks was killed by an Atlanta police officer last month
17:39, 31 August 2020 Reverts to include an unreferenced total of 30 deaths at George Floyd protests
06:25, 29 August 2020 Restores information previously removed, claiming this article looks at the entirety of fatalities from all BLM protests, as some of the deaths in this article could also be reasonably attributed to outrage over Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery. Um, no. The article is called Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, protests relating to the shooting of Jacob Blake are not George Floyd protests.
05:58, 29 August 2020 Reverts at George Floyd protests saying 30 is the death toll at another article. That would be the Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests article, where they edit war to include incidents of no direct relevance to George Floyd, even ignoring that Wikipedia articles can't be used as references.
14:51, 26 August 2020 Unreferenced change of total deaths at George Floyd protests
05:55, 29 August 2020 At Talk:George Floyd protests argues content of other articles should be added up to provide a death toll
02:47, 31 August 2020 Continues to argue content of other articles should be added up to provide a death toll
17:42, 31 August 2020 Continues to argue content of other articles should be added up to provide a death toll. Says I should challenge any of the . . . additional deaths. We've already seen what happens when entries are challenged at the other article as not being verifiably related to George Floyd protests, Albertaont reverts!

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Notified.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Here they said to bring admin to deal with their persistent violations of policy, which led to me reminding them of content policies here. Their constant attempts to include virtually every single death in America as part of the George Floyd protests are tiresome, and in violation of policy.

@Slatersteven: the specific problem is the editor consistently adds unreferenced information, or uses references that don't mention George Floyd protests. It is not simply a case of adding together, it's adding apples to organges. FDW777 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexiod Palaiologos: Considering your misrepresentation of references was brought up at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive270#Alexiod Palaiologos, it's probably not a good idea to misrepresent them again. You say One of the deaths he removed was an incident where a car drove through a protest barricade, and was shot at by protesters, and refers to this edit. The incident where a car drove through a protest barricade was supposedly referenced by this and this. As I correctly stated in my edit summary removed some incidents that did not verifiably occur during a George Floyd protest, the burden of evidence is on anyone restoring them to provide references proving they did, since the references don't mention George Floyd. The references do however mention Rayshard Brooks, and the killing of Rayshard Brooks is a separate event to the killing of George Floyd. So the death of Secoriea Turner did not occur during a George Floyd protest, but during a Rayshard Brooks protest. FDW777 (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Albertaont

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 Albertaont

Statement by (Alexiod Palaiologos)

As far as I can understand, this comes as a case of User:FDW777 refuses to engage in the talk section, and simply deleting random pieces of information in article, without any kind of consensus. One of the deaths he removed was an incident where a car drove through a protest barricade, and was shot at by protesters, yet User:FDW777 claimed it had nothing to do with the protests, which is ridiculous. User:FDW777 fails to assume good faith, and fails to reach any kind of consensus as to why he is removing large pieces of information from an article. So to then want to ban users for reverting information he deleted, is very surprising to me. He also gotten into edit wars with atleast four other users (possibly five, I'm not too sure because the article in question was attacked by vandals which makes it hard to read the history), so it seems his changes are generally not welcome. Suggest administrative action against User:FDW777 instead.

Statement by (slatersteven)

This has been argued about repeatedly. At issue is whether or not you can add up separate sources to come up with an authoritative figure for an ongoing event. I do not believe this is complaint with either wp:or or wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its still a case of OR, my above still applies.Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Albertaont

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

Springee

Springee has volunteered to limit themselves to 1RR until April 1, 2021, removing any need for formal administrator intervention here in my opinion. ~Awilley (talk) 15:58, 15 September 2020 (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 Springee

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Calidum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff)

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

User has been repeatedly edit warring on pages subject to discretionary sanctions. Generally these are three reverts in a matter of hours.

At Tucker Carlson

At Turning Point USA

At Dave Rubin

At Dave Rubin, again

At Turning Point USA, again

At Tucker Carlson Tonight

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Month-long 1RR sanction issued in November 2015 [44]

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

DS notice for this particular topic given in July. Also has a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As you can see, Springee's modus operandi is to repeatedly revert, but he is careful to avoid breaking the 3RR rule. (He is also aware of 1RR restrictions per this comment from 7 September, but I don't believe any of the pages I linked to fall under that category.) In many of the above cases, there are talk page discussions but they generally involve stone walling and moving the goal post. A recent thread at Carlson's talk page is a good example of the sort of discussion that follows. Springee's opening comment "arguably the material had consensus when you restored it by weight of numbers (2:1) but per ONUS you should have addressed my concerns prior to restoring the text" is illustrative of the problem. Another discussion of note takes place in several sections at talk:Steve Bannon.

This is my first time here, so apologies in advance if my formatting is incorrect or I missed something. -- Calidum 17:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]; In response to Springee below, I was aware of the ongoing discussion (though not the subsequent RFC) at the time I made this edit [45] that was then reverted at Tucker Carlson. In my opinion, however, the consensus from the discussion that begin in August (linked above) was clearly in favor of inclusion at that point. Also, much to Springee's chagrin, opening a talk page discussion as he did does not place an injunction that only he can lift. If Springee thinks that is what WP:ONUS means, he is mistaken. -- Calidum 20:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[46]

Discussion concerning Springee

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 Springee

I agree, the multiple reverts is not the best thing. But there is another issue that was recently discussed by others here [[47]], namely that there is often a problem when a number of editors show up on both sides of a debate and then fail to follow policies like NOCON, ONUS etc. For the most part this wouldn't be an issue if both sides were more willing to be patient, talk first, get consensus, then restore (or not). Restoring disputed content while no consensus exists at the talk page is just asking for edit warring. Calidum failed in this regard when they restored disputed Tucker Carlson material earlier today.[[48]].

As mentioned above, Calidum restored disputed Tucker Carlson text earlier today. That material was added on 27 Aug. I reverted with a comment explaining my revert. Another editor restored, another reverted. At that point I opened a talk page discussion [[49]]. With the talk page discussion open I would have hoped that we could have reached a consensus on the talk page before anyone would restore the text. However, a few editors who were not initially talk page participants restored the material. Several editors including myself reverted the additions per NOCONSENSUS and ONUS. Since the discussion was active no editors should have restored the material until some sort of consensus/compromise was reached. I only made additional reverts of the disputed content when editors ignored the discussion and it's lack of consensus. That is specifically what triggered the 3 reverts today including one by Calidum who made it clear they were aware of the discussion via their comment here [[50]] made at the same time as their restoration.

At Turning Point USA three editors including myself opposed the edits made by a single editor. The disputed edit was made on 11 Sept, reverted, restored, reverted, restored, then I reverted the disputed material (my first revert). The same editor then added a tag which I disputed and removed. It was restored, again by the same editor, I removed it again. Calidum restored the disputed tag (another editor reverted it later). Nothing after the first revert should have been on the article page as the editor who reverted the disputed edit started a talk page discussion. I think Calidum's concern would have more merit if they also chastised the other editor for failing to follow BRD/restoring disputed content 3 times after it was initially reverted. While the edit warring was an issue, I also felt there was clear space for a compromise options so I opened a discussion to try to work out the article lead disagreements on the talk page vs via back and forth edits.[[51]]

Collapsing Dave Rubin comments for length

The Dave Rubin edits are hardly edit wars. Going through the 6 diffs, one of the August edits was a single revert of a change I disagreed with. The other two were reverting an IP editor who's edits went against this RfC [[52]]. The "3" July edits are actually just 2 since two are sequential. Both involved a new editor ignoring the same RfC. The back to back also involved a single change-revert sequence (thus not edit warring).

Contrary to what Calidum might suggest, I don't just blindly revert. I try to always take disagreements to the talk page with the hope that we can find consensus rather than edit warring. I think all of these talk page discussions would go over better if we assumed a bit more good faith and talked more. Calidum is right that stonewalling can make consensus seeking difficult. So can restoring disputed content absent clear talk page consensus.

Springee (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

Nomoskedasticity is failing to mention they are involved with me via a recent content dispute with a large number of editors on both sides.

Calidum's update with a quote of mine needs context[[53]]. New material was added, I reverted. A second editor just reverted rather than going to the talk page. My comment about 2:1 is when adding new content I don't see 2:1 is a true consensus. All else equal, I see consensus at super-majority (ie, over 2/3rd). I also see long standing as something like a slight consensus in favor of the stable version. Thus 2:1 for a change is not quite consensus in my view (I've expressed this in the past) but I'm sure my view is not universal.

Drmies, I agree it was not ideal and I have to admit, and I hate to be admonished by you because I've found you generally fair. Thus if I'm getting admonished by you that means I probably did screw up. However, I would hope you can see the issue with the involved editor who restored the disputed content twice, back to back despite being involved with the talk page discussion as well as Calidum restoring it even though they were aware of the talk page discussion. As I've said, if more editors would follow BRD I think we would have more collaboration even on pages where there is a disagreement. Springee (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal Since the question seems to come down to reverting too much, I will suggest a self imposed 1RR restriction on all AP2 topics until after the election. Hopefully that will address concerns with regards to my editing. With this I would ask that admins not impose 1RR on any of the other involved editors, only to nudged them to please follow BRD when consensus is not agreed upon on the talk page. Springee (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, I will agree to the 6 months 1RR AP2 self imposed limit. I would again ask that the editors who were being scrutinized not be officially warned (or asked to self limit) but they are notified so they will not make the same mistakes in the future. If they can generally behave as if they also have a 1RR limit I suspect it will be much easier for us to reach actual consensus on talk pages. Springee (talk) 03:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, for the sake of levity can we agree to April fools day (1 Apr 2021)? Springee (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

I saw the Tucker C. stuff go by yesterday and was wondering if that was a matter for ARE--well, here we are. That flurry of reverts on Springee's part was bad. CRYBLP does not help there. Drmies (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PackMecEng, I don't follow what you are trying to say; I'm just saying that invoking the BLP does not work here, and that the content doesn't match the source? When I looked, the content (one single sentence) did match the many sources that I saw. (Problem here is you are being vague, as if the discussion and the content never evolved.) "I am curious why" reminds me of the comments one sees on Instagram--like under a news story about the fires in the American West someone says "what about the fires in the Middle East". I have no idea why you'd expect me to know everything or pay attention to everything. If Springee is harassed, then let someone know. Or they can let someone know. Bringing this up here, in what is clearly the wrong forum, is a distraction, but I think you know that. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Your response is a bit sad and certainly doesn't help Springee. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Springee, I'm sorry, but the entirety of that talk page reminds me very much of stonewalling. I do not believe consensus was on your side there, and that therefore it was unwise to claim the opposite and act like it was. I really don't want to look at the other pages because, well, I don't want to see more bad stuff. Plus, I don't really get what the urgency was in the Carlson article. I will fight tooth and nail for a BLP, and I don't care who it is, but for that kind of content, something that was so widely reported in an article already so full of factoids plucked from the news cycle, an article on someone who lives on the news cycle and on riling people up, no I don't get that. Sorry. Maybe you would benefit from the Drmies treatment for self-care and lowering blood pressure: writing on something where NOTNEWS etc. will likely never be an issue--Neanderthal fossils, for instance. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley, a bunch of 1Rs would not be a bad idea. I see what you mean--JimKaatFan is (rather foolishly) inserting the material they started an RfC over. But if you or anyone else is looking at that RfC, note the callous "that caused some people to get their knickers in a bunch" by another editor. I'm not about to start another thread here, but I do want to note that DS are intended also to maintain a positive editing atmosphere, and whatever Springee may have done wrong here, they certainly are not callous or dismissive. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (slatersteven)

This has been argued about repeatedly. I note that "7) Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring." of the DS seems to means that 4rr over any time period is edit warring. I count 4 reverts at Tucker Carlson starting 1/9/2020 (3 in one day).Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Atsme

I'm not surprised that those who want to add negative material to a BLP would file a complaint against an editor who prevents it because it is noncompliant with policy. From my perspective in evaluating the diffs:

Tucker Carlson - there appears to be some confusion about ONUS, and it is not Springee;
Turning Point USA - same song, second verse - El C had to come in and add a 1RR consensus required restriction, and I believe it was because of the ONUS failure and relentless restoration of noncompliant material;
Dave Rubin - a bit stale but riddled with vandalism here and there, and again ONUS - it’s a BLP issue.

That's all I have to say at this point in time. I hope this complaint doesn't waste too much of our admin's valuable time ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that, typically, when BRD and Consensus required has been imposed, the opposition's next resort is to call a foul and accuse the opposition of STONEWALLING - same song, second verse - and it further substantiates why DS fails. There is no behavioral disruption here - this is a content issue disguised as behavior. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's about content, so why not place that same 1RR on the article itself which would serve better to prevent disruption, rather than restricting only a few editors? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Springee's MO, evident over an extended period, amounts to a significant impediment to efforts to develop our encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Regarding WP:ONUS, a quick nose-count in the section discussing the topic from the most recent round of reverts (all comments in that section that I can see, are from before when the most recent round of reverts took place) shows editors supporting adding the contested material by a roughly two-to-one majority, something Springee was aware of and conceded in their comment linked above. Obviously consensus isn't a vote, but it shouldn't be about total intransigence, either, especially when discussions are so lopsided - those numbers would be a reason to slow down and not aggressively revert-war against inclusion. ONUS doesn't, after all, mean "every contested addition requires an RFC", nor does consensus require unanimity. And, more importantly, believing that consensus is on your side - or refusing to accept an emerging consensus you disagree with, in this case - is, of course, not a valid reason to edit-war. Also, I am not understanding what Springee meant by admitting there was a 2:1 majority against them but insisting that their objections had to be answered - this is not what WP:ONUS says at all. Obviously discussion is good, but if there's a consensus against your position then your arguments have been rejected; insisting people continue to answer them is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT / WP:STONEWALLING. --Aquillion (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shinealittlelight

I agree with what Atsme said. Springee was making a good faith effort to observe WP:ONUS and work on the talk page for consensus. It's true that he tends to hold a minority opinion on these topics, but he has been pretty effective at adversarial collaboration, as I think you can see here, for example. So I think it's not true that he has generally been obstructive, and he has made a real contribution to the project. Also, it's worth noting as well that these are extremely contentious articles, and that means it's not easy--and can be quite frustrating--to work on them, especially from the position of the minority viewpoint, and I think he keeps his cool and makes reasonable proposals. Shinealittlelight (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

There’s been a dose of harassment and PAs also. On the Andy Ngo article, I asked a simple question: Was there ever a police report on this attack?[54] Springee first gave me a source, The Post Millennial. [55] According to our article on the source: It has been criticized for releasing misinformation and articles written by fake personas, for past employment of an editor with ties to white supremacist-platforming and pro-Kremlin media outlets, and for opaque funding and political connections. Further, Andy Ngo, who the article is about, was an editor at the source, making it an obvious COI, even if it didn’t have ties to white supremacist-platforming and pro-Kremlin media outlets. Springee followed this with numerous edits to the ATP and then my UTP demanding to know why I asked the question, twice accusing me of ranting, and continuing to insist I should accept this source. [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65].

I decided not to take this to AN/I and let it die. But, there does seem to be a general pattern of bludgeoning to prevent negative material from articles about those on the political right, the three in the filing and Andy Ngo. O3000 (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: Just a comment. Some people might look at multiple editors adding text and one editor reverting the multiple editors as edit warring by the one. Others may accuse the multiple editors of tag-teaming. O3000 (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the evidence on multiple articles, I think the suggestion of a general 1RR restriction for Springee would be useful. Possibly also applied to others with reasonable evidence. Article-wide 1RR restrictions are really painful to deal with, although needed in some articles IMHO. Where one editor has a pattern of warring, such a restriction may result in quicker consensus on the TP. And, it would still allow them to participate on the TP, where they should. O3000 (talk)

Statement by PackMecEng

@Drmies: The cry BLP argument is kind of lame given the discussion has pretty determined at this point it was a BLP issue since what was writen does not match the sources. I am curious why you did not mention the harassment Springee has received at the article, specifically stuff like this. Which is far from okay but no one really seemed to mind.

You can find similar stories at all the articles listed. Things like accusations of whitewashing, stone walling, and just general failure to assume good faith. Then if you look at the edits he is reverting, generally amounting to news of the day being inserted with no context and largely undue to all those BLPs. From what I can tell they are largely legitimate reverts. PackMecEng (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: I suppose that is the problem. You admittedly do not follow what is happening at these pages but then decide you know enough to comment with vague accusations. As you would say, it reminds me of someone on Twitter ranting about something they do not understand. That ends up being the problem a lot with pages like that, random indignation about The Truth™ and what ~~should~~ MUST to be in the article. I am just so sick of it. PackMecEng (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

I try to be thorough which is why so far I looked only at the first article/situation listed. IMO the wording in question does not even match the sources (or quote) much less have the strong sourcing required for wp:BLP. Something that came from talk would probably not be as problematic and IMO Springee insisting that it first come from talk is a good thing. In the recent sequence people put it in 3 times and Springee took it out 3 times over a few days. I don't consider "tag teaming" to be an offense, but spreading the same edit addition amongst the three should not make the difference of one side getting in trouble and the other not. Of course the same edit in and out so many times without it coming from talk is not a good thing. North8000 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Springee

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

Springee, could you trim your statement? It’s at 853 words by the count of the first word counter on Google, and AE is limited to 500 word statements. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Digging into the edit histories and talk pages a little bit I'm finding nearly equal fault with a couple of the people Springee was edit warring with. Whatever sanction might be applied to Springee as a result of this report, I think it would be reasonable to apply the same to JimKaatFan (talk · contribs) at a minimum. (See the edit history at Tucker Carlson and this.) At the moment I'm inclined to slap personal 1RR restrictions on a few editors. ~Awilley (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Awilley: I think that would be a decent way forward --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee: I'm on board with an informal voluntary 1RR. I figure if it's on your honor you're more likely to follow it, and if you do make a mistake we won't have to deal with the administrative overhead of AE reports, blocks, etc. But I would want a minimum of 6 months. (I was initially considering a year.) It's not just about the election, I want you to form a long-term habit. ~Awilley (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee:, OK, thank you. I won't do any formal warning or sanctioning of the other users here, but I may approach some of them on their talk pages and give them a choice, with one of the options being something similar to what you just agreed to. I appreciate that you aren't looking to drag others into this, but it's been an ongoing problem spread across many articles and I was already considering what to do about it. ~Awilley (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee:, yes, April 1 works :-)

@Atsme:, it wouldn't just be 1 article needing the 1RR sanction...there's edit warring on many articles in the topic area, 4 of them listed here. Why place a restriction on 4 articles affecting hundreds of editors when one could place the same restriction on say 4 editors and get a comparable reduction in edit warring but across a wider range of articles? ~Awilley (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FDW777

The user who submitted this request has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. ~Awilley (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2020 (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 FDW777

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Alexiod Palaiologos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: FDW777 (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: [[66]] :

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

[67] Here he has removed critical information (deaths) from this article without any kind of explanation, and then claimed they were unsourced, which is simply not true, they were sourced.
[68] Removed a sourced death toll of 31, without any kind of real explanation (again claimed they were unsourced, but once again that is not true, a list of sources is provided).
[69] The same story, removing deaths and information from the article without any kind of explanation. He seems to edit in this strange way on purpose, small edits at a time, in order to make it more difficult to deal with him.
[70] Added a false death figure which is several months outdated, as opposed to the one which is accurate, not sure what he gains from doing this.
[71] Yet more of this persistent editing from him, where he randomly removes information or changes it. Here he deletes half of an article's infobox, and provides no reason as to why he did so.
[72]] Changes the death toll in the article (you can see this is a particular interest of his) to remove deaths which are clearly mentioned in the article, and sourced, and claims that somehow the death toll is unsourced. Sources are, I stress, very clearly in the article. For example, look at this article, the death toll is given, and then sourced below with a complete tally which explains everything.
[73] I attempted to talk to him about reporting me, for what appears to be a conflict started by him, and he deletes it from his talk page.
[74] [75] [76] The reactions from four other editors to his edits can sum it up quite well, none of his edits make any rational sense, they are all deleting random pieces of information, and on top that he claims that it is the other person's burden to find reason to keep this unsourced information in the article, when the information is clearly sourced. So once again he goes along the whole unsourced information when all information is clearly sourced, and all he is doing is deleting random bits of information/sources from the article and creating a new death toll which is inaccurate and wrong (for example, using a source from June for the death toll, when 31 deaths is clearly sourced in the article).
[77] This also shows what he is doing quite well. When I give him a full list of sources and detailed explanation behind each event, he simply claims he will not bother reading it. What kind of an attitude is that? He wants sources, but refuses to read them, and will then delete sources already in the article (not added by me or him), change information and accuse me of edit warring/not having enough sources.

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I am not sure what this editor's issue is, he keeps appearing on random articles which I edit, and starts removing massive amounts of information, including my edits, and claiming they are unsourced, when they clearly are. The first issue is clearly deleting and vandalising Wikipedia articles, second is accusing me of edit warring (he deletes my edits, and critical information in the article, without any information, so it seems quite clear he is the one who is edit warring). He also fails to ever give any kind of explanation as to why he is deleting my edits.

Discussion concerning FDW777

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 FDW777

Diff #1 is removing off-topic information from Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, with an edit summary of removed some incidents that did not verifiably occur during a George Floyd protest, the burden of evidence is on anyone restoring them to provide references proving they did. So the claim of that I removed them without any kind of explanation, and then claimed they were unsourced, which is not true, they were sourced is false, and deliberately so. The killing of Rayshard Brooks is a separate event to the killing of George Floyd, the references provided make no mention of George Floyd, they do however say The fatal shooting occurred across the street from the Wendy's where Rayshard Brooks was killed by an Atlanta police officer last month. The killing of Michael Reinoehl did not happen during a George Floyd protest, and the reference doesn't say it was.

Diff #2 is removing As of September 3, 2020, at least 31 people have died during the protests, with 26 due to gunshot wounds.^{[citation needed]} Could someone explain how that is a sourced death toll of 31 as claimed?

Diff #3 is removing the death of a policeman with a supposed reference that doesn't mention George Floyd. I cannot find one reference that says Tamarris Bohannon was killed during a George Floyd protest. My edit summary said unreferenced as anything to do with George Floyd protests, so the claim that I was removing deaths and information from the article without any kind of explanation is once again demonstrably false.

Diff #4 is adding a referenced figure, instead of the unreferenced total of 31 that's obtained by including as many deaths as possible with references that don't mention George Floyd.

Diff #5 was removing a lengthy list of belligerents that weren't mentioned in the article text, just like I explained at Talk:2020 United States racial unrest#Infobox 2. I mentioned MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE specifically, which says keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. I cannot be held accountable for people not understanding the meaning of "supplant".

Diff #6 is amending the George Floyd protests total to a referenced one, instead of the unreferenced one Alexiod Palaiologos is intent on edit warring into multiple articles. The deaths are not clearly mentioned in the article, and sourced, anyone looking at the references will see time and again that George Floyd protests aren't mentioned (although protests relating to the deaths/shooting of other people will be).

Diff #7 is me removing a templated warning and personal attacks (What an annoying, miserable person you must be, which is not attempted to talk to me.

There's so many inaccuracies in the report it should be seen for what it is, battleground behaviour in retaliation for the report detailing many policy violating edits by Alexiod Palaiologos. FDW777 (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diff #8 is nothing in particular. Diff #9 claims When I give him a full list of sources and detailed explanation behind each event, he simply claims he will not bother reading it. This is another completely false claim. At 14:47, 14 September 2020 Alexiod Palaiologos simply copies text from a previous version of another Wikipedia article. There are no references provided. I replied at 14:53, 14 September 2020 saying Again, the content of another article is not a reference and I will not even waste time discussing it. There were no references provided, and I refuse, and rightly so, to discuss a copy and paste of the text from another Wikipedia article that's being claimed to be a full list of sources when it's nothing of the sort. FDW777 (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

The filer has canvassed a very new account with a grudge against FDW777 [78]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Warlight yahoo

In defense of Alexiod Palaiologos, he did not violate any wikipedia guidlines.

FDW777 accuses Alexiod Palaiologos of making unreferenced edits. That is flase. The edits made by Alexiod Palaiologos on 2020 United States racial unrest were all referenced by sources on Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests.

We discussed this all on Talk:2020 United States racial unrest under FDW777 discussion (Unreferenced breakdown of deaths removed) wherein this has already been settled. FDW777 couldn't prove that the edits by Alexiod Palaiologos were unreferenced on any of the discussions so now he's here trying to ban Alexiod Palaiologos because he couldn't prove his edits were unreferenced. Therefore this complaint is unjustified.

Result concerning FDW777

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

The canvasing puts a bad taste in my mouth --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 23:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alexiod Palaiologos has been indefed --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cjbaiget

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 Cjbaiget

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience :

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

12 March 2020 Example of an incorrect statement at the talk page of the article, see below
13 March 2020 After being shown that the above statement is incorrect based on a RS, stated that the source is wrong, see below.
18 September 2020 Addition of doubtful material based on a blog
18 September 2020 Restoration of the above material

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

16 September 2020 partial block from Talk:New chronology (Fomenko) for personal attacks in the course of discussion of New Chronology

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Cjbaiget is a user with less than 100 edits at the time of filing this request. All these edits are related to New chronology (Fomenko), which is a fringe pseudoscientific theory. All their edits try to promote the theory, to show that its adepts have academic credentials, and its critics were cited incorrectly and in fact did not claim what the article states they did, or at least that the New chronology is not universally rejected by the academic community, but only by some scholars (this is a very indicative edit). They started by posting wall of texts at the talk page; currently the whole talk page is filled by these walls of texts. Where other users could check them, these walls of texts contained incorrect statements, for example this edit said they believe that Fomenko never claimed that Rome was founded in 1380. In 15 minutes, I was able to provide a reliable secondary source saying Fomenko claimed this [79]. Then they said they believe [80] that the date was taken by the source from Wikipedia. Most of the walls of text remain unanswered, because other users can not be expected to read all of them. Tho days ago, the user was partially blocked by Doug Weller from the talk page for (I believe) this personal attack. Having bludgeoned the talk page, they started to bludgeon the article. When today they added a material added on a blog [81] "to put contrast to some wikipedist's opinion based on a 13 year old publication", I removed the addition citing WP:RS. After they have readded it [82] I felt we need a break from this user, hence we are here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [83]

Discussion concerning Cjbaiget

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 Cjbaiget

Hello all, please excuse my brevity.

I am not directed at promoting Fomenko in any way. This wikipedia article is just the first place I came to learn about it in the first place, about three years ago.

Anyway, and having great interest in the application of Astronomy, Computing, and Mathematics to chronological questions, and after having read almost the whole opus, I became aware of several, blatant mistakes that this article contains from the point of view of these sciences, which I am able to discuss in the talk page, a thing that I tried with my best dedication, but failed to open any rational scientific debate.

As contender says, I have very few contributions, but more in the talk page than in the article, whose structure I have never tried to change.

Beign so few, my only defence are my contributions to both article and talk page, which I beg to be read an placed to scientific and objective examination.

I have been sanctioned two times: the first as a newcomer, I committed the blunder of naming another editor as responsible for deep errors that I understood as lies. The second, yesterday, after a veiled, non-offensive response to a demonstration of contempt to a length and elaborated explanation I tried to make in the talk page to another editor. Please check also.

I'm available at any time to answer about any and every of my conscious words placed in this encyclopedia, on which I log on with my real initials and surname. Cjbaiget (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About 'incorrect' statement about Rome foundation please understand that both dates can be taken as correct: As Rome (according Fomenko) was founded in 1380, on a *previously existing city*, which of course, had a previous date. Which date refers to "foundation of the city of Rome?", to resolve ambiguity will be necessary a longer explanation which was not going to be welcome in any way. (This same remark was made in the talk page then, but ignored.)

Regarding first concern made by Doug Weller about "the sauce issue": When I reduced Sheikos' claim to singular, I had previously *checked* than he was the only author in his source. When I allowed plural to Martin, I had previously *checked* that he represented the view of two other "dendro-dissidents", as is quite obvious from his article.

Regarding first concern made by Eggishorn: Please don't attribute your perception of my actions to my own *already stated* motivation, clearly expressed in the edit summary: Relevant opinion from an *actual active scientist and archeologist* about the reliability of current dendrochronology, to put contrast to some wikipedist's opinion based on a 13 year old publication on the paragraph above, for which I have tried an amend accordingly.

Btw, Mr Eggishorn has accused me in another thread of "intellectual dishonesty". I have never been accused of any kind of dishonesty by a pseudonym, so I'm not going to answer there. I feel that it IS intellectual dishonesty to grab some cryptic recommendation about valid sources to actually propose from a pseudonym the CENSORSHIP of relevant information to the reader.

About my role in Wikipedia I'm forced to explain that: Negative feelings about my contributions can be traced back to *my very first non anonymous edit* "First Edit".. , which I had to make after having "*anonymously tried*". "not Spain, but Greece". to finally reflect the *previously unknown HISTORICAL FACT to editors* that war *was in Greece, not in Spain* , and that *I had to explain that thoroughly*, so them can be called later "walls of text" *to editor Doug_Weller in the talk page*: ""Simple Explanation"". . and later *this FACT was forced by evidence* to make its path into the article, being my edit immediately obfuscated by him, but retaining the core word: Greece instead of *WRONG* Spain. Talk page testifies also the fact that, after this fact was explained, Doug Weller suggested it could make sense to omit it from the article.

Bwt, what is the difference between a "text wall" and a fruitful scientific debate? Just that the former has remained ignored by some irresponsible editor.

This error had been present for more than 8 years in the article, and several 'serious critiques' outside wikipedia have replicated it. Is only thanks to yours truly, accussed of being some kind of "Fomenko Pusher" now at the stake, that this is not the case anymore. Wikipedia has a responsibility. All errors residing in this article *have been already documented outside wikipedia*, but I was not going to betray this project I still believe by not trying to raise awareness of them at the same time.

This is just the tip of the Iceberg. This article is unmaintained and tries too hard to explain *a parody* of an actual serious research, which can be true or false, but doesn't compare in anyway with what the article draws. I want to insist that, *this is not a controversy regarding historical matters*, but *a controversy regarding scientific matters*. This article needs urgent scientific supervision. My points are already explained in the talk page. This article contradicts several *scientific critiques of topic "New_Chronology:Fomenko"*. I'm not even interested in editing the article, something that I'm trying to do from a sense of scientific duty.

Having said that, I've to call the attention again to *urgent mature scientific supervision* to force *another systematically rejected edition of mine* which irremediably will have to be made in the end, the sooner the better *for Wikipedia*: ""Robert Newton had NOT explained"". Cjbaiget (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

My issue with this edit[84] is not that it is a blog (by an expert however), but that it is written in a way that appears to support Fomenko, or at least a missing 200 years which is, according to the source, used by amateurs to prove that the Roman Empire fell 200 years later than is claimed by mainstream historians and archaeologists. In fact the article specifically states "A common idea about why this should be so is that the Church of Rome added a couple of centuries to its age to gain legitimacy: in other words, a conspiracy of early historians." And "a conspiracy of early historians" links to our article on the Phantom time hypothesis, not a million miles from Fomenko's arguments.

Also, he wrote :"Nowithstanding this, some relevant figures from both the professional and academic archeological circles like Swedish archeology professor from University of Łódź, Martin Rundkvist, claim that "professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not a great science".^[1]" Note the use of the plural in the same edit, "some relevant figures from both the professional and academic circles..." But then Cjbaiget's next edit has the edit summary "Source has a single author and doesn't claim to represent any syndicate of critics, nor has the credentials to do so. Erroneous and misleading use of the plural form amended." It's hard not to immediately wonder why the sauce for the goose isn't good for the gander. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eggishorn

Coming here due to discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#New_chronology_(Fomenko) and repeating some of what I said there. The Rundkvist quote was presented dishonestly in that Cjbaiget is using a only part of it to say something that is almost the exact opposite of what the original author meant. The full quote from that blog post is: Professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not great science. Field archaeologists: when you saw your wood samples for dendro, get two samples and send one to the amateur community! They practice open data sharing." The "black box" Sundkvist objects to isn't scientific quality but data sharing. The rest of the blog post makes this difference even clearer: I mentioned published dendro curves. The rub here is that most dendro data are never published. They are kept as in-house secrets in dendro labs in order for these to be able to sell their services to archaeologists. So when the amateurs challenge the professionals’ opinion, all the latter can reply is “We know we’re right but we can’t show you how we know”. And that is of course an unscientific approach to the issue.. Cjbaiget used this source to support the idea that an expert in the field is saying dendrochronology is "not science". The very next sentence in the original quoted statement makes it clear that the expert is saying the exact opposite thing. There is no conceivable way that this truncation was accidental -- it was a specific decision of Cjbaiget. This use of a source to say something other than what the source actually says is a violation of, among other things, the WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cjbaiget

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

73.75.115.5

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 73.75.115.5

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 73.75.115.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe :

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

19 September Commonting on a contributor (me), no on the substance (and making a false statement)
19 September Casting aspersions
19 September Casting aspersions, making an irrelevant argument
19 Septembe Casting aspersions

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

9 September 3 weeks block from Talk:Kyiv
31 August 1 month block from Talk:Kyiv, later lifted

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After being partially blocked by Barkeep from Talk:Kyiv for massive disruption, the user continued disrupting discussions on talk pages, without making relevant argument and instead making comments on the motives of other users, mainly me. This is currently a hot topic now, with a long of strong opinions from both sides, but contributions of this IP are really outstanding in this respect. I have provided only four diffs, mainly related to me, but most of the user's recent contribution are similar. I apologize for coming to AE twice in two days, usually I try to not overburden fellow admins with these issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [85]

Discussion concerning 73.75.115.5

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 73.75.115.5

My only statement is diff--73.75.115.5 (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I guess if an admin says the user continued disrupting discussions on [other] talk pages, without making relevant argument, it must be true (although my conversation, for instance with Leschnei on Talk:Kyiv (disambiguation), did seem constructive to me (<sarcasm> although probably I shouldn't have done any edits on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Names and Wikipedia_talk:Lamest_edit_wars#Request_an_edit_on_semi-protected_page, because humor is a touchy subject for many</sarcasm>). When Ymblanter says and instead making comments on the motives of other users, mainly me - I guess he means my comments on Talk:Odessa, Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia and Talk:Kievan Rus' - I am sorry Ymblanter that you felt, i.e., that all my all comments were primarily about you (I did not wish to Wikipedia:WIKISTALK you in any way, and if you felt that way - I apologize to you). Looking at the diffs you provided, I do see that I was perhaps went too far in discussing your views/opinions, rather than your edits (and this is certainly not in the spirit of discussing content, and not the contributor, and for that I apologize to you Ymblanter and will strike those out). I also see how my comments might have cast an unfounded aspersions on you - and for that I also apologize.

pps. I think emotions might have been flying around on many sides after the tumultuous Kyiv/Kiev RM that I initiated couple of months ago, and as a result of those emotions, Ymblanter, you might have inadvertently also cast some unfounded aspersions against me that are blatantly not true (and honestly I wish you did not cast them), specifically I am referring to where you said stop making assumptions about my motives and views, including my political views. diff and therefore accused me of casting some aspersions about your political views - I have never said anything about your political views anywhere (because I myself find that totally inappropriate, i.e., everyone is entitled to their own political views and I never look down (or comment) on people for just being democrat/republican etc.). If you have a proof that I discussed your political views anywhere - please provide diffs. Otherwise, please strike those accusations out (I have already stricken my comments that you felt were casting aspersions against you, because, as I said above, I do not want you Ymblanter to feel that i am wikistalking you or have any animosity whatsoever against you (because i do not).--73.75.115.5 (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 73.75.115.5

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

^ "Dendro Dissidents" [86]

[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.

[3] "Dendro Dissidents" [86]

[a]

[b]

[1]

@@ Line 671: / Line 671: @@
 ====Statement by 73.75.115.5====
 My only statement is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:73.75.115.5&diff=979275565&oldid=979275488 diff]--[[Special:Contributions/73.75.115.5|73.75.115.5]] ([[User talk:73.75.115.5|talk]]) 20:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
-: p.s. I guess if an admin says {{tq|the user continued disrupting discussions on [other] talk pages, without making relevant argument}}, it must be true (although my conversation, for instance with Leschnei on [[Talk:Kyiv (disambiguation)]], did seem constructive to me (<sarcasm> although probably I shouldn't have done any edits on [[Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Names]] and [[Wikipedia_talk:Lamest_edit_wars#Request_an_edit_on_semi-protected_page]], because humor is a touchy subject for many</sarcasm>). When Ymblanter says {{tq|and instead making comments on the motives of other users, mainly me}} - I guess he means my comments on [[Talk:Odessa]], [[Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia]] and [[Talk:Kievan Rus']] - I am sorry Ymblanter that you felt, i.e., that all my all comments were primarily about you (I did not wish to [[Wikipedia:WIKISTALK]] you in any way, and if you felt that way - I apologize to you). Looking at the diffs you provided, I do see that I was perhaps went too far in discussing your views/opinions, rather than your edits (and this is certainly not in the spirit of [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|discussing content, and not the contributor]], and for that I apologize to you Ymblanter and will strike those out. I also see how my comments might have  cast an unfounded aspersions on you - and for that I also apologize.
+: p.s. I guess if an admin says {{tq|the user continued disrupting discussions on [other] talk pages, without making relevant argument}}, it must be true (although my conversation, for instance with Leschnei on [[Talk:Kyiv (disambiguation)]], did seem constructive to me (<sarcasm> although probably I shouldn't have done any edits on [[Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Names]] and [[Wikipedia_talk:Lamest_edit_wars#Request_an_edit_on_semi-protected_page]], because humor is a touchy subject for many</sarcasm>). When Ymblanter says {{tq|and instead making comments on the motives of other users, mainly me}} - I guess he means my comments on [[Talk:Odessa]], [[Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia]] and [[Talk:Kievan Rus']] - I am sorry Ymblanter that you felt, i.e., that all my all comments were primarily about you (I did not wish to [[Wikipedia:WIKISTALK]] you in any way, and if you felt that way - I apologize to you). Looking at the diffs you provided, I do see that I was perhaps went too far in discussing your views/opinions, rather than your edits (and this is certainly not in the spirit of [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|discussing content, and not the contributor]], and for that I apologize to you Ymblanter and will strike those out). I also see how my comments might have  cast an unfounded aspersions on you - and for that I also apologize.
 : pps. I think emotions might have been flying around on many sides after the tumultuous Kyiv/Kiev RM that I initiated couple of months ago, and as a result of those emotions, Ymblanter, you might have inadvertently also cast some unfounded aspersions against me that are blatantly not true (and honestly I wish you did not cast them), specifically I am referring to where you said {{tq|stop making assumptions about my motives and views, including my political views.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Odessa&diff=979266884&oldid=979265269 diff] and therefore accused me of casting some aspersions about your ''political views'' - I have ''never'' said anything about your political views anywhere (because I myself find that ''totally'' inappropriate, i.e., everyone is entitled to their own political views and I ''never'' look down (or comment) on people for just being democrat/republican etc.). If you have a proof that I discussed your political views anywhere - please provide diffs. Otherwise, please strike those accusations out (I have already stricken my comments that you felt were casting aspersions against you, because, as I said above, I do not want you Ymblanter to feel that i am wikistalking you or have any animosity whatsoever against you (because i do not).--[[Special:Contributions/73.75.115.5|73.75.115.5]] ([[User talk:73.75.115.5|talk]]) 21:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

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