Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Toa Nidhiki05

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

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

Appealing user

Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Toa Nidhiki05 17:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite topic ban from post-1992 American politics, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive312#Toa Nidhiki05, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#American politics 2

Administrator imposing the sanction

Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

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

Statement by Toa Nidhiki05

Since the topic ban six months ago, I've had time to reflect on my actions and find them to be unacceptable and embarrassing. I allowed myself to behave poorly in a topic area that doesn't need poor behavior. Ultimately, while I do feel I wasn't the only one at fault in these disputes, the only one responsible for my actions was myself, and the enforcement action was a result of that behavior. While I can't take back what I did then - edit warring and acting in poor faith towards others - I can commit to not behaving in such a way in the future. I do feel like I have made valuable contributions in this area and can do so in the future. I would be more than open to alternatives that allow me to engage productively in this area, including things like a 1RR restriction. Toa Nidhiki05 17:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Generalrelative, I think I entered the discussion on the wrong foot straight-up by edit warring; I can't recall if I did so before or after the edit, but I'd be fairly surprised if I hadn't engaged in a number of reverts prior to this discussion, at least over a period of time. But more specifically, while I do think the content in question was reliably sourced and accurate, and I don't believe her claims qualify as anything more than WP:FRINGE viewpoints, I think I entered it with a confrontational attitude rather than a collaborative one. I don't think the concerns that you gave and the viewpoint you offered could be incompatible with a compromise; I think there's some way that the sources on the matter could have been reconciled into text that is both accurate and agreeable as a consensus. The attitude I entered the discussion with did absolutely nothing to make a rational middle ground impossible. I think the discussion would have been much smoother, at least on my part, if I hadn't engaged in snide comments or bickered.

To be clear, I'm not sure there's a wording or phrasing that would have pleased everyone (this is a topic that fuels a lot of emotions in a lot of people), but I should have at least attempted to engage in this area in a matter that wasn't confrontational and driven by my own personal opinions on the matter.

So the short answer would be that I shouldn't have edit warred, that I should have engaged productively and in good faith, and I should have worked to create some sort of wording that would have resolved the broad issues from editors on both sides of the discussion rather than focusing on my preferred wording. In any future discussion of the manner, a more sensible approach would be to do these things specifically; while I can't control what other editors say or do, and there's no guarantee discussion will ultimately lead to an outcome that is satisfactory to everyone involved, there's a responsibility to work towards that end goal regardless. Toa Nidhiki05 18:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I understand not wanting to relitigate it, Generalrelative; I also have no desire to do so. I'll definitely take this into consideration, however.. Toa Nidhiki05 20:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a brief note: in the initial topic ban, Black Kite noted they could not post in the uninvolved administrators section as they are not actually uninvolved. Toa Nidhiki05 20:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

In response to the claims from Black Kite, the claim I've been inactive is pretty silly. I do a substantial amount of work in draft userspace, and got The Beautiful Letdown up to GA. That being said, some users seem to think a lack of editing is good, and others think it's bad, so it would be nice to have some clarity as to what exactly is expected. It's abundantly clear now how this is going, so dragging this out probably won't be helpful to anyone. Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Drmies, what would you specifically like me to address that I haven't? I'm not exactly clear on this. Toa Nidhiki05 23:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Drmies, I've tried to be succinct in my response, but it is a bit lengthy - my apologies. I don't believe Black Kite is correct.

"Negative content", as starship.paint, isn't forbidden for BLPs; far from it. The reason I don't focus on Republican lawmakers is because I find Wikipedia does a good enough job of handling these people; frankly, I have no interest in getting involved in the shitshow that exists on Donald Trump and his related pages, for example, and if I did it wouldn't be on the side you think. My edits aren't disproportionately on the people Black Kite mentioned, nor was the content I supported adding beyond the pale; it was election denial claims for Jean-Pierre and Abrams, and antisemitism in the lead for Omar. You can argue whether these should be in articles, but I don't think you can argue they aren't valid topics to at least consider; reliable sources do talk about these. For the election denial in particular, I'll note I added this information to other pages, like Jamie Raskin and Bennie Thompson, where they remain to this day with no controversy.

But it's far from "Democratic politicians" that I have added "negative content" for. Take, for example, my edits on John Tanton and the Center for Immigration Studies, which focused on retaining the well-documented reality that Tanton was a white nationalist and eugenicist. This is undoubtably "negative content" (albeit for someone who is dead), but isn't it worthy of being mentioned on their pages? Or how about Adrian Vermeule, a white Republican, which focus on his bizarre integralist ideology and support of a Catholic theocracy - this is "negative content" being added to a BLP of a white, male Republican. There's also Sharyl Attkisson, a conservative conspiracy theorist most known for claiming that vaccines cause autism and that the Obama administration spied on her (neither of which are true). I was extremely active in contesting her own efforts to whitewash her page, which led to me being condemned on her own website multiple times.

Honestly, I don't actually edit on a ton of BLPs, actually - most of my AP2 edits were on pages for organizations - you could probably count on two hands the number of BLPs I edited in AP in 2022.

I will say what I said in my initial statement; I'm embarrassed by how I behaved. I think I entered these areas with a battleground mentality, treated other editors poorly, and attempted to reach a consensus rather than edit warring. I can't take that back, but I can pledge not to do it again in the future - which is also why I've discussed a sanction like 1RR on AP2, which would resolve at least some concerns that have been given here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Generalrelative

Toa, I'm happy to see this request. I think that you have a lot of drive to improve the encyclopedia, and it would be great if you could bring that back to the AP2 topic area. In furtherance of that goal, would you be willing to comment specifically on whether you see anything wrong with your behavior in this talk page discussion, and if so what you would do differently next time? Generalrelative (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, Toa. It takes courage to be circumspect in a public forum. And I would be more than happy to work with you to arrive at compromise –– whether within or outside of the AP2 area –– in the future. Just so you're aware, my own frustrations had to do with what I perceived to be a refusal to WP:LISTEN, as I expressed a few times in this section of the discussion. My concern was that if we couldn't even agree on what the sources said, even after they were quoted for you, productive discussion had effectively ceased. I do not expect (nor desire) to relitigate that here, but if you are un-banned I ask that you give it some thought. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I think enough time has passed without any interaction with TN05 for me to be uninvolved here, but I will move this to here for the sake of argument.

My statement at the original discussion is here. My viewpoint has not changed. In addition, I note that in the six months of the ban, TN05 has made 146 mainspace edits. Prior to the block, 146 mainspace edits were made in just over a month (29 September 2022 to 5 November 2022). They also have made a lot of negative edits on the BLPs of Democratic politicians, especially non-white females such as Ilhan Omar, Karine Jean-Pierre and Stacey Abrams (and white females such as Rebekah Jones) - please note that I'm not accusing them of sexism or racism, because they're quite happy to add positive comments to non-white female Republican BLPs such as Mayra Flores. So it's simply a political thing, but for some reason those BLPs are easy targets - they don't appear to have done the same to white male BLPs of either political stripe. Also so many of their edits are reverts [1] it just looks like they would be best staying away from AP2 for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint

It's OK to have a POV. It's OK to insert negative material on BLP pages as long as it is reliably sourced and follows WP:NPOV. But, I am reminded of the second link raised by Generalrelative above, and it is not OK to have your POV override reliable sources. In that incident, the presiding judge said that in Stacey Abrams lawsuit, there were wins and losses for both sides, and reliable souces highlighted this statement from the judge in their reporting. TN05 dismissed this as the judge being courteous, which was their personal opinion and not from a reliable source. If the topic ban is lifted, I don't want such incidents re-occuring. starship.paint (exalt) 02:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• This has been languishing for a while, I'd support what Springee mentioned, and I hope I'm not wrong if this passes. starship.paint (exalt) 04:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Statement by (Springee)

I understand the concern El_C and others have raised regarding a limited number of edits and waiting things out. As an alternative to simply saying no, would a limited allowance/probationary period be an option here? Something where TN could show they get it by being given a short rope? I don't think we should assume that nothing has changed in TN's thinking after being told to sit out for 6 months. What about something like a 1RR AP2 limit? If the issue was talk page conduct then perhaps a reply limit or a strict rule against commenting on other editors. This new limitation could be appealed in 6 months. Thus TN would have a chance to show they have changed while the community wouldn't have to deal with a whole new ARE if things are an issue again. Springee (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

No comment on the merits at this time, but in reply to Springee, the topic ban IS a probationary period. It is in leau of being indef blocked, which is a stronger (but highly effection) sanction to prevent disruption. They have rope, and to use it without hanging themselves only requires they edit often enough, for an extended period of time, and in a way that benefits enwp, and is clearly within policy and doesn't cause disruption. At first glance, they don't appear to have passed that bar yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Statement by FormalDude

Largely agree with Black Kite and am unsatisfied with their answers to Drimes. They've failed to address the clear POV-pushing that was demonstrated in the report that lead to this block, instead denying it and apologizing only for their incivility. What that tells me is that we'll just see civil POV-pushing going forward. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Toa Nidhiki05

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.

Result of the appeal by Toa Nidhiki05

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

• Decline. Largely per Black Kite. This is an indef sanction working as intended. Since, as mentioned, the user has greatly reduced their edits, to the extent that if the topic ban were set to expire about now, it could be argued that they simply 'waited out the sanction.' Which is a problem as we don't get to see how the appellant fairs in other topic areas with comparable activity. El_C 11:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
• I would tend to agree; we just haven't seen enough yet to determine that lifting the sanction is going to end well. I think things are moving in the right direction, so at least for me, this is a "not now", but certainly not a "never". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
• I remember looking at the Stacey Abrams dispute at the time and being surprised at the obvious partiality of the edits and comments by Toa Nidhiki05, whom I have had little interaction with, but of course knew as a longtime editor. Rereading the original AE case, which I was not involved in, and noting especially the damning comments by Black Kite and Nableezy, made me wonder why none of those comments (which must have carried some weight with the admins who decided on the sanction) are addressed here, in this rather bland and formal mea culpa that addresses only tone, not the pretty clear POV that led to extensive edit warring and disruption in various articles. So, no, I do not find this convincing, and I think that the sanction is continuing to bring some peace and quiet to the AP2 area. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Toa Nidhiki05, can you address Black Kite's points? I hope I'm summarizing correctly: how is it that your edits typically add negative content to BLPs of (often Black, female) Democratic politicians, but not to Republican politicians? That's more or less the gist of the Abrams dispute as well, isn't it. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Interstellarity

There is clear consensus among uninvolved administrators to lift the page restriction at Watergate scandal. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user Interstellarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Interstellarity (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Removal of the editnotice at Watergate scandal: Template:Editnotices/Page/Watergate scandal Administrator imposing the sanction JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. Statement by Interstellarity I am requesting that the sanction be lifted since there hasn't been any recent edits that would be sanctioned. The most recent edits seem to be simple vandalism and deletion of content that can be handled with normal Wikipedia policy and not under WP:AP2. Statement by JzG Statement by (involved editor 1) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Interstellarity 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 (uninvolved editor 1) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2) Result of the appeal by Interstellarity This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Procedural note that Watergate is one of the "legacy" sanctions within the old 1932 AP2 scope, which ArbCom gave me (or anyone) permission to clarify the editnotices for, but I haven't gotten around to. This doesn't affect the validity of the sanction; just explaining how it got there at all. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC) I see no particular issue with removal of the page restriction here. I note previous comment from Thryduulf on the point. Izno (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Thanks for the ping Izno, having had another quick look I don't see anything obvious has changed since I left that comment, so I support removing the restriction. Thryduulf (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC) I agree that the restriction doesn't seem to be necessary at this point in time—there's no disruption that can't be dealt with through our ordinary processes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Buidhe

Those involved are advised to discuss further on the article's talkpage before pursuing formal dispute resolution. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:23, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
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 Buidhe User who is submitting this request for enforcement Elinruby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Buidhe (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/World_War_II_and_the_history_of_Jews_in_Poland Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it I am working on Collaboration with the Axis powers and reading up on the history of the period in the Balkans. I came to Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, where I dropped a cn tag for: "In the 1920s, there was "a great genocide debate" in the German press which resulted in many German nationalists deciding that genocide was justified as a tactic.[2] I considered this routine, and intended to find a source myself later as I have done elsewhere, or alternately delete the quote. Buidhe however reverted the tag with an edit summary saying that a reference was provided at the end of the next sentence:[3][4] Attempt to discuss #1: [5] was reverted. Attempt to discuss #2: [6] met with I have little faith in your ability to edit articles to accurately reflect what the sources say. The sources cited in that article are fine... You don't seem to even be able to correctly leave a contentious topics notice [7] I pointed out that she had marked herself as aware.[8] She restored the original talk page thread [9] and pointed out the similarity between her sentence and the source.[10] It is indeed very close: In his book Justifying Genocide (2016), Stefan Ihrig writes that there is "no smoking gun" to prove that the Armenian genocide inspired the Holocaust. However... he says that the Nazis were well aware of the previous genocide and, to a certain extent, inspired by it vs the Nazis knew of and were (at least in part) inspired by the Armenian Genocide, but the cite fails verification. It does not contain the quoted text and says nothing about the 1920s, the press, or nationalists deciding anything. Our article also presents "there is no smoking gun" as a statement that there is causation. The source is fine but more nuanced than presented.(me trying to explain that) It doesn't support the questioned statement and may not support the next.. I suggested that perhaps the source talked about the press on a different page.[11] She agreed. Her solution to this was to remove the page number, put the chapter title in the location field, and remove the failed verification tag, telling me that I needed to seek consensus.[12] To tag? On a backwater page? She appears to have written much of the essay btw. Note that I would have fixed the article myself but was prevented from doing so. It went on from there. [13][14] [15] [16] I double checked the article, found further problems and decided to come here since I was clearly getting nowhere. Elinruby (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 10 February 2021 " Buidhe is warned that communication is mandatory, especially regarding disagreements about content and sourcing, and that the additional sourcing requirements applied to this topic area do not change this. They are further warned that AE must not be used to "win" content disputes. These are final warnings - any future examples of this or similar behaviour in the topic area will result in sanctions. Date Explanation If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. Participated in process about the area of conflict Additional comments by editor filing complaint FOF 9. 10, 15 I apologize if I am doing this wrong as this is my first time at AE. I have no real interest in arguing about this article, or for that matter in the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide. I would like to respond to a couple of people, then I will be gone unless there are questions. nableezy: You are right about the article tags and I will fix that. I didn't trust myself at the time. Aquillon: You may well be right, but that wasn't Buidhe's solution. General remarks: to the people saying talk page: given the article's obscurity it was my assessment that Buidhe was telling me to get consensus with Buidhe. I think I tried fairly hard to discuss with someone who was handing out gratuitous insults. To the people saying don't go straight to AE, I try not to go to AE at all, but fixing that Collaboration with the Axis powers article is something I said I would do, which I was doing at the time, and something that consensus says it badly needs doing. I shouldn't need to take time out to explain the RS policy to Buidhe despite ugliness. reverts and really very false aspersions. The thing about letting these things stand is that people come to believe them. Been there done that in Ukraine. Let's bear in mind that this is a new page patroller on a final warning to learn to communicate with people. Let's also bear in mind that yes, I am indeed competent to assess RS, unlike the unfortunate new editors who may encounter Buidhe. She may be right that the author of her source says that the Armenian genocide caused the Holocaust, but I like some sources in my extraordindary claims and he doesn't say it on page 333. Let me repeat that I started from the assumption that I was fixing the article myself, but Buidhe was prepared to edit war over that. It took heroic measures to get her to discuss at all. That is all I have to say and if this is acceptable behavior.... which many new editors will encounter as their introduction to wikipedia... I don't know what more I could say. Note that this started with content but I am here about the ownership behavior and the aggressively sloppy sourcing. Unless I misread the recent decision, in a case where both Buidhe and I were named and unsanctioned parties, source distortion is indeed a behavior problem. Now. I am going to go fix what nableezy is talking about, then plant tomatoes and ponder whether truth and the encyclopedia are really worth dealing with this. Peace out. Close the case if you really think so. But dismissing this concern would be a mistake in my opinion. Elinruby (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Another editor has appeared on the talk page due to the tagging Buidhe complains of, so there is hope. Buidhe on the other hand is saying that the tags "will need to be removed" because they have been "debunked", presumably here. That is not my read. I am hearing conflict fatigue and a perception that the aspersions are minor. I might indeed have overlooked them in someone who isn't tasked with explaining policy to newcomers, but her talk page history is concerning. The other editor says they have improved the references and expressed some good suggestions on the other problems, but I am just in to check messages and can't work on this tonight. Also, I am not sure why people keep saying I haven't tried to talk to her when I have posted a dozen diffs of myself doing just that (?) You guys have a hard role and I don't blame you for the fatigue. On the other hand I don't feel responsible for it either. All I want is for Buidhe to stop reverting the source verification work. I'm not asking for the electric chair ;) maybe some coaching on collegiality, but I don't even care about that. I don't care care how many FAs she has either -- I am dealing with *this* article and my concern is that she is taking this as an affront to her honor or something. I will discuss all this with the other editor on the talk page tomorrow, although I have answered them tonight already.Elinruby (talk) 09:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC) update: Stonewalling and aspersions continue. @TylerBurden: specifics, please, if you really want to get onto the whole "Ukrainian volunteer units are Nazis" thing. Without specifics I can only suggest offhand that if I didn't come back to a tag it was probably because I was simultaneously dragged into a plethora of wiki-proceedings at unrelated articles, apparently in retaliation for questioning the sourcing for Azov Battalion. It has since been greatly improved by other people, but at the time it had some jaw-droppingly bad referencing for their Naziness, roundly mocked at RSN but vigorously defended anyway. Diffs are available for this, which I did not use at AC because Ukraine was ruled out of scope even if there were parties (Buidhe in this case) involved. I have no particular memory of a tag at Kraken but it is plausible, and would have been at the same time with a similar rationale. I think there is a pattern here but was trying to keep the complaint focused on my very simple and afaik quite valid wish to verify sourcing in a particular article. That article has since been largely rewritten by another editor and thereby greatly improved, but I had to stop working last night because Buidhe reverted me and accused me of "introducing errors" in a related article because (checks notes) I placed a dubious tag on "apocalyptic" when I suspected "apocryphal" was meant. After some reflection it seems to me that the problem is that Buidhe takes such tags as an affront and does not believe that they are temporary, because hers are not. So I told her this morning that since I am this far into it I am willing to modify my process for these two articles, but she should not expect me to check authorship of any other articles before I start working to see if they need special Buidhe handling. If the admins here think this dispute is petty, I don't blame them, because it is, but I don't think it'd on my side: if verifiability is important, then verifying should not be this hard. As for Azov, I advise against going there, as it was ugly but has since been resolved. I am of course willing to discuss any of the above if asked however. Elinruby (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [17] Discussion concerning Buidhe 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 Buidhe This is not the right venue; I advised Elinruby to post at WP:NORN about their concerns that the second sentence is not supported by the text. I do not think that their interpretation is tenable because "smoking gun" evidence is not the only type that historians can use to come to a conclusion about events. If that were the case we would have to edit many articles to say that there is no evidence Hitler ordered the Final Solution. The exact quote "No smoking gun" is indeed present on page 333; it is the title of the subchapter that begins on that page as you can verify by looking at the table of contents here. As for the sentence "In the 1920s, there was "a great genocide debate" in the German press which resulted in many German nationalists deciding that genocide was justified as a tactic, it is entirely supported by the chapter in Ihrig's book to which I added a citation. Ideally, it would be narrowed to a specific page range, but citing a chapter is OK for verifiability. Adding tags that are not warranted or not adequately explained and refusing to seek consensus for them when challenged can be disruptive behavior. Currently, the banner tags on the article are not supported by any type of clarification or talk page comment about the perceived issue that led to them being placed.[18] Some of their edits to the article are ok, but others are concerning. For example, they think that "an act of perpetration" is "emotional language"[19] that merits removal, which indicates they are not familiar with the terminology used by professional historians and scholars to discuss genocide. That type of comment as well as their misinterpretation of Ihrig page 333 is why I became concerned about their edits. (t · c) buidhe 17:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC) I don't know what to say about an editor who, on the one hand, complains about aspersions, and on the other hand argues that someone who has written a dozen FAs has a problem with "aggressively sloppy sourcing" based on no evidence whatsoever. (t · c) buidhe 02:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy There's a direct quote in that diff Buidhe, that requires a citation. The article wide tags require explanation at the least if no attempt to fix is made Elinruby. But this is supposed to be discussed on the article talk page, not a user's talk page. Can we please go a week after the conclusion of the case before escalating here though? Withdraw this and open a section on the article talk page, pretty please? nableezy - 17:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion So, the source for the quote "a great genocide debate" was a different publication by the same cited author, a chapter that was also titled "Justifying Genocide", which was published the year before in the book Rewriting German History. It would have only taken a moment on Google Scholar to figure this out if people had raised the issue on talk before rushing here: [20]. Some things are hard to find the cite for, but for a direct quote... I can understand that WP:BURDEN means you're not required to search for it, but at least before taking someone to AE it's worth spending a few seconds googling to make sure it's not just a mix-up over titles or the like. --Aquillion (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken Geez, an extremely difficult, contentious, and controversial arbitration case is closed, and this is the first complaint based on it, within days of the closing? It does not bode well for the future. Maybe ArbCom should add another statement to the decision: "All editors in this subject area are directed to at least try to work together collegially before making use of the big guns." This is the sort of thing that should have been sorted out on the article talk page; Elinruby should be trouted for not posting there. They've been here long enough to know better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC) This statement by Elinruby: "So I told her this morning that since I am this far into it I am willing to modify my process for these two articles, but she should not expect me to check authorship of any other articles before I start working to see if they need special Buidhe handling." seems to me to be totally uncollegial. Whatever Elinruby's personal "process" is is irrelevant, the question at hand is whether either editor is violating Wikipedia policies or behavioral norms. Elinruby has no right to impose their "process" on anyone else, and if that "process" violates behavioral norms or policies, then it must change, and not Buidhe's behavior. I find Elinruby's attitude to be far from ideal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by (Bookku) The present case reminds me importance of WP:DDE protocol. On side note:IMHO WP:DDE seems very appropriate protocol, to be followed before approaching WP:ARE. As needed WP:DDE may be updated further for keeping it in line with present ArbCom policies. IMHO WP:DDE protocol need to find place in ARE/Header to guide the users better before ARE cases are filed. I am not sure if this is best place to make this proposal but hope more knowledgeable may take note of context of this for their future discussions and updates. Bookku (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by TylerBurden I am only going to comment on one related instance, that the editor filing this, Elinruby, added ″citation needed″ tags on Kraken Regiment for content that was clearly referenced if one would actually look at the references. Maybe in this case it wasn't so, but I think some effort should be put into looking into the references before drive-by tagging with citation tags. --TylerBurden (talk) 00:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC) Since Elinruby has asked for specifics, here are both diffs of them inserting unwarranted citation needed tags on Kraken Regiment: 1, 2. In both instances the content was referenced by the Washington Post reference included on the article, so it seems Elinruby just decided to add them without actually checking the reference. TylerBurden (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC) Result concerning Buidhe This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. What an unused talk page. Can we try collaboration there rather than AE filings? Surely there's something to do to get eyes on this besides asking for sanctions? Courcelles (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) I agree that this appears to be an unnecessary escalation of a dispute between two editors. While Buidhe could've been more cordial to Elinruby in their interactions, I don't think this raises to an AE issue. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 21:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC) I don't see anything warranting sanctions here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Cioppino123

CU blocked. See this SPI for more information. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:44, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
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 Cioppino123 User who is submitting this request for enforcement Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Cioppino123 (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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Liancourt_Rocks#Motion:_contentious_topic_designation_(December_2022) Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [21] Blatant insertion of Korean POV done before alerted to CTOP restrictions. [22] Blatant Korean POV pushing - according to the talk page banner, blatant POV pushing can be "reverted and treated as vandalism". This edit put WP:UNDUE weight on the Korean POV. Edit made prior to when editor was alerted about Liancourt Rocks being a CTOP. [23] More blatant Korean POV pushing, this time after Materialscientist reverted their edit. Edit made after editor was alerted to the CTOP. [24] Even more POV pushing - putting the Korean POV directly in the article. Edit made after editor was alerted to the CTOP. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any No sanctions were made previously. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cioppino123&diff=prev&oldid=1156864113 - CTOP alert in talk page Additional comments by editor filing complaint User made other blatant POV edits against the Japanese POV in Senkaku Islands related articles too - [25] [26]. I'd say that a TBAN on territorial disputes relating to Japanese territorial disputes, broadly construed or a NOTHERE indef block is probably the best course to take. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [27] Discussion concerning Cioppino123 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 Cioppino123 These are absolutely false accusations and I have done nothing wrong. Statement by (username) Result concerning Cioppino123 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Ruach Chayim

Indeffed under NOTHERE. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
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 Ruach Chayim User who is submitting this request for enforcement Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Ruach Chayim (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 Eastern Europe contentious topics Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it May 27 1st rv on Kosovo, failure to discuss on talkpage as mandatory under article restriction May 27 2nd rv on Kosovo, violating special 1r/24h article restriction Apr 18 long-term rv-warring on another Kosovo article Apr 30 ditto Apr 30 ditto May 4 ditto, was blocked for a week after this revert May 11 ditto, immediately resuming same edit war after 1st block, was re-blocked for 2 weeks May 27 ditto, immediately resuming same edit war after 2nd block May 27 rv-warring on another Kosovo-related article May 27 ditto Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any May 4 blocked for a week for edit-warring, logged as AE action May 11 re-blocked for immediately resuming edit-warring after 1st block If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [28] Discussion concerning Ruach Chayim 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 Ruach Chayim Greeting. Per the talk page, it is voted to state "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition." You changed it without any previous discussion. I just reverted it. What did You expect to happen? Other "issues" (like Tayna) are already resolved, except the Serbian districts but I will work on them tomorrow on the talk page. Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC) (In response to Ktrimi991) However, I did not violate 1RR as I did not return the edit but changed the text in order to reach some kind of solution. Cheers. Ruach Chayim (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC) I added the text that was voted in a different way, which was also referred to by the editor who reported me on the talk page there, so what is problem here? It's totally fine if you think the "with partial diplomatic recognition" part is redundant, but then you'll have to make a little effort and start a discussion for its removal. Hope that looks good. Ruach Chayim (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC) It is hard to believe that you don't "care about it", when your promptness on this matter is very enviable. As I said, I didn't break the 1RR because I changed the text as the editor suggested. There is no problem. Ruach Chayim (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by Vanjagenije I just want to point out that both of Ruach Chayim's recent edits on Kosovo that are cited here ([29][30]) represent effort to restore to the text agreed upon on the talk page. In a rfc (see Talk:Kosovo#RFC), a consensus was reached that the lead section should be "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition." In both of those edits, Ruach Chayim restored the "partial diplomatic recognition" part that was removed by other editors contrary to the consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by Ktrimi991 Vanjagenije, you could have also pointed out that RC has breached the 1RR on Kosovo. Editors are not allowed to make more than 1 revert there in 24 hours. Pinging admins familiar with the editor, maybe they have sth to say. @Daniel Case: @Drmies: @Ponyo:. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC) (In response to Ruach Chayim) With both edits you readded text that was removed by other editors. Interested admins can look at the diffs [31][32]. I told you about that on your tp and asked you to self-revert. The fact that you have not reflected on that, even after 2 blocks for edit-warring, does not look that good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC) I do not need to "make a little effort and start a discussion for its removal" because I am not involved in that content dispute, and I do not care about it. The issue I raised is your breach of the 1RR. Btw, someone opened a discussion on the tp, but instead of responding there you reverted again and breached the 1RR. I am not commenting more here, better if some admins evaluate the report and decide what should be done or not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Courcelles and Drmies, as the IP below pointed out, RC has accepted they are the same person as HoneymoonAve27 [33]. There is addition evidence too. Above all, the fact that HA27 proposed to split the Netflix article on enwiki, RC repeated the proposal and then did the split. So should HoneymoonAve27 too be blocked if RC gets blocked for NOTHERE/CIR? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by AlexBachmann (In response to Ruach Chayim) That's speculative, I think Ktrimi knows better if he does care about the content or not. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Apart from that, the user is always thinking that they're not at fault (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]). AlexBachmann (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Thank you 163.1.15.238 for bringing this up. @Ktrimi991 and I already had a suspicion. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Additional commment by Fut.Perf. Update: It is disappointing to see that Ruach Chayim's double bright-line violation of the article-specific sanction ("you are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page") not only has remained unsanctioned so far, but was followed up by 3 instances of the same bright-line violation by 3 different editors on both sides of the issue [34][35][36], including one by admin Vanjagenije, who previously commented here just above. I had opened a talk page discussion two days ago, and so far not a single editor has bothered to engage. Maybe admins should revoke that article sanction, if nobody is willing to enforce it any longer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by 192.76.8.86 I raised concerns about this editor's contributions in this topic area about a month ago in an AN thread they started [37], but that discussion was rapidly shut down before anyone really had a chance to look at the evidence I had provided [38]. I'll quote the relevant section of my comment here: If anyone is behaving poorly here it is Ruach Chayim, who seems to be on a mission to remove as many mentions of Kosovo as possible from the project or present it entirely in one light. A selection of examples: They have made large and inflammatory edits to articles with misleading edit summaries like "fix" [39] [40], Falsely accused other editors of "vandalism" [41] Deleted Albanian related content from articles for nonsensical reasons [42], accused other editors of spreading "pro-Albaninan propaganda" without evidence [43] and edit warred to reinsert changes against consensus [44] [45] [46]. I find myself in agreement with the comment made by Drmies. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC) I'm the same person editing from a different Oxford IP. It's probably also worth noting that according to this log entry [47] and this talk page message [48] on the Serbian Wikipedia this is not a new editor, this is an account operated by HoneymoonAve27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I do not think this is a valid use of an alternate account - this appears to be abusive sockpuppetry. Just before they retired the account HoneymoonAve27 it was blocked for edit warring and status quo stonewalling on the article Pristina [49]. Using this new account they have been doing the exact same thing [50] edit warring with the exact same people to force through their preferred version of the article. This is clearly not a valid clean start - they have continued the same disputes with the same users and have continued the same behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Ruach Chayim This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. @Ruach Chayim and AlexBachmann: Please try to stick to your own sections. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 23:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC) This user has been exhibiting NOTHERE behavior since the moment they started, and frankly I doubt they have the competence to edit here at all, let alone in sensitive topics. Drmies (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC) I would absolutely agree with a NOTHERE/CIR indef. Courcelles (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC) Courcelles, I saw that you checked for socking, so I don't have to--thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by FormalDude

The imposed restrictions at Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign are reverted, though the page remains under the WP:CT/AP contentious topic. BD2412 is reminded that pages under a contentious topic do not automatically fall under restrictions such as "1RR" or "consensus required", which can be imposed by uninvolved administrators when it's deemed needed to prevent disruption. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 14:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action. To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED). Appealing user FormalDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sanction being appealed Imposition of 1RR and BRD page restrictions under WP:CT/AP at Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign. [51] Administrator imposing the sanction BD2412 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator [52] Statement by FormalDude WP:CTOP states that page restrictions may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator, and BD2412 had made 51 edits to Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign and at least eight edits to its talk page prior to implementing the page restrictions, as such they appear actively involved with the article. Furthermore their implementation of these restrictions came after getting into a dispute with an editor, which gives the perception that it was reactionary. See this thread for that conflict, as well as where I asked them to reconsider their original decision. Additionally, the page does not have the level of edit warring or instability that would be expected for 1RR and BRD to apply. BD2412 stated that "we are not constrained to ignore developments in the real world in determining the appropriate level of caution to assign to a page falling squarely within restrictions" [53], but my understanding is that the implementation of page restrictions under contentious topics are not supposed to be preemptive. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC) I'm fine closing this, but how about a warning for BD2412? I explained all of this to them multiple times before coming here. Why did it take a report like this for them to accept that? ––FormalDude (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by BD2412 I think it's rather unrealistic to act as though the article for a leading American presidential campaign is going to fall outside of the general issues recognized by Arbcom as plaguing post-1992 American political issues even at much lower levels. The issue is not vandalism, per se, but the inherent fact that editors will be motivated to shape the narrative one way or the other, and will boldly make (and restore) contentious changes. The proposal made earlier on the talk page to semi-protect the article, while premature, is worth considering as well. If the template should be removed because I am an involved editor (and, in fact, the creator of the article, as I am with many campaign topics, which insures their consistent presentation across the encyclopedia), then it should immediately be readded by the removing administrator under their own steam in advance of the escalation of slow-motion edit wars that experience teaches will come to this article. BD2412 T 22:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC) @Extraordinary Writ: Adding {{American politics AE}} by default applies 1RR. I did not choose any parameter for this to come out as part of the message, it just did. Since there is no option to use the topic-specific template without specifying a sanction to be applied, I have changed this to a {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} template. I think it would be absurd to walk this back any farther than that. There is zero question that this is a topic of the type that made it necessary to impose conditions on editing post-1992 American political issues. BD2412 T 23:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by ElijahPepe As the foremost editor of said article, BD2412 is involved in this article and was involved in two discussions on the talk page, including one to rewrite the lede. This article has faced sparse, if any, acts of vandalism. In the last three days, I could only find two acts of vandalism, with the second act occurring after 1RR was enacted on this article. While I appreciate his contributions, the decision to 1RR was made swiftly and without casus belli. Standard procedures to reach a conclusion with the lede were followed and there was no sign of disruption. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by FormalDude 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 (uninvolved editor 1) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2) Result of the appeal by FormalDude This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Based on the edit preceding the tagging, this looks more like someone misunderstanding how CTOP works than deliberately trying to "pull rank". Either way, though, it should be reverted, and BD should reread WP:CTOP. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Agree with Tamzin that this seems to be a misunderstanding more than anything else. (BD2412, requirements like 1RR and BRD do not apply to all articles within the post-1992 American politics topic area: they only apply if an uninvolved administrator has imposed them on the particular article.) But it is indeed INVOLVED and therefore out-of-process, so I support rescinding per WP:CT#On community review point 1, with the understanding that either or both of the restrictions can be re–imposed by someone uninvolved (although I'm not confident that that would be necessary at this time).. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC) Okay, now that Template:American politics AE (which imposes restrictions and should only be placed by an uninvolved admin) has been replaced by Template:Contentious topics/talk notice (which is just a notification that can be placed by anyone), this can probably be closed without action. To be clear, Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign is not subject to 1RR or BRD at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)