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

Monopoly31121993(2)

Monopoly31121993(2) is indefinitely topic banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Monopoly31121993(2)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Monopoly31121993(2) (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: Arbpia 4

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

15:26, 19 November 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

6 April 2024 Further evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Here

Discussion concerning Monopoly31121993(2)

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 Monopoly31121993(2)

I apologize if I offended anyone. summary of events: In this specific case, I saw that a wikipedia page for Gaza Genocide was about to be created (via a renaming process) and thought that was revisionist to an extreme. I mentioned that this was similar to when editors (some of whom are involved again now) declared the Gaza Stripe Famine several months ago. I saw that this article name change was being done despite having failed multiple time in the past after months of attempts and that this latest attempt began by pinging a certain list of editors (who they were, I don't know). I responded by pinging editors who had recently contributed to discussion about deleting or merging another Israel-Palestine article. I didn't discriminate or cherry-pick editors, I just pinged 50 of the most recent editors to see if they wanted to contribute.

I also made a statement, that I am very concerned that Wikipedia's neutrality is rapidly evaporating on the topic of Israel-Palestine. Instead I saw and see activism, attempts to promote specific narratives about this conflict appearing in the editors remarks and actions. Calls to change page names to "massacres, genocides and famines" when such words are not commonplace but instead ubiquitous in a certain narrative's framing of this conflict but not in the mainstream. I said that I thought Putin, Xi and Islamists, who share Putin and Xi's totalitarian ethos, would be delighted to see that Wikipedia, which is viewed as factual in the Free World, could be altered to fit one specific narrative framing so easily. If I worked for their propaganda departments I would be studying these talk pages very carefully.

And with that action by me this arbitration was called.

After having been an editor on Wikipedia for something like a decade now I can't recall reading the WP:BATTLEGROUND page but now that I have I can say I feel better knowing that we have a process for dealing with the kinds of comments I have seen thrown around, especially recently on Israel-Palestine pages. From now on I will report any perceived uncivilly, insults, intimidation. Again, I apologize to any editor who feels I have been uncivil towards them.

Seraphimblade, ScottishFinnishRadish and Euryalus, Will I have a chance to respond to you before you impose a decision? As I'm reading this it seems the discussion has moved far beyond what was originally mentioned into something of a review of all edits that I have made on Israel-Palestine articles over the past few months with Euryalus providing both prosecutorial evidence against me and judgement. That same new evidence outside of the original discussion is then picked up by Seraphimblade and ScottishFinnishRadish and a topical ban on my editing is suggested.

That seems totally unfair considering that many remarks have been made by editors on this topic which, by this logic, would also require them to be Topic Banned. Instead, I have said here that I had never heard of "Battleground" until now and now having learned of it, after something like 10 years of editing, I think I should receive a warning given that I said I will take steps to avoid this behavior going forward.

Also, for the record, I don't recall ever saying anyone worked for Putin or Xi. I said, those leaders would be happy with edits that portray the war as one of mass genocidal massacres by an American ally. That clearly plays well with their narratives that the US is just evil, etc. But I never said that those editors were Russian or Chinese trolls or anything like that so please don't say that I did because I didn't and don't think they are. I think those editors are extremely passionate about this topic which is attested to by the fact that many of them post that they member of groups related to it and many edit pages on this topic far far more than I do. The fact that my perspective often differs from theirs, in a way that I believe is often more neutral (e.g. not referring to a gaza genocide or a gaza famine when most English news sources don't do this) I think is exactly what editing Wikipedia is all about. I think if you look at my contributions on this topic you will see that I have done just that by trying to keep things factual and in this case, pinging interested editors to help Wikipedia remain factual and not promote what in this case (a Gaza genocide) is still a fringe categorization in English language reliable sources.

I never said that anyone was editing on behalf of anyone. Please link to when I said that if you think that I did. What I said, was that Putin and Xi would be happy to see some Wikipedians promoting a narrative that is similar to their own. Those are totally different things. One is accusing editors of being paid propagandists (in which case they should be banned from Wikipedia) the other is stating my opinion about what narrative Putin and Xi would like promoted. I stated this already above but I saw you posted your comment after I had posted that so I would like restate that. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Comment moved to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've never had to defend myself in this way before so I'm not sure where to do it and it seems rather pointless since all editors have already stated that they want me banned from the topic. I think that goes way too far considering I wasn't even issued a warning, I have a long history of constructive editing and no previous bans.

I guess I simple summary is the best I can put forward so here goes:

Several editors have been trying to rename Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza into Gaza Genocide for months now (the page is currently redirected). I saw on the talk page that the latest attempt to get the page renamed Gaza Genocide was ongoing and I pinged a random sample of editors of another Gaza related page to make them aware of the discussion. A case was filed against me with Arbitration for my action.

The initial finding was that Canvassing was not an issue since I clearly didn't intend to steer the conversation but instead just get interested editors to participate (True). A battleground allegation got added to the claim against me, likely since wrote that I had found a disturbing pattern in the renaming of multiple recent Israel-Palestine conflict articles in a way that they would fit a certain framing of the conflict (e.g. an article titled Gaza famine long before any "famine" had ever been declared, Gaza Genocide, again before any declaration had been made, multiple requests to delete or merge 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation into Nuseirat refugee camp massacre, etc.). A larger investigation into my edits over the last 6-12 months (?) has now uncovered that I have engaged with other editors in "battleground" language and should be banned from ever editing an article (or talk page even?) about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I think this goes way too far, doesn't take me at my word and assume good faith that I mean what I say when I say I won't repeat similar things in the future and doesn't appreciate the fact that I have actually attempted to keep Wikipedia neutral and factual instead of allowing fringe narratives, at least in the English speaking world, to become facts on Wikipedia. I would like the judges here to reconsider the ban. I imagine that's unlikely but I think I have grounds for leniency. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wafflefrites

I am one of the editors that Monolopy "canvassed". Here is the response I posted in the canvassed thread (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAllegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza&diff=1230684460&oldid=1230680601):

"I will say that the list of people that Monopoly31121993(2) pinged in response is a wider net then the original poster's, and the list of people actually reflects a good variety of opinions/voting. Per WP:CANVASS "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." So Monopoly's intent does not seem to be to sway the discussion a particular way, but to increase the sample size of participants in the discussion to be more representative of the larger Wikipedia population and less skewed.

In terms of battleground behavior, the I-P topic area does seem to have a lot of this behavior from both the "Pro-Israel"/"Pro-Palestinian" sides. I haven't been able tell which side Monopoly31121993(2) is on in the past, but I think he should probably take a break from Wikipedia and try to conduct himself more professionally based on the 20:11, 23 June 2024 diff. Also his comment on Xi re-writing Wikipedia is inaccurate because Wikipedia is blocked in China unless you are using a VPN.

Not sure what an Arbpia 4 sanction is. Wafflefrites (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

@User:Wafflefrites: As I have since responded in the relevant thread, the canvassing instance here is not of a form permitted or advocated for per WP:APPNOTE. Mass pinging of this nature is typically only done to call back editors from the same discussion or previous related discussions on the same talk page to review a development in a dispute. Appropriate alerts to garner more viewpoints should take the form of neutral messages on public forums or the talk pages of directly related articles, etc. Here, it cannot be readily ruled out that Monopoly saw an audience in an entirely separate discussion that he thought potentially sympathetic to a certain POV and pinged them on that basis. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FortunateSons

I don’t love the way the notifications were done (and then repeated) by any of those involved, but I think those deserve trouts at most, not warnings, as it’s closer to a good faith mistake than genuine harm, particularly as all seemed to have been made in an attempt to attract a larger but neutral audience. Not best practice, but not horrible either.

The statements about the motives of others are an actual problem, but also a general problem in this topic area. While it would have been better to go their talk page first, I think that an admin-issued warning to AGF might do some good to cut down on this sort of behaviour in this and other areas. FortunateSons (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Monopoly31121993(2)

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

Suggestion of canvassing is a bit thin. More substance to the battleground claim including here, here, here and some overly pointy edits like this. Keen to hear from Monopoly31121993, particularly on the second paragraph of WP:BATTLE. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Monopoly31121993(2): Mildly, it's entirely normal for administrators to conduct at least a brief review of an editor's edits when evaluating an allegation against them. In this specific case it's suggested your ARBPIA editing has breached policies on battleground conduct, canvassing and aspersions. To resolve those claims its necessary to look at your ARBPIA edits.

I'm a bit surprised that someone with 10+ years experience has never heard of wp:battle, but will take you at your word. As you're now aware of it: my concern is the tenor of statements like Drop the hate, the claim that other editors are advancing a disgusting narrative, that they are follow(ing) Hamas' PR campaign and that they should refrain from editing pages related to this topic because you don't personally agree with their views. This is textbook "battleground" stuff and is pretty unnecessary in discussions over article content. There is no reason to personalise content disputes like this, and certainly no reason to imply that other editors are supporters of terrorist messaging. It has also occurred over several months and is clearly not just heat of the moment stuff.

The question is what to do about it? On the positive side you say you'll avoid this behaviour in future, you have a (mostly) clean block log and a history of productive editing outside this topic. That's all to the good, and might steer the outcome toward a warning. On the other hand you do seem to have very strong views on this specific topic area. If so that's understandable: so do many editors. However this is why its a contentious topic with stricter rules over editing. Topic bans are fairly freely applied in ARBPIA to encourage editors with very strong views to work elsewhere in Wikipedia if their views are disruptive to a collaborative environment. It shouldn't be seen as a personal condemnation, just an enforced redirection towards the other 6.5 million articles. The question is whether your assurance of no future battleground conduct outweigh the risk of this occurring. That's the point of this entire thread. Your edit history and responses in this thread are important in reaching consensus on this question, and of course there's time for any further comments you or anyone else wishes to make before a decision is made. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Yeah, support a topic ban. @Monopoly31121993(2): thanks for the replies. I appreciate this isn't the outcome you were looking for but there's evidence of a battleground approach over several months. An editor of your experience should be aware that statements like those listed above aren't acceptable, even if you had indeed never read the policy on it. As above, this is an area where many editors have strong feelings, and where topic bans are frequently applied to maintain a collaborative environment. Hopefully you'll see this in the spirit it is meant and continue your productive editing among the thousands of other Wikipedia topics which need work. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's enough plain battleground conduct here for a TBAN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we're settled on a topic ban at this point? Any objections before it's closed that way? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't love this recent habit of mass-pinging everyone who's ever had their name on a talk page when starting an RfC, but to my knowledge there's no policy prohibiting it so long as the people who are pinged aren't cherry-picked to support one position or the other, and I don't see any evidence of that here. I'm a lot more concerned with the BATTLEGROUND conduct. This is a fraught enough area without raising the temperature even more; it's entirely possible to disagree with someone without insinuating that they're working for some dictator or another, and all comments like that do is needlessly inflame the situation. The article edit brought up above by SFR is, similarly, needlessly inflammatory and POINTy. Absent some very convincing reason not to, I would TBAN from the topic area based upon this conduct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the response, and am unconvinced. I did not say, Monopoly31121993, that you flat out said others were working for dictators, but that you insinuated it. "$DICTATOR would sure love what you're writing here" is exactly such an insinuation, and is a completely inappropriate aspersion. There was no other reason to even bring them up at all; they weren't relevant to the articles or edits in question. The rest seems either wikilawyering (yes, of course we consider an editor's behavior in general when deciding on AE actions), WP:NOTTHEM, or to essentially state in a very conclusory way "My way is right, so I did whatever needed to be done to get my way, because, well, it's right." I don't see any of this as compatible with editing in the ARBPIA area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban Any editor who goes around claiming that another editor is editing on behalf of Ghengis Khan or George III, or V.I. Lenin or Francisco Franco or Mao Tse Tung or Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe or any other despot in the long sad cruel history of human beings ought to be blocked. The only exception should be when irrefutable evidence of that specific connection has been presented. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peleio Aquiles

By consensus of administrators at this AE thread, Peleio Aquiles (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Peleio Aquiles

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: XDanielx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

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

WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, and WP:BATTLE issues:

27 June 2024: "Bad faith editing"
27 June 2024: "you have no concerns for objectivity or accuracy; you're implementing a pro-Israel agenda"
8 June 2024: "You try hard to sound like you're worried about nothing but the application of Wikipolicy"
28 May 2024: various incivility
26 May 2024: "It's astonishing. It's not clear to me if you're truly this oblivious as a reader or if you're intentionally trying to intimidate other editors"

Incivil edit summaries:

27 June 2024: "shamelessly sophistic"
27 June 2024: "he wants to remove information he dislikes"
27 June 2024: "removing facts just because they don't help the narrative he wants to push"
16 June 2024: "POV-pushing"
8 June 2024: "obvious pro-Israel POV edit warring"
28 April 2024: "what an absurd excuse to push your POV"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None that I'm aware of.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12 June 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have some other concerns here, mostly relating to WP:OWN, but they would be difficult to articulate without getting into some details of the topic and its edit history. I can elaborate if it would be useful, but I figured the civility issues are more clear-cut, and might suffice to warrant action of some kind.

There have been a few comments about my editing history. If admins feel that it's relevant, let me know and I'll address it more fully. Otherwise, I'll keep this brief to minimize distractions.

Regarding my tag of Al Jazeera's live blog, WP:ALJAZEERA calls it a WP:NEWSBLOG following a recent RSP workshop. In any case, I think it's generally understood that live update feeds aren't good sources for factual information, and others have not questioned the tag.

The other controversy Selfstudier mentioned, relating to the Flour massacre, is a bit more nuanced. If admins feel it's relevant, this was the most recent talk thread about it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

27 June 2024

Discussion concerning Peleio Aquiles

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 Peleio Aquiles

My explanation is that @XDanielx is a serial POV-pusher who abuses and distorts Wikipedia's rules to remove content that he dislikes (ie, content contradicting Israeli PR) as I showed in the arbitration request that I opened and was eventually reverted. I won’t revisit the argument again -- I'm on my phone, which would make too much effort for all this. I might be digging my grave but my conscience is clean as to my edits. For all my difficulty to hold back from obvious POV-pushers I vouch for the substance of my contributions which were made in a good faith effort to represent what sources say. Daniel is the opposite of me, someone who complies with Wiki etiquette but only to wreak havoc in the entries with mass deletion of well-sourced content and tendentious interpretation of the souces. He should be topic-banned from contributing on Israel-Palestine topics. If Wikipedia decides otherwise, banning me in lieu of him, turning a blind eye to his obvious agenda-driven editing since he's much more adept at moving around here than me, that’s your choice. I'm not good at adhering to Wikipedia's ritual formalities, and I'm aware that this defense is proof, but that's all I have to say, and giving something different would, I repeat, be too much effort for this. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Well, on the face of it, defendant should take a break, I would like to hear more about this. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, live coverage of breaking news is not what is meant by WP:NEWSBLOG, that refers to blogs that are hosted by news sites, not the same thing at all. Fwiw, I have taken a closer look at the content disputes that led to the outbursts of 27 June and I have restored restructured versions of material that was removed on 28 June by another editor of the same persuasion as complainant. I can see why defendant was upset, nevertheless, there are other editors who might also have weighed in on the subject matter and it would have been much better not to have overreacted at that point.Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I have a question. Regarding "If, as respondent says in their reply above, filer is a serial POV-pusher who abuses and distorts Wikipedia's rules to remove content that he dislikes, then respondent needs to provide diffs supporting this. To do otherwise is naked casting of aspersions, and that sort of thing is caustic in contentious topic areas." The filer has provided 11 diffs that show WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, and WP:BATTLE issues. This is treated as enough information to make a decision. Are 11 diffs also enough to demonstrate that someone is "a serial POV-pusher who abuses and distorts Wikipedia's rules to remove content that he dislikes", assuming the diffs were consistent with the claim? Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding Red-tailed hawk. I asked because it seems possible that both the filer and the respondent may take the view that the other party is not fully complying with the Universal Code of Conduct's prohibition against "Systematically manipulating content to favor specific interpretations of facts or points of view", but neither party has filed a case on that basis with sufficient evidence to demonstrate something like that, and I'm not sure I can even remember seeing a PIA related AE case like that. Even if it is not the case here, it is a common situation in PIA, and it's not entirely clear why cases about bias are not filed. I'm not sure anyone even knows how to do it, hence my question. It's tempting to think it is because it involves too much work to compile the evidence, but people often submit a substantial amount of evidence to support their theories for SPI cases and often spend a lot of time explaining their views on talk pages. As recent PIA topic bans seem to show, this means that AE is largely limiting itself to handling speech rule violations, which are symptoms, rather than dealing with common causes like (mis)perceptions of bias, (mis)perceptions of agenda driven editing etc. And this creates asymmetries where what an editor says becomes more important to their ability to edit in the topic area than their impact on content, where speech becomes more important than a bias, where "manipulating content to favor specific interpretations of facts or points of view" has become normalized and is rarely, if ever, sanctioned. Sometimes article content ends up sort of vibrating between states as we all think we are fixing someone else's bias. This doesn't seem ideal. It would be good if it were as easy to address (mis)perceptions of biased editing here at AE as it is to address speech related violations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Longhornsg

Plenty more examples of unhelpful WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of the defendant, including claiming conspiracies on WP, removing sourced material because " it's irrelevant and of concern merely to pro-Israel propagandists", dismissing RS claiming they are "Israeli propaganda", and the list goes on. Longhornsg (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Peleio Aquiles

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

Going to start off with a note that I warned Peleio Aquiles for the personalized commentary before this AE report was opened. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, I expect that'll be coming when they format the report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: are you OK with a TBAN here? If so, I will close the thread as such. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These edits are certainly concerning, and look to me like this editor needs to be excused from this topic. Peleio Aquiles, if you've got any explanation or have anything to say, I would suggest sooner rather than later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note this 3rrn thread from a ways back, in which Peleio Aquiles was quite clearly edit warring within this topic area. User behavior does not seem to have improved over the years.
On 27 June, the respondent opened up a conduct thread accusing another editor of misconduct on an article talk page rather than at any proper venue. Respondent stated then I may get banned for saying what I'm saying here, which to me acknowledges that the respondent was aware that the edit broke civility rules. If, as respondent says in their reply above, filer is a serial POV-pusher who abuses and distorts Wikipedia's rules to remove content that he dislikes, then respondent needs to provide diffs supporting this. To do otherwise is naked casting of aspersions, and that sort of thing is caustic in contentious topic areas. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland:
I have read this attempt to file an AE report by respondent, which has all of one diff in it. And I sincerely struggle to see how that diff (which fixed phrasing and appropriately tagged an Al-Jazeera liveblog for an improvement in line with WP:NEWSBLOG's guidance to use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process) is in some way POV pushing. Respondent tried to frame that as some sort of bad faith action, but I am not seeing anything that approaches serial POV pushing based on what I'm able to find.
I understand that serial POV pushing (particularly when civil) can be a bit harder to identify using diffs than flagrant incivility (which is alleged by filer here). It might require over a dozen diffs to demonstrate it well, but it also could just as easily require much less—it really depends on how obvious and concrete the POV pushing be. But I would expect something concrete to provided when making sweeping claims about another editor being here in bad faith, rather than merely asserting it so (or, in the one case a diff is provided, providing us something that is totally non-dispositive).

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: Long-term POV pushing within the Arbcom-designated contentious topic areas is within the scope of this board. With respect to [i]t's tempting to think it is because it involves too much work to compile the evidence, but people often submit a substantial amount of evidence to support their theories for SPI cases and often spend a lot of time explaining their views on talk pages, one difference I can think of is that we have a somewhat hard cap of 20 diffs and 500 words per person. It's possible to ask for an extension, but I imagine that this point of friction might dissuade people and/or be a weakness in this area—particularly since dealing with POV pushing from an admin side may well require getting quite familiar with the relevant sources in an area. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shinadamina

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 Shinadamina

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Aredoros87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

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

29 April Deletes 4 out of 8 sources, that mentions Putin's relationship with Vardanyan, under the edit summary wp:refbomb all these references are not needed
29 April 5 minutes later deletes the content itself saying any such claims should have multiple sources
30 April Gets reverted and introduced to AA. Then I asked admins to make the article protected because exact same sentence was being deleted by newly registered users 3rd time already.

After doing random edits to reach 500 edit threshold (WP:GS/AA requirement), started doing an edit war. The user thrice removed official charges against Vardanyan, and replaced it with POV claims of him being a "political prisoner" with non-RS sources (state-owned channel).

8 June 1st removal
24 June 2nd removal
28 June 3rd removal
28 June Misinterpreted the source: represents senator Markey's statement as the statement of US congress

The user doesn't seem to be following WP:CIVIL as well. Moreover, when I complained about his secret content removal, he/she just ignored it.[1]

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 29 April (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Shinadamina claims that their 3 reverts are not a violation, however according to WP:CYCLE, he/she was supposed take it to talk page, after his/her edits being reverted. Morover, he/she keep misintreperting the sources. Neither US Congress, nor UK Parliament called Vardanyan a "political prisoner". A public speech by individuals is not statement by the entire organization.

After being reported for misusing the sources, Shinadamina still keep doing it. Here[1], he/she added completely random link as a source.

I feel that here we have a pro-Azeri / pro-Turkish editor Shinadamina keeps doing personal attack even in this filing. This's the 2nd time already[2]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification diff

Discussion concerning Shinadamina

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 Shinadamina

Actually action should be taken against @Aredoros87 because based on his edit history it is obvious that he is making biased edits to Azeri and Turkish subjects and negative edits to Armenian subjects. Please check the talk page of Ruben Vardanyan for the details. My edits have all been explained and proper sourcing used. Shinadamina (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the edits I have made were done according to wiki policies. Let me respond to each concern:

Edit 1) 29 April violation of WP:REFBOMB. There were excessive references. I removed 4 out of 8. All remaining references still support the content.

Edit 2) 29 April Article called the subject "Puttin's Wallet." As this represents the subjects in a negative way, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL we need multiple high quality sources for such claims. Even the references that I deleted were not enough or reliable to support this.

Edit 3) 30 April I did not do any random edits to get to 500. I did normal and productive edits and not for the purposes of getting to 500. I have not violated any policies in any of my edits. If you see any low quality edits in my history, feel free to bring it up.

Edit 4) 8 June - this content was removed by user:Aredoros87 and I brought it back. He did not have a proper reason for removal of highly relevant content.

Edit 5) 24 June - accusations of "financing terrorism, creating illegal armed formations and illegally crossing a state border," puts the subject in a negative light and is a violation of WP:NPV. Calling him a "Political Prisoner" as many supporting articles have stated is more neutral.

Edit 6) 28 June - proper edits made and new content added, that were later removed by @Aredoros87

Edit 7) 28 June Technically I made an error here, but it is a minor error. I went ahead and fixed it, so it now says " In a discussion at US Congress it was stated that he and several others have been illegally detained in violation of international laws"

In addition, here are some other edits I made, which user:Aredoros87 has not mentioned

Edit 8) June 24 removed inaccurate information. According to citations Major General Vitaly Balasanyan was former head of Russian Security Council, not Vardnayan. Someone tried to insert false negative info about Vardanyan here. @Aredoros87 did not raise any issues with this one.

In conclusion, all the edits I have made were done according to policies. I feel that here we have a pro-Azeri / pro-Turkish editor (@user:Aredoros87) who is accusing me of being biased, while himself is biased. All his edits have been to display the subject in a Negative light, which does not represent a Neutral Point of View. I think it is him who should be warned and not allowed to make further edits to this page. I also would like to Ping other active editors who made recent edits to this page to see what they think @user:Bager Drukit @user:Vanezi Astghik @user:Charles Essie @user:Timb1976 @user:Grandmaster

Thanks. Shinadamina (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how the random link was added. But obviously it was an oversight and a copy/paste error. I have fixed it now. There were 10 other relevant sources, and I meant to add 2, but one was copied incorrectly. Shinadamina (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding WP:CIVIL all I said was that his edits seemed to be biased. I have not been disrespectful to him at all. There were no personal attacks of any kind. Shinadamina (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note: user:Aredoros87 previously had a 3-month ban per arbitration and blocked from editing any Azeri/Armenian related pages. Shinadamina (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to @Grandmaster: We are all entitled to our opinions, and wiki policies can be interpreted in different ways. Such matters should be discussed on the subject's talk page. I will follow the majority consensus. This issue doesn't belong in this enforcement forum. I believe user Aredoros87 has ulterior motives, attempting to prevent me from editing the subject's page. He previously had a 3-month ban per arbitration and blocked from editing any Azeri related pages. [See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aredoros87/Archive_1] His history shows a bias toward Turkish and Azeri subjects, which likely explains his opposition to my edits.

Regarding the political prisoner status, multiple sources, including the members of US Congress and UK Parliament, have stated this. Let's resolve this on the talk page and adhere to WP policies for neutrality.

BTW, 2 of the reversals were done by Aredoros87 and one by you. So obviously this can hardly be considered a violation. Typically when an edit is reverted more than 3 times, then it is considered an edit war and must be discussed in the talk page. Again there is no need to open an arbitration here and let's continue civil discussion in the talk page and come up with consensus. Shinadamina (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please place all comments only in this section; threaded discussion is not allowed at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Grandmaster

Since I was pinged here, I will comment. Shinadamina, you removed multiple times official charges against Vardanyan. Whether those charges are right or wrong, or present the subject of the article in a negative light is beside the point. We cannot remove information just because it presents a person in a negative light. It is verifiable information, and the position of prosecution must be presented accurately, with attribution. Stating that Vardanyan is a political prisoner is not in line with WP:NPOV, it is the opinion of defense and certain other individuals. Opinions cannot be presented in a wiki voice, they must be properly attributed to the people that expressed them. You removed 3 times charges against Vardanyan, despite other users objecting. It is not acceptable. You need to discuss and reach consensus at talk first. Also, making personal comments about other users' motives is not acceptable per WP:AGF and WP:Civil. Grandmaster 13:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 rvs were made by you. You removed the information about official charges that were made against that person, and replaced them with a claim that he is a political prisoner, citing the opinion of his attorneys and a US congressman. That is not in line with WP:NPOV. One of the sources that you included is not even about Vardanyan. [2] And even here you keep insisting that the US Congress and UK Parliament call Vardanyan a political prisoner, after you were told that those were opinions of a single US congressman/UK MP. You either do not understand what the source is, or deliberately misrepresent it. It is tendentious editing. Grandmaster 08:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Shinadamina

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

This looks primarily like a content dispute, which we can't and don't resolve here. I don't like to see things like the source misrepresentation on the US Congress edit, but as long as that's a one-time error, I wouldn't be prepared to sanction for that beyond an informal warning to take more care in representing sources, especially primary ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this with no action as a content dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadman137

This is outside the scope of AE. General behavioral complaints not within the scope of a given contentious topic should be, if necessary, raised at WP:ANI. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Deadman137

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Alex9234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Deadman137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

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

28 June - User is committing vandalism against editors who add content to NHL-related articles and falsely accusing them of disruptive behavior. Mass deletion of information added to 2009 Stanley Cup playoffs article without a proper explanation.
28 June

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

8 May One user recently filed a complaint against this user for deleting edits without explanation.

The user doesn't seem to be following WP:CIVIL as well and his behavior is close to WP:OWN. When I complained about his warning and his vandalism, he just ignored it.

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

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

I'm afraid I don't follow. I'm trying to report a user who is committing vandalism and is harassing me. Can you point me in the right direction? Alex9234 (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the offending diffs. Another user, User:Philipnelson99 also filed a complaint against this user and complained on his talk page for vandalizing his edits. Alex9234 (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does a legitimate edit violate WP:MOS? That's not a valid reason for reverting an edit and accusing a user of disruptive behavior, and in fact is the opposite of assuming good faith. This kind of behavior is extremely close to WP:OWN. If you think a change is unhelpful, that doesn't give you license to revert without explanation. Alex9234 (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Deadman137

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 Deadman137

The only thing I did was warn an editor that was making multiple edits that violate WP:MOS. Deadman137 (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Philipnelson99

I just want to comment here that I don't think AE is the best place for this. I was reverted by Deadman137 a while back and I was confused why because they didn't explain but I asked on their page and they pointed out I made a mistake. Not sure why it's necessary to bring an editor to AE for that or why I was brought up here. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Deadman137

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

I'm inclined to decline this as malformed. @Alex9234: Would you please add the allegedly offending diffs in the correct slot above, and would you please specifically cite which arbitration case makes this dispute warrant arbitration enforcement? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex9234:
This noticeboard is for arbitration enforcement. Arbitration enforcement is a particular type of conduct dispute resolution, and it is only authorized within certain contentious topic areas. If you believe that this dispute is within a particular contentious topic area, please tell me which one it is. Otherwise, this noticeboard cannot process your request.
If you believe that the user is being disruptive and that this is a user conduct dispute, but the dispute does not fall within a designated contentious topic area, the noticeboards you want to go to is WP:ANI (or WP:AIV if this is pure WP:VANDALISM, which this doesn't quite appear to be). But, before you consider doing that, I will note: if the objection is simply to this edit, you probably want to just open up a discussion on the article talk page about what content is worth including. That sort of editing is a normal part of the bold-revert-discuss process, and it doesn't appear to rise to the level of a noticeboard report.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please note the text above, This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. If you wish to make a reply, please make it in the section for your own comments, rather than directly replying down here or in someone else's section. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safetystuff

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 Safetystuff

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Safetystuff (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:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM

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

[3] 29 June 2024—2012 review by Vickers c.s., it has been found wanting in the past and deleted from the article; smacks of WP:PROFRINGE
[4] 29 June 2024—smacks of WP:PROFRINGE
[5] 29 June 2024—smacks of WP:PROFRINGE
[6] 30 June 2024—violates WP:NPA, postulates a conspiracy theory, and is rife with non sequiturs (who cares about the "democratic way" when we discuss the positive results of medical science? See WP:DEM.)
[7] 30 June 2024—writing such opinion just after being warned of WP:AE smacks of WP:RGW and seem to postulate a conspiracy theory; they claim to have a PhD
~~[8] 30 June 2024—see explanation below~~
[9] 30 June 2024—see explanation below
[10] 30 June 2024—DARVO

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [11] 23 June 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think that a formal warning would work better than at topic ban in this early stage. A topic ban might be required if they persist in error. I am aware that their mistakes are not so gross as to deserve a topic ban, but prevention works better than banning them. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some of their edits might be formally (literally) correct, but severely downplay that vast amount of evidence that acupuncture is bunk. A case of WP:GEVAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And, yup, my conclusion is that they did persist in error. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replied with science dissemination breaking down political or racist bias just after arguing at [12] that the Wikipedia article is colonialist and ethnocentric. That promises nothing good. Namely they try to paint us and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as racist. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have learned thanks to the positive feedback received by good people editing Wikipedia. Is that the language of someone having a PhD? WP:NOTKINDERGARTEN. Speaking of good people editing Wikipedia is infantilizing. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They speak of personal insults, but my observations that they are postulating conspiracy theories and using infantilizing language are not my own fault, but statements of fact. Don't shoot the messenger. If they think that postulating conspiracy theories and using infantilizing language are that bad, they should not have performed such edits. I'm am aware of WP:BOOMERANG: there is no immunity for the person who reports the mistakes of others (real or alleged). Rational, evidence-based criticism is not personal insults. If my claims are not supported by evidence, it would be easy to point out that. Mere handwaving cannot show that. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Walsh90210. What you ignore is that they have an agenda. Their agenda is pretty clearly described at [13]. Of course, they could repent of having such agenda, but this usually does not happen in a matter of days. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walsh90210, thank you for pointing out they are different accounts. It is however baffling that Safetystuff did not point out that themself. It were a very easy way to prove me wrong. I'm not suggesting they are the same people, since although ChallengingAnthropocentrism claims to be much lower in academic degree, their English looks much more professional and academic than Safetystuff's. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Safetystuff: As Valjean wrote, Far too many problems to be worth keeping. Improper use of non_MEDRS. Attempts to shoehorn effectiveness using studies that say it's not better than any other method. Generally poor addition. Only one source was used correctly, the one about subsidy in USA. And that's because Valjean had to be very brief (an edit summary does not allow too many words). tgeorgescu (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14] 30 June 2024

Discussion concerning Safetystuff

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 Safetystuff

This matter has been raised after editing the acupuncture page and the Chinese medicine one. I don't have any conflict of interest on the topic and I have access to scientific papers being an academic as such I did my best to provide the broader view on these subjects and many more.

I don't have anyone paying for my activity on Wikipedia. My interest is on science dissemination breaking down political or racist bias.

I have done mistakes (I am human) but I have learned thanks to the positive feedback received by good people editing Wikipedia.

Added Note: I hope some editors can moderate the personal insults that have been made against me. I am not replying back to these comments as I am not here to get into social media fights. Thanks

Note 2: Thanks to Walsh90210 for acknowledging the overreaction in this event. I felt like retaliation for editing the acupuncture page.

I provided solid references on the acupuncture topic. Meta analysis are among the best statistical tools to assess the effect sizes of interventions (in this case acupuncture). I use them quiet often to merge data from different experiments as well as I teach stats and effect size too. As such, I know how to read the results from the papers I used as references. Regardless providing results from several published meta analysises, all the proposed changes, which were moderate by other editors, are now deleted without a strong argument. Further , in NZ, acupuncture can be used under ACC. You can very yourself just googling it. Many health insurance all around the world allow it use. Please google it.

Now it seems I will be banned from editing the acupuncture page. Can someone please explain to me in plain English what I did wrong? I do not see the logic of what is happening here. Many thanks

Statement by Walsh90210

The diffs provided are extremely weak evidence for the need for sanctions. An AE thread in response to (approximately) one edit feels like an extreme over-reaction; I cannot blame Safetystuff for jumping to the (inaccurate) conclusion that "moneyed interests" might be behind it.

However, the editing history does suggest that Safetystuff is a new user who might benefit from editing in other topic areas a bit longer. Without considering concerns related to the stigma of sanctions, a one-month page-ban from Acupuncture (which would require affirmative consensus on the talk-page for any changes) would likely be helpful. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu: The diff 1231388113 is from a different editor. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

I reverted all of Safetystuff's edits as there were far too many problems to be worth keeping. There was also a strong WP:PROFRINGE bent to them. I saw attempts to shoehorn effectiveness into the article based on studies long ago rejected or whose conclusions said that acupuncture was not better than any other method, that last part being ignored by Safetystuff. One source (Edzard Ernst was one author), criticized acupuncture. It said that acupuncture seemed to have an effect on low-back pain, but was no better than other methods. (Those of us who are medical professionals know that LBP often has a strong psychological factor.) That critical meta-analysis was then used to make acupuncture seem to be really effective, when that was not the main message. That's an improper use of a source.

Many of the sources were poor websites. That doesn't mean they were awful, but personal websites that were not official. Few of the claimed meta-analyses were actually that, but were instead peer-reviewed research or other studies that do not meet our MEDRS guideline standards. MEDRS requires much better than individual studies, even if they are of the highest quality.

The fact that private insurance often pays for acupuncture, and other alternative medicine, treatments says nothing about effectiveness, but more about how insurance companies cater to customers' wishes and can make money off the deal. One reference, about such subsidy in the USA, was actually a good and official source!

We are all volunteers, so drop the aspersions and conspiratorial thinking. The appeal to personal authority and PhD education status means nothing here. Many editors are highly educated, very intelligent, professors, authors, researchers, Nobel Prize laureates, etc. I know of the president of a national medical society who edits here. Even one Nobel Prize laureate is blocked from editing here, so status means nothing, except as a proven subject matter expert. The spelling and grammatical errors are fixable.

Safetystuff should approach this differently by making smaller edits and discussing any that are rejected. They will have more success. The idea of a "one-month page-ban from Acupuncture" is a good idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of a COI and using multiple accounts may not be completely resolved. See the overlap of edits with Carolineding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the article history of Ruggiero Lovreglio. There might be other issues. Safetystuff has been warned about COI editing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I have serious concerns about whether Safetystuff is a net positive in the topic area. I came here from seeing the notice on their talk page, just after posting this: [15], at Talk:Acupuncture. The tl;dr of what I said there, with diffs, is that this editor repeatedly misrepresented sources that actually say mixed things about acupuncture, as saying that acupuncture has significant medical benefits, and cited a source about a primary study of acupuncture as supporting a statement that the Brazilian government pays for acupuncture. Some of this seems like not understanding what the sources say, and some really seems like POV-pushing. I also found pervasive problems with inept writing, although that might perhaps be an issue of not being a native English language speaker. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw above that Safetystuff said here: "Further , in NZ, acupuncture can be used under ACC. You can very yourself just googling it." (I assume "very"="verify", of course.) This is something that I commented about at the article talk. Here is one of two sources that Safetystuff added to support adding such a statement to the page: [16]. Here is a prominent part of what that source actually says: "Traditional Chinese acupuncture is not regulated in New Zealand. Be careful when reading acupuncture websites and advertising... It's not recommended that you have acupuncture as a sole treatment for your health problem." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Safetystuff

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

@Safetystuff: Is it correct that your previous account was Carolineding? If so, why did you choose to create a new account? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trilletrollet

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 Trilletrollet

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Chess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Trilletrollet (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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality

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

2024-06-30 Edit summary for a !vote on whether The Telegraph is a reliable source for transgender topics is unsurprising that the same shit heads who support the Gaza genocide would also support transphobia
2024-06-15 The term "Khamas terrorists" makes fun of the accent Hebrew speakers pronounce "Hamas" with.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2023-10-19 Editor has been previously warned (by a non-admin) for incivility in the Israel-Palestine topic area.

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

2024-06-25 Reverted someone citing WP:ARBPIA restrictions by name.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Trilletrollet does not view their behaviour as incivil. After BilledMammal brought this up on Trilletrollet's talk page, Trilletrollet's response was At least I'm on the right side of history [17] and a promise to disengage from the Israel-Palestine topic area. [18] The last time 2023-10-22 Trilletrollet was confronted about alleged bad behaviour in the Israel-Palestine topic area, they said Just wanna say that I'm taking an indefinite break from this topic area.

A formal warning from an uninvolved admin would make it clear to Trilletrollet that comments like these are unacceptable, and make it easier to take action in the future if this becomes a larger problem. Since Trilletrollet acknowledges a wish to avoid the Israel-Palestine conflict area but is unable to do that on their own [19], a voluntary topic-ban may help as well.

Trilletrollet does not believe the edit summary is a personal attack because It wasn't meant as an attack on any particular editors, just a general observation. [20] Is this an accurate interpretation of WP:NPA?

@Red-tailed hawk: I notified BilledMammal (the editor you mention) of this discussion so they can provide greater input. As far as I can see, creating redirects [21] [22] or disputing the usage of "Hamas-run health ministry" is not inherently disruptive. The issue I chose to focus on is that Trilletrollet often uses disruptive edit summaries or makes her point in an aggressive way e.g. posts on her userpage that Zionism is a cult of death. [23]. This extends to other areas she feels strongly about (e.g. this chain of edit summaries with a later-blocked IP editor fuck off [24] it's infested by you [25] look in the mirror bitch [26]). To answer your question, a single re-revert on Nakba denial isn't WP:TAGTEAM to my knowledge, and the only other interaction Trilletrollet has with Iskandar323 is in this thread. I define WP:POVPUSH as disregard for our content policies to advance one's point of view, and based on the diffs I see, that isn't the main issue.

A t-ban could allow for Trilletrollet to edit again when tensions surrounding the current Israel-Hamas war are less. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't add more w/o breaking wordcount, but I agree with BilledMammal & Sean.Hoyland. If nothing else, a warning should identify what behaviour is problematic, so it isn't disputed later. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: While the initial comment was ambiguous, Trilletrollet clarified in a follow-up that she meant to call out other editors. [27] Reddit, a common source for memes, describes the term "Khamas" as making fun of an Israeli accent.[28] [29] I don't buy that it's ok because it's just a meme and not "directed incivility"; is your standard that I can post memes making fun of a group's stereotypical accents onwiki as long as I am not directing the memes at specific editors? If not, when is making fun of a group's accent not acceptable onwiki and why doesn't "Khamas" meet that standard? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2024-06-30

Discussion concerning Trilletrollet

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 Trilletrollet

Just to clarify, I don't have any inherent problem with Israelis, Azeris, the British or any other national groups, but I do have a problem with ethnic cleansing, genocide and similar things. And it makes me kinda angry when people constantly try to downplay or deny such crimes. It just comes off as incredibly heartless, as if some human lives don't even matter. I've never tried to downplay the 7th of October attacks, because I actually have moral principles that I try to follow.

But I agree that some of my comments have broken our civility rules, and that's what matters in the end. I really have no interest in doing more edits to this topic area at the moment anyways. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

There isn't a clear civility issue in the diffs provided, which both outline general statements not directed at any editor or anyone in particular other than broad institutions. The first is directed at the Telegraph, which for sure is a race-baiting rag that well merits all sorts of colourful language being thrown at it, even if throwing colourful language at it on Wikipedia is somewhat needless. The second is directed at Israel through reference to what is now a very widespread meme. Neither really amounts to any form of directed incivility: if others take offense by proxy then it is more of an eye-of-the-beholder-type situation. The "s" word is generally best avoided, as with any other expletives, but beyond this, I'm not sure what there actually is to sanction here. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess, @BilledMammal: A couple of points. The Telegraph diffs relate to the trans topic area discussion, and the subsequent responses are likewise more about that topic area. Then the IP-related diffs from Chess and some of the other examples from BilledMammal appear to be related to Azeri-Armenian content. So that's already quite a lot of non-Arbpia content that suggests this is more of a general behavioural complaint about inappropriate edit summaries more suited to ANI than AE. With regards to the "kh" meme, "khamas" with a "kh" means "violence" in biblical Hebrew, so the pronunciation is a widely understood wordplay,[30] much as Arabic speakers prefer "daesh" as a term for Isis due to its pejorative connotations. Since I doubt that you have any reliable sources stating that there is nothing political about the choice to use the "kh", even though people in Israel have little issue saying other foreign "h" words like "hi", I would be very careful about raising the spectre of prejudice over other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Given that Trilletrollet said 'Ok, I'm terribly, terribly sorry about my actions.', information that was not included in the AE report, it seems likely that their views are more complicated than not viewing their behaviour as "incivil". I would argue that thinking some people are shitheads who support genocide is not a good reason to avoid the PIA topic area. It shouldn't matter if the editor can follow the policies and guidelines. On the other hand, thinking there is a legitimate reason (in Wikipedia's terms) to say things like that to specific people, a 'reason to be "incivil"' to editors, is probably a good reason to avoid the PIA topic area. I would encourage Trilletrollet to try to stick around in the topic area if they think they can cope with the content and behavioral constraints and the occasional intrusive thoughts because of their personal views. For me, question #1 for access to the topic area should be, is this editor using deception i.e. are they a sock? Honesty is probably grossly undervalued in the topic area given that it is an essential requirement for building an encyclopedia. And every time we lose an honest person, regardless of what we think of their personal views, we increase the proportion of dishonest editors who use deception via sockpuppetry. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the diff #2 cited by BilledMammal as a civility issue.

16 November 2023 - This move request is just a callous attempt to discredit the opinion that Israel's actions constitute genocide by cloaking it in 'both sides' language.

Some interesting context. What truly motivated the editor who requested the move is unknown. What is known is that they were subsequently topic banned as part of the ArbCom canvassing case - "Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that Homerethegreat most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor." (canvassing that is evidently ongoing). So, another way of describing the statement could be that it was unnecessarily speculative. I wonder if the statement would appear different if Trilletrollet had made exactly the same comment after the ArbCom case and topic ban rather than before. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

FYI, they have declared awareness of ARBPIA prior to this month, such as on 21 October 2023.

Iskandar323, if someone made a comment mocking the way Indians speak, we would probably interpret it as a personal attack against Indian editors, and might even ban them for racism. Why would mocking the way Israeli's speak be treated any differently? Regarding the first diff that Chess provided, this comment by Trilletrollet seems to make it clear they are referring to editors participating in the RfC, not to the Telegraph.

Red-tailed hawk, although I would agree that they suggest there is an issue beyond civility, I actually rose those primarily as civility issues. By saying that it is "Hasbara" or "Zionist propaganda" to refer to the Gaza Health Ministry as "Hamas-run" or similar, despite the designation being common in reliable sources and endorsed in multiple RfCs, is to suggest that editors who have added that designation or supported it in RfCs are Hasbara or pushing "Zionist propaganda".

Civility issues are also quite common for them. Examples in addition to the ones provided by Chess include:

1 July 2024 - Off-topic ranting, the whole thing is a disgrace to our encyclopedia
16 November 2023 - This move request is just a callous attempt to discredit the opinion that Israel's actions constitute genocide by cloaking it in 'both sides' language.
16 November 2023 - Asked JM2023 Do you agree that Palestinian lives matter, and when JM2023 did not respond removed the comment, saying apparently not.
8 November 2023 - Describes editors raising issues with their user page as literally 1984
4 October 2023 - How will the Azeri pov-pushers explain this? (This one supports Chess' point that this extends to other areas they feel strongly about, as it is within Armenia-Azerbaijan)
13 April 2023 - you're trying to whitewash such a bigoted extremist group

Note that while some of these diffs are old, they are very recent in terms of the number of edits. For example, 13 April is their 100th most recent edit to talk space, and 16 November is their 54th most recent edit to project space. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar, it mocks how Israelis speak - since when have we tolerated editors mocking cultural characteristics like accents, even when accompanied by the justification "I thought it was intentional"?

As for whether it is intentional, a few Twitter posts etc might claim that it is, but given those Twitter posts talk about Jewish "trickery" and invoke antisemitic passages from the Quran as evidence, and given that in Hebrew the closest transliteration of the first letter in Hamas is ח‎ (khet or chet), which naturally causes the mispronunciation, I think we need to reject that theory.

I think AE is the right location for this, as those are all contentious topics; WP:ARBAA, WP:GENSEX, WP:ARBPIA, with the issues being most common in the last. I also think you’ve misunderstood the Telegraph diffs; they apply to both GENSEX and ARBPIA. BilledMammal (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dtobias

Looking at this user's contributions, I see they are mostly regarding adjusting categories of prehistoric animals. This is, I presume, tedious but useful work at making the encyclopedia better in that area, so good for you. However, whenever the subject matter turns to something more contentious such as Israel/Palestine or gender, things get rougher, and this user starts arrogantly proclaiming "the right side of history" and using playground-bully style namecalling. Perhaps this user would be better off sticking to prehistoric animals. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aaron Liu

Please, let's all chill down here. TT (sorry bud I dunno what short name to call you) crossed a line here, yes. But this was a single incident that she didn't back down for a bit about that she has since apologized for. Otherwise, I see incredibly and invariably sporadic incidences cited here, with only two incidences (incl. the aforementioned) picking up in the past weeks, the evidence seemingly compiled overall for civility instead of a single topic notwithstanding. As argued in WP:PUNITIVE, sanctions should be preventative and not punitive. The editor has expressed willingness to disengage, so I believe at most, a big warning would be enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Trilletrollet

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

WP:ENFORCEMENT notes that when an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors will warn the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, though editors will resort to more forceful means if the behavior continues. In general, if an editor cannot conduct themselves within a topic area in a civil manner, even after being warned, then more forceful means (such as topic bans) become reasonable. But I'm not quite sure we're merely dealing with a civility issue here.
I am also noticing regarding respondent's conduct within WP:ARBPIA is that an editor left a note on respondent's talk page regarding several edit summaries that appear to principally be objected to for reasons other than civility: 10:48, 15 June 2024; 09:06, 23 June 2024; 09:16, 23 June 2024; and 09:18, 23 June 2024. Filer refers to an ANI archive from 2023 where concerns about tag-teaming/POV-pushing were brought up, and respondent said they would stay away from the topic area indefinitely.
Keeping that in mind, @Chess: are you explicitly concerned about long-term POV pushing from this user more broadly? And, if so, do you have additional diffs that you would like to present? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I am seeing more than anything isolated to a specific topic area is that the respondent has had general issues with civility (particularly in edit summaries) across a few, including Armenia-Azerbaijan and the Arab-Israeli conflict. If the issue is not that the editor is misbehaved in one particular area, but has general civility problems across a bunch, a topic ban doesn't quite work.

We're left with two options to address the civility issues: blocking the user outright or warning the user to knock it off and be civil. I am not going to indef the user at this point, and I don't think a time-limited block issued now would be better at preventing future disruption than a warning. So, I'm leaning towards a logged warning to remain civil in contentious topics areas, particularly with respect to AA2 and ARBPIA. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorabino

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 Sorabino

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Joy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sorabino (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:ARBMAC

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

Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava#Improper merge

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, for example User talk:Sorabino#Zachlumia is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am an involved administrator here so I can't formally warn or otherwise sanction this user myself, so I'm requesting help from others.

This user has been furthering a content dispute at this article for many years now, on a question of how much due weight should be given to describing a medieval title and in turn a polity. This relatively minor historiographical issue has clearly been escalated into a modern-day political talking point, as a separate article gives some sort of prominence to the Serb nature of the place at the time. Multiple other editors have gone through multiple rounds of explaining that the justification for having a standalone article is insufficient, and it's not commensurate to what the consensus of reliable sources say about it.

This last flared up in 2021 at Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2, and it flared up again this year.

We should stop endlessly tolerating this kind of advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle and abide by our own rules against it.

This isn't as severe as the case of Antidiskriminator, but it's close.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[31]

Responses to questions

Seraphimblade The pattern of behavior is the problem, not the individual edits. I can go and copy&paste you a slew of individual diff links, and they're still going to be on the whole too long and/or too subtle. The trick is to see through the forest, realize how the endless wikilawyering on the Talk page is not accompanied with producing properly referenced content, or indeed actually building consensus, and that it's a pattern of behavior going back multiple years. --Joy (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade JFTR I'm not telling anyone to read everything, I'm just saying I already read everything, yet my hands are tied because I tried to reason with them already. If this is not the right forum where admins can get assistance on arbitration enforcement, perhaps we need a better one. --Joy (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk Okay, let me try it like this, I'll summarize with dates and outcomes so you can observe the bludgeoning:

March 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 1#Duke of Saint Sava Makes extraordinary claims based on a 1923 book with explicit quotes around that title in a section title, and a single cursory mention of that in a 1953 encyclopedia article about that. These assertions are immediately disputed. Appeals to authority, no discussion about the quality of this, no real answer.
March 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 1#Discussion re-start More assertions, no proof whatsoever in several comments. Discussion mentions numerous historian works, Sorabino zeros in on a Vego 1953 book where there's a nuanced discussion of the terms Herzegovina and whatnot, but Sorabino ignores the nuance and just uses this mention as justification to keep pounding his party line. He pastes the phrase Službeno se zemlja zvala Ducatus Sancti Sabbae no less than three times in the same thread. After some more back and forth, Sorabino finally posts a bunch of links to articles in support of their claim, which are immediately panned by Santasa99, and a cursory examination shows why - it's a bunch of cursory mentions, some in footnotes, some under double quotes, in papers that don't always focus on the topic area but something related. There's actually maybe proper single mention in a 2019 paper about the same noble family, as well as a link I can't follow any more, and a Google Books search that doesn't show up any more but the search string says it's just an alternate name for the name Herzegovina (defeating the point of the argument). This is the aspect that reminds me of Antidiskriminator - mindless pasting of Google search results with no real analysis, which doesn't stand up to elementary scrutiny.
April 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2#Common name and official contemporary name: explicitly re-posts the three claims made in the previous section. No new sources or anything of actual substance. User DeCausa joins to say the same thing, is met by more walls of text. Finally, we go "back to the sources", and then a 2005 article is cited as if it's in support, but it's actually a nuanced discussion by a historian about how the nobility used this title just like the nobility next door ('Herzog of Split' Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić). Repeats the citations again in the same thread, and Santasa99 tells them - no followup to that. Then another mention of the term in Ćirković 1989, again zero context, disputed, no response.
April 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2#Three-layered subject of the article: another unsourced rant, and at this point I start explicitly warning against this. No new contribution that would resolve the issue.
January 2023 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2#reference to Miller 1923: I point out the double quotes in the 1923 book (first item mentioned above). Zero response from Sorabino, other users argue a bit.

April 2024 the latter thread is briefly revived, but we see no improvement (another user requires a rehashing of the Herzog of Split comparison too). I recommend a merge, Santasa99 implements it.

June 2024 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Duchy_of_Saint_Sava Sorabino notices and starts claiming improper merge, repeats claims about the 2019 source, creates Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava#Improper merge, repeats more extraordinary claims about that source.

Since I filed this, there's been more discussion at the latter link, but it's more of the same. Now I noticed there's a 2020 German paper mentioned, which has a couple of cursory mentions of these terms likewise. Sorabino is still desperately trying to construct a narrative for a standalone article based on obviously flimsy sourcing. That is simply not what the standard of contributions in this contentious topic area is supposed to be. When this kind of a thing is done once, twice, three times, fine, let's not bash the newbie. But after so many years, we need to stop spending valuable volunteer time on nonsense.

--Joy (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade Sorabino is not acting upon a content dispute using reasons based in policy, sources, or common sense (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS), he's instead misinterpreting sources to advocate for policy violations. The problem here is not a content dispute, but persistent misconduct. --Joy (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Sorabino

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 Sorabino

Thank you for the notification. For now, I will abstain from commenting, since my accuser is yet to provide particular edits or some other evidence that would demonstrate my allegedly inappropriate behavior. Sorabino (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several factual errors and misrepresentations have been posted here by my accuser. Starting from the top, he claims that I have been furthering a content dispute at this article for many years now. That is unfair and untrue, at least. My previous involvement in those discussions occurred only once, back in 2021, during the debates that lasted from march to may. Those debates ended with no consensus, and the article was kept, with its long standing scope and title, and that was the only proper outcome. During the following years, some users tried to reopen the debate, but no additional sources were presented that would justify abolition or merger of that article. I did not take part in those debates at all, as they also ended without consensus, and the article was kept unchanged. After more than a year of total silence on the talk page, discussions were renewed on 25 April 2024. Within a day, on 26 April, an involved administrator Joy (my accuser here) proposed to another specific user to merge this article, and that was executed on the same day! So, it was done only a day after the discussions were reopened, in spite of long standing disputes and without any notification to opposing users. To make it worse, the "merge" was used to abolish the very essence of this article, and then another radical step was made, on 28 June (here), when the remaining redirect was proposed for deletion, thus leading to the possible deletion of the entire history of those disputes. At that point, it was obvious that some questions should be raised in regard to recent actions and only then, three years after my first and only participation in 2021 debates, I decided to return to the talk page in order to raise the question of an improper merge. This is my first response, and the rest will follow. Sorabino (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim of my accuser that in 2024 debates I repeated some sources (repeats claims about the 2019 source) is not true and might be an oversight from their part. None of the sources that I introduced in 2024 were ever mentioned in previous discussions. Thus, there were no repetitions, on my part. All newly introduced sources are scholarly papers from non-Serbian experts on medieval history (Croatian, Hungarian, German). Those papers are clearly showing that in scholarly circles there is no doubt regarding the historicity of the title in question (Duke of Saint Sava) and the existence of the late medieval feudal polity (Duchy of Saint Sava, 1448-1482). Articles on that very subject exist on 13 (thirteen) other Wikipedia projects, under the same title. Regarding some repetitions in 2021 debates, there indeed are some, but not in a copy-past mode, since the context of the debate was such that some sources were disputed, and therefore some source quotes were repeated, by various users. There are several other aspects of this entire debate, but lets hope that it is obvious by now now that this is in essence a content dispute. Sorabino (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

I have a procedural concern as an uninvolved observer. If this is going to be challenged on insufficient evidence, then it would help if there's a clarification on what standard of evidence is expected. Would several diffs showing editing that favors one side be enough to justify a sanction on its own, or would these diffs need to demonstrate something beyond simply favoring a POV? And in turn, what would be expected of the accused in their defense if these diffs are produced? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Amanuensis Balkanicus

I was notified to this dispute because I have the page in question on my watchlist. Santasa99 is being disruptive here, not Sorabino, and I'm puzzled how anyone can come to a different conclusion.

Back in April, Santasa and Joy agreed between the two of them to merge the Duchy of Saint Sava article to Herzegovina#Medieval period without inviting the wider community to discuss what was (as I think is now very clear) a highly contentious move. [32] [33] [34] Perhaps, instead of unilaterally deciding to merge the article, had Santasa or Joy initiated an RfC then about its future, an editor like myself may have chimed in and provided them the reliable secondary sources for which they were asking which attest to the Duchy's existence, notability and naming as such. Instead, it has come to this.

Santasa's effective destruction of the Duchy article back in April, and their attempts to get over half-a-dozen redirects deleted (!) for completely spurious reasons are themselves extremely tendentious. The peddling of outright falsehoods is also deeply unsettling. Take, for example, the claim that "These redirect titles are misnomers; it does not exist in scholarship on the subject in this form." [35] This is completely untrue, as I demonstrated in my comment at the ongoing redirect discussion by providing eight academic sources (one published as recently as last year) which do discuss the Duchy and verify the historicity of its existence. [36]

In contrast to the picture painted by Joy of a user prone to tendentious editing, Sorabino reacted to Santasa and Joy's recent actions by starting a discussion on the TP. [37] Thus, Sorabino is effectively being reported for holding a discussion and in that discussion expressing views that Joy does not agree with (in a content dispute Joy is involved in). Joy, expressing views about an article's title that differ from your own is not an ARBMAC violation, and continuing to hold those views for many years does not constitute a "pattern of disruptive behavior". Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Sorabino

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

Joy, this report seems to be alleging a pattern of tendentious editing over time. That could be valid grounds for a sanction, but no diffs are provided, just a link to a discussion started a few days ago. Could you please provide actual diffs of particular edits which you believe demonstrate this pattern? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the filer of this request is unwilling to provide any evidence besides "Just go read everything and you'll see what I mean", I am inclined to close this with no action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joy, this is certainly the place for help with arbitration enforcement, but you have to do your part of it. None of us can read your mind; you need to specify particular edits that you think are demonstrative of the problem. (It need not even be exhaustive, just representative.) I can't know what anyone is referring to unless they're willing to say, and equally importantly, the editor being accused of such misbehavior needs the opportunity to respond to specific things and give their explanation for it. If you're not willing to do that, we can't proceed, because there is nothing with which to proceed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien, the answer is that there isn't an easy answer to that. AE (and admins in general) can't make binding decisions on content, only conduct, so of course we always have to be very careful not to step over the line of saying what position someone "should" be supporting in terms of content. The question, then, is when "advocating for your position" crosses the line into "disruptive behavior in general". If I ever find an easy answer to that, I sure won't keep it hidden, but I don't think there really is one. We can say that making a hundred longwinded talk page posts in a day is almost certainly disruptive, and making one civilly worded one almost certainly is not, but there's a lot of grey area in between those extremes. So, evidence should go to show that the editor has gone beyond just advocating for what they think, and is engaging in disruptive behavior. How exactly you do that depends on how exactly you think they've crossed that line, so I don't have a "one size fits all" answer to that and I doubt one even exists. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the material now provided, this seems to be a longstanding content dispute about how best to interpret sources. That's outside the scope of AE, and AE does not make binding determinations on what content should be. Has there ever been any use of dispute resolution such as a request for comment to gain input from the wider community on the proper interpretation of these sources? I think that would be a lot more productive than an AE filing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joy: In lieu of diffs to explain the general scenario from start to finish, are you able to provide something like a set of diffs that demonstrates bludgeoning? If the user is repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion, we should be able to point to specific diffs/comments where they are repeating themself over and over, or be able to get some rough count on how many times they are participating in a particular discussion (with some explanation as to why that would be bludgeoning). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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