Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Selfstudier

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 Selfstudier

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Selfstudier (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/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

Violated WP:1RR on Al-Shifa Hospital siege.

At 12:07, 15 November 2023 they made their first revert in 24 hours.

Then, between 14:58 and 15:18 they made three separate edits, constituting a single revert; 15:18, 15 November 2023, 15:02, 15 November 2023, and 14:58, 15 November 2023.

These reinstated in wikivoice the use of the description "siege" for the event, reverting an edit I made to attribute that description in line with the sources in the article. They also reinstated two specific aspects that I had removed:

With the 15:02 edit, in the infobox, they changed Al-Shifa Hospital clashes to Al-Shifa Hospital siege. My edit had changed that from siege to clashes.
With the 15:18 edit, they changed the section header Clashes to Preliminary clashes and siege. My edit had changed that from Siege and attacks to Clashes.

I approached them with a request that they self-revert; they eventually self-reverted the change to the infobox, but have implicitly refused to revert further, having neither continued the conversation on their talk page or made the reverts, despite having made dozens of edits since that discussion, including to the article in question - as such I feel I have no other option to resolve this other than to bring it here.

Related to this, though not sufficient to warrant a post here on its own, there has also been a level of incivility with comments directed at editors rather than content:

In response to my addition of a POV-tag to the article, they said Throwing toys out of the pram, pay no attention.
In response to Novem Linguae's removal of a Reuters source they said So now the anti siege editors are going around knocking out siege refs in the article.

When I approached them about this, along with request to be more mindful about avoiding commenting on other editors as over the years I have noticed this to be a bit of a habit for them and it contributes to the toxicity of this topic area, they instead doubled down on the pram comment and refused to adjust either to align with our civility policies.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

23:38, 1 July 2020 Formally warned for 1RR violations in the topic area; cautioned that When in doubt, self-revert.

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

Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

To respond to a few points and clarify my statement:

I removed unattributed claims that this was a siege; Selfstudier restored those claims. This is a revert.
We’re getting into content, but I believe that if the majority of reliable sources attribute a claim then we need to do the same to comply with NPOV. Reasonable editors can disagree with this, but my position isn’t unreasonable.
The POV tag was unrelated to the title and to the status of the RM; I added it because of the restoration of the use of "siege" in wikivoice to the article.

12:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Another minor 1RR violation; restored claim of bunker and tunnel network (removed here), reverted another edit a few hours later.

Overall, I would be satisfied with Selfstudier recognizing that it was inappropriate to make statements like Throwing toys out of the pram, pay no attention regardless of where they were made, and committing to only discuss content on article talk pages and bringing questions of conduct either to the users talk page or the appropriate forum. BilledMammal (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

01:32, 16 November 2023

Discussion concerning Selfstudier

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 Selfstudier

This all took place in the space of some hours on 15 November. Filers First edit to the article changed "siege" to "clashes" in the infobox along with the reference in Wikivoice to a siege in the first line of the lead and another in the article body, asserting in edit summary that an RM opened by filer 20 minutes earlier proved that siege in Wikivoice was inappropriate.

I did not notice this edit at the time because I was engaged in back and forth on the talk page at the RM unsuccessfully attempting to persuade filer to drop the RM due to the easy availability of reliable sources calling the event a siege. I then set about adding some of these sources into the article and in the process of doing so reverted filer's infobox edit changing "siege" to clashes" above (I added a source for "siege" at the same time). When this was pointed out, I self reverted. My edits were intended as constructive and were not otherwise reverts. Filer then added an undue inline tag to one of the sources that I had added with the same reasoning as in their first edit ie that Wikivoice was inappropriate because filer said so in their RM.

The RM did not proceed to filers liking and a pointy POV tag was added here, again justified by reference to the reasoning given in filers RM. No conversation regarding this tag was opened by filer in talk but another editor eventually opened a talk section querying the basis for the tag and was backed up by a second editor, both understanding that the tag was being placed due to the RM. I confess to being a tad irritated with filers behavior and added a throwaway comment at this point to the effect that filer was merely being pointy in adding the tag. Filer then asserted that the issue was "broader" than that but once again merely repeated their own assertion made in the RM.

Judging by the current status of the RM, filers POV is not at all convincing. Essentially boils down to filer making an assertion by way of RM and then attempting to force through filers opinion on the subject regardless of evidence being presented to the contrary.

Statement by Iskandar323

I find the substance here extremely lacking. BilledMammal has provided a list of diffs of alleged reverts, with little explanation on the substance, and only two clear examples of material that was reverted. Of those two, it is freely admitted that the latter was promptly self-reverted by the accused upon request. That would be the logical end of the content dispute for most editors. My eyebrows are raised slightly higher by BilledMammal's obviously unconstructive altering of the infobox title away from the page title - but in line with their dissatisfaction with the title. This is the sort of quickly reverted action that one normally sees coming from IPs and non-autoconfirmed users, not experienced editors that know the ropes better. BilledMammal's addition of a POV tag to the page, again in relation to the title's terminology, is also WP:POINT-y. I have been generally unimpressed by this editor's behaviour in recent weeks in this CT area, but here they appear to be showcasing combative editing. BilledMammal also raises some issues about civility, but this is a bit pot kettle black given that BM's opening comment on Selfstudier's talk page accused them of "contributing to the toxicity" of the topic area while flagging: "I've also noticed over the years ... - so requesting civility while accusing them of toxicity and highlighting what is hard not to interpret as a statement of some sort of longstanding grudge/chip on the shoulder. Altogether, this is filing comes across as altogether unimpressive in terms of substance and misdirected. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

BilledMammal changed a section title from "Siege and attacks" to "Clashes". Selfstudier then changed it to "Preliminary clashes and siege". Calling this a revert seems a stretch. It looks to me more like an attempt at compromise. Zero^talk 09:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Can't stuff like this be handled on the article talk page?[1] O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Wh15tL3D09N)

I just wanted to come on here and say that I did notice some POV issues on that article. If you notice issues with the article (for example, a lot third party quoted criticisms have been added), and deleting criticisms isn't an option, then you need to go and find facts or quotes from other sources to corroborate your POV to balance the current skewed POV (I think 30% of the article cited Al Jazeera as a source, which is biased) rather than going to arbitration enforcement. That being said, I did notice some saucy comments from Selfstudier and I apologize on his behalf if they have unintentionally offended you.

Result concerning Selfstudier

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

I haven't looked into this deeply enough to have a final opinion but wanted to make it known that there were admin eyes on the complaint. At first glance, I'm not seeing anything actionable though it might be best if both parties go and edit something else for a little while and come back with a fresh perspective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like HJ Mitchell I'm not seeing enough to warrant action. Iskandar323's above statement shows that the fundamental problem concerns dissatisfaction with the word "siege" in Al-Shifa Hospital siege—a title that was recently confirmed (diff). Under the circumstances where BilledMammal edited to remove siege from an article with this title make Selfstudier's response over a short period reasonable. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaikunda Raja

No action necessary. RegentsPark (comment) 18:32, 21 November 2023 (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 Vaikunda Raja

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Vaikunda Raja (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/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation

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

Vaikunda Raja requests Deletion Review of Annamalai Kuppusamy. This is not disruptive at this point: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183108503&oldid=1183086709

A lengthy reply which ends I would like to suggest experienced users here to act responsibly., perhaps implying that declining the request is irresponsible: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183153859&oldid=1183141620

Another call to act responsibly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183155615&oldid=1183153859

A rambling post that says nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183335678&oldid=1183256322

Admits that their lack of command of English may contribute to excessive length of posts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183486377&oldid=1183485221

Another reply, which is by this point in bludgeon territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183782213&oldid=1183656692

A long argument with Daniel, who had said to leave the article deleted rather than restore it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1185845826&oldid=1185776564

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None to the best of my knowledge

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 15 February 2023:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVaikunda_Raja&diff=1139453247&oldid=1134585236

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor is bludgeoning a Deletion Review about an article on an Indian politician, and has been cautioned by multiple editors that their posts are too long, and are not useful. They have replied to the effect that their English is limited, and this requires them to use more words. This raises competence issues, as well as the battleground nature of replying to almost every post.

The DRV is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Annamalai_Kuppusamy.

The AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Annamalai (I.P.S).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVaikunda_Raja&diff=1185934338&oldid=1171460010

Discussion concerning Vaikunda Raja

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 Vaikunda Raja

Statement by Cryptic

As the user directly being bludgeoned at in some of the diffs above - and having just stumbled across this quite by accident - I advise leniency. This didn't directly affect any articles, it was well within DRV participants' ability to handle, and part of the fault was mine: since I read DRV mostly in diffs, I didn't immediately recognize the google links in the initial drv request as attempts to link to coverage in specific news sources and so was more dismissive than I ought to have been in my first response. The second diff above (the first of two Robert labels "act responsibly") was their first edit to the page after that response. —Cryptic 10:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Vaikunda Raja

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

Closing with no action per Cryptic's comment and the fact that the DRV is closed.RegentsPark (comment) 18:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodofox

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 Bloodofox

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: HollerithPunchCard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bloodofox (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

A topic ban of indefinite or sufficient duration against Bloodofox pursuant to Arbitration Decision December 2022

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

Since September 27, 2023, @Bloodofox made dozens of radical changes to Falun Gong, a protected topic WP:CTOP, against community feedback and without consensus.

All attempts for civil, rational, content-focused discussions have failed and are met with aspersions and personal attacks. Attempts to salvage deleted content are quickly reverted (sometimes with the help of another editor, @MrOllie), despite reasoned objections on the talk page. Constructive editing on this topic is currently impossible.

Respectfully, this editor has breached numerous WP:PAGs and [WP:TPG] including WP:PA, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:FORUM, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP: BATTLEGROUND, WP: RECENT, WP: LEDE, WP: SOURCETYPE. AE sanctions are necessary to restore normal order and function to this contentious topic.

Removals of stable, well sourced content without discussion

09/27/2023 - Diff Diff. Deleted almost two full paragraphs, containing 11 academic sources, on the organizational structure of Falun Gong. This material had been stable and largely uncontested for years. Edit summary claims the information is “obviously incorrect” and outdated, but provides no evidence to support this contention.

On the talk page, Link other editors point out that the deleted material was well supported by academic experts on Falun Gong, including by a major 2019 scholarly work. Moreover, even if FLG’s organizational structure had changed over time, the encyclopedia should describe that evolution, rather than erasing historical findings.

Diff Bloodofox offers no evidence on the talk page to support his position, but edit wars to enforce it.

11/08/2023 to 11/15/2023 - Diff Removes three full paragraphs of the Lede, along with more than 10 academic sources, human rights NGO reports and media reports that introduced Falun Gong’s history, basic theological beliefs, and the persecution by the Chinese government. The deleted material had been stable for years, if not a decade.

Other editors argued that deletion of important aspects of this topic, to give greater and exclusive focus to recent media articles and controversies, fails [WP:Lede], [WP:Weight], [WP:Recent], [WP: SOURCETYPES], and [WP: NPOV] Link, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff.

Diff - Bloodofox edit wars to prevent other editors from partially restoring deleted content.

Activism, Personal Attacks and Uncivil Conduct

Diff, Diff Pushed a POV (e.g. by declaring Falun Gong-related pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND); did not assume good faith; refused to engage in reaching consensus or making compromise, tries to canvas other editors to join his cause.

Diff Conducts advocacy and activism against the subject matter, Link, Diff calling of removal of all information and sources uncritical about Falun Gong from Wikipedia.
Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff Cast aspersions and attacks editors who disagree with him as an “adherent” - Continues despite warning and objections - Diff, Diff. Personal attacks on the basis of perceived religious belief.

More explanations and examples are available if the Administrator deems necessary or helpful to determine this request. If so, I would kindly request leave to exceed the word limit to provide these further examples and explanations.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

28 February 2021 Bloodofox was believed to be subject to a 0RR ban in February 2021 for editing on this subject, under [WP:AE] Discretionary Sanctions. Ban appears to be lifted shortly.

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 15 November 2023(see the system log linked to above).
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on 3 March 2021.
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Over the past two weeks, Bloodofox has made approximately 32 edits to this article, radically changing this article from its last version that stood in September 2023, which version has been substantially stable for months, if not years. Virtually all attempts to restore deleted content, or to revert his/her edits, were reverted within hours. I believe that AE sanctions against Bloodofox are warranted. This article should be rolled back to the version that stood prior to Bloodofox’s first recent edit on September 27, 2023, so that any contested edit can be discussed individually based on the usual WP:BRD cycle.

Response to allegations

Re Boomerang sanctions and content dispute allegations - just want to be clear that I have not sought to add or remove any content from the article, as far as content goes, prior to this AE request. What I did was to question and criticize the large scale removal of WP:RS based on the WP:PAGs, edit warring to enforce this removal and here, calling other accounts including me adherents, and advocating against the subject matter, to justify such removal. What was supposed to be a WP:BRD cycle has turned into an Edit War/Auto Revert - Cast Aspersion cycle, which I called to end at talk before resorting to this AE request. I'm quite surprised at the prospect that battleground, edit warring and casting aspersion at other editors for their perceived religious identity/beliefs is not sanctionable, but calling for an end to such behaviour is. It may assist to review the Diffs provided by both sides in their entire context.

Response to Binksternet - Even at this AE request, I continue to be labelled as an adherent, which is baseless and contrary to WP:PA. I have edited the main-space of this article less than five times over the past 3 years, and have been called an adherent as soon as I made any contributions to this topic since day 1. Btw, Binksternet also diff diff edit-warred to enforce Bloodofox's deletion of stable content, and is an involved party in these incidents. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re canvassing - I notified Bloodofox, Warrenmck and Sennala of this AE request and no one else. I notified these 3 because they are the parties directly involved in the WP:NPA incident cited above, on both sides, and in my view, ought to have standing to participate in this proceeding.

Re ScottishFinnishRadish - I totally understand and agree with SFR's point. On hindsight, I was probably over-assertive in some of my reactions to Bloodofox's WP:ASPERSIONS. It does take reciprocal willingness from both sides to partake in the WP:BRD cycle, and I've come to realize that sometimes, the only sensible solution is to walk away from these situations. This is why I have stopped participating in these discussions, including Bloodofox's latest foray in the RS Noticeboard (the third noticeboard this controversy has been to now - for those who still believe this is a matter for the noticeboard). However, unless something is being done here, me and other editors walking away from this situation is not going to restore the WP:BRD process to this topic area, or undo the Bloodofox's edit-war enforced edits, which is increasingly clear, goes against the grain of community consensus (See The RS Noticeboard Discussion). And soon enough, this topic area is going to be the property of Bloodofox and the handful of self-identified regulars and yes - they do have a POV on this subject matter. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning Bloodofox

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 Bloodofox

First, it's worth highlighting that if there's a WP:RS on the article from the past several years, chances are I added it. This also includes building articles like Falun Gong headquarters and compound Dragon Springs, which the Falun Gong article somehow didn't mention at all, and adding lots of material to Epoch Times, the very visible and now quite notorious media branch (or as NBC News puts it "propaganda newsletter") of the Li Hongzhi-centered new religious movement, and others. I first encountered all this when tracing bogus claims of folk traditions around Falun Gong's Shen Yun a few years ago.

Note that the crux of this editor's desire here is that "this article should be rolled back to the version that stood prior to Bloodofox’s first recent edit on September 27, 2023". In other words, they want all the many sources I've introduced from the past several years removed and the editor's preferred, much more 'positive' sources restored, many of them from decades old. In short, this is a content dispute with the openly expressed goal of getting all that less-than-flattering mainstream media coverage, like this very recent NBC News piece, removed from the article in one fell swoop. And they also want me gone so I can't add anymore ("a topic ban of indefinite or sufficient duration"). @HollerithPunchCard: (and most of those echoing his point here) have made lots of edits like this one, where they outright attempt to remove the NBC News piece and media reporting like it, reacting with outrage when we've dared to report on these matters. Revealingly, in an attempt to remove the NBC News reports and those like it, you'll often find some of the accounts below referring to the NBC News and similar entities as "competing media" with the Epoch Times.

That is not normal editing.

As you can probably picture from that read, our Falun Gong and related articles are rough corners of Wikipedia. But this is not because we lack RS. This is solely because Falun Gong and related articles are actively lobbied and edited by groups of adherents.

Some of whom have identified themselves on the relevant talk page over the years and some of them have not.

We know this because (1) what would otherwise be totally normal edits and even praised additions of new and quality WP:RS instead typically provoke intense backlash, taunts, and insults, and (2) because scholars have outright written about the Falun Gong's and its leader's Li Hongzhi's attempts to control Wikipedia coverage (see for example discussion about this in Lewis 2018: 80). This is exactly the behavior described by scholars like Lewis and it's a reality anyone who attempts to edit any Falun Gong-related article faces.

While I usually ignore personal attacks, I've been on Wikipedia a long time and I have never experienced anything like what comes my way from editing these articles. The sheer venom aimed at me for even the most pedestrian and rote article change is remarkable. I can't tell you how many names I've been called there from any number of accounts. Any proposed addition or change from an RS is met with total hostility.

This includes the one who brings this request to your table, @HollerithPunchCard:, who has referred to me as everything from a "vandal" to an "activist" (see this very page) while other editors casually toss around "bigot" (see @Zujine: and others below), to whatever else is on hand to throw my way. It's frankly abusive. And this account is not alone. One CLEANSTART account, @Sennalen:, that followed me around responding to every Falun Gong-related post I made with insults and taunts finally got a 30-some hour block earlier today for it. Back from their block, I see this user is right back at it. Although this account has not disclosed it, it is highly likely this account has edited various Falun Gong-related articles extensively in the past.

I also note that it also looks like the initial poster is engaging in naked Wikipedia:Canvassing, including canvasing Sennalen while that account was blocked for lobbing endless personal attacks at me.

I highly recommend WP:BOOMERANG here. Like many embedded accounts at Falun Gong articles, this account has done little more than attempt to remove information, like the NBC News report and numerous others from the past several years, and attempted to stop other accounts from adding more while lobbing a huge amount of personal attacks every step of the way. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that the self-injection of @ScottishFinnishRadish: here and, quite newly, over at Falun Gong appears to stem from things not going his way in a content dispute with me over at conspiracy theorist JP Sears's article, where I similarly provided a bunch of media sources that now make up much of the article.

To his credit he opens with a mention of that dispute below (which I had in fact totally forgotten about) but this frankly isn't the place to rehash that or grind axes.

Far more important is that we've got WP:RS discussing Falun Gong adherents historically attempting to control the article and accounts like Thomas Meng (talk · contribs) have previously in fact identified themselves as Falun Gong adherents. Take a gander at this account's attempts at using sources like the Epoch Times.

Enduring both these accounts and drive-by editors telling us to look the other way is a fact that any editor foolish enough to thanklessly edit these ultra-fringe article and attempt to introduce WP:RS currently simply has to deal with. (Remember how that worked out with the Church of Scientology attempting to do exactly the same thing?)

Now, this post is quickly turning into a place for cheap shots and score settling aimed at me spilling over from WP:FRINGE spaces I've edited. I wonder how long it's going to be before the cryptozoologists and Young Earthers come in to try to get their digs in. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: unfortunately provides me with yet another example of WP:WIKISTALKING. Again, where the account both complained about discussing editor behavior while consistently doing exactly that, ScottishFinnishRadish notably just recently popped up on Falun Gong for round two. This editor seems to have no concern for the actual content of the article, adding nothing to the article itself but filling up the talk page with lots of complaining.

Unfortunately, it appears that myself and other editors there attempting to do more than allow for Falun Gong's narrative to supersede RS coverage just have to deal with this kind of thing as coming with the territory, but the project would really do well with added policies around protecting veteran editors who are foolish enough to put themselves through the nonsense that comes with bringing RS into WP:FRINGE spaces that don't echo the subject's preferred presentation of itself (and I'm referring to me as dumb here).

This is the only corner of Wikipedia where I get accounts following me around, sometimes for years, almost entirely because I've crossed a line by adding a bunch of WP:RS where there weren't before. As a reminder, on Falun Gong, there was no mention whatsoever of the Epoch Times, Shen Yun, or Dragon Springs before I came around. A group of accounts there really hates that. Guess who.

Since then, I've been a huge target there. It's been the same with JP Sears, cryptozoology, Satanic panic topics like Carl Raschke (the now blocked article's subject and his son even harassed an individual in real life thinking it was me—some poor soul who lives in the USA!), and dozens of other article subjects: I'm public enemy number one to fringe proponents of all types here and situations like this make for an easy dogpile. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the quote @Thomas Meng: below claims "trivializes" Falun Gong persecution is a direct quote from a 2022 US State Dept report. Give me a break with these WP:SPAs. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrOllie

The above is more or less just detailing a content dispute - it's a nothingburger, and I would say that this board shouldn't bother at all, but the OPs own behavior bears a serious look. Here's a collection of talk page quotations from HollerithPunchCard on this topic area:

"the naked animosity and prejudice he declared against the subject of this article and other editors who disagreed with him." [2]
"I think you should take a break from editing this topic." [3]
"half the time you were WP:SOAPBOXing, and the other half, you were launching blatant WP:PA against other editors" [4]
"But it does show how Bloodofox tilts at windmills, in his unconcealed activism on this topic." [5]
"If this pattern of disruption continues, external assistance will be inevitable." [6]
"In my respective view, we are witnessing a vandalization and clear POV-pushing on this page, committed by Bloodofox and Binksternet, and a few others." [7]
"I think you need to stop peddling your personal views and speculations to dictate what source is reliable and what is not. There is clear guidance on WP:RS which you should refer to when trying to exclude a source, than to rely on your own thinly veiled prejudice on this matter." [8]
"Binksternet is blatantly peddling his undisguised personal views to support his reverts." [9]
"Your personal experience on wikipedia simply doesn't matter. " [10]

I submit that this level of repeated incivility and personal attacks is a case where a WP:BOOMERANG, perhaps in the form of a topic ban, would be the best thing for the encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'll also note that the OP is presently engaged in canvassing support for this report: [11], [12]

Statement by Rjjiii

Is this not a content dispute? I mostly see Bloodofox removing content that cites primary sources and adding content from secondary sources.

For example: Diff - calling of removal of all information and sources uncritical about Falun Gong from Wikipedia.

But Bloodofox's actual words are, "It's no secret that the Chinese government persecutes religious groups of all stripes. Yet we don't consider the Falun Gong to be a reliable source for anything around these parts, and any source that takes the group's word uncritically and at face value needs to go from this site and arguably Wikipedia as a whole. That's a clear violation of WP:RS.".

The above comment is from a description of why Bloodofox removed large chunks of content cited to Freedom House.[13] He explained in a lengthy message on the Falun Gong talk page why Freedom House articles citing and quoting Falun Gong, should be considered a primary source and not reliable secondary coverage. HollerithPunchCard commented in that discussion, "I'm beyond uncomfortable with the sweeping extirpation of stable content on this article by Blood".

The open thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#NGO Freedom House citing Falun Gong sources (Epoch Times, etc.) seems the more appropriate place to resolve the dispute, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Update: I made the post above before I saw that the filer has canvassed support from others who had disagreed with Bloodofox.Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Warrenmck

I'm one of the users who was pinged by HollerithPunchCard on my talk page. I'm somewhat in agreement that it feels a little inappropriately editorialized and targeted at people with a certain perspective, but I do think it wouldn't have been as bad if it'd been made clearer I was involved as the target of some of the uncivil behaviour in the diffs above. I considered an ANI myself but was frankly too exhausted from the whole thing.

I'm inclined to wholly agree with HollerithPunchCard, and I do think it's erroneous to call this a content dispute. I think Bloodofox was incredibly out of line. When I raised FTN mission creep and concerns that we shouldn't treat a religion as a fringe theory, but rather practices which are themselves fringe, I got met with

"I'm sure the Falun Gong and its many misinformation arms like the Epoch Times would be more than happy to hear that you think discussing them should be forbidden. And why not let this poor multi-billion dollar org spread anti-vaccine, anti-evolution, anti-climate change, and so on in peace to millions in the US, Canada, and Europe without troubling them with reporting on it?"

And it never really improved from there. Beyond implying repeatedly that I was an "adherent" for disagreeing with them, I think MrOllie warrants a look here for their behaviour as well.

It is utterly impossible to have a civil discussion on a complex, nuanced topic when users are browbeating any other perspective and both strawmanning and casting aspersions at editors trying to engage in good faith. Diff Diff. Both MrOllie and Bloodofox were essentially refusing to let discussion take place which didn't align with their preferred outcome, and assuming everyone who didn't immediately align with them was out to censor criticism of Falun Gong, rather than methodological or meta concerns.

I expressed concern with trying to monitor an entire religion via FTN as an inappropriate use of it, while at no point saying that addressing fringe topics which may exist within that religion do not belong there. I'm trying to act in good faith, but I was definitely concerned with FTN being used for a religion writ whole, and there was more than a small amount of religious intolerance being thrown around in that thread.

My only request is that any admins looking at this please look at the chain of conversations that took place there and ask how well-meaning editors with contrary perspectives were meant to engage civilly without getting completely misrepresented for having the gall to disagree with the two posters who had decided this topic was theirs to dictate the outcome of. If my own behaviour was out of line in that thread, by all means WP:BOOMERANG me, I want my behaviour to be in line with Wikipedia's expectations as well, but that thread was absurdly hostile and sanctions feel appropriate. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

This was bound to end up either at WP:ANI or here, and it can be better managed by the admins here. User:Zujine filed a request for dispute resolution at DRN on 15 November. User:Bloodofox opened a thread at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard several hours earlier on 15 November. I declined the DRN request because it was pending in another forum. The discussion, if it can be called discussion, at FTN is now more than 9200 words. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Disputes_at_Falun_Gong. I haven't tried counting how many words have been provided by each participant. (If the DRN filing had preceded the FTN filing, I would hope that I would have collapsed most of the 9200 words. I am sort of glad that the FTN filing came first, so that I didn't have to moderate and clerk that interchange.) I think that either somebody needs to be topic-banned, or an interaction ban is needed, or both, but I haven't studied the FTN verbal dumps. Too much is too much. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Binksternet

Boomerang is appropriate here, as described by MrOllie. Generally, at the Falun Gong–related articles, we have three types of editors: Falun Gong adherents, Falun Gong haters, and neutral folk trying to build and protect the encyclopedia. HollerithPunchCard is type 1, as established by the first few registered edits.[14][15] Bloodofox is solidly in the third category, with 18 years of editing in widely ranging topics. The adherents spend a lot of energy questioning the validity of sources and contributors, trying to prove that the neutrals are haters and thereby diminish them. The neutral Wikipedians spend energy trying to show the adherents have been spinning the topic in their favor. This latest round is more empty air from HollerithPunchCard—another attempt to prove bias against someone who is neutral. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zujine

Bloodofox’s edits and this this conversation are more than a content dispute, and the Freedom House reporting is a side issue.

First, Freedom House is only one of the many sources Bloodofox removed from the lede. On 11/15/2023, Bloodofox reverted another editor’s restoration of the 3 paragraphs removed from the lede. In this version that Bloodofox reverted Diff, every reference of the Freedom House report was accompanied by additional academic sources. Second, Freedom House is a widely respected NGO, and the attempts to discredit them by editors in this dispute is quite telling. This aspect is a minor dispute and can be handled in other fora.

This arbitration is about an editor deciding the truth of a contentious topic for him/her/theirself and then forcing that view onto the page and attacking editors who disagree. Bloodofox made his intention of removing the content from the lede clear on the talk page here [diff]:Diff - We're not here to produce Falun Gong-approved versions of this article. And that's why we're not sweeping everything aside to smokescreen the group's operations by emphasizing at every corner how evil the Chinese government is and how very persecuted Falun Gong is.

I'm not trying to produce a Falun Gong-approved version. And as far as I can tell HollerithPunchCard and others have not sought to remove critical content of Falun Gong, the arguments on content seem to be about [WP:Lede] and [WP:Weight]. Those are legitimate arguments that have taken place on the talk page. Bloodofox ignored all those comments, did not engage constructively, and escalated this into a battleground. I find the language used by a number of editors in discussing this religious minority group to be unsettling and bigoted, but those views don't violate the policies of the encyclopedia and I do not wish to regulate the tone and vocabulary of others. The aggressive editing and smearing of other editors does however violate a number of policies, which I think are outlined fairly well in this action. This is the kind of thing that has made me walk away from Wikipedia in the past. I've created a lot of pages on the encyclopedia and dedicated years of my life to working on topics that I think are valuable. Dealing with this open aggression towards a vulnerable group that suffers well documented persecution just takes the wind out of my sails.—Zujine|talk 17:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sennalen

As always there are disagreements about content, but this is primarily about Bloodofox's unwillingness to acknowledge that good-faith objections to their edits are even possible in principle.

Bloodofox apparently began editing the Falun Gong page in 2020.[16] For all of that time, they have been edit warring to make the political affiliations of the Epoch Times the focus of the article and to remove claims about persecution of Falun Gong in China (for example, [17]) Recent behavior is not some deviation from an otherwise productive history. It's just this.
The relationship of Falun Gong with the Epoch Times is a legitimate matter for the article to address, but Bloodofox pursues it a non-neutral manner that is not appropriate to an encyclopedia. For example, their very first attempt was to insert multiparagraph direct quotes of ridicule from opinion columnists.[18]
Bloodofox's advances the theory that sources are unreliable solely on the basis that they don't disagree with Falun Gong.[19][20][21] That is not a content dispute, but a flat out rejection of the fundamental definitions of WP:RS and WP:NPOV.
Bloodofox reverted to restore text challenged on BLP grounds. [22] To date, they have not acknowledged they understand the problem.
Bloodofox routinely paints other editors' pleas to respect NPOV or norms of civility as Falun Gong adherents trying to censor him.[23][24][25][26][27][28]
Bloodofox has been of some minor service to the encyclopedia by resisting efforts to scrub the phrase "new religious movement", but there are plenty of other editors ready to maintain that front without Bloodofox's constant provocations. I'm watching the article now, so I'll do it myself. Sennalen (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

edit: Within this very proceeding, they continue to try to insinuate that I am some kind of sleeper agent for Tai Chi.[29]

Notifications were WP:APPNOTE. I am at a loss for why anyone would think there is something here to boomerang. On the one hand, an editor has been on a months-long bender of battleground editing and incivility. On the other hand some editors have said this behavior is a problem and would like it to stop. That's the real problem? Describing disruptive behavior is not a personal attack. Should editors not try to work out these issues at all on talk pages - just go zero to AE for any conflict? I would genuinely like to understand the thought process. How is Wikipedia supposed to function if this is the new norm?

It was a 31 hour block for saying Bloodofox wants the article to use only sources that are hostile to Falun Gong, regardless of publisher.[30] I took it as an isolated error by a careless admin, and I wouldn't raise a fuss about taking a break for a day — but if arbitrators agree that talking about Bloodofox's approach to reliable sourcing policy constitutes personal attacks, I am genuinely asking for clarification, because nothing makes sense anymore. Sennalen (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thomas Meng

I objected to Bloodofox's massive changes to the FG lead. It fails WP:LEAD, as the lead should "summarize the most important points covered in an article", not just one section of it. It fails WP:WEIGHT, as most academic research on Falun Gong is centered around its main body of adherents—those in China (7-20 million, according to Freedom House [31]), the persecution they experience there, or overseas adherents' activism to end the persecution in China. It fails WP:RECENT, as the current lead has no mention of the history of the movement and focuses only on recent controversies. It fails WP:SOURCETYPES, as scholarly work should outweigh a few passages from media articles, which are not even mainly about FG's teachings and beliefs per se.

I understand politics may affect an editor's personal views on FG. But the main body of FG adherents are in China. They have nothing to do with U.S. politics, and are still experiencing systematic persecution, forced labour, torture, and killing.

Despite raising WP:SOURCETYPES citing several academic sources' description of FG [32], all I received from Bloodofox is personal attacks such as accusing that I'm an adherent who haunts the FG page [33], or taunts such as You are wasting your time attempting to whitewash this page. Dig up all the old books that paint a flattering portrait of Li Hongzhi all you want, that ship has sailed. [34]

Bloodofox has yet to provide any evidence that FG's core teachings and beliefs changed, or that major academic books published in 2008 (Falun Gong and the Future of China, Oxford Univ. Press) and 2012 (The Religion of Falun Gong, Univ of Chicago Press) have been outdated. In fact, old or new has never been the true issue. As I brought up scholarly works published in 2018 and 2020, he dismissed them by saying that they echo Falun Gong's self-descriptions" [35]. If a scholarly work doesn't describe what is the main text of that religion, is the work still about that religion?

I haven't seen the lead of any other religion that doesn't talk about its history and basic theology, or the lead of any persecuted minority (religious or ethnic) that doesn't talk about the human rights abuses that they experienced. (Update: Bloodofox just added a paragraph about the persecution, trivializing it into mere "discrimination in employment, housing, and business opportunities". I have added my response here)

The current lead not only misrepresents Falun Gong, it reflects poorly on the encyclopedia itself. Thomas Meng (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what Bloodofox claimed, I never identified myself as an FG adherent. Thomas Meng (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by fiveby

In response to some of the above, bloodofox is clearly wrong on the content side of things, but so what. There's now a few noticeboard discussions with long unproductive comment threads, a worsening atmosphere, all fighting of a few lines of introductory text. The solutions seems simple, take away everyone's toys by deleting the lead section. fiveby(zero) 17:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

I've been in an editing dispute with bloodofox in the past, so I'll pop in here as this report is titled after them. I think that along with whatever sanctions are decided a firm reminder to all of those involved to stop commenting on each other all the damn time is necessary. Calling people you disagree with "adherents" is no good, same as the examples provided by MrOllie are no good. If everyone avoided personalizing the disputes and followed WP:DR this whole thing would be much less adversarial. Canvassing, including non-neutral noticeboard posts, is no good. All of that needs to stop too.

When I take a look at an unfolding dispute like this, stepping in to address it is much more difficult when there is bad behavior from all sides. It's a contentious topic, so all editors should be following best practices. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the immediate personalization of disputes I'm talking about. I've had Falun Gong on my watchlist for over two years, since the first edit request I declined there, and my editing history at Epoch Times shows I've had my eyes on this topic for some time. My recent activity was brought about by the FTN thread, and I'm not seeking any sanctions against bloodofox, just a general reminder about exactly that type of editing. That they immediately made an accusation about a content dispute 18 months ago, when I also didn't support any sanctions when it escalated to ANI, is baffling.

Any time there's a focus on editors over content it leads to reams of text that makes no headway on consensus, and makes sure the editors involved are hardened against any compromise with each other. That should be addressed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Bloodofox

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

I'm looking at only two possible results here, which are "this is a content dispute" or a WP:BOOMERANG for the filer. I am particularly looking at the comments by MrOllie and Binksternet, and looking through the diffs. The OP says "sanctions are in order". I agree, although not in the way they may be seeking. Black Kite (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What Black Kite said, and I am leaning towards the latter. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What Drmies (and Black Kite) said. Some of the users whom the OP canvassed may require sanctions, as well, or at the very least logged warnings. El_C 03:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sennalen, one would think that after a ~~3-month~~ 31 hours block for personal attacks against Bloodofox, you'd tread more carefully. A WP:TBAN seems increasingly due for you, too. RE: new norm, which this isn't — Bloodfox is the subject of this complaint, they're not the filer. Also, please ensure you sign + timestamp all your comments here. El_C 07:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sennalen, indeed it was 31 hours not 3 months. Looks like I conflated you with another user. Sorry about that. Struck and amended. El_C 01:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by 89.206.112.10

Appeal declined. This is the wrong venue to ask ArbCom to clarify something. 89.206.112.10 is advised that the WP:ECR restriction is indeed generally interpreted so as to ban almost all non-EC editing of talk pages. Galobtter (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: 89.206.112.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Extended confirmed restriction procedure interpreted in a way that results in a complete talk page ban of all non-EC users.

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by 89.206.112.10

I an attempt to comply with a Request for Comment, I was notified that when an article is subject to extended confirmed restriction, all non-EC editors are banned not only from editing the article, but from contributing to the talk pages as well.

I therefore ask the Committee to clarify its intened ruling with regards to the extended confirmed restriction procedure insofar as it states that

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles.

This is a classic example of an amibiguous prepositional phrase, that can be understood to either mean in the "Talk:" namespace, nothing other than an edit request may be made or edit requests may not be made anywhere else than in the "Talk:" namespace.

In case that this ruling is meant to mean that non-EC users are banned from participating in the discussion of any decreed topic area, I propose this to be made clearly visible on the Request for Comments' entry of such topics, before effort is wasted to make a constructive contribution even though it was prohibited from the onset anyway.

In case that this ruling is meant to mean that non-EC users are allowd from participating in the discussion of any decreed topic area, I propose the procedure to be clarified with instructions on how to contribute constructively when the talk page is protected. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {{{User imposing the sanction}}}

Statement by Grandmaster

I don't think it makes much sense to allow IPs to vote in RFCs/AFDs on contentions topics. It opens doors to votestacking, canvassing, etc, as anyone can use an anonymous IP account to participate in a voting. The RFCs should be reserved for established users with a minimum of 500 edits history, which I understand was the idea behind this decision. Grandmaster 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by 89.206.112.10

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 Selfstudier

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 125#Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction refers. The revised wording of is clear that the talk page can only be used for edit requests although previously, there was a specified list that included RFCs. Suggested best practice is to remove any contravening edits with an edit summary that at a minimum points to WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Before it was clear that non ECs could not participate in any formal discussion, including AfDs, etcetera. Now it is a little less clear and relies on editorial judgement/admin action to enforce that while there is an implication that there may be some room for such participation, although I have a hard time seeing what that might usefully be. Whether that was intentional, I couldn't say, at one or two such non talk page discussions an admin has arrived and EC protected the page. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: A bit of a tweak might be just the thing, make that the focus, rather than the talk page only.Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

I think that the ARBCOM motion was highly unsatisfactory and a case at ARCA is needed. As well as re-opening the door to anon/new editor disruption at AfDs and noticeboards, the part about article talk pages is poorly written and unworkable. The OP correctly noted an ambiguity, and also the definition of what is allowed is unclear. The link to WP:Edit requests suggests that only template-driven "change X to Y" requests are allowed, but good-faith new editors should be allowed to note a problem and leave it to experienced editors to decide how to fix it. If the strict definition of WP:Edit requests is not intended, then pretty much anything related to article content can be called an edit request. Zero^talk 11:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this request, it is about participation in an RfC on an article talk page in ARBPIA. That was forbidden to IPs both before and after the recent rule changes so the appeal should be denied. Zero^talk 12:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor)

Result of the appeal by 89.206.112.10

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

I think it's fairly clear what was meant (the first of your two possibilities), but ultimately if you want to ask the Committee to clarify something, the place for that is WP:ARCA, not here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the restriction is indeed intended to ban almost all non-EC participation in those topic areas. Galobtter (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking through the latest motion, but I'm confused. Are non-EC users allowed to participate in talk pages of topic area process venues, or not? Surely, they cannot make edit requests to WT:AfD entries, etc., but that is not made expressly clear in the motion, as it did prior. Selfstudier, what's your take? Beyond that, as mentioned, this is obviously the wrong venue — the correct one is WP:ARCA (i.e. AE admins can't speak for the Committee). El_C 03:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Selfstudier, I knew it didn't make sense. El_C 12:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ECR says that all edits and pages related to the topic area are prohibited. The sole substantive exception is making edit requests on talk pages. @Zero0000: I'm open to copyediting it to make it more clear; please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you have suggestions. In any event, I would decline 89.206.112.10's appeal. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Curry Monster

No action taken, but a reminder to watch the tone of edit summaries and discussions. We're dealing with articles about real people and real suffering. Please keep that in mind. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2023 (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 Wee Curry Monster

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel_articles#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions (1RR)

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

11:20, 21 November 2023 revert of this
11:25, 20 November 2023 revert of this

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

reported a user for 1RR
Notified of the CT designation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would have left this unreported, but the user declined to self revert and simply removed the notification on their user talk of the violation. Additionally, the second revert listed here was removed on such spurious grounds that had there already been an ARBPIA notification prior to it I think it would have merited sanctions by itself, with a user claiming a video that the NYTimes says they conducted extensive independent verification of was obviously faked ... appallingly bad acting. But regardless of that, this is a 1RR violation that the user has declined to correct.

asking that you stop repeating the offensive claims that Palestinians are faking their suffering and that nothing they report can be trusted isn’t baiting, it’s asking you to stop providing your personal opinions on talk pages. nableezy - 21:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

im fine with that too. nableezy - 23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Wee Curry Monster

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 Wee Curry Monster

I didn't believe I'd violated the 1RR restriction. As far as editing goes, I have long maintained a personal policy of sticking to 1RR in general. The only exception is to revert obvious vandalism.

[36] I removed what I genuinely believed were fake videos, that were self-published on Instagram and appeared to be a violation of WP:SPS. I was somewhat surprised to be reverted, so took to the talk page. After I received an explanation for their presence with reference to the NYT article I remain sceptical but accepted the explanation and was quite prepared to leave it at that point.

This was clearly a WP:BOLD edit following by WP:BRD and its more than a stretch to claim I was revert warring. I accepted Iskandar323's explanation; you might wish to note I thanked [37] Iskandar323 for their help.

I was then subjected to personal attacks eg [38] by the person making this report. These seem to be an attempt to bait me, so after I initially responded I disengaged leaving Nableezy to have the WP:LASTWORD, which they duly did [39]. I'm not the only person to have felt the tone of the discussion directed at me was unnecessary and unhelpful [40].

It is also untrue that I was continuing to make a non-policy based argument for removal. I made no further argument for removal, I was responding to comments, which I now recognise was a mistake. I also further clarified this morning I was not arguing for removal or intending to make a case for removal. [41]. I invite AE to make their own conclusion why my comments are being misrepresented

[42] yes this is a revert, 1RR. I have no intention of making further reverts per my personal policy. I also note that it misrepresents what the person said by omitting crucial context.

I also clarified my misunderstanding of 1RR with Cryptic this morning, because I made a 1RR report after 3 of my edits were reverted by another editor in 3 consecutive edits. I acknowledge that in my report my understanding of 1RR was flawed. And I'll be honest I didn't look at the diffs, presuming they referred to 2 consecutive edits I made at the time.

On my talk page, I have long had a policy of removing notices, I don't tend to archive them, there is a clear message on my page to that effect.

“

If I've deleted your message, basically that means I've read it and nothing else. I do tend to delete what I regard as niff naff and trivia.

”

I drew attention to this in my edit summary [43] rm per my normal policy.

If I were to acknowledge a mistake here, which is worthy of a WP:TROUT, is that I should have ignored the niggling and remained disengaged. I'm not going to put AE into an awkward position, so I'll reluctantly restore what I know is misleading. Hopefully an editor in good standing will remove it. W C M_email 21:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To amplify my statement, I realise that 1RR is interpreted strictly by AE in this area, understand the reasons for the restriction and why it is enforced rigorously. I'll also acknowledge my intention to review warnings with more care in future and to fully abide by the ARBPIA restrictions. I'll also be much more careful in future to make sure I don't inadvertently cross a line. I already take a strict view on reversions, with a personal restriction to 1RR that I've maintained for nearly 10 years, I will be doubly wary in future. W C M_email 22:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wee Curry Monster

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

@Wee Curry Monster: Technically, Nableezy is correct, you violated the 1RR. It may not be the same content and I would believe that you had no intention of violating it. We perhaps take a stricter definition of it in ARBPIA than other areas. Now that you know that, and now that it's been pointed out that the video has been verified by a reliable source, would you care to revise your statement? Given that this is your first trip here related to ARBPIA, I'd be happy to chalk this up to a misunderstanding as long as I can be sure that the misunderstanding is resolved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given WCM's additional statement (which just hit the top of my watchlist, hence the very quick response), I don't see a need for formal action here. They seem to have got the point and there's nothing to stop anyone re-reporting if necessary in the future. I'll leave it open overnight (UTC) in case any other admin wants to comment but I intend to close with no action if there are no objections. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with HJ Mitchell's proposed resolution. While there was a violation, it appears to have been quite unintentional, and now that it's been made clear I don't think there will be a repeat. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with HJ Mitchell's proposed resolution as well. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're going to close this without action, though fault was found--I'm sure Wee Curry Monster will be more careful next time. I will say this: I have no doubt that some of the tone by Nableezy and perhaps others can be explained by what seems to me to be a rather callous and offhand remark: "they're obvious fakes". Apparently they're not fakes, and there's nothing obvious about it, and these are videos (well, I only looked at the first one) of human beings suffering. WCM would do well to consider that their edit summary likely set the tone for later comments, and to learn from this. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FUNSTON3

FUNSTON3 is indefinitely topic banned from pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland broadly construed. Galobtter (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2023 (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 FUNSTON3

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: FUNSTON3 (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/The Troubles

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

14:55, November 14, 2023 Adds unsourced claim regarding "local civilian Protestants", and attempts to dispute findings of an inquest jury with "This was never proven" and "This is despite Sean Lynch being arrested, and given first aid by the army and police at the scene"
20:26, November 14, 2023 As previous edit, with a further attempt to dispute the inquest findings with "The only witness to the alleged killing of McElwaine after his arrest was Sean Lynch, who was convicted on firearms and explosive offences" and more unsourced claims such as "He was also known by the local people as a renowned PIRA sectarian murderer, responsible for up to 20 deaths" and "McElwaine previously had tried to murder Foster's father"
15:29, June 26, 2019 Adds various unsourced claims
17:53, July 20, 2019 Adds further unsourced claim at the previous article
09:47, May 1, 2019 Adds unsourced claim that a living person "indiscriminately opened fire at a group of men outside a Loyalist bar, killing one and injuring the others. When he was sentenced for the crimes, he openly laughed out loud"
14:17, April 24, 2019 More attempts to dispute sourced content with "Most of this cannot be corroborated"
09:56, April 7, 2019 More "this has never been proven" nonsense
09:45, April 7, 2019 Adds unsourced claim
09:19, April 7, 2019 Even more "This has never been proven" nonsense
09:16, April 7, 2019 Adds unsourced claim that "Holroyd’s evidence could not be verified and other statements by him lacked credibility. It has since been proven that Nairac could not have been at the incident"
14:53, October 23, 2018 Usual attempts to discredit with addition of "unfounded", "allegedly" and a couple of sentences of their own commentary
09:09, July 26, 2018 More of the same with "allegedly", "supposedly" and "There is no evidence to substantiate whether this unit was ever disbanded, and it appears this was based on innuendos and an IRA attempt to gain some moral ground"
14:28, November 1, 2016 Deletes paragraph of sourced content, adds "There was an allegation", "This was blatantly untrue, as there were few members of the Security Forces there that day. The only possible target could have been the youth organisations" and "mistakenly contended"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None.

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

Notified at 15:33, October 24, 2019

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor only edits in the Troubles area, and as far as I can see, has zero positive edits in their entire history. I realise some diffs are quite old, but they only edit occasionally and have resurfaced after four years.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning FUNSTON3

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 FUNSTON3

Statement by (username)

Result concerning FUNSTON3

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

This somehow got archived without receiving a single comment. (Why do we even have time-based archiving on this page?) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've written Troubles-related articles so I won't be taking any action here (and I'll move my comments out of the admin section if an uninvolved admin prefers) but this is pretty clear POV pushing that would have stamped on much quicker if this was ARBPIA, for example. There's a clear agenda to remove or lessen mention of (alleged) misconduct by British soldiers and to demonise the IRA, which is not helpful to writing a neutral encyclopaedia. I'd suggest a topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking this over now, I also support a topic ban (and will enact one unless no one objects within a few days), although I'd be open to an appeal after a few months and a few hundred edits of constructive contribution. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:39, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the above, both the topic ban and time-based archiving. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anubhavklal

Anubhavklal is indefinitely blocked for violating their topic ban. Galobtter (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2023 (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 Anubhavklal

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Anubhavklal (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: User talk:Anubhavklal#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

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

13:51, 12 November 2023 Edits an article on an airport in India in violation of the topic ban
10:59-11:06, 14 November 2023 Edits List of airports in India in violation of the topic ban
11:07, 14 November 2023 Edits List of airports in Uttar Pradesh in violation of the topic ban

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 17:19, 7 September 2023 by Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I know these are somewhat stale, but since they amount to pretty much Anubhavklal's only edits after the topic ban was imposed, it's clear that Anubhavklal has no intention of obeying the ban and needs to be blocked. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anubhavklal&diff=prev&oldid=1186375137

Discussion concerning Anubhavklal

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 Anubhavklal

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Anubhavklal

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

Since this isn't terribly pressing I won't take unilateral action, but these edits after the warnings on their talk page are blockworthy. With their history of AE blocks I would be thinking at least 3-6 months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Both on the facts and on the proposed sanction. I would suggest more like six months, if not indef, given that most of their edits since the topic ban have been violations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would support an indef, this feels a case where a time-limited block might not work so well, and we might need to force the editor to commit to following their restriction through a block appeal. Galobtter (talk) 03:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are violations here, and I won't opine on the best action to take, but I note that this is an extremely broad topic-ban. As a comparison, I can't imagine we ever would topic-ban a problematic U.S.-based editor from "all pages and discussions concerning North America." Please note that this is not a criticism of the admin who placed this topic-ban or any similar one; but there is a systematic issue here that I've raised before and that may warrant some discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at their history, it appears this topic ban was a "last stop before indef," and their editing was disruptive all across that topic area. I agree it's very broad, but I'm this circumstance it seems called for. To use your North America analogy, their editing is equivalent to promoting manifest destiny and otherwise editing disruptively across a whole slew of articles from Mexico up through Canada. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I very much agree that it is unusual how broad in scope WP:ARBIPA is. It is weird to ban an editor from anything to do with their own country - reasonable as a "last stop before indef", but I wonder how many editors actually end up editing in a different topic area.. Galobtter (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that might be the point. Either they change (good), stop editing (functionally the same as an indef), or violate and get indeffed. There's not much of a drawback if you think there's a chance that they'll edit other topics. So we're all good with an indef here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert

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 Johnpacklambert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: LaundryPizza03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Johnpacklambert (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/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing#Johnpacklambert_topic_banned

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

06:37, 22 November 2023 They did not directly participate in an XfD, but it appears to be a response to a comment I made at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_22#Category:Tongan_people_by_occupation_and_century (original diff). They contested a statement I made about Tonga.
07:08, 22 November 2023 A follow-up response to the same comment, in which they argue about statements I made about Togo and Senegal. At this point, they veer into a longer discussion about WP:EGRS categories sorted by century, such as Category:20th-century African-American women singers.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

07:22–07:53, 22 November 2023 Not a topic ban violation at this point, but it completes the discussion outlined above. They go into a deep discussion about biographical articles with a large number of categories, such as Kandi Burruss and Winston Churchill.
03:48, 25 July 2021 There were no sanctions imposed in this ANI, but Johnpacklambert was warned about their conduct regarding emptying of categories during CfDs.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

01:07, 23 November 2023

Discussion concerning Johnpacklambert

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 Johnpacklambert

I do not think this is at all a reasonable complaint. The topic ban imposed was on participation in relation to article deletion. The sanction was spread to other discussion forums but the participation rules all applied to discussions regarding article deletion. I have in multiple cases over the last few weeks made comments to multiple other editors about various categories. No one has objected. I am sorry if I violated a section, but as written the sanction is all related to article deletion. That is not at all the subject of these discussions. I will delete them because they are clearly unwanted. However I do not believe it makes sense to treat them as a violation of a rule imposed against behavior connected to the deletion of articles, which none of thos has any connection to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one had told me in any place that references to discussions anput Category alignment were grounds for any type of sanction. Category alignment is not something I am banned for contributing to, and I regularly make comments on my talk page about Category alignment. If it becomes something that I cannot talk about in those cases where there is an active CfD discussion, this should be clearly and unambiguously states. When this sanction was i.posed I was literally attacked for seeking any clarification on the scope of the sanction. Thos sanction was imposed only based on AfD behavior. It's gaining a life of its own and spreading to general discussions in this way is very unreasonable. All the more so because the issue I was discussing was when we should consider the start of Tonga, Togo and Senegal to be. This is the first time there has been any suggestion that any action I was doing was not acceptable with relation to CfD, in large part because the initial sanction was all focused on AfD, and was not even explit in what else it covered. All the discussion that created the sanction had to do with AfD matters. If it is in the scope of this ban that I cannot discuss with other editors any points related to current CfD matter, that should be said clearly and up front, and I should not be punished for doing so until this rule has been made clear, which it has not been to this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- - The initial ban is for "deletion discussions broadly construed", those words are doing super huge amounts of lifting to cover a discussion about the general scope of categories. To combined that super huge lifting with an assumption that it is clear what violtes the braidly construed, and to then punish with an editing ban someone who has just been even notified that a discussion on a point of meaning that does not even have a direct impact on the outcome of a discussion but is being used to speak more broadly about the scope of nationality, is just bad form. There was no warnimg given, no notice or anything. John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will avoid repeating this sort of discussion in the future. However to punish me first without having ever even clearly defined what is not allowed is not a reasonable action. There have been no reported incidents in well over a year. I think it is much more reasonable to create clear expectations before imposing sanctions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I have removed my comments on the tal page. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my main point was too provide useful information. Country navigation boxes often give what appears to be a formation or creation date. Because of the complexities of history, there are only a handful of countries where we can pick 1 date and classify those since as nationals of the country, and those before as not. The way country info boxes are formed, that is a possible take away from that date, but in most cases that is a too narrow reading. This is a general issue with Category meaning, but has no impact at all on any current category discussion at least not any related to the 3 countries for whom I gave a broader scope of their history explanation. I see I should have avoided the grey area, and grwatly apologize having caused this problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first notice I had of any concern with these statements was the opening of this discussion. There was no previous statement on comment on then, or any expression of corcern.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Smasongarrison

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to participate/comment. But I've been interacting with John Pack Lambert quite a lot in the past few months. (And as a consequence have stared at his talk page A LOT, before he started archiving it.) He uses the talk page to log his thoughts and ideas about categorization. I don't view this as him being disruptive or directly participating in the discussion. I think of it more as that's his way that he's processing his ideas. It's definitely different from how most people use wikipedia talk pages, but it is pretty typical for John Pack Lambert. I encourage you to look through his archive [44] for the numerous examples of this [45]. I don't think we should penalize him for watching and learning from the categories for deletion discussion. Mason (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I now understand that this report is in regards to commenting on another user's talk page. Not his own. I still think my comment stands. I've recieved similar posts like the one in question that I treated as attempts to impart information rather than engage in the discussion at hand. Mason (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Marcocapelle

I was referred to this page by Johnpacklambert who regularly posts on my talk page. Sometimes I find his comments on my talk page useful, in which case I undertake action on my own behalf, sometimes I find it less useful or less priority and I do nothing with it. His comments are always constructive in any case, and a good example of attempt to collaborate to build a better encyclopedia. Please continue doing so. In my honest opinion, the diffs above fall in the same category of constructive comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Johnpacklambert

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

Not mentioning the discussion, but clearly referring to it is a violation. I'm thinking three months, standard progression up from the last block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The restriction is deletion discussions, which merge discussions fall under, broadly construed and I still see this as a violation. As my view is clearly not the consensus view, however, I'll recalibrate my views and defer to my colleagues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3 months feels harsh - I'm inclined to be lenient here, since the restriction is on "participating in deletion discussions", not necessarily talking about deletion or category policy anywhere on Wikipedia (broadly construed does have its limits). Certainly I didn't immediately see a violation in my initial reading of the diffs themselves, but since it does seem like he is replying to LaundryPizza03's CfD comment, that's circumvention of the restriction. But I can also see how that comment could be seen as a good faith correction rather than any attempt to participate or reply in the discussion. Galobtter (talk) 04:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think this can be closed as no action. Galobtter (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good-faith report, but I don't see any violation here, much less an intentional one. The cited edits seem to contain useful and relevant information, and categorization is not the same as deletion. Johnpacklambert has not returned to his prior problematic behaviors with these edits. I would close with no action and certainly with no block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this report relies on "broadly construed" in the ban against "participating in deletion discussions, broadly construed". To me, that might be justified if there were evidence showing an Arbcom statement to the effect that the kind of comments reported were covered by the sanction. I don't see such a statement and I don't even see if LaundryPizza03 has made it clear to Johnpacklambert that the latter's comments were unwelcome and a possible violation. As this stands, I don't see a reason for a sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 08:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irtapil

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 Irtapil

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Orgullomoore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:41, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Irtapil (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/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

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

This edit (2023-10-23) removed the perpetrator / accused fields from the infobox after a community discussion reached the consensus that, because the identity of the accused / perpetrator of the explosion was controversial, it was best to leave explanation to the body of the article and omit these fields from the infobox.
In this edit (2023-11-22 22:12), Irtapil added them.
In this edit (2023-11-22 23:42), Orgullomoore reverted the re-addition of them.
In this edit (2023-11-23 00:07), Irtapil re-added these fields, thus violating 1RR.
In this edit, Orgullomoore requested that Irtapil self-revert.
These edits succeed Orgullomoore's invitation to self-revert, suggesting the invitation to self-revert was read but unheeded: [46] (2023-11-23 00:50) [47] (2023-11-23 01:20) [48] (2023-11-23 01:23) [49] (2023-11-23 01:36)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

This discussion illustrates awareness of the sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Amending to add diff within less than a month of which Irtapil's edits constitute reversal: [50] --Orgullomoore (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a rule that so long as the action being reversed is greater than 2 weeks in the past, it does not count as a revert, then please clarify as much. It will change things because any person who wants to disrupt the stable version will have the upper hand. The new state of affairs will be: (1) stable version (more than two weeks ago); (2) introduction of new change (does not count as a revert); (3) revert back to stable version (counts against 1RR); and (4) re-revert to new unstable version (counts as first revert in last 2 weeks). Hence, the introducer of the unstable change has the upper hand. Also, amending to show that Irtapil was aware of the consensus within a week of jamming in the change: [51] --Orgullomoore (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear Irtapil does not know what a revert is, and still has not self-reverted. --Orgullomoore (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a note here that I reverted Irtapil's edit per their request; see here. I honestly don't think Irtapil intentionally violated the 1RR. It appears they still don't know what's going on, which is problematic in itself. I'm not gunning for punishment. Whatever admins think is best. Obviously they need to take the time to read the rules that apply to all of us. --Orgullomoore (talk) 05:14, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me regarding Iskandar323's suggestion at 06:10, 24 November 2023. --Orgullomoore (talk) 06:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I couldn't help but notice that they got into it with DeCausa about the technicalities of the 3RR at User_talk:Irtapil#May_2021. --Orgullomoore (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[52]

Discussion concerning Irtapil

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 Irtapil

a month? isn't the rule 24 hours? and i haven't recited anything at all in that page. Irtapil (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this jumping straight to an arbitration committee instead of the talk page for the article? I was reading the talk page while editing, mugging was raised there. Irtapil (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done any actual reverts on the "Al-Ahli hospital explosion" page, no edits I have made to that page were intentionally identical to a previous version.
Your definition of a "revert" seems to refer to my edit resembling a version of the wiki article from a month ago, 5 days after the explosion occurred? It has now been an extra month since the explosion, so a consensus reached 5 days after is no longer applicable.
Even by that very stretched definition, I made one "revert" today. I re-added the word "disputed" once. In addition to it being now 35 days instead of 5 days since the explosion, I also added "accused" details, which gives a different impression to having "disputed" there by itself.
i.e. I saw someone had raised a concern in the talk page and I attempted to address it in a new way that didn't match a previously ruled-out version.
The recent non-archived discussion only mentioned "perpetrator". I only even found the "accused" field existed by reading the instructions page for {{infobox event}}.
I made a two or three different versions of possible options to the "accused" section, only the first re-added "disputed".
The edits I made were intentionally different to each other, so i would not have expected them to count as a "revert" even if someone undid them in between. (Sorry I didn't check if anybody did that, I thought possibly one of my edits just hadn't saved properly, I'll double check the page history next time that happens to avoid future disputes).
I only intended to edit my own pervious edits. I made multiple edits to show in the discussion, but after that I just copy pasted the options instead rather than linking the edits, it seemed simpler.
I raised a discussion about the edits on the talk page as i finished the last version.
Even if someone was trying to revert it as I was working on it, I was told by someone else (just a few days ago on my talk page, after I reverted one of thru edits) that for articles about recent events a new version should be left in place while discussed, rather than the "revert by default" rule for articles that are more static or historic?
Irtapil (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

Irtapil is new to the CT topic area and does not appear to have encountered the tricky rigors of WP:1RR previously. I think a lot of what's going on here can be chalked up to confusion over the exacting "in whole or in part", ya-da ya-da language in this rule and the broader WP:3RR import on reversion. It is not evident that Irtapil has done anything in bad faith, but is simply afflicted by an unfamiliarity with the exacting extent of the rules here, and I would personally suggest that this be closed simply with an instruction for the editor to read over the restrictions very, very carefully, and to make sure they understand that it is far better to stay well on the safe side of these restrictions than to risk ending up here time and time again. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red-tailed hawk

I'm failing to understand the confusion of patrolling administrators regarding what constitutes a revert. Our policy is explicit that [t]he term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually.

There isn't a time component here for the purposes of a revert; people can slow-motion edit war over the course of months, and they can still be reverting each other each time. There are also plenty of non-gnoming tasks that are obviously not reverts—for example, adding new material or a new section that had never previously been in the article—the key being that a non-reverting edit isn't restoring an article (or a part of an article) to be the same as it was in a prior revision.

As for 1RR—if it's being correctly pointed out to you that Edit A was a revert, someone else undid edit A, and then you re-instated the changes you made in Edit A, that's two reverts. Ignoring a very clear request to self-revert one's second revert pending discussion indicates either lack of understanding or a lack of willingness to heed that request. The differences between the first re-insertion of the accused paramater and the second re-insertion are minor—the only difference in rendering is that "Israeli Air Force" is swapped for "Israeli Defense Forces"—so we'd need the respondent to understand why this is a revert. The respondent says above that The edits I made were intentionally different to each other, so i would not have expected them to count as a "revert" even if someone undid them in between, but at face value this is a deficient understanding of what a revert is. I think the respondent is being earnest in their replies here, and that leads me to conclude that this is disruption is being caused by a greener understanding of what a revert is rather than any sort of malice or intent to be forcing with quantity of edits to ensure that the article looks the way they want.

The point of issuing a sanction is to prevent future disruption, not to punish. If the patrolling admins think that the respondent now understands the general principles of 1RR, knows that reverts do not literally have to be the same exact entire edit for them to be reverts, and commits to being willing to listen to 1RR-related self-revert requests in the future, then it's a good idea to let this go with a reminder or informal sort of guidance about what is a revert. If administrators are not satisfied by this, then I'd have some concerns about the editor's participation in the topic area going forward, since we may well be likely to wind up here again unless the underlying working knowledge of 1RR/reverts is addressed.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Irtapil

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

A month after an edit is a pretty long time to count as the first revert. I don't see this as an actionable 1rr violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's still over two weeks, which is still a pretty long time to call something a revert. There's no set time, but ehhh... I'd like to see some more admin input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irtapil, please only comment on your own section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand they participated in Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion#Perpetrator before making the initial edit, which means they clearly knew that the perpetrator information had at one point been in the article and thus knew they were reverting someone. I'd say this is actionable. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Irtapil, again, comment only in your section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I confess to being as confused as anyone regarding revert but my recollection is that just about any non-gnome edit is a revert. The regulars in this area could explain with links to clarifications but I don't see a need to explore the details at the moment. I looked at User talk:Irtapil#Request to Self-Revert because the significant point is how Irtapil reacted to the request. It appears from that discussion that Irtapil was trying to cooperate and expressed concern that self-reverting might be counted as a revert (no—a self-revert negates the original revert). Unless there is something I'm missing, I would close this as no action with an informal warning that unless someone is very well informed and self-confident, they should immediately self-revert when asked by an editor in good standing and ask questions later. Johnuniq (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Red-tailed hawk the issue generally with the definition of a revert is - technically every edit that removes any text could be considered a revert, since every piece of text by definition had to have been added by another editor. In general, though, removing long-standing text is not considered a revert - the question here is how long does the text have to remain before it is considered a revert or not. Galobtter (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even rewording text could be considered to be technically a revert, even if only one word that existed in the page was removed. Galobtter (talk) 02:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have never been a fan of the highly expansive definition of "revert", in that using it, even completely different edits to completely different parts of the article in a day, and even if unchallenged, could in a technical sense violate an "xRR" restriction (and "0RR" would essentially prevent one from doing anything at all, except maybe fixing typos or the like). That is, at least on its face, absurd, and clearly not the goal revert restrictions are intended to achieve, which is to discourage edit warring. To be considered a "revert", I think we need either that the edit directly reverses a recent edit, or that it clearly is intended to reverse an older one (especially if the editor in question has reversed the same one before). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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