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	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342

Bloodofox

All editors in the Falun Gong topic area, and Bloodofox in particular, are warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views. Filer HollerithPunchCard is indefinitely topic-banned from Falun Gong, broadly construed. Commenter Sennalen was indefinitely blocked by Galobtter in a related action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 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. I did not realize this is improper canvasing and if it is, I apologize.

Bloodoox's canvassing/campaigning: Kindly note that, during and after this AE request, Bloodofox has also posted notifications of discussion about the Falun Gong topic on FTN diff and RSN diff in a highly biased and non-neutral manner, to solicit partisan support and to campaign against the subject matter, which is also canvasing and campaigning.

Re Tamzin - Thank you for looking at this request. You wrote, "all I can think is how quickly someone would be blocked if they showed up to Talk:Mi Shebeirach and tried to cite my religion as part of an objection to the article's content.", and I couldn't agree more. That's what's happening here, and I would appreciate an explanation as to why the editor that does this gets a way with a warning, while the editor that opposed this WP:PA is being recommended for an indefinite topic ban. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Admins' Recommendations: For everyone’s convenience, I’m quoting what Bloodofox said below when attacking other editors. If I must be sanctioned, I invite the admins to at least consider if the language of the attacks below is any better than that of my response to some of these attacks, for which I’m being recommended for topic-ban. I just wish the admins can hold editors from both sides against the same standard, when meting out sanctions:

"Reality check: Thomas Meng is an adherent who haunts these articles and pushes the group's preferred narrative." diff “But maybe you should contact all the major media outlets in the US and tell them to stop bullying the Falun Gong with all their nasty coverage that doesn't parrot Li Hongzhi's talking points as well. “ diff

“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.“ diff

“If you think those sources are too tough on the Falun Gong's misinformation efforts, then perhaps you should write them.” diff

"I believe you gave your angle away" "lol. This ist typical of the Falun Gong-aligned embedded accounts over at Falun Gong." diff

"Trust me, if I suspected you of being an adherent, I'd have no bones about telling you. I've called them out plenty of times before. And I was right."

"there's no denying that you're actively and aggressively lobbying here to attempt to censor and forbid any mention of Falun Gong on this page." diff

“Your frequent attempts at framing these extensions as independent of Falun Gong are disruptive.” diff

“you're barking up the wrong tree.” diff

“Your regular attempts at downplaying anything that isn't a persecution narrative on this page have not gone unnoticed here” diff

"Gee, what a coincidence that you decided to again edit Wikipedia again on that day.” diff

“I suggest you message the academic directly with your theories or go ahead and message Cambridge University Press” diff

“we need an immediate crack down on accounts pushing Falun Gong talking points.” “It's time to block the Falun Gong PR accounts” diff

“This particular editor parrots these talking points has been pushing hard to scrub the article“ diff

"What you've done is simply parrot Falun Gong positions and talking points, as usual, as is evident to anyone watching this page." diff

@Tamzin and Galobtter: I'm writing to respectfully request to exceed the word limit, which is necessary for me to respond to the various requests and recommendations for boomerang sanctions against me. In addition, this is a highly contentious topic, with intractable editor, and concerning patterns of behaviour that have continued for some time. It is important for both sides of this dispute be adequately fleshed out, which will require exceeding the word limit, for a proper adjudication of this case. I do not expect further back and forth, but only to admit the content that has already been provided above, to the extent that it exceeds the word limit. Thank you for considering this request. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 18:26, 30 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]

Shocking statements like "you're barking up the wrong tree" aside, I highly recommend checking out the edit histories of the WP:SPAs I'm quoted responding to sbove. Since 2020, when I appeared on the article, they've been attempting to remove what I've introduced, including the well-sourced phrase new religious movement, mention of ther Dragon Springs compound, mention of Shen Yun and the Epoch Times, the centrality of Li Hongzhi, and so on. Lots of sources. They were also less than enthusiastic about my bringing on scholars discussing Falun Gong's attempts at controlling the page (for example statements like James R. Lewis's "Falun Gong followers and/or sympathizers de facto control the relevant pages on Wikipedia" (2018)). :bloodofox: (talk) 13:55, 30 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." [1]
"I think you should take a break from editing this topic." [2]
"half the time you were WP:SOAPBOXing, and the other half, you were launching blatant WP:PA against other editors" [3]
"But it does show how Bloodofox tilts at windmills, in his unconcealed activism on this topic." [4]
"If this pattern of disruption continues, external assistance will be inevitable." [5]
"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." [6]
"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." [7]
"Binksternet is blatantly peddling his undisguised personal views to support his reverts." [8]
"Your personal experience on wikipedia simply doesn't matter. " [9]

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: [10], [11]

I just dearchived this because in my view it needs some sort of closure. - MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.[12] 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.[13][14] 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.[15] 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, [16]) 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.[17]
Bloodofox's advances the theory that sources are unreliable solely on the basis that they don't disagree with Falun Gong.[18][19][20] 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. [21] 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.[22][23][24][25][26][27]
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.[28]

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.[29] 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]

@Tamzin: Thank you for due diligence in examining Bloodfox's behavior and for warning about specific practices to avoid. Topic ban or not, I would appreciate a warning in the same level of detail. That way finally one person in this thread will have said what I did wrong. Sennalen (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: Right off the bat, I entirely reject any relationship between race and intelligence.

The Covid case is expressly not about removing anyone, but about getting them to slow down and discuss edits.

The diff at Falun Gong touched on other content and issues in addition to BLP. I apologize for not being more precise.

The mere fact that I have participated in a lot of CTOPs is used to cast aspersions that I have dangerous points of view on those CTOPs. No one knows my views, because I observe WP:NOTFORUM sincerely. If administrators would like me to write an essay on why nazis are bad before I continue participating, I can do that.

In all of these areas I have edited with total dedication to reliable sourcing, neutral point of view, and the purpose of an encyclopedia. That has caused conflicts, yes, but I have been criticized (amazingly) for being too civil.

People have had some cogent objections to edits on Western Marxism. I listened to those objections and already tabled my proposal before being at AE. Maybe some people would prefer I just go away instead of working on a better edit, but what I am doing is a normal Wikipedia editing process.

Some of the complaints against me deserve full hearing, but their framing is skewed. If something as extreme as a site ban is on the table, I request that it be deliberated in a process that is about me specifically. I can't possibly answer insinuations about two years of edits in multiple areas just in sidebars of other AE requests. Sennalen (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Galobtter: When I said WP:BESTSOURCES I meant nothing else. Increasing the use and weight of journal articles is a constent through-line of my editing. That's especially visible in my edits on Covid. I have never endorsed or supported a fringe theory on Wikipedia, only had them repeatedly projected on me.

Per the encouragement of Viriditas I invite anyone concerned that I have a view that conflicts with proper editing to just ask me what my view is on my talk page. That's not exactly how Wikipedia should work, but I think since I have become such an object of scrutiny anyway, there can't be any harm. Sennalen (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So no one has to speculate about what I might do next, my main project for 2024 was going to be fleshing out proto-fascism from a listicle to a proper article, starting with Jacob Talmon and George Mosse's works on proto-fascism in revolutionary France, from Jacobinism through Sorelianism and Georges Bataille. Sennalen (talk) 16:20, 30 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 [30]), 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 [31], all I received from Bloodofox are personal attacks and taunts.

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" [32]. 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 main beliefs, or the lead of any persecuted minority (religious or ethnic) that doesn't talk about the human rights abuses that they experienced (Update: Bloodofox added a short paragraph about the persecution, trivializing it into mere "discrimination in employment, housing, and business opportunities". See 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]

@JoelleJay: In my edit summary, I only referred to restoring the three paragraphs Bloodofox removed in the lead. That is what I intended to do; I didn't touch anything Bloodofox added in other parts of the lead. But I now realize that I might've inadvertently restored the lead paragraphs while editing on an earlier version of the page. That might've resulted in unintended changes to the body sections. Thomas Meng (talk) 06:03, 3 December 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]

Statement by JoelleJay

I've had Falun Gong-adjacent pages on my watchlist for two years, although I rarely edit in the area anymore. After looking over the diffss, I have to agree that Bloodofox's personalized criticism of other users should be discouraged, as should attacking the reliability of every source remotely favorable to the group. But from a content and POV-pushing perspective I think their edits are far more justified than those of their opponents. In particular I'd like to challenge Zujine's statement

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.

The edit being reverted had substantial changes beyond the lead. It deleted According to the Falun Gong from the start of a paragraph in the "Beliefs and practices" section describing the principles of FG, effectively putting its definition of itself into wikivoice. Note that the source used for this description itself employs "According to Falun Gong..." rather than stating the principles authoritatively, so removing that framing also misrepresents the source. The edit also deleted the entire preceding paragraph describing its origin, including an (attributed and sourced) unfavorable characterization of its teachings. It removed a rewrite template from this section as well. While I don't think it was bad faith to add so much positive/neutral content to the lead, supported by many apparently unnecessary refs to Freedom House, when combined with the other, rather disguised, changes in this diff, it's not unreasonable to interpret it as yet another tendentious edit from a rotating cast of advocates. And from this perspective I'm a bit more sympathetic Bloodofox's jaded, accusatory edit summary in their revert (in this instance and in others). JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

This is a difficult case as the following things can all be true:

There a definite WP:FRINGE aspects to Falun Gong practice and thinking
As a religious group, they are persecuted in/by the PRC
Falun Gong adherents have been known to propagandize in general, and in particular to attempt to spin Wikipedia content
Wikipedia expects editors to assume good faith

That said, Bloodofox's 'Reds under the bed' approach is ultimately not going to resolve matters. I suggest future edits focus tightly on content and source quality and any repeated POV-pushing be reported to AE on the understanding the WP:CTOP expectations will be in full force. Bon courage (talk) 05:08, 10 December 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]

Don't have time to look at this but I think this is close to being archived but should get a proper closure. Galobtter (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on board with an indef TBAN for Hollerith, mostly per MrOllie. I lean toward the same for Sennalen, but that might benefit from a bit more discussion. (A 1-way IBAN is also a viable option.) That said, not all of the concerns voiced are entirely invalid: I think there should be a general warning to editors in the topic area, and in particular Bloodofox, to not speculate as to the religious affiliation of editors, nor to disqualify editors' views based on actual or perceived religious affiliation. All I can think is how quickly someone would be blocked if they showed up to Talk:Mi Shebeirach and tried to cite my religion as part of an objection to the article's content. Bloodofox needs to remember to focus on content, not contributor, and to come to administrators in cases where conduct issues prevent focusing on content. But to be clear, most of the issue here is coming from the other side. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention here one of my reasons for tending toward a sanction for Sennalen, which is I really hate misrepresentation at AE, and calling this a restoration of a BLP revert is a pretty serious stretch. The last paragraph is a BLPCRIME issue, but Sennalen had removed considerably more than that under that policy, so I don't see clean hands by any means, more like baiting.
Anyways, I did take a look at the SPI Bloodofox filed, and while I wasn't convinced of socking, it did give me a greater sense of Sennalen's edits, not in a good way. We have her pushing racist pseudoscience at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive351 § Eyferth study - Inappropriate RFC Closure and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124 § Block review - AndewNguyen. A lot of people look bad in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1120 § Sennalen trying to OWN a topic area to have their way with multiple overlapping articles. but Sennalen is definitely one of them. Now a potential VEXBYSTERANG in this thread and a potential boomerang in § ජපස and Bon courage below. And there's the added issue of "CLEAN"START status; I'll note that disclosing an alt to an admin is not in fact a substitute for CLEANSTART's expectation that a user will keep their nose clean, and sullying a CLEANSTART just turns it into regular socking. That policy creates a limited path back to editing for people who've chosen to abandon an old account without disclosing it, not carte blanche to start drama. (Another way to look at this is, if people are talking about the fact that you're a CLEANSTART, it's not a CLEANSTART.)
With an eye to Galobtter and Black Kite's comments down there, I'll just put out there that I think this is the exact kind of situation that the AE siteban option was added for. This user is causing disruption across at least five CTOP areas (FRINGE, COVID, FLG, R&I, and AMPOL). They're now trying to use AE to silence topic-area opponents. Basically their entire set of contributions to Wikipedia is disruptive in one way or another. I think enough is enough. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree with an AE indef (probably under FRINGE since the common theme is pushing fringe/conspiracy theories). She isn't here to build an encyclopedia; by her own admission at the Eyferth thread:

"Not coincedentally, these are all areas where there is a Americentric politically-motivated local consensus to disregard or undermine WP:BESTSOURCES. I go where I'm needed." Reading between the lines, her goal is to go wherever she can push fringe theories in various topics.

(My understanding though is that even with a consensus of admins at AE an AE block reverts to being a normal one after a year.) Galobtter (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, procedurally after one year an AE indefblock or siteban becomes a regular admin action under the auspices of the enforcing admin. AFAICT it's semantics whether we call such an action a block or ban, since AE blocks already can't be overturned unilaterally, which is the main difference between a block and ban. Both terms have been used in the past; to me, "ban" seems more accurate to describe the result of AE consensus, but I don't really care what term we use. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 00:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. My immediate reaction to editors who are trying to silence opponents with terrible rationales is to TBAN the OP. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HollerithPunchCard, Bloodofox, and Sennalen: You're all past the word limit. Please request permission from an admin if you need to say anything further. A number of other editors are just shy of the limit. Please check your word counts before adding further replies. Remember that AE is a venue at which to present evidence for the admins, not a back-and-forth. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duvasee

User has been PBLOCKed. No further action is needed at this point. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:50, 18 December 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 Duvasee

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Duvasee (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: WP:ARBPIA4

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

23:28, 11 December 2023 1st revert
00:38, 12 December 2023 2nd revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Duvase has only 847 edits, and has not been sanctioned before.

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

Alerted 17 November 2023
Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
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 Date (see the system log linked to above).
Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Duvasee was pinged by User:Makeandtossand made aware of their edit-warring here (at 13:52, 12 December 2023), but Duvasee ignored it, and continued editing. A simple self-revert would have solved this: they choose not to.

User:ScottishFinnishRadish: I think you can close this, now, thanks.; BUT: note for the future: Duvasee did not react to warnings from Makeandtoss or me, and they have continued edit-warring, and not even responded to this report. This "Rules are for suckers and losers, not for me"-attitude does not promise well for future editing in one of Wikipedias most sensitive areas, Huldra (talk) 23:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Duvasee

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 Duvasee

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Duvasee

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

They have self-reverted after I gave some clarification. Is there any appetite for something further? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I pblocked Duvasee from the article for three days for slow edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're done here, and absent another admin's input or fresh evidence think this can be closed soon. Courcelles (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan

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 Andrevan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Andrevan (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

06:05, 16 December 2023 wholesale (and wholly disruptive) revert
07:48, 16 December 2023 revert of this

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Opened a past enforcement thread on the topic here

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Blatant 1RR violation, declined they made two reverts

He is additionally just straight up making up what a source does or does not say to justify the blatantly disruptive wholesale revert above, claiming here that this FT article does not support the material it was cited for. That is, and Im trying my best not to say lie here, not true. And it is very difficult to productively discuss content when somebody says something so blatantly untrue. nableezy - 09:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that you are not responsible for your reverts because you are doing them on behalf of somebody who requested they be done because they cannot do it themselves is a curious defense, but Ill leave it to the admins to decide how seriously they want to take it. This is both a blatant 1RR violation (in what world is completely removing something not a revert anyway), and blatantly tendentious editing. I invite anybody to actually read the FT article and see if what I quoted from it does not appear in the article or if Andre is being honest in his portrayal of it. nableezy - 09:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He self reverted one edit, being dishonest about the sources and tendentious editing is still an issue in the first revert but up to the admins if they would like to deal with something a bit more involved than counting to two. I personally think that first revert and the dishonesty about the sources is much more pernicious than any number of reverts but that’s just me. nableezy - 10:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, I find lying about sources to be much more obnoxious. FT contains Campaign group Amnesty International documented in detail five cases of air strikes wiping out entire families, saying the attacks should be investigated as potential war crimes and you here say "It is true that the WP:HEADLINE says How the loss of entire families is ravaging the social fabric of Gaza. Intense bombardment has wiped out multiple generations of Palestinians but this fact does not appear in the rest of the article." You want to call that an instance of reasonable people disagreeing you can, I will just say that is not, uh, reasonable. nableezy - 10:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of issues in Andre's blanket revert. Among the things he removed was material on the healthcare system collapse, never discussed on talk, material on the number of journalists killed, never discussed on talk, material on early reports of atrocities later proven to be false, never discussed on talk, material on the spreading of those false claims by politicians and media, never discussed on talk. And the material on the killing of multi-generational families. All of this removed material was about things opposed to his POV, as he has made abundantly clear, and all of it well sourced and all of it removed with a token hand wave to a policy that does not support it. But he did self-revert the 1RR violation, so yall do what you want. nableezy - 10:32, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And Ill also note, given Andre's statement that I obviously have a POV, well we all do. But I dont say things like You clearly sympathize more with Hamas' POV when editors attempt to follow our sources and not tread the POV that Andre likewise obviously has. nableezy - 17:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EL C, the first revert listed is a labeled revert, the second one I gave the edit being reverted. The problem with AN3 is that involved editors coming to the defense of an editor they are aligned with can muddy the waters in the single section, as opposed to being in their own section where an admin can ignore the noise of partisan editors trying to distort the history. nableezy - 19:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that’s why I included the diff for the second revert, it is a straight revert of that addition. The first one is labeled a revert as restoring a prior version and wiping out all intervening edits is a revert by definition. nableezy - 20:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El C, this is a revert of this, and this diff shows the first revert restoring a prior edition, reverting all the intervening edits. nableezy - 20:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sideswipe9th, if Andre hadnt declined to self-revert already I would have waited for him to do so. But he already did. I should wait to report whats already been denied? Doesnt make a ton of sense to me but ok. And also, it was clear that the edit request was a revert. I do not understand how people think that a straight removal of content is ever not a revert. It is definitionally reversing, in whole or in part, another editor's edit. I do not understand how somebody can claim that removing a sentence is ever not a revert. Do they think it was immaculately conceived in the text? No, an editor put it there. And when you remove it, you are reverting that editor. nableezy - 22:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, the POV espoused was Amnesty International's, you claimed that was supporting Hamas' POV. I dont say you are supporting Itamar Ben-Gvir's POV when we disagree. nableezy - 22:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th except Andre here also claimed the edit was not a revert. They only self-reverted later, its difficult to tell because he did not date his responses here. His initial response was straight denial. And lets dispense with this oh I was fulfilling an edit request nonsense. We take responsibility for our edits when we make them, saying oh I was just making a revert that somebody else asked for does not in any way relieve you of the responsibility of the revert. Otherwise you are opening up a whole new game to be played, in which say an editor asks a friend who doesnt edit here to request such and such be added or removed in an edit request so that they can get around the revert restrictions. And I still dont see how anybody can ever call the straight removal of a sentence not a revert, literally ever. nableezy - 22:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish if it helps, as the 1RR violation has been self-reverted, you can consider this withdrawn unless you would like to examine any unclean hands issues. nableezy - 23:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure SFR, I will be more comprehensive in my 1RR violation notices. And I agree to the rest as well. nableezy - 23:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Andrevan

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 Andrevan

Hang on, the 2nd edit is not a "revert," as I explained in my edit summary, I was fulfilling an edit request; I asked for the diff here [33] but this report was opened before that was provided. I did not know that was a revert, and the edit I was supposedly "reverting" was made 24 hours before my edit. Is it a requirement that I must check to see if I am accidentally reverting a 2nd time when I fulfill an edit request?
See [34]
I can no longer "undo" my edit, as there have been intervening edits after that one.
And regarding the FT article [35] I have no idea what Nableezy is going on about here. It is true that the WP:HEADLINE says How the loss of entire families is ravaging the social fabric of Gaza. Intense bombardment has wiped out multiple generations of Palestinians but this fact does not appear in the rest of the article.
Nableezy, a revert means undoing an edit. I did not know that 1RR in this topic area means that any change is considered a revert even if it was not undoing an edit consciously. However, if that is the case, I will attempt to manually restore the text I removed due to the edit request.
I have restored text to the effect that Nableezy is claiming I was reverting, even though as I said, this text had been added so that it was beyond a page past the history, and I did not know that it was a revert per se. [36]
Clearly Nableezy has a very strong POV in this area, but he's being a bit obnoxious in my view. I am not dishonest about sources. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree in their interpretation of material and what is appropriate in the encyclopedia. I am not misrepresenting any sources, and these accusations are borderline incivil.
As I just responded on the talk page, there are still problems with the text. The text I reverted did not contain proper attribution. It also used the text from the headline instead of the body text, which was weaker. I stand by the edit, I did not lie about sources, and I frankly am offended that nableezy would so quickly claim that I had lied about the sources, which shows a serious lack of good faith and collegiality.
User:Iennes violated 1RR with his recent edits, which were not NPOV, and also added some fun errors like the text "the Israeli Department Forces." Not an improvement. I also think the recent Al Jazeera piece about the healthcare collapse might be a bit of hyperbole as well, a similar violation of WP:HEADLINE. the actual text is, "Gaza near collapse." It's also WP:NOTNEWS WP:RECENTISM. I tried to google it, and only AJ is reporting that there is a collapse that has taken place. ABC writes, [37] "completely collapsing" with overcrowded hospitals and few medical supplies amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas war, according to the World Health Organization and Doctors Without Borders. again, not in wikivoice, attributed, and in the process of collapsing - not collapsed. I am being accused of tendentious editing but this edit was bad and lacks nuance. It should be obvious by inspection it did not pass muster. He also added the statement that more journalists had been killed in Gaza than in 20 years in Vietnam - but he ignored the fact that this was a total including the journalists killed by Hamas in Israel, not just in Gaza. Another problem with these bad bold edits by a user quoting nonsensical policies that rightfully should have been reverted for discussion per WP:BRD.
Oy, Iskandar, I know you can have a manual revert without pressing the button, that is not my point. I'm talking about intent. If you look at my talk page, several users were happy to accuse me of edit warring, which in my book requires intention, and did not provide any diffs of the original edit that was I reverting, which again, was not today. At any rate I have now manually undone my non-revert revert. I do think this new edit request system is something we'll have to get used to. I thought I was being helpful by fulfilling a reasonable request which I still think was a reasonable one, and I was not edit warring by doing that, because I did not see the edit it was reverting in the last page of changes.
SFR, given that the diffs were not provided to me to self-revert prior to this AE being opened, how much time elapsed before I complied and self-reverted? And do think the level of invective and bad faith, i.e. accusing me of lying about sources and using a pretext to revert things I don't like, is acceptable discourse? See [38]
I'm probably over word count but I just want to clarify the diff that Nableezy cited where I referred to "Hamas' POV." I was referring to Hamas' POV on the subject at hand, namely whether or not they use human shields. Please see the edit I was referring to and the revert by another user: [39] and their statements [40] [41] which supports what I said, that the other user was favoring Hamas' POV on the human shield issue. Also, I think SFR that maybe this article should indeed go to consensus required, because there seems to be an attempt to add all the breaking news stories directly to this article without giving them at all a chance to be discussed, and any editor who disagrees or who wants to thoughtfully workshop the exact language and text, as is normally done on this project, is treated like a POVwarrior and repeatedly accused of lying and tendentiousness. I assume the diffs of this are obvious but I will flesh em out if you want, and I'm definitely over word count now, so let me know if I should just erase this part.
I am in agreement with your proposal, SFR. Andre🚐 23:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

The explanation from Andrevan that they were wholly unaware of what a revert is and thought it pertained solely to edits performed with the undo button is uncompelling given their long and extensive tenure. The same applies to the notion of not comprehending that it is incumbent on editors to check that they are not accidentally reverting on a page with revert restrictions. To answer their question: yes, 24 hours is just about the bare minimum period you should look back over to ensure that you are not reverting beyond 1RR. I dare say that on most pages it is incumbent on editors to look back much further than that. The more dramatic and frequent your edits, the more caution you just take. This is par for the course – a course that Andrevan should know well by now. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coretheapple

Andrevan is correct. He was responding to an edit request, which can be found here. Editors who make good faith edits should not be subjected to this kind of trumped up "gotcha" accusation. I am fairly new to this article and subject area. I have in my eleven years on this project edited in other controversial areas, and I have never seen 1RR deployed as a bludgeon in this fashion. Indeed, as I was composing this, I see to no great surprise that nableezy used the same tactic against me [42]. No, my earlier edit was not a revert. I added words in the earlier edit cited (the most recent one was a revert). There was no intent to revert a blessed thing in the earlier edit and I most certainly did not. These accusations, raising 1RR in a hair-trigger fashion, have a chilling effect and should not be tolerated.Coretheapple (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SPECIFICO's and Beyond My Ken's comments, I just wanted to interject, as a movie buff, that "Gentleman's Agreement" was a 1947 film and novel, so I imagine that is what SPECIFICO was referring to. (re the origins of the title phrase) However,the use of that term here is certainly unobjectionable. I couldn't agree more with SPECIFICO's general point. Since I began editing this article barely a week ago, on Dec. 11.and despite no previous interaction with any other editor on that page as far as I know, I've been called a "liar," a "hypocrite" a "bad faith editor" by three different editors and subjected to a sarcastic impugning of my motives. AGF is completely out the window on that talk page, and NPA is treated like a suggestion, not one of the Five Pillars. The hostile atmosphere on the talk age repels new editors, I think deliberately so, and needs to be addressed on a continual basis. I think more administrator oversight of the page is desirable and am glad to see that there has been NPA enforcement. Coretheapple (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drsmoo

This is frivolous and content based. I’m hoping there can be some kind of WP:Trout over bringing content disputes to AE. Drsmoo (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

Aspersions and unconstructive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wow! That's quite the "violent" screed from Nableezy. I don't see an ounce of good faith there, only myriad, rather forced, attempts to find something wrong with Andrevan, a regular Gish gallop:

"The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm their opponent by providing an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments. Gish galloping prioritizes the quantity of the galloper's arguments at the expense of their quality."

If anything, this was an innocent error, with no edit warring, and was fixed. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:21, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let me word it more specifically. (I assumed that anyone reading my comment would analyze Nableezy's comments, but alas.) So calling out personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith ("lying" is normally a sanctionable accusation) is not allowed at AE? Hmmmm....these are new times. Even at AE, one should AGF and not accuse another editor of lying, especially when other editors don't see it that way. Lying implies an intent to deceive. That's why we avoid the word here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish, I really like your resolution. Let's get back to editing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iennes

Andrevan wrote in their statement above that I "User:Iennes added some fun errors like the text "the Israeli Department Forces." Instead of rectifying a mistake and explaining it in an edit summary or writing a comment on a talk page, Andrevan reverted all my edits in a click [43]. This is just pure censorship. I added content showing that the "beheaded babies" story was false and how it was built with mainstream media, I did a work of research. [44]. Reverting sourced historical content concerning such a sensitive issue, says a lot about the user, as in anyone's book, "beheaded 40 children = barbarism". In that section which relates how misinformation is created on purpose, the reader can see the chronology of events and ponder how a democracy can invent such a thing. so, I am asking Andrevan to collaborate with users and reverting no more sourced content without explaining it. A collaborative work is first improving, and not reverting for the sake of reverting. Correcting yes but certainly not erasing relevant material. Iennes (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th

Chiming in here as I'm uninvolved. I'm in two minds here. While Nableezy is right that there is a 1RR violation here, I don't think that's the full story. The edit request (PermaLink) that Andrevan was responding to was not obviously a revert. Yes editors who are responding to edit requests are responsible for the edits they make, but even in a 1RR how many editors are running Who Wrote That? to find when a sentence was added or last changed?

Now look at the sequence of events on Andrevan's talk page. At 07:43 UTC Iennes issues a {{uw-ew}} warning. Andrevan responds less than a minute later, expressing confusion. Two hours later at 09:28 UTC Nableezy issues a custom 1RR notice asking Andrevan to self-revert, and then a minute later interprets Andrevan's confusion towards Iennes as a refusal to self-revert. Andrevan responds that same minute again expressing confusion, and Nableezy instead of responding files this AE case and provides a link to it. At no stage in this exchange was Andrevan given a link to the diff where they violated the restriction.

Despite this, Andrevan still self reverted the edit request removal once it became clearer what edit was the 1RR violation. Honestly, I don't think Andrevan should be sanctioned here. Yes they should be more careful when responding to an edit request, but this seems like a simple and honest mistake. Nableezy and Iennes both need a trouting at minimum here. I feel like this whole set of events could have been avoided if both of them had been more communicative when explaining the issue, and asked for a good faith self-revert. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, I think there's two valid interpretations of Andrevans response to Iennes, and I can see why you're reading it as a refusal. However I think that's the less charitable interpretation of the remark. Personally, I read it as confusion over why Andrevan's been issued with a uw-ew warning, and I think if either you or Iennes had taken five or ten minutes to explain how it was a revert resulting in a 1RR violation, something that you had to do anyway for this filing, Andrevan would likely have obliged by self-reverting. People make mistakes, and they should be given the information and a reasonable opportunity to self-correct them, rather than jumping straight for sanctions. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm usually loathe to reply directly to other editors in AE filings, as it often brings more heat than light. But Nableezy, I still wouldn't read Andrevan's first sentence here as an outright refusal to self-revert. I see an explanation for why Andrevan doesn't think it was a revert, and asking for clarity on what constitutes one. If I'm being charitable, they're again expressing confusion. Despite the confusion, Andrevan still self reverted about 25 minutes after this report was opened. Had you instead of reporting here taken ten minutes to explain the situation on Andrevan's talk page, it would have had the same result; self-reversion of the edit request.

I know AE is an important tool when editing in a CTOP area. I've had to use it more than once when editing in GENSEX, AP2, and BLP. But an equally important tool is knowing how to defuse and de-escalate a situation. Explaining to an editor how they've breached 1RR while asking them to self revert is a good way to defuse a situation. Now sometimes it will not work, sometimes you are dealing with a bad faith editor. But a lot of the time you're dealing with a good faith editor who has simply made a mistake, and making the effort to find out which is which is never wasted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SFR I think your proposal is a good one. I also wonder if it might be helpful to add a sentence or two of guidance to WP:EW, about how it can be helpful to provide explanatory diffs when issuing a warning over a breach, especially in less obvious situations. The idea being to enshrine this as best practice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Here's how I see nableezy interacting less than a day after the proposed optimistic resolution. I don't think that tone is acceptable in this topic area. BTW "gentleman's agreement", at least in the US, has rather dark implications. SPECIFICO talk 19:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I do not believe that "gentlemen's agreement" ("an arrangement or understanding which is based upon the trust of both or all parties, rather than being legally binding") has any "dark implications" in the US, depending, of course, on who the "gentlemen" involved are. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Andrevan

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

And one advantage the WP:AN3 format has over WP:AE is its Previous version reverted to parameter, which makes it immediately clear whether the earlier diff of the two in the WP:1RR complaint is a revert, or merely an edit. El_C 19:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, I know that I'd find it helpful to also feature it at WP:AE, at least for any WP:1RR complaint that isn't very straight-forward; with that parameter attached, say, in parenthesis alongside the earlier of the two diffs. As sometime finding the diff proving WP:RV in the revision history could be challenging to outside reviewers. El_C 19:48, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nableezy, I'm not seeing it. But if it were added as I suggested above, there'd be no way I'd miss it. El_C 20:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty clearly a 1RR violation, and again wish that there was a standard practice of self-reverting immediately when challenged and moving to discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder that AE is not a venue to opine about editors or argue content. It is a venue for statements pertaining to the parties supported with evidence. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, to expand I think that the standard practice should be to leave a talk page message with the diffs of the 1rr violation and wait 12 hours or until it's clear the editor is still editing without addressing before any escalation takes place. I haven't had a lot of time to review all of the everything here (which is becoming a lot) and forming a full opinion, I was just expressing my wish for how things worked in practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know we're pretty lax with word limits here, but keep in mind most of us admins have day jobs and lives outside of Wikipedia. There's already a lot to review here without adding a tomats of additional text. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so before I close this as withdrawn, since we're all here, is it possible to get a Gentleman's agreement to provide a notification to someone who violated 1rr with the diffs, and if there's any ambiguity diffs demonstrating why it's a revert. After that wait 12-24 hours unless they're continuing to edit before escalating? And in the flip side of that coin if someone points out a 1rr violation fully self-revert, then worry about contesting the issue?

These articles move fast, there's an enormous amount of contested content, there are a lot of different POVs (both from editors and sources), and the situation keeps developing. I don't want to start dropping consensus required on these articles, but it's starting to seem like the most effective way to handle it. If there's a chance that we can work together to avoid that, I'd much prefer that.

Also, please knock off the accusations of lying, even if you're dancing around the edges of it, the accusations of weaponizing unless there's actual evidence to back it up, and generally the personalized back and forth. It makes it tremendously more difficult to actually pick out misbehavior, inflates discussions that are already too large, and makes it far more difficult for people to compromise on content in the future. Hell, this section itself is already nearly 3500 words. No admins are going to be able to, or want to, sort through all of this and all of the content and other discussions involved in a regular basis.

So, @Andrevan, Nableezy, Iskandar323, Drsmoo, Valjean, Iennes, and Sideswipe9th: and anyone else out there reading at home, does that sound reasonable for 1rr moving forward, and can we at least try to scale back the hostility? Otherwise we're heading down a road to consensus required and ibans. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple

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 Coretheapple

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Coretheapple (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

15:33, 16 December 2023 revert of this among other edits
16:20, 15 December 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)

N/A, 1RR is a general sanction that only requires the edit notice and notice on the talk page

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This material has been repeatedly inserted in to the lead, despite the obvious lack of consensus for it on the talk page (Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war § Hamas denial of sexual violence in lede)

Requested they self-revert, did not answer on their talk but pointed to their statement above (here) nableezy - 16:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added material that was previously challenged and removed. That is definitionally a revert, and you know it was challenged as you have been involved in that talk page discussion. It was a revert, and you have performed two within 24 hours, and that is a red line violation of the editing restrictions. nableezy - 17:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partial reverts are still reverts, and you just admitted to a partial revert. The correct response to somebody raising a 1RR violation is to self-revert, not dissemble about the injustice of it all. I want to revert more than 1 time a day too, but I do not. nableezy - 17:36, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, I have generally been against adminshopping in which an editor reaches out directly to an admin outside of cases where an admin has dealt with an issue that has repeated itself. I dont really think it appropriate to directly request an admin deal with something. But I do dispute that only a warning should result when a 1RR violation is not self-reverted, that should result in a block, maybe a page block, or a topic ban. I always offer an opportunity to self-revert, but if that is refused then the user is taking advantage of the restrictions that block others from reverting their improper revert and that should not be allowed. I was under the impression that AE is a better venue than AN3 for arbitration imposed edit restriction violations, including the 1RR. nableezy - 17:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coretheapple, you dont get to pick which revert to self-revert, you should self-revert your last revert, not give yourself another revert by self-reverting a prior revert after the fact. I was sanctioned for a similar sequence. nableezy - 18:13, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the self revert also is still a revert, he removed material that was added here, the denial by Hamas, and they know that is a revert as they have been disputing its addition on the talk page. This is blatantly bad faith editing and it should be sanctioned. nableezy - 19:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, not everything, but when you remove what others have added or add what others have removed yes that is a revert. You really going to pretend you are not reverting the inclusion of the Hamas denial? Ok, well then that’s a WP:CIR issue too. nableezy - 19:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BK, in my view a 1RR report should essentially result in an ultimatum, self-revert or be blocked. They have declined to self-revert, or they self-reverted while performing another revert, maintaining the 1RR violation. That, to me, is decidedly unfair. We all operate under the same rules here, and the people who are breaking them are able to impose their will on these articles not through consensus but through edit-warring that others do not want to respond with the same to. nableezy - 22:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Coretheapple

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 Coretheapple

The most recent edit cited here was a revert, that is correct. However, the earlier one most definitely was not. In the earlier edit cited I was adding detail to the bare-bones language describing the rapes, as I felt the previous wording raised an NPOV issue (per WP:VALID) by giving false equivalence to the well-documented rape accusations and the perfunctory Hamas denial.. An examination of the edit in question under number "2" will show that it was not a revert, as I did not undo a previous edit, and not intended to be one. Inserting ~~three words~~ the mutilation allegation from a previous edit and leaving the rest alone is an edit, not a revert. ~~I replicated the words "rape, mutilation and killing" that was indeed in a previous version~~,[see clarification below at 18:22, 16 December 2023 ] but the rest is new material (adding about the videos and rephrasing the Hamas denial) and the remaining portion of the earlier edit was not reverted. Reinstating ~~three words~~ the mutilation allegation in the course of a larger edit does not a revert make.

As I mentioned in my statement above re Andrevan on a very similar accusation leveled against another editor, I have edited many articles in controversial areas in the last eleven years and have never seen 1RR used as a bludgeon in this fashion. Coretheapple (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC) Please note that I have revised this comment after a less hurried examination of the diffs cited by Nableezy. Coretheapple (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Nableezy is focusing on three words and stating that I engaged in a partial revert, to resolve this matter I have carried out a partial self-revert and removed them .[45] To deal with the WP:VALID issue, that is giving equal weight to the Hamas denial in contrast to the massive evidence of rapes and mutilations, I have also removed the Hamas denial. It is removed from the lead only; the denial is retained in the body of the article). Now please I hope that that isn't a "revert." I certainly don't think it is. Editors should be mindful of 1RR but not have to walk on eggshells. In the past I've been shoved off the 3RR board for complaining about editing that wasn't reverting, but it's been a few years and standards may have changed. Coretheapple (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish I just self-reverted the phrase that is at issue here. Coretheapple (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One other point I wanted to make, as I wanted to be clear what we are discussing here. Nableezy says I reverted "rape, mutilation and killing of Israeli women." That is not correct. Actually I added the words "mutilation of victims, burned corpses." ("Rapes" was not removed so therefore I did not revert it; burned corpses was not in the version supposedly reverted). Just to be totally clear what we are discussing. I apologize for the gruesome langauge. Coretheapple (talk) 18:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, I'm not "picking and choosing," I'm reverting the words---what are they, three words? four?---that were the subject of your complaint. I don't have to revert text that was not the basis of your 1RR complaint. The remainder of what I added was was not a reinstatement of previous wording, but new material. Quite frankly I'm not entirely certain my earlier edit, which you claim was a revert, was a revert at all. I did not replicate the language that you say I reverted. In my haste to respond to this, I didn't even notice that. But I am trying to resolve this. Coretheapple (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, in my haste to resolve this, I removed excessive text in my self-revert. The only thing reverted in the first revert, if it was indeed was a revert, was a claim of mutilation. That was it. Nothing else was reinstated. In the self-revert that I did a short time ago to resolve this, I reverted rape, mutilation and burning of bodies. Coretheapple (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The self-revert is also a revert." Everything is a revert to this editor if he doesn't like it. This is a content dispute, not a reversion issue. Coretheapple (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to resolve the issue in good faith. Didn't succeed. That's life. Coretheapple (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I am attempting to get clarity from WT:EW on exactly what constitutes a revert vs an edit, concerning a live situation in another article and not what we're discussing here. I'd implore other editors here (involved parties, that is) to not weigh in let nature take its course and see what the EW regulars have to say. Going forward it may not be a bad idea to consult EW regulars for advice as conditions warrant. Coretheapple (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I thought I was curing the 1RR, but obviously I didn't. Coretheapple (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish That's eminently fair. Thanks very much for your hard work and thoughtful handling of this mess. Coretheapple (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Coretheapple

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

I have a question for Nableezy. Are there not admins on the page level you could ask for assistance with this problem (and perhaps Andrean above as well)? On the one hand, AE absolutely needs to be an option for 1RR violations. On the other hand, even if you are 100% right on the merits - I will admit to not having checked because as an arb I think it best to only serve in an appellate role - it seems like the most that would happen would be a warning. And coming to AE for a warning feels like a mismatch between venue and outcome. But if there isn't a lower stakes option, I can better understand why doing this is a better option, from your POV, than doing nothing. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think ScottishFinnishRadish keeps an eye on that page somewhat but understandably the number of admins who want to be involved in this article is few. I also do agree with Nableezy somewhat that reaching out to individual admins, while it might lower the stakes, also creates weird admin shopping incentives. Galobtter (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy: I agree that in some instances a block is an appropriate sanction to 1RR violations. I am suggesting that in Coretheapple's case, given the violation alleged, given their history in the topic area, and given their sanction history it seems unlikely to me that more than a warning would be given. Perhaps that's wrong and some sort of short block will be given by the admins who look into this but by coming here you somewhat decrease the chances of a short block happening just because of the lag between reporting and outcome that often happens at AE. That said I can appreciate your thinking on why a neutral rather than targeted ask for help is better overall. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to prefer requests at AE. This allows for the most neutral presentation, and it also lets admins "check each other's work." That's one of the reasons I don't immediately close an AE section when I take unilateral action. Also, why can't people just self-revert and save everyone the time? There's a few slow edit wars going on, and I've been tempted to institute consensus required, but I've held off as that dramatically slows down the article. Maybe that's what's needed to stop some of the 1RR violations happening? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a 1RR violation, as was what looks like the attempted self-revert here. Self-reverting doesn't involve taking another shot at reworking the prose, it is a simple undo of your prior violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coretheapple, I'm not terribly interested in blocks for 1rr that's not part of a pattern. I'm much more interested in making sure it doesn't become a pattern and normalizing reaching out about 1rr for a quick self-revert. Many of these articles are incredibly active, and it's very easy to break 1rr.
In the section above I proposed people agree to provide a notification to someone who violated 1rr with the diffs, and if there's any ambiguity diffs demonstrating why it's a revert. After that wait 12-24 hours unless they're continuing to edit before escalating? And in the flip side of that coin if someone points out a 1rr violation fully self-revert, then worry about contesting the issue? Does that seem reasonable? Self-revert first, then worry about discussions at WT:EW? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AN3 is also a viable venue for reporting potential WP:1RR vios. El_C 19:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dympies

Dympies is placed under an indefinite one-account restriction, and the accounts Yoonadue and Togggle are blocked indefinitely. Their Rajput TBAN is rescinded and replaced with an indefinite topic ban from India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:15, 20 December 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 Dympies

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dympies (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: Topic ban from all content and discussions related to Rajputs, under authority of WP:ARBIPA

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

Edits to the sandbox of User:Togggle, a confirmed sockpuppet (diffs provided at SPI by Beccaynr as evidence of edits about the Rajput caste in violation of the sanction)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic ban linked above; no previous enforcement as far as I can tell

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

Topic banned as linked above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As part of an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aman.kumar.goel, the user Dympies was found to be operating two undisclosed checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet accounts, User:Yoonadue and User:Togggle (technically Yoonadue is the oldest account and the other two are sockpuppets; I have entered this report under Dympies because that is the account under which the sanction was enacted). In the investigation, Beccaynr noted that Dympies is topic-banned from content related to Rajputs but has been using their sockpuppet Togggle to edit on this topic, by making copies in their sandbox of snippets of articles which they then edit. As I said in the sockpuppet investigation, I was not able to determine which articles these snippets come from nor if their changes are being edited back into any articles by one of the other accounts or any other editor. After Beccaynr's observation Togggle requested deletion of their sandbox, which I have undeleted for this report (I couldn't find Beccaynr's diffs in the deleted history, so I undeleted and added the diffs here as they left them at SPI).

At SPI, Yoonadue/Dympies asserts that they are allowed to have multiple accounts. That is true generally, but using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny is one of the policy-forbidden uses. Using two accounts to split one's editing history within a contentious topic area seems to fall afoul of the intent of the policy if not its letter, particularly for a topic so plagued by sockpuppetry in general. But as the policy is written they're technically allowed, even if I find it unethical.

I've gone back-and-forth over the last couple days about blocking or not for sockpuppetry, or to what extent they should be sanctioned for (possibly?) violating their topic ban. At this point it would be better to have more opinions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: just to clarify, the sandbox was deleted by Sdrqaz, and there really was no reason not to accept the request. I restored the page because I couldn't figure out which diffs Beccaynr meant to link to from the deleted page history, they seem to lose their revision ID when they're deleted. I don't have any objection to deleting the page again once this discussion concludes. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Dympies

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 Dympies

I was ignorant about the use of Sandbox and felt that it is not covered by the topic ban as long as its use is limited to the Sandbox. I thought that only articles, talk pages, user talk page, Wikipedia spaces are the venues where topic ban applies but not sandbox.

I swiftly requested deletion of the Sandbox once I was made aware of this fact that Sandbox covers topic ban. Apart from Sandbox edits, I never violated the topic ban. I promise to abide by the topic ban. Dympies (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark:(replying to ur comment at 17:41) I would disagree with that because I was actively editing with this account of mine on unrelated topics with the hope that I will appeal topic ban one day. Had I really edited with Togggle on any actual articles, then I am sure anyone could have suspected it as a single-purpose account thus lacking any credibility. I had no plans to edit with that account other than to preserve some findings related to the subject of Rajputs in a Sandbox. Dympies (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark:(replying to ur comment at 18:27) It is not. That edit is about the politician's location (Kolkata) and jail status. It is unrelated to "Rajputs". Dympies (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark:(replying to ur comment at 18:37) But WP:TBAN is clear that if a person is topic banned from "weather", then they cannot edit "the section entitled "Climate" in the article California, however they can edit anything else unrelated to the "weather" because "the rest of the article is not" is not related "weather". I hope you can struck the part if possible in your message. Thanks. Dympies (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers:(responding to comment at 17:53) Ivanvector had restored a deleted Sandbox, not 'declined' it. I was not aware that sandbox is not exempted from topic ban but apart from that, I haven't violated the topic ban anywhere in these 6 months and I promise not to violate the topic ban again. I hope you will reconsider. Dympies (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers:(responding to your comment at 20:22) I don't have a problem with one-account restriction. I would like to edit only as Dympies. Since the topic ban, I haven't engaged in disruptive editing anywhere but ensured that I follow WP:BRD.

I have already explained how the edit on Raghuraj Pratap Singh was not a topic ban violation and RegentsPark has struck that allegation.[46]

This edit (6 months old) on Mughal-Maratha Wars only mentions "Rajput" in quote parameter, but there was nothing particularly concerning about it since these edits were reviewed by Abecedare (the admin who imposed the topic ban) when he mediated the dispute and endorsed the edits which included my revert.[47] Dympies (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr:(replying to ur comment at 18:06) You are misinterpreting "TBAN". For your kind information, Jahangir and Akbar were Mughals rather than Rajputs. If these two people have been mentioned on Rajput page, it doesn't imply I can't discuss them elsewhere. Dympies (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beccaynr(replying to ur comment at 18:48): this edit is about Jats, Brahmins, Kshatriya and Shudras, not "Rajputs" thus no violation of topic ban. Dympies (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Beccaynr, please remove your comment made at 19:29. Here you are discussing my edits to page Rajput in a complaining manner but all these edits were made before getting t-banned. Dympies (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith and Firefangledfeathers: Requesting exemption of another 500 words in order to address the recent points that you have raised. Dympies (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith and Firefangledfeathers: I don't think it is beneficial for me anymore now to keep repeating myself. Yes I am ready to abide by 1-account restriction thus no blocks would be needed. Furthermore, if topic ban from ARBIPA (or India, but not Pakistan and Afghanistan?) is going to be applied then I would happily accept it but my request would be that the current topic ban from Rajputs should be converted into that ban so that I would need to appeal only 1 topic ban in the future before editing without any article-based sanctions. Thanks. Dympies (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZLEA

I usually stay out of WP:ARE discussions, but the User:Yoonadue account has been involved in a content dispute over a claimed Indian kill of a Pakistani aircraft at Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21. See Talk:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21#F-16 for the full discussion. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

(Moved from admin section since I was recently involved in a discussion with Dympies)

Comment The optics are not good @Dympies:. You're given a CT notification on June 18 and you activate your, till then sleeper, account Toggle[48] and copy material posted by you as Dympies into the Togggle sandbox[49]. That looks a lot like preparing for a topic ban. A couple of weeks after you are topic banned on June 19th, you return to the page, remove everything, and begin to use it as a repository for future edits (in violation of your topic ban). Since the alternative accounts were not declared till after the checkuser, this doesn't look good. RegentsPark (comment) 17:41, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~What about this edit by Yoonadue? That's definitely a violation of your topic ban. RegentsPark (comment) 18:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)~~[reply]
No worries Dympies. Technically it is a violation but not a big deal and I would have removed this (but you are a quick replier!).RegentsPark (comment) 18:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since it appears to be in the context of a category removal from multiple articles, I guess it is ok. Struck. RegentsPark (comment) 20:20, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beccaynr

Dympies has used their sandbox to develop Mughal Empire-related content, e.g. [50], [51], [52], including content related to people referenced in Rajput#Mughal_period (Akbar, Jahangir). On 17:12, 8 December 2023, Dympies reverted to restore content in Mughal Empire, including a source discussing Akbar [53], and Dympies participated in discussion at Talk:Mughal Empire on 18:16, 9 December 2023 [54], citing sources with quotes discussing Akbar and Jahangir. Beccaynr (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to xtools for the Rajput article, between 2022-11-23 17:31 and 2023-06-18 19:45, Dympies made 110 edits and 28 minor edits, adding 21,721 bytes. At the time of my review of Rajput#Mughal_period, content includes, For example, Akbar accomplished 40 marriages for himself, his sons and grandsons, out of which 17 were Rajput-Mughal alliances.[109][110] Akbar's successors as Mughal emperors, his son Jahangir and grandson Shah Jahan had Rajput mothers.[111]. The AE TBAN is for "all content and discussions related to Rajputs, broadly construed" and the TBAN notice discusses related articles. I offer examples of editing and discussion participation based on this seemingly broad guidance. Beccaynr (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dympies, thank you for noting I included xtools data about the Rajput article before the TBAN - I should have explained this is included to show familiarity with the article content, i.e. the potential connection between the article topics, and not for administrators to review as specific edits that may violate the TBAN. Beccaynr (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of Dympies editing a Rajput-related article is on 19:41, 3 October 2023 [55] - content removal from a paragraph that includes discussion of Rajputs, several lines above a paragraph that begins "The Rajputs refused to accept Jat claims to Kshatriya status ...". Beccaynr (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 10:06, 1 July 2023, Dympies removed content, including content about Rajputs [56] from Mughal–Maratha Wars ("He then faced rebellions by the Rajputs and the Sikhs..."), and then participated in article talk discussion at 10:31, 1 July 2023 [57]. Beccaynr (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Firefangledfeathers; I noted conduct at the 15 December 2023 SPI report, such as Dympies arriving at the Divya Dwivedi article for the first time at 15:53, 2 December 2023 to support Aman.kumar.goel in restoring a disputed version of content, including removal of sources [58] [59]; after Aman.kumar.goel was blocked, pinging CharlesWain into discussion at the Dwivedi talkpage; then appearing to support CharlesWain's use of an obviously unreliable source and a source that appears to at best be questionable for supporting contentious content in a BLP. (CharlesWain has recently opened an RfC at the Divya Dwivedi article talk page, citing these sources.) Other conduct by Dympies is also noted in the SPI based on the Editor Interaction Analyzer, including at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in India#Estimations (Vanamonde93 asks Dympies "You have never edited a Covid article; how did you hear of this discussion?"), and other instances of Dympies and Aman.kumar.goel appearing to support each other during edit wars. Beccaynr (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I have an extension of 150 words? Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At 01:46, 19 December 2023, Dympies participated in the Divya Dwivedi RfC [60]. I have since noted the RfC proposes to summarize quotes from a 2019 news report that are similar to quotes highlighted by WP:OPINDIA [61], [62], [63]. I have also noted the RfC is supported by sources unsuitable for a BLP (See also RSN, RSN). Beccaynr (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After indicating they would "happily accept" a TBAN at 03:43, 19 December 2023 [64], and the discussion by admin below about the TBAN, Dympies has continued to participate in the Divya Diwvedi RfC at 05:59, 20 December 2023 [65]. Beccaynr (talk) 06:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Firefangledfeathers, Black Kite, The Wordsmith, Abecedare. Beccaynr (talk) 07:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I'm evidently late to this party. I have had considerable interaction with both the principal accounts here. When I was first pinged, I was going to recommend a one-account restriction and a TBAN; the conduct of any individual account was skirting the bounds of what was acceptable, but taken together they are far too much. I see my colleagues below have come to this conclusion already. I offer a little more evidence here, in case someone had lingering doubts.

Inappropriate use of alt accounts, including on the same pages and in project-space; [66].
What I would consider battleground conduct in the CTOP:
Dympies: [67], [68], [69], plus genuinely bizarre arguments at this AfD that verge on competence issues.

Yoonadue: [70], [71] & [72] (you really need to skim all of the editor's contributions).

TL:DR;, the restrictions proposed below are necessary and proportionate. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:57, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dympies

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

Ivanvector declined the sandbox speedy deletion, which I would have done as well. I have not yet looked into the sandbox edit question—where did the content come from, and where did it go—and I'd be interested in hearing from other editors or admins who look into it. I am inclined to block for a month for the permissions gaming, topic ban violations and sockpuppetry. I am seeing evidence of wider disruption in the IPA topic area (having looked at the evidence here, at SPI, and at discussions linked from Dympies' talk page), and I think a broader TBAN is either near or on the table now. I think it'll be more on the table unless Dympies' conduct changes in a major way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Dympies and Ivanvector for clarifying the history of the sandbox deletion/undeletion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough evidence to say that:
1. There have been clear violations of the TBAN, at Togggle's sandbox.
2. There have been clear but minor violations of the TBAN, like at Raghuraj Pratap Singh or Mughal–Maratha Wars.
Speaking just for myself, I don't think further evidence of #2 will be needed. Beccaynr, some of those diffs are reaches, and too much so to be helpful here. Since a broader TBAN is an option here, it'd be more useful to know whether there has been disruptive editing in the IPA topic area outside of Rajputs, broadly construed.
I agree with BK (below), that a one account restriction is necessary. Dympies, please let us know which account you'd like to use moving forward. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:22, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dympies it is. Please act starting now as if you are under a one-account restriction. I don't intend to take any formal action until other admins have chimed in or sufficient time has passed with no response. I think the edit at Raghuraj Pratap Singh was a topic ban violation. A topic ban from a group of persons includes persons in that group. I described the violation as minor, and I stand by that, but I can't reason my way out of it being a violation. Am I misunderstanding something? I am sympathetic to the challenges of editing—especially gnomish editing, during runs across many articles—while subject to a topic ban. I'd prefer a "yes, that was a slip-up and I'm sorry" over lawyering. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dympies and Beccaynr, you are past your word limit. Please do not respond further unless you are granted an extension. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:28, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
150 additional words granted to Beccaynr. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, one-account restriction. I would be tempted to throw an ARBIPA TBAN in there as well, to be honest; so many people's time has been wasted by bad actors in this area. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also thinking that an ARBIPA topic ban would be beneficial, because a lot of these edits seem to be tiptoeing around the edges of the existing ban. The autoconfirmed gaming and lack of real justification as to why the sockpuppetry happened (other than the mistaken belief that he was allowed to do so) is troubling enough in an area rife with sockpuppetry to push it over the edge. I'm not sure if a block would be helpful or excessively punitive, but the one account restriction is absolutely necessary at this point. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dympies: You're already well over the limit, I'll grant an extra 250 for now and we'll go from there. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a one-account restriction and converting the existing tightly scoped TBAN to an ARBIPA TBAN is the way to go, with the understanding that any more socking in any area is likely to result in an indefinite block regardless of any AE sanctions. firefly ( t · c ) 10:09, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wording at WP:CTOP is a little confusing for modifying an existing AE restriction without a "formal appeal" or consent of Abecedare who is only semi-active, but if I'm reading it right then as long as we're placing an ARBIPA topic ban which still includes the original scope, we can revoke the original restriction at the same time since it is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. This would accomplish the desired effect of having only 1 topic ban to appeal as requested by Dympies, and spare us from having to waste time going through the "formal appeal" process to lift a totally redundant sanction. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd agree with that - I think this is the way to go. Black Kite (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. To be clear, we're going with something like:
Dympies is placed under a one-account restriction.

Dympies is indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.

Is that right? Auxiliary actions would include indeffing the alt accounts, deleting the sandbox, updating the AE log, and dropping a notice at Abecedare's user talk page. Any tweaks? If there aren't some major developments, I'm aiming to close this in about 20 hours. Anyone who feels it would be helpful should feel free to do so earlier. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:41, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Wordsmith: I haven't looked at the latest developments wrt Dympies (will try to do so this weekend) but fwiw, you and the other admins dealing with this have my signoff to modify the earlier CTOP restriction as you see best. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That looks fine to me, with the addition of notating that the previous topic ban is rescinded. Now that Abecedare has given approval, there shouldn't be any obstacles to proceeding. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:52, 20 December 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