Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive334

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Dylanvt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

KronosAlight (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

Well isn't this ironic.

Violated 1RR at:

2024 Nuseirat rescue operation

1. 08:02, 11 June 2024 Partial revert of this and this.
2. 20:55, 10 June 2024 Revert of this.
3. 20:26, 10 June 2024 Combined revert of this and this.
4. 14:03, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of this.
5. 13:49, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of this.
6. 13:46, 10 June 2024 Revert of this and partial revert of this and this and this and this and this.

Al-Sardi school attack

1. 07:39, 11 June 2024 Revert of this and this.
2. 14:52, 10 June 2024 Combined partial revert of this and this and this and this and this.

Nuseirat refugee camp massacre

1. 08:14, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of this.
2. 08:01, 10 June 2024 Combined partial and complete reverts of this and this and this and this and this and this and this.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 20:35, 28 March 2024 Indefinitely topic banned from "flood myths".

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 00:06, 11 June 2024 (see the system log linked to above). When I explained that they were constrained by 1RR and must self-revert their response was "No." They didn't dispute that they had violated 1RR or indicate that they did not understand it in any way. They simply flat-out refused.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KronosAlight also has a history of making incendiary, belligerent, aspersive, and off-topic comments on talk pages.

1. here
2. here
3. here
4. here
5. here
6. here
7. here
8. here
9. here

lol. Some of the revisions, like 20:55, 10 June 2024, aren't even manual reverts. They're literal "I clicked the undo button to revert someone else's edit" reverts. I don't have time to deal with this further. The reverts and belligerent talk page behavior, and previous arbitration decision, all speak for themselves. Kronos can keep grandstanding for all I care, it doesn't change the facts. Dylanvt (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here.

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.

None of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising and filled out citation data in existing citations, and added new ones.

Editing an existing page, clarifying what the sources cited actually say, is not a revert and there is therefore nothing to answer for here.

You can avoid this problem in future by better complying with NPOV and related Wikipedia rules on editorialisation, bias, and editing wars.

By way of example, in the Al-Sardi school attack article, the complainant initially used the infobox: civilian attack, has repeatedly sought to editorialise it and similar articles, nor did their version include even one mention of the IDF's official statements in which they claimed to have identified at least 9 terrorists killed in the strike. One needn't take them at their word - their claims should be couched as just that, a claim, that cannot be independently verified. But to omit any mention of this? And to seek to revert edits clarifying that the Gaza Health Ministry are Hamas-run (without removing any of their claims) and make requests that articles about strikes be renamed as "massacres", suggests that this is simply a vexatious complaint by a user engaged in a political campaign with Wikipedia's neutrality the victim.

Wikipedia is not a place for you to wage political wars, it's a neutral space for information.

To be honest I wasn’t familiar with the 1RR before this complaint, I don’t usually edit articles about recent events. The policy seems a bit odd to me, just seems to let trolls off the hook, but yeah, I obviously didn’t comply with that rule. I’m happy to own that and ensure going forwards that my edits respect it. KronosAlight (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may also add, a number of editors whom I (implicitly) referenced in some of those Talk comments have since been given indefinite bans on editing articles related to Israel-Palestine.

I accept that I shouldn’t have spoken in that way, but in my defence, a number of administrators clearly ended up independently agreeing with me, substantively, that these users had in fact been editing in violation of NPOV and related rules.

I don't accept that I was doing so, by the way. I was unaware that there had been any sort of high-level Admin/Editorial discussion relating to the Gazan Health Ministry claims, and am obviously willing to go along with that decision now that I'm aware of it.

But I think if you look at the edits I actually made, they were absolutely neutral, they contextualised various claims made by each side, and they were actually designed to address the existing NPOV violations which subsequently got those users banned from further edits.

Again, I accept it’s still not on to just accuse someone of that, but I wasn’t seeing anything being done about it (didn’t even know about some of these rules tbh), which felt frustrating and partly explains what happened there. KronosAlight (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d also of course accept @Newyorkbrad’s request that I refrain from avoiding unnecessary commentary on Talk pages etc. It was counterproductive for me to do that and I certainly was not as polite as I should have been. KronosAlight (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kronos, going to the talk page. If an editor is routinely engaged in POV pushing and source distortion then that becomes a behavioral issue that can be addressed here, but it doesn't justify violating 1RR - and violating 1RR to address such issues can simply mean that you are sanctioned, rather than the editor engaging in POV pushing and source distortion.

I strongly encourage you to self-revert your violations now. BilledMammal (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean simply reverting to the version of the article prior to any 'reverts'? KronosAlight (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reverse any of your edits that can still be reversed, but leave any changes made by other editors in place. On a very active page this can be difficult, but as long as you make a good faith effort to undo your violations I don't think the admins will hold it against you. BilledMammal (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've returned the School attack article to how it was before, i.e. the reference to Hamas removed.

I’ll see what I can do about the rescue operation article. That’s obviously more complicated because a lot of edits have been made since that. KronosAlight (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm pretty sure both articles are more or less as they were before this whole 'reverting' thing.

That means there's claims on these articles which some other editor is going to have to inspect re NPOV etc., and some of which already have Talk threads about, but I'm going to keep away from it. KronosAlight (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1R here is a slamdunk so no comment on that, the little BM/Kronos tete a tete above looks like a resolution. However I will just note that we are once again dealing with this GHM nonsense just as in the other complaint. I am convinced these edits are simply intended to provoke and kudos to complainant for refusing to be provoked this time. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have to say I assumed this report was going to be a tit-for-tat one given the fact that the OP is mentioned in a previous section; however, even a brief reading of the evidence strongly suggests that KronosAlight is not a very good fit for such a contentious topic area. This, this followed by this spectacular lack of self-awareness are not good. The refusal to revert after violating 1RR, and the response above which suggests they don't actually think 1RR applies to them at all ("None of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising" - which is effectively saying "I reverted your edit, but it doesn't count as a revert because I was reverting something which I think is wrong") are merely supporting evidence of this. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Since KronosAlight says he was previously unfamiliar with the 1RR restriction on these articles and from now on will comply with it, I would be content to resolve that aspect of the complaint with a warning. I am more troubled by the POV issue, and would also like KronosAlight also to promise to avoid unnecessary commentary and to edit neutrally if he is going to remain active in this topic-area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Dylanvt (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

Violated 1RR at:

• Nuseirat refugee camp massacre:
  1. 01:22, 9 June 2024 (partial revert of 00:01, 9 June 2024)
  2. 13:08 to 13:15, 9 June 2024‎ (reverts of various edits, including these)

When asked to self-revert refused, and instead made another revert in violation of 1RR (13:02, 10 June 2024; reverted 08:01, 10 June 2024)

• 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation:
  1. 19:13, 8 June 2024 (reverted 18:38, 8 June 2024)
  2. 13:32, 9 June 2024 (reverted 04:40, 9 June 2024)

When asked to self-revert refused, and instead made another revert in violation of 1RR (13:08, 10 June 2024; reverted 10:58, 10 June 2024)

• Tel al-Sultan massacre:
  1. 15:23, 27 May 2024
  2. 15:37, 27 May 2024
  3. 15:41, 27 May 2024

Only agreed to self-revert once an admin asked them to.

• Genocide of Indigenous peoples:
  1. 19:38, 27 May 2024
  2. 15:32, 27 May 2024

Only agreed to self-revert once an admin asked them to; they were unable to as the page had been protected because of the edit warring.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 12:03, 13 May 2024 Warned to mind 1RR in the ARBPIA topic area, and remedy any violations as soon as possible when they are pointed out

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 07:36, 22 December 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Dylanvt: I didn't raise the reverts at Tel al-Sultan massacre; that was HaOfa. BilledMammal (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page is on my watchlist; when you incorrectly claimed an exception to 1RR I tried to help by explaining what the actual exceptions are.

Regarding Nuseirat refugee camp massacre, I only noticed the violations because I was trying to find the editor that introduced the WP:CATPOV issues; I then checked your recent contributions to see if it was an isolated incident and found it was not. BilledMammal (talk) 14:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylanvt: How did you expect an uninvolved editor or admin to pass judgement when you removed the requests to self-revert? BilledMammal (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: For example, they deny that 01:22, 9 June 2024 and 13:02, 10 June 2024 at Nuseirat refugee camp massacre are reverts, but both manually reverse other editors' actions by (among other things) removing clarification that the Gaza Health Ministry is controlled by Hamas (Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry → Gazan Health Ministry, Hamas Health Ministry → Health Ministry)

Bright-line violations are disruptive by definition, but repeatedly removing clarification that multiple editors believe is required is disruptive even without that context. BilledMammal (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: That's not accurate. I've requested self-reverts from two editors who violated 1RR while removing it from that article, including Dylanvt, and one who violated 1RR adding it. As a general note, I'm good at noticing 1RR violations, but not perfect - I do miss some, although in this case you haven't linked any that I did miss. BilledMammal (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I bring them up to show a pattern, having previously been told that demonstrating a pattern is useful. In general, I do try to avoid coming here; had Dylanvt not removed my requests to self-revert I probably would still be on their talk page trying to explain why these edits were a violation. For an extreme example of this, see this discussion with Irtapil - where an admin in fact told me that I should have brought the issue here sooner. BilledMammal (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: You proposed the gentleman's agreement here; it was linked at the Irtapil discussion. BilledMammal (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: That it's so easy to accidentally breach 1RR is why I think ScottishFinnishRadish's gentleman's agreement is such a good idea; refusing to self-revert is, in my opinion, a strong indicator that there is an actual issue that needs addressing. BilledMammal (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: At the risk of engaging with content, as far as I know the only formal discussion regarding whether we provide context around the relationship between Hamas and the GHM found that we should. BilledMammal (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylanvt continues to violate 1RR at Nuseirat refugee camp massacre:

1. 13:09, 11 June 2024 (partial revert of 08:01, 10 June 2024; "698 were wounded" → "400 were wounded" → "698 were wounded")
2. 13:25, 10 June 2024 (partial revert of 08:01, 10 June 2024; "Gaza Health Ministry" → "Health Ministry in Gaza" → "Gaza Health Ministry")

They have also still not self-reverted their previous violations, despite asking other editors to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylanvt: Your edit reverted that aspect of the article to a previous form, away from the format implemented by an editor you are in a dispute in. That is a revert.

Even if it wasn't 13:09, 11 June 2024 would still be problematic as it is just 24 hours and 7 minutes after your 13:02, 10 June 2024 revert; very close to 1RR WP:GAMING. BilledMammal (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

13:49, 10 June 2024

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.

The edits billedmammal linked are not reversions, they are merely edits made to the articles. He even went scrolling back two weeks into my edit history to bring up old and already resolved actions. If you look at my edit history you will see I'm clearly not engaged in edit warring on any of the articles he linked.

• Nuseirat refugee camp massacre first "revert". An editor added "according to the Hamas-run Gazan Health Ministry" and I later removed only "Hamas-run", not a revert, just a small contribution to an article that was about six hours old. And it is common practice in articles in this topic not to write "Hamas-run" before every mention of the health ministry.
• Nuseirat refugee camp massacre second "revert". Yes, this was a revert, and the only one I made on the page in a 24-hour span (specifically, re-adding the "reactions" section, and removing the "cleanup" tag).
• Nuseirat refugee camp massacre third "revert". First, this is 24 hours after the last one, so couldn't be a violation of 1RR. Second, it's not clear what this is a reversion of. The text removed was mathematically contradictory and nonsensical ("killing more than 30 people, including 12 women and children and around 30 militants"). When it was rewritten in a much clearer way shortly after I removed it, I didn’t touch it, because now it makes sense ("targeting 20-30 Hamas Nukhba militants... Local health officials reported the deaths of more than 30 people, including 12 women and children").
• 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation first "revert". Like the first one above, this is clearly not a revert. I merely replaced "Hamas-run" with "Gaza's". If that's a revert then every edit (that doesn't add new information) is a revert, since every edit is a change of something previously written.
• 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation second "revert". Also not a revert. I simply reworded to more neutral wording. The information added by David O. Johnson's edit (the IDF casualty claim) I did not touch. I simply adjusted the way it was introduced, from the less neutral "The death toll is disputed, with A claiming B and C claiming D" to the more neutral "A reports B. C claims D." Clearly not a revert.
• 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation third "revert". This is the first and only actual revert I've made on that page. In any case, I reverted to the status quo, which had been removed without discussion. It's now been removed again without discussion, so instead of reverting again, I've started a discussion which will result in it being restored.
• The other two articles were already discussed and resolved on talk page. No idea why they're being brought up again.

Ultimately I think everybody's time would be better served by making actual contributions to Wikipedia, instead of wasting everybody's time with petty punitive arbitration. When BilledMammal brought up the reversions I'd made at Tel al-Sultan massacre, e.g., it contributed nothing to the project and instead resulted in me being forced to move the article back to the wrong title in the middle of a move discussion, creating havoc in the talk page for everyone involved, when instead we could have just moved on and continued to do useful things for the project. Dylanvt (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, he didn't raise the concerns, but he contributed to the discussion, joining in just 2 minutes after my initial reply. It seems pretty apparent that he's just waiting and watching for any inkling of a violation so he can swoop in and warn and report people. Dylanvt (talk) 14:32, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, a gentleman's agreement would be great, I agree. Yet in every case I've waited for someone less involved (and/or an admin) to pass judgment, because I've seen that warnings like this are often weaponized, as you say, by people with opposing viewpoints and agendas. Dylanvt (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I didn't know that officially reporting people for abuse of 1RR complaints was an option before today. I'll do that in the future as needed. As anyone can tell from my edit history, I'm very new to "contentious issue" editing and also for pretty much all of my 12-ish years on Wikipedia have never been involved in any of this under-the-hood stuff. Dylanvt (talk) 16:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also still don't see how edits like this one count as reverts. If Editor A writes in a (very young and rapidly changing) article, e.g., Putin's government passed law X [ref1], and Editor B goes in many edits later and changes it to The Russian government passed law X [ref1]... That's really considered a revert? Because that's what the above edit was. Dylanvt (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

there's a pretty significant difference between the two, same as attributing something to Putin rather than Russia, or Biden rather than the US No there's very much not a significant difference. Hamas is a political party. Putin and Biden are leaders of political parties. Even if you think that difference is significant, I can just give an even more comparable example: According to the United Russia-run government media office being changed to According to the Russian government media office. There's no way it can be argued that that change is a "revert". If it were, then every edit would be a revert. Dylanvt (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• That’s not at all what I said. The difference between “Hamas-run” and “Gazan/Gaza’s” is significant. It’s the two scenarios that I said aren’t significantly different. Namely, the one in my edit (Hamas-run to Gaza’s) vs. the one in my example (Putin’s to Russian).

  (I’m writing this as a reply because I’m on mobile now and it’s complicated to do it the other way.) Dylanvt (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  jfc billedmammal what tf do you think you’re accomplishing here???? CLICK THE REFERENCE NEXT TO THAT SENTENCE. holy hell is this some asinine behavior on your part. Dylanvt (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @BilledMammal: revert back to the initial comment I replied to. It is against policy (WP:TALK#REPLIED) to change comments after they have been interacted with. Dylanvt (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And you genuinely cannot be serious claiming that "Health Ministry in Gaza" → "Gaza Health Ministry" is a revert. That is adding a link. You are not acting in good faith and I'm done interacting with you. Dylanvt (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posting up here because I suppose I'm involved - I initially restored the edit which Dylanvt is now accused of edit-warring over at Genocide of Indigenous peoples. I don't think any admin did advise them to self-revert; if BilledMammal is referring to my comments on the edit war I said that I was ignoring it and had started an RFC instead but I didn't tell anyone to do anything; the page was then full-protected by PhilKnight.

In looking for that warning I went to Dylanvt's talk page and reviewed this warning and discussion, which was regarding the edits listed above on Tel al-Sultan massacre, in which BilledMammal and ScottishFinnishRadish demanded that Dylanvt self-revert a page move which was a 1RR violation. It is accurate to say that Dylanvt refused, but that also grossly oversimplifies the situation: Dylanvt had good reason to refuse, as there was an ongoing discussion about the move and at least one other editor (Vanilla Wizard) objected to reverting because of the ongoing discussion. As Dylanvt tried to explain, a separate move review had directed that the article be kept at that title pending the result of the ongoing discussion, and had Dylanvt reverted their move someone else would just have to move it back per WP:TITLECHANGES. Eventually, after more IDHT and bullying from BM and SFR, Dylanvt did revert their move, which as predicted created a technical mess which had to be reverted again by a different administrator, who cited the exact rationale Dylanvt had been trying to explain the whole time. It was all a bureaucratic waste of everyone's time because two experienced editors care more about enforcing one particular rule because "it's teh rulez" rather than use some discretion and common sense (we have WP:IAR for a reason).

I see that trend repeating in the report here. BilledMammal has gone out of their way to classify these edits as "reverts" when, as Dylanvt also has tried to explain, they are edits in the course of constructing a rapidly developing article being edited by many editors at the same time, and happen to have changed information added by someone else previously. By that overly-broad definition, nearly every edit to these articles since their creation is a revert; of course they are not, this is just the normal editorial process. The 1RR rule is meant to limit disruption; these edits were decidedly not disruptive. The rule is certainly not meant to be a "gotcha!" rule whereby any two edits that look superficially similar can be used to eject an editor from a topic, nor is it meant to be used as a tool for harassment as seems to be happening here.

The edit war on Genocide of Indigenous peoples was actually a revert war (in that case Dylanvt was intentionally undoing a previous edit, as was I) but that situation was dealt with. We can waste more time bureaucratically arguing over whether or not the highlighted edits to the other pages are reverts to the extent that the policy is violated (they aren't) or we could skip all that and simply acknowledge that no disruption has occurred. In fact the situation would be greatly improved overall if BilledMammal were sanctioned against anything to do with 1RR enforcement in this topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that BilledMammal was warned in the closing statement of a separate report still visible on this page against "weaponizing arbitration enforcement". It should be observed that the dispute (which is hardly even a dispute) at Nuseirat refugee camp massacre is over whether or not to qualify the Gazan Health Ministry as being "Hamas-run". Dylanvt started a discussion on that article's talk page to seek consensus on the matter, in which BilledMammal is (as of this edit) the only editor suggesting that it should be qualified. Observe that BilledMammal has issued 1RR warnings to three editors besides Dylanvt who removed the qualification, and has issued no warnings to editors who added or restored it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: (and others): by Ealdgyth's reading from the 3RR policy, yes, despite the interaction being entirely civil and constructive and arriving at a consensus stable edit, Y is in violation of this stupidly-defined bright-line rule. The idea that the proper approach to this normal and expected editorial process is to demand editor Y self-revert under threat of sanction and wait for someone else to make the obvious and not-contested compromise edit (or else wait 24 hours) is asinine. If that puts me in a position of "second guessing the Committee" then consider yourselves second-guessed. But we have a slightly different situation here anyway: we have an article with A, B, and C. and in a separate section, D, E, and F.. Editor X changes the first bit to A., editor Y reverts, editor X restores their version, then both editors leave the section saying A. and move to the talk page to discuss. Then later the same day, editor Q changes the second part to D. and editor Y reverts. Editor Y has reverted twice in the same day, though each is unrelated to the other. Now is editor Y in violation of 1RR? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: one more hypothetical, and then I promise I have a meeting to get to and won't keep on this. Say in the example above, editors X and Y have left the article reading A. and have discussed their compromise on the talk page, run a quick straw poll in which 100 editors support the compromise (it's the fastest and most well attended straw poll in the history of Wikipedia), and following an experienced and respected neutral observer closing the discussion as obvious consensus for the edit, editor Y implements the compromise; this all happens within 22 hours. For how long should editor Y, the monster, be blocked for this flagrant violation of the letter of 1RR? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: respectfully, that's an absurd way for an administrator to act, butting their heads into a normal editorial process and chastising a user for reaching an effective compromise and implementing consensus. I assert that the only disruptive action that occurred in that entire hypothetical interaction is the administrator's intervention itself - we're supposed to prevent disruption, not cause it. Wikipedia draws a lot of criticism that our admins behave like wannabe cops drunk with power to enforce our pantheon of confusing and often contradictory rules just for the sake of enforcing them, but even the real police are (or ought to be) trained not to needlessly escalate a conflict, and don't charge everyone with every conceivable offence just because of an act that technically meets the written definition of a crime. There are plenty of ways to resolve disputes without immediately threatening everyone who technically violates a rule, even "bright-line" rules; nuance and discretion are essential skills for administrators, especially those purporting to work in dispute resolution, and they are sorely lacking here. Clearly we're at odds in our approaches to this and neither of us is going to convince the other, so I'm bowing out. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know content is not the thing here but this nonsense with the GHM needs to be resolved once for all. Afaik, across various discussions at articles and at noticeboards, it has been resolved and the consensus is that the GHM is reliable and editors that persist in adding "Hamas run" in front of that are only intending to provoke/cast doubt on that assessment, attribution to GHM is all that is needed, nothing more. So on the behavioral front, while in general it would be better to ignore the provocation and start a talk page discussion, I do sympathize with removing the unnecessary. Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_418#Are Hamas and Gaza ministry numbers reliable? The sources are clear cut on this issue. Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'll start with a quick reply to Ivanvector about the request to self-revert. If we allowed every editor to break 1RR on the basis of policy as they see it then 1RR becomes worthless. WP:3RRNO and WP:CTOP outline what is exempt from 1RR and move-warring based on WP:TITLECHANGES isn't covered. If the issue was covered by policy and needed to be moved back it would have been moved by another editor (as it was) without anyone breaking 1RR.
  WP:CTOP also contains under Dismissing an enforcement request, Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions. The Arbitration Committee placed the topic area under blanket 1RR. Arbitration enforcement isn't the place to say, "sure, it's a 1RR breach but it's not very bad so meh." The threshold for not sanctioning a violation is the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate.
  The said I haven't taken the time to review these specific allegations of a violation, although I'll try to get to that soon as to avoid another multi-week clusterfuck. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dylanvt, what you do is self-revert right away and if it turns out it wasn't a violation and there's a pattern of that you come here and say "they're abusing requests to self-revert" and they get banned from 1rr reports or topic banned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ivanvector, yes. That is two reverts. Same as 3RR, reverts are by article, not by specific content. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ivanvector, I wouldn't block for that, but I would expect them to self-revert if there was an objection and ask one of the hundred other editors engaged in the topic to make the edit, or wait a couple hours. No deadline and all that.

  Dylanvt, there's a pretty significant difference between the two, same as attributing something to Putin rather than Russia, or Biden rather than the US. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Dylanvt, if it isn't a significant difference then why did you change it? The fact that it's edit warred over is a clear demonstration that people believe the specific wording matters. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, going by Wikipedia:Edit warring, under WP:3RR which defines the term "revert" for the WP:1RR rule, a revert is "any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually". So, yes, this edit is the first revert - it changed the article partially back to a previous version. So when this edit was then made by Dylanvt within 24 hours of the first revert, it broke 1RR. The fact that I think the actual definition of a revert is stupid has no bearing on both those edits actually being reverts. I do, however, know that there is a great deal of confusion about this whole situation about what qualifies as a revert. (And I acknowledge that I may actually have this wrong, that's how screwy things are with this whole definition of revert) So I'm not thinking this needs any sort of giant punishment, but a warning is probably an acceptable situation. I'm not going to get into the other diffs raised because frankly - the edits from 27 May are old enough I'm not feeling the need to deal with them and they bring up point #2 I'd like to say.
  And that is, BilledMammal - on 4 June I addressed you with this diff at SFR's talk page where I advised you that you need to learn to let things go. The diffs you brought up here from 27 May are an excellent example of why I made that comment at SFR's talk page - these 27 May diffs feel like "someone trying desperately to find ANYTHING that can possibly stick". My advice is to .. not bring anyone to AE for a month. At least. You're overdoing it and frankly, you're about to get totally banned from AE reporting if you can't grasp that you need to learn to just let things go a bit. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On the topic of The fact that I think the actual definition of a revert is stupid has no bearing on both those edits actually being reverts. I do, however, know that there is a great deal of confusion about this whole situation about what qualifies as a revert. (And I acknowledge that I may actually have this wrong, that's how screwy things are with this whole definition of revert), that is why I suggested a gentleman's agreement back in (I think) December to request a self-revert on user talk pages, and to revert your own reported 1RR violations. Better safe than sorry, it's easy to make mistakes on fast moving articles, and it can be confusing. Unfortunately the BATTLEGROUND tendencies make this difficult because it's normally someone on "the other side" requesting a revert and how dare they! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am starting to think that applying the definition of "revert" developed for 3RR in the context of 1RR is problematic. Suppose an article under 1RR says A, B, and C. Editor X changes it to just A. Editor Y reverts to A, B, and C. Editor X reverts to A with the edit summary C isn't true. Editor Y then changes it to A and B with the edit summary okay, we'll leave out C, but restoring B which no one disagrees with. All this happens within the space of a day. Has Y violated 1RR, and if she technically has, would other admins feel the need to do anything about it? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Generally such compromises don't get reported. It is certainly an issue with fast moving articles, though. That's the rub with 1RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (This is moving in the direction of a general discussion of enforcement philosophy rather than the specifics of this request, so I'd be open to moving it elsewhere.) There always remains the question of literal versus more flexible interpretation, especially where the letter of a ruling has been violated but its spirit has not been. It bears emphasis that no set of rules, whether simple or complicated, can anticipate in advance every situation that might later arise. As I have in the past, I refer everyone to my essay here, or better still to the best law review article ever. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The solution isn't to make the rule more wishy-washy, and make editors unsure of it will apply. That's why it's a bright-line rule. If they had said no to the water at the beginning there wouldn't have been a problem. You're suggesting the path that leads to milkshakes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Bright-line rules can be attractive, but as a certain online encyclopedia tells us, critics often argue that bright-line rules are overly simplistic and can lead to harsh and unjust results. And here the "bright-line" rule is illusory in any event; the current discussion on your talkpage reflects several ways in which our definition of "revert" remains ambiguous even after 20-plus years.

  These ambiguities don't normally interfere with enforcement on the edit-warring noticeboard, because by the time one has made four edits on an article within 24 hours that could reasonably be considered reverts, there often (not always) is an actual problem. But it is far easier to make two borderline edits on an article within 24 hours while editing appropriately and in good faith, especially when editing a fast-moving article reporting on current events.

  I'm also not confident that innocuous edits and already-resolved disputes won't be reported; you and I can both recall at least one prior, troubling episode in a different 1RR topic-area where that is exactly what occurred. There is always going to be some element of administrator discretion in arbitration enforcement, and I believe there has to be.

  On the merits of this particular report, as with the next one below, I am actually less concerned about the debatable 1RR issues and more about potential POV editing, and not just by the editors on this thread. By this I don't mean blatant and blockable POV-pushing, but the understandable tendency of many editors to see everything on this group of articles from either one side of the conflict or the other. That being said, beyond the advice I gave 16 years ago, I don't have an easy solution for what is to be done about this problem: peace will not come to our Israel-Palestine articles until peace comes to Israel and Palestine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As I have previously stated in relation to another case, Revert restrictions are self-limiting restrictions; we can only expect that people who do not actually understand their scope will not abide by them. If they don't immediately understand, they are owed an explanation, and several have been proffered in this thread. I am now pretty sure that respondent has some understanding of the 1RR, and that they no longer fully hold that all edits billedmammal linked are not reversions, they are merely edits made to the articles. If that were everything, I would be willing to close with a logged warning to abide by the 1RR in the Arab-Israeli topic area going forward. But I'm frankly unimpressed with these two diffs in this AE thread, which show the problematic behaviors of incivility and casting aspersions. Whatever we do, we shouldn't really let this linger indefinitely if new evidence is coming in, so we should try to come to some consensus here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seeing no further responses, and absent any objections in the next 18-ish hours, I am going to close this with a warning to adhere to the topic-wide 1RR and a warning to remain civil in the topic area. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Dylanvt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

KronosAlight (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

Well isn't this ironic.

Violated 1RR at:

2024 Nuseirat rescue operation

1. 08:02, 11 June 2024 Partial revert of this and this.
2. 20:55, 10 June 2024 Revert of this.
3. 20:26, 10 June 2024 Combined revert of this and this.
4. 14:03, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of this.
5. 13:49, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of this.
6. 13:46, 10 June 2024 Revert of this and partial revert of this and this and this and this and this.

Al-Sardi school attack

1. 07:39, 11 June 2024 Revert of this and this.
2. 14:52, 10 June 2024 Combined partial revert of this and this and this and this and this.

Nuseirat refugee camp massacre

1. 08:14, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of this.
2. 08:01, 10 June 2024 Combined partial and complete reverts of this and this and this and this and this and this and this.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 20:35, 28 March 2024 Indefinitely topic banned from "flood myths".

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 00:06, 11 June 2024 (see the system log linked to above). When I explained that they were constrained by 1RR and must self-revert their response was "No." They didn't dispute that they had violated 1RR or indicate that they did not understand it in any way. They simply flat-out refused.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KronosAlight also has a history of making incendiary, belligerent, aspersive, and off-topic comments on talk pages.

1. here
2. here
3. here
4. here
5. here
6. here
7. here
8. here
9. here

lol. Some of the revisions, like 20:55, 10 June 2024, aren't even manual reverts. They're literal "I clicked the undo button to revert someone else's edit" reverts. I don't have time to deal with this further. The reverts and belligerent talk page behavior, and previous arbitration decision, all speak for themselves. Kronos can keep grandstanding for all I care, it doesn't change the facts. Dylanvt (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here.

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.

None of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising and filled out citation data in existing citations, and added new ones.

Editing an existing page, clarifying what the sources cited actually say, is not a revert and there is therefore nothing to answer for here.

You can avoid this problem in future by better complying with NPOV and related Wikipedia rules on editorialisation, bias, and editing wars.

By way of example, in the Al-Sardi school attack article, the complainant initially used the infobox: civilian attack, has repeatedly sought to editorialise it and similar articles, nor did their version include even one mention of the IDF's official statements in which they claimed to have identified at least 9 terrorists killed in the strike. One needn't take them at their word - their claims should be couched as just that, a claim, that cannot be independently verified. But to omit any mention of this? And to seek to revert edits clarifying that the Gaza Health Ministry are Hamas-run (without removing any of their claims) and make requests that articles about strikes be renamed as "massacres", suggests that this is simply a vexatious complaint by a user engaged in a political campaign with Wikipedia's neutrality the victim.

Wikipedia is not a place for you to wage political wars, it's a neutral space for information.

To be honest I wasn’t familiar with the 1RR before this complaint, I don’t usually edit articles about recent events. The policy seems a bit odd to me, just seems to let trolls off the hook, but yeah, I obviously didn’t comply with that rule. I’m happy to own that and ensure going forwards that my edits respect it. KronosAlight (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may also add, a number of editors whom I (implicitly) referenced in some of those Talk comments have since been given indefinite bans on editing articles related to Israel-Palestine.

I accept that I shouldn’t have spoken in that way, but in my defence, a number of administrators clearly ended up independently agreeing with me, substantively, that these users had in fact been editing in violation of NPOV and related rules.

I don't accept that I was doing so, by the way. I was unaware that there had been any sort of high-level Admin/Editorial discussion relating to the Gazan Health Ministry claims, and am obviously willing to go along with that decision now that I'm aware of it.

But I think if you look at the edits I actually made, they were absolutely neutral, they contextualised various claims made by each side, and they were actually designed to address the existing NPOV violations which subsequently got those users banned from further edits.

Again, I accept it’s still not on to just accuse someone of that, but I wasn’t seeing anything being done about it (didn’t even know about some of these rules tbh), which felt frustrating and partly explains what happened there. KronosAlight (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d also of course accept @Newyorkbrad’s request that I refrain from avoiding unnecessary commentary on Talk pages etc. It was counterproductive for me to do that and I certainly was not as polite as I should have been. KronosAlight (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kronos, going to the talk page. If an editor is routinely engaged in POV pushing and source distortion then that becomes a behavioral issue that can be addressed here, but it doesn't justify violating 1RR - and violating 1RR to address such issues can simply mean that you are sanctioned, rather than the editor engaging in POV pushing and source distortion.

I strongly encourage you to self-revert your violations now. BilledMammal (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean simply reverting to the version of the article prior to any 'reverts'? KronosAlight (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to reverse any of your edits that can still be reversed, but leave any changes made by other editors in place. On a very active page this can be difficult, but as long as you make a good faith effort to undo your violations I don't think the admins will hold it against you. BilledMammal (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've returned the School attack article to how it was before, i.e. the reference to Hamas removed.

I’ll see what I can do about the rescue operation article. That’s obviously more complicated because a lot of edits have been made since that. KronosAlight (talk) 14:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm pretty sure both articles are more or less as they were before this whole 'reverting' thing.

That means there's claims on these articles which some other editor is going to have to inspect re NPOV etc., and some of which already have Talk threads about, but I'm going to keep away from it. KronosAlight (talk) 14:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1R here is a slamdunk so no comment on that, the little BM/Kronos tete a tete above looks like a resolution. However I will just note that we are once again dealing with this GHM nonsense just as in the other complaint. I am convinced these edits are simply intended to provoke and kudos to complainant for refusing to be provoked this time. Selfstudier (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have to say I assumed this report was going to be a tit-for-tat one given the fact that the OP is mentioned in a previous section; however, even a brief reading of the evidence strongly suggests that KronosAlight is not a very good fit for such a contentious topic area. This, this followed by this spectacular lack of self-awareness are not good. The refusal to revert after violating 1RR, and the response above which suggests they don't actually think 1RR applies to them at all ("None of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising" - which is effectively saying "I reverted your edit, but it doesn't count as a revert because I was reverting something which I think is wrong") are merely supporting evidence of this. Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Since KronosAlight says he was previously unfamiliar with the 1RR restriction on these articles and from now on will comply with it, I would be content to resolve that aspect of the complaint with a warning. I am more troubled by the POV issue, and would also like KronosAlight also to promise to avoid unnecessary commentary and to edit neutrally if he is going to remain active in this topic-area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems there's no appetite for anything beyond warning here, and I think KronosAlight has made a fair effort to understand what's wrong and undertake to correct it. So, I would give a warning here, with a clear understanding that if this happens again, that won't be the outcome next time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been open for a while, and it would probably serve in the interests of "let's not have a cloud hanging over people's heads indefinitely" to wrap this up. NYB and Seraphimblade appear to be leaning towards warnings. @Black Kite: you stated KronosAlight is not a very good fit for such a contentious topic area. Am I reading that you are considering a TBAN, or are you OK with a logged warning here? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Red-tailed hawk If KA has understood that they can't simply revert because they feel like it (or, more to the point, because they believe something to be wrong) then I am OK with a logged warning. I hope we won't end up back here again. Black Kite (talk) 07:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In light of the above statement by respondent that I obviously didn’t comply with that rule. I’m happy to own that and ensure going forwards that my edits respect it, I'll close with a logged warning. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Starship.paint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ltbdl (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/Gender and sexuality#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

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

1. 12:26, 12 June 2024 - in an RSN RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues, Ltbdl voted oppositely from User:Springee, despite writing per springee.
2. 12:55, 12 June 2024 - when asked to explain rationale of their vote, Ltbdl wrote: as a rule of thumb, anything springee supports is right-wing pov pushing. This violates WP:NPA as it casts aspersions.
3. 15:22, 12 June 2024‎ - when I warned Ltbdl that they should withdraw the comment, Ltbdl wrote: get me blocked, i deserve it. Springee then asked Ltbdl to strike the comment, but Ltbdl did not respond and has been editing in other areas.

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 14:29, 6 August 2023‎

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• I would recommend a one-way interaction ban.
• As can be seen from User talk:ltbdl, ltbdl is the new account of User:lettherebedarklight.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

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.

i am aware of this, and have nothing to say. ltbdl (talk) 08:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of conduct in a heated and contentious area is highly unproductive and should be appropriately sanctioned. FortunateSons (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that this was an out of the blue uncivil action. If we had been debating or had a long interaction history and they made this claim, well that could just be frustration or opinion built up over time. However, when an account that per the interaction analyzer, I've never interacted with, starts throwing out comments like that, it makes me wonder why they needed a clean start and if granting it was appropriate. Certainly the replies here suggest they don't see an issue with the actions. I think some sort of action should be taken (warning, block, etc) so if this uncivil behavior continues other editors can see the behavior is part of a pattern. Springee (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because I participated in the RfC where the comments were made, I'm going to write here rather than in the section for uninvolved admins below.

This is an extremely clear case of a personal attack directed at an editor, and the behavior that taunts the personally attacked editor is... bizarre.

I agree with SFR that this is unacceptable, but I'd only recommend a TBAN if there is some broader issue than this one incident, and I'm just not seeing those diffs here. If this is merely a personal attack/casting aspersions against Springee, perhaps a one-way I-ban or a block would be better than a TBAN. (If there were an apology, an acknowledgement that what they did was grossly out of line with WP:CIVIL, and they struck the personal attacks, I might even just recommend a logged warning for civility in the two topic areas. But I just don't see any remorse, nor evidence proffered that the allegations made by respondent against Springee are in any way substantiated, so I do think that something more restrictive is warranted.) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm thinking an AMPOL/GENSEX topic ban may be necessary as they seem to be unable to avoid disruption, per their own admission. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Indeed. An indef WP:GENSEX / WP:AP2 TBANs at a minimum due to expressed unwillingness to engage here. Which I suppose is fine, but them the breaks, then. El_C 13:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Riposte97 (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:AP2

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

1. 2:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC) Editor edits Hunter Biden to insert new sentence “The contents of the laptop was subsequently submitted in evidence in Biden's criminal trials” into the lead.
2. 4:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC) New sentence is removed by myself from the lead.
3. 6:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Editor reverts to reinsert sentence back into the lead. Hunter Biden article has active arbitration remedies. The notice on talk page states “You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message”.
4. 6:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC) I started a new topic on the editor’s user talk advising that they’ve violated the active arbitration remedies which apply to the article and advise that they need to self-revert.
5. 7:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC) Edit responds claiming that contrary to my advice that they have violated active arbitration remedies, that they reverted to restore consensus. No such consensus exists. Editor does not self-revert.
6. User_talk:Riposte97#CT violation at laptop page A similar discussion concerning Hunter Biden laptop controversy in which the editor is advised by another editor that they have violated active arbitration remedies on that article. At that time the editor agrees to self-revert.

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 2:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor has reverted to re-include material at Hunter Biden in violation of active arbitration remedies and then refused to self-revert when advised of their transgression. TarnishedPath^talk 14:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riposte97 the very fact that I edited to remove your change demonstrates that there was no consensus for your change. Other editors editing about other things, regardless the location in the article, does not demonstrate consensus for your change. The fact is that no one has discussed that specific sentence in talk, so your claim of consensus is completely without merit.
The easiest thing would have been for you to remedy your violation of active arbitration remedies, by self-reverting, when I raised your conduct on your user talk. However you have refused to remedy your violation from the point when I raised it until the present time. So here we are and you are still refusing to remedy your violation of active arbitration remedies.
Ps, I am also on a mobile device as I am away from my home for at least another week. That's no reason for this discussion to stall or for you not to do the correct thing and remedy your violation by self-reverting. TarnishedPath^talk 02:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Riposte97, events have not overtaken us. You refused to self-revert while you had the chance and instead choose to engage in meritless arguments when it was crystal clear that you had violated the active arbitration remedies. That you can no longer self-revert does expunge you of responsibility. TarnishedPath^talk 05:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Riposte97, your argument that 3 days = long-standing and therefore consensus was implied is entirely unconvincing. You ought to have immediately self-reverted when your transgression was brought to your attention. If you had any doubt it would have taken moments to check exactly what active arbitration remedies on the article specify and then self-revert. Instead you choose to refuse to remedy your violation. TarnishedPath^talk 06:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish please note that as of Special:Diff/1228842988 Riposte97‘s ability to self-revert has disappeared. They were provided the opportunity to self-revert a clear violation, they refused and decided to engage in arguments which had no merit. TarnishedPath^talk 15:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1228844302

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.

Good morning,

I maintain that my revert restored consensus. As pointed out above, the sentence in question was inserted on 10 June UTC. A little over three days passed, before the submitter removed it. In that time, the page was edited dozens of times, and the lead extensively discussed on the talk page. I believed, and still do, that the circumstances illustrate consensus for the sentence.

If reasonable minds differ, I’d submit the easiest thing to do would be to raise the substance of any objection on the article talk page, rather than go straight to ANI.

Please note I am subject to the disadvantages of editing on mobile until I get home from work this evening.

Thanks.

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, I am grateful to @TarnishedPath: for pointing out that events have overtaken us, and I can no longer self-revert. I would if I could. Thank you for clarifying the rules, and I don't expect to be back here in future. Riposte97 (talk) 04:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should note, that I did not realise that consensus on CTs could only come from affirmative talk page consensus. I have seen consensus inferred elsewhere by material merely being longstanding. I had thought three days sufficient to assume consensus in the circumstances.

I did not revert after TarnishedPath's messages because he apparently believed that only a day had passed between insertion and deletion. (I attributed this to timezone confusion, but see now we are in the same city.)

In any case, I have now read and understood the policy. Riposte97 (talk) 06:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO I now understand that consensus on CTs must be positively arrived at on the talk page. This won’t be an issue in future. Riposte97 (talk) 01:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby I don't think it's entirely appropriate for you to bring up an unrelated disagreement we've had (noting you were subsequently blocked for battleground behaviour), nor to apparently canvas support for a pile-on. I request that you strike. Riposte97 (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: to clarify, I understand I am here for violating the BRD restriction on the page. As I have attempted to explain above, I did so because I was operating under the misapprehension that I was restoring consensus. I thought that was permitted. I understand now that I was incorrect. Riposte97 (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C When you have time, I would encourage you to go over the diffs provided by @Elinruby, and the relevant talk pages. Suffice it to say, I don’t believe the suggestion of a TBAN is in any way merited. Riposte97 (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Riposte97: To help advance this to a conclusion, could you please elaborate on your statement, I have now read and understood the policy? SPECIFICO talk 21:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Riposte. While that is good practice, it is not why you were reported here. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Riposte97: stated that they had read and understood the policy. They then repeated their misstatement of the violation under review here. We'd all hope that a warning and Riposte's best efforts to adhere to CT would suffice. But so far, there's no sign that has begun, even with a careful reading of the matter on the table. SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out the editor's behaviour at Talk:Canadian Indian residential school gravesites where, based on an extremely unreliable source, the editor insisted on inserting into the lead a misleading statement that no human remains had been found in archaeological excavations at schools. (See RSN thread) He then rewrote large sections of the article over the protests of other editors:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]
• [11]

after being reverted by @Ivanvector:In the table of suspected graves it describes the finding of the partial remains of a child in a grave at the Qu'Appelle residential school, sourced to [12]. The Spiked source that you provided, which is the successor of a magazine that was run out of business for denying the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides, really shouldn't be used as a source for any information about anything described as a genocide. Ignoring that, it does not say that no bodies were found: it says that none were found in the five specific searches it names, which does not include Qu'Appelle. It also gives its unqualified opinion that "no evidence has been found to support the claims of a ‘genocide’", which is highly suspect given their known history of genocide denial. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC) Also:

it has become quite clear that you are repeatedly trying to remove neutral information and add inappropriately sourced opinions downplaying the significance of these events, as evidenced quite clearly by your repeated attempts to force in an inappropriately-sourced and provably false narrative that there are no bodies (e.g. [13],[14], [15], [16]) and removing sources that don't conform with that false statement. If you do not stop this, I will seek to have you banned from the topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Graham87 and DanielRigal: may also wish to comment based on an ANI thread linked at the user's talk page: [17] Elinruby (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Riposte97: I think this is highly relevant. The modus operandi of making changes while claiming consensus and adherence to policy is identical. And yes, indeed, I was blocked for a week in a series of events that began with removing the very claim Ivanvector describes above as "your repeated attempts to force in an inappropriately-sourced and provably false narrative". I have have own my thoughts on that block, but more to the point, you then removed a whole lot of reliably sourced information that you described as inaccurate and poorly sourced. This is a pattern, and by the way, it was nothing of the kind. As for canvassing: these administrators may be interested in commenting. There was an ANI case. This is relevant.

I will answer any questions admins may have but have no intention of responding further to this user. I note that my talk page diffs of other users protesting are broken; I am working on re-finding them right now and they should work shortly. TL;DR this is not someone encountering wikipedia governance for the first time who just needs a little guidance. Elinruby (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

links above work now, since someone mentioned this. Elinruby (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page at Kamloops Indian Residential School also appears to be relevant to claims of consensus and policy compliance: [18]. This article has just been indefinitely ec-protected finally. Elinruby (talk) 07:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: I do understand that residential schools are currently not a CT. The posts I made here were intended to demonstrate that the behavior TarnishedPath describes, of making changes over the protests of other editors while claiming to have consensus, is not limited to the Hunter Biden page and therefore maybe a warning is not enough. He certainly did not heed the warning he was given by Ivanvector. I am not asking here for remedies for that and never was. The Kamloops Indian Residential School article is being extensively discussed at RSN. I have not ruled out a post at ANI over the behaviour yesterday at Talk:Kamloops Indian Residential School. Also, I am interested in the history you mention; thank you, both for doing that and for mentioning it. I may ask you about that later, if you don't mind. But yeah, obviously Canadian residential schools are not American politics. I agree with you there. If you are required to consider behaviour in silos that way, well. This is not the place to discuss that either. Best, and thanks again. Elinruby (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Indeed. I can't quite parse the first sentence but I think you are saying that somebody could have, say, two blocks in whatever we are calling the Polish and Lithuanian genocide these days, but only get a warning if they transgress in let's say tree shaping? No reply needed if that is correct. As for mileage may vary, I agree. Elinruby (talk) 09:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I am not trying to 'invoke" anything. Or talking about Native Americans. But let's make this easy. I agree with what Red-tailed hawk proposed. Not that I think you need my approval. And I think I understand what you are saying about insularity. Elinruby (talk) 12:35, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is a clear violation of the enforced BRD sanction on the page. A self revert should be the first step, followed by a demonstration that they understand the bounds of the sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a warning would suffice in this instance, though I'd strongly urge Riposte97 to study the policy further as it can be a steep learning curve. El_C 14:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Briefly: the issues raised concerning residential schools are news to me. I would support a topic ban there, but it can't happen here because WP:AE is reserved for ARBCOM-authorized sanctions regimes only, of which Indigenous people are not included. And expressly not included under WP:AP2, which I know because I tried to encompass it under that regime years ago (when the cutoff was still 1932, before it was up'd to 1992), but was told no in no uncertain terms. So that'd need to be proposed at WP:AN, as a custom community-authorized TBAN. El_C 00:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Elinruby, yes, silo by definition or it would just apply, directly or by overlap. And, sure, Canadian, but there are tribes (like the Syilx, for eg.) whose territory straddles both countries. Regardless, I'm struggling to remember the setting in which I was denied. It may have been here at AE, or AN, or even by the committee at WP:ARCA. Anyway, unless I missed something, I'm not sure there's anything actionable here to the extent of meeting the requirement for sanctions, but other admins' mileage may vary. El_C 08:51, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Elinruby, a record of sanctions/warnings helps determine regular admin action, its severity or lack thereof. What I meant was that, for both ARBCOM-authorized and community-authorized sanctions regimes, one cannot for example (evidently), invoke WP:AP2 for disputes involving Native Americans in the United States (per se.), or conversely invoke WP:GS/UYGHUR for disputes involving Tibet (again, per se.). Because inherently, topic areas of sanctions regimes remain insular to subject matters that fall outside their scope. El_C 11:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect to the stuff that is within the scope of the AE board: the user has stated that they acknowledge that they were incorrect to make the offending edit, and they have agreed to change their behavior going forward. For that reason, unless there is an objection within the next 18 hours or so, I will close this with a logged warning to the user to adhere to the restriction on Hunter Biden going forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seeing no objection, I am closing this now. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ivanvector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Konanen (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/Acupuncture

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

1. Talk:Reiki#USE OF TECHNICAL TERMS AS BUZZWORDS - start of discussions about neutrality of calling Reiki "pseudoscience" and "quackery", during which Konanen added a {{npov}} banner to Reiki
2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Use of contentious labels in lead of an article - parallel discussion started by Konanen
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threat of Topic Ban after Objecting to Removal of POV tag during ongoing discussions both on Talk Page as well as NPOV/N - complaint started by Konanen regarding perceived personal attacks in response to them insisting on keeping a {{npov}} banner at the top of Reiki
4. Talk:Reiki#NPOV tag - new discussion following re-adding of the banner, in which Konanen insists they do not need to provide a justification for adding it

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. none known

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, at 19:58, 5 June 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User Konanen is civilly pushing a point of view, promoting false neutrality, and editing tendentiously on the alternative medicine topic Reiki.

Konanen opened the NPOVN discussion linked above, in parallel to a discussion already occurring on the article's talk page, with a request to remove the term "quackery" because they personally found it offensive, and to omit "pseudoscience" because of the term being redundant due to its occurrence in a linked article. Several editors objected, and there was some discussion which led to copyediting some repetitive occurrences of "pseudoscience" and improving the attribution of "quackery", but no consensus is evident for either term's removal. The discussion basically concluded on 30 May, other than one editor who on 5 June added their own biased tally of votes supporting their position and began removing all instances describing the practice as pseudoscience from the article, as well as a large criticism section; the other editor was topic-banned in a different thread here.

In the course of reverting the topic-banned user's disruptive edits, user Valjean restored an earlier revision and inadvertently removed the {{npov}} banner on 13 June. Konanen demanded that the banner be restored, referring to the false consensus and subsequent disruptive editing of the topic-banned user as evidence of ongoing discussion. When Valjean and Tgeorgescu responded essentially that two editors do not a consensus make, Konanen started the ANI thread reporting both users for personal attacks.

At ANI, several users both involved and not observed that Konanen is pushing the same POV as the topic-banned user, and expressed frustration over Konanen's insistence on displaying the neutrality banner. Several editors commented that the NPOVN discussion was concluded (e.g. [19], [20]), that the tag should be removed ([21], [22]), and that Konanen should drop the issue (e.g. [23], [24], [25], [26]), with many already suggesting a topic ban. Valjean did restore the banner some time later in an effort to move on.

Another editor then invited Konanen to identify the issue in a new talk page section. Konanen insisted that they didn't need to provide an explanation for the banner, and implied that the banner should remain until they were satisfied with the NPOVN discussion's outcome. I attempted to explain that cleanup tags are not meant to be used in this way and, referring to the opinion of ANI that the discussion was concluded, removed the banner again, suggesting that they should re-add it themselves only if they had another issue to discuss. Konanen still refuses to accept this, and this morning demanded that I self-revert or cite policy supporting the removal, which is blatant wikilawyering, and posted a new tally of votes at NPOVN which serves no purpose other than to tendentiously relitigate a discussion result they do not agree with.

I therefore propose that they be banned from the topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: yes, I should have clarified: I'm proposing they be banned from the topic of Reiki, not all of alternative medicine. Unless anyone else finds evidence they're being disruptive in the wider topic, which I haven't. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1229033748

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.

Interesting to find myself here when all I have done is to advocate for discussion and transparency (by way of a POV tag) about said discussion pertaining to a matter of NPOV.

First of all, I object to the submitter’s falsehoods re two editors do not a consensus make, as I will be showing further below, the tbanned editor and I were not the only ones who had objections to the article’s lead as it stood. I do not agree with their hasty edits, but that is not the issue at hand.

I reject the accusation of tendentious editing. Precisely because I have an opinion on the subject matter, and because I do not think I could do a better job than previous editors in fixing the perceived POV issues, have I not dared edit the article in question except for adding the POV tag. If talking about the content of an article, and taking the matter to NPOV/N for wider input is considered tendentious editing, then I apologise ― I was not aware that its definition had such a wide scope.

Valjean restored an early version, citing accidental removal ([27]), but they were terse and bordered on personal attacks when I asked them to restore, hence the decision to take the matter to ANI, instead of edit warring over the issue (I hesitate to revert reverts, as stated elsewhere).

The discussion on NPOV/N began on the 29th of May ([28]), so alleging that discussion concluded on the 30th of May is disingenuous when there has been some activity since ([29] [30] [31]).

I am partially to blame for the lull in activity between the 6th and 13th of June, but that should not stand in the way of the discussion’s legitimacy, considering that it has continued just fine without my input ([32] [33]) which is further proof that the matter was not laid to rest, and there was no consensus reached that article is NPOV, wherefore there were no grounds for the removal of the POV tag (which Valjean had agreed to reinstate yesterday during the ANI procedure, but above submitter saw fit to remove again, even though the matter had not concluded on NPOV/N nor on the article’s talk page, see diffs below).

All that being said, since yesterday, there has been further opining about the article’s NPOV on its talk page as well as the noticeboard following Valjean’s substantial changes to the lead and my creating a summary of the discussion so far for a better overview ([34] [35] [36] [37] [38]). In my humble opinion, we have come to a good arrangement as to the lead. I am not interested in keeping the POV tag for the tag’s sake, and I think a good discussion has given way to an acceptable compromise less than an hour ago ([39]). I consider the matter satisfactorily discussed and remedied, and see no need for the POV tag to be restored at this time. Cheers, –Konanen (talk) 17:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I am unsure which reply you are referring to, but the first diff is a reply to another editor’s concerns about the lead, and not Ivanvector, (unless my phone’s rendering of the diff is swallowing up the appropriate reply). Anyway, that reply was referring to a completely different edit made to the lead by Valjean, and had nothing to do directly with the POV tag? -Konanen (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that I may be the other user referred to by Ivanvector. I opened the talkpage section for the tag to give Konanen a chance (and any other editors, for that matter) to actually clearly state what NPOV issue was so prevalent in the article to merit a tag on the whole article. This way other editors could begin the process of improving any issues. Konanen replied that they do not agree that there needs to be any qualified raison d’être of the POV tag, even though the tag itself says Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page which is what I was attempting to begin. Regardless, a discussion over one word repeated maybe a couple times is not a discussion about the POV of the article as a whole that merits a NPOV tag. Rather than engage with their concerns on the talkpage constructively, they've continued trying to discuss at the NPOV/N. Seemingly now that Ivanvector has opened this thread, they've now backed off and said they have "no further problems" even though they were arguing to hide "pseudoscience" from being used in the article at all only a couple days prior.

Their behavior in the discussions leaves a lot to be desired - and whether they are well-intentioned or not, they've displayed their inability to constructively contribute to articles about pseudoscientific "medical treatments" on Wikipedia. I do not believe that a topic ban from all of medicine is merited necessarily, but a topic ban wider than reiki for sure. They started the discussion at NPOVN based on them finding the term pseudoscience "objectionable", and it is clear that early on they were on a crusade to legitimize reiki as scientifically sound and trusted. That alone should be enough evidence that they cannot contribute constructively to alternative medicine topics on Wikipedia, since they have admitted since the start that their personal objection is more important than the sources and discussion. A topic ban from alternative medicine need not be permanent, but the editor (who is still relatively new) should display their ability to have constructive and cooperative dialogue about article content before they should be allowed into the broader area again after this. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Taking a quick glance at their contribs, this seems to be the only topic where this type of editing has been an issue. A narrow tban for Reiki would likely be sufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm also in favour of an indef WP:TBAN from Reiki, WP:BROADLY construed. Too many issues, including WP:MEDRS ones. For example, I found their reply (diff) to Ivanvector's caution against using blank POV tags (diff) to have been unresponsive, and as such, WP:TENDENTIOUS. El_C 14:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Rp2006 (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/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Rp2006 topic ban (2), indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed.

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

1. [40] Created an article about a documentary about two living people that focuses on Facilitated communication.
2. [41] Adds that article to the see also section of Facilitated communication.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Blocked by Arbcom motion for topic ban violations and continued COI editing

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.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Facilitated communication has a Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism tag on the talk page and the first source is Skeptical Inquirer, and many other sources in the article are related to skepticism. There was also a minor BLPvio in the lead, linking a former NFL player as the 33-year-old African-American man with severe mental disabilities who cannot speak, has cerebral palsy, and is unable to stand independently or accurately direct movements of his body. The wikilink to Anna Stubblefield is a redirect to a section of the Facilitated communication article. These are their first edits upon return from a block for topic ban violations. My previous filing Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331#Rp2006 contains a list with many of the warnings they were given before their recent block.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[42]

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.

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

• Back off a month long block from ArbCom, and already violating the topic ban again? Rp2006, I'll allow some reasonable period of time for you to say your piece, but unless I'm really convinced this won't happen again, I think another timed block will just lead to this same procedure shortly after that one expires. At this point, I don't believe Rp2006 ever intends to abide by the topic ban, so I think it's time to indef. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur. If there's no intention to adhere to the restriction while it is in effect, there's no point in setting the next block to expire only to repeat it all over again. El_C 13:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Seraph and El C. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

195.225.189.243 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

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

1. 08:58, April 2, 2024 Adds unsourced partner to infobox, which doesn't appear anywhere else in the article
2. 14:25, June 22, 2024 Adds unsourced date of birth
3. 14:22, June 22, 2024 Adds unsourced date/place of birth
4. 13:25, April 4, 2024 Adds unsourced date of birth
5. 14:45, March 30, 2024 Adds unsourced partner to infobox, which doesn't appear anywhere else in the article
6. 14:46, March 30, 2024 Adds unsourced partner to infobox, which doesn't appear anywhere else in the article
7. 02:22, February 10, 2024 Adds unsourced date of birth and partner
8. 17:17, February 3, 2024 Adds unsourced partner to infobox, which doesn't appear anywhere else in the article
9. 14:56, February 3, 2024 Adds unsourced date of birth.
10. 18:16, June 4, 2024 Adds unsourced factoid to lead of article, which doesn't appear in main body
11. 14:37, June 17, 2024 Adds same unsourced factoid to body of article
12. 13:01, June 8, 2024 Adds claim of being engaged, when article body says she is married

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. November 22, 2023 Blocked from article space for three months
2. February 13, 2024 Blocked for disruptive editing for one week

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

Notified at 16:23, April 10, 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As well as the main IP which is used on a regular basis, they have also used 84.66.90.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 84.69.68.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 84.69.113.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (and possibly some others I forgot to keep track of), see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/195.225.189.243/Archive. Despite the two blocks and countless warnings across their various IP addresses, they carry on making unsourced changes.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

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

• Preliminarily, this appears to be a static IP that is associated with the Warwickshire County Council per WHOIS records. It's a bit odd to enforce AE sanctions against IPs, since they can change fairly quickly, but it it's static enough then it's something that might reasonably be looked at. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure if this needed AE? They have a long history of adding unsourced material to BLP's, were blocked for 3 months then immediately resumed where they left off. Have re-pblocked from articles for a year. Not entirely convinced re the other IP's listed by the OP: these seem used by more than one person. Perhaps something for a renewed SPI if the pblocked editor switches substantially to one of these. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your 1 year article space block will likely be all that is needed here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

1. 20:11, 23 June 2024 WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:NOTHERE
2. 20:51, 23 June 2024 WP:CANVASSING and WP:BATTLEGROUND

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

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.

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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.

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

1. 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.
2. 28 June

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 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

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.

• 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]

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]

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]

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.

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:

1. 27 June 2024: "Bad faith editing"
2. 27 June 2024: "you have no concerns for objectivity or accuracy; you're implementing a pro-Israel agenda"
3. 8 June 2024: "You try hard to sound like you're worried about nothing but the application of Wikipolicy"
4. 28 May 2024: various incivility
5. 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:

1. 27 June 2024: "shamelessly sophistic"
2. 27 June 2024: "he wants to remove information he dislikes"
3. 27 June 2024: "removing facts just because they don't help the narrative he wants to push"
4. 16 June 2024: "POV-pushing"
5. 8 June 2024: "obvious pro-Israel POV edit warring"
6. 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

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.

• 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

1. 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
2. 29 April 5 minutes later deletes the content itself saying any such claims should have multiple sources
3. 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).

1. 8 June 1st removal
2. 24 June 2nd removal
3. 28 June 3rd removal
4. 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.[43]

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]

Seraphimblade, please not that, the user misused the sources 2nd time after being reported.[1]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification diff

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.

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]

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. [44] 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]

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]