A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127

Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation

General consensus among participating Arbitrators is that nothing needs to be done at this point in time. Primefac (talk) 20:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Initiated by HouseBlaster at 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Article titles and capitalisation arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

§ Contentious topic designation

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

HouseBlaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

§ Contentious topic designation

Split into two separate CTOP designations

Statement by HouseBlaster

The Manual of Style and Article title policy are jointly authorized contentious topics. Speaking for myself, I have {{Contentious topics/aware|mos}} on my talk page, because I was (and am) aware that the MOS is a CTOP. I was unaware until earlier today that article titles are also a CTOP bundled with the MOS CTOP, even though I was technically aware of the article title CTOP.

It seems that others are also unaware (in the conventional sense) that article titles are CTOPICs; at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions it was about three days and 26KB of discussion before Guerrillero pointed out that article titles are already designated as a CTOP.

The MOS and article titles are related, but distinct, issues. I think they should be split into seperate CTOPs to reflect the fact that they are distinct issues. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding giv[ing] administrators an awful lot of discretion, I think that is the point of CTOPs: they give a lot of discretion to admins in areas that have historically been problematic. If admins abuse that discretion, that is a separate problem. We already have at least one CTOP (infoboxes) which covers particular discussions about an article rather than the article itself. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 15:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Barkeep's comment, I should have been aware (in the conventional sense) that I was indicating AWAREness of article titles. That was completely my mistake. However, I still find it strange that this is a double-topic CTOP, and it is weird that I have to notify people who have never interacted with the MOS about its designation as a CTOP because they are involved in a dispute concerning article titles (or vice versa). House Blaster (talk · he/him) 15:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

Splitting the remedy is probably more trouble than it's worth. But while we're here: there hasn't been a logged sanction under this case since 2020, and that's probably because its scope is so narrow that most title- or MOS-related disruption isn't covered. Honestly there's a strong argument for just repealing it altogether, although the timing may not be right for that. An alternative would be to expand it to include RMs and the like (certainly there have been plenty of issues there), but that would give administrators an awful lot of discretion. The status quo of having the CTOP cover just the policy/guideline pages (which are often less contentious than the RMs) doesn't really make sense to me, though, and the lack of use suggests it's not doing much of value. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

I would oppose splitting them, because the application of the MOS guidelines to the article titles policy was a large part of the controversy that caused me to file the case in the first place. See also Comet Hale–Bopp. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Recuse, obviously. House Blaster (talk · he/him) 02:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

FWIW, I'm not actually sure that the sanction from 2020 qualified under the scope of these sanctions. I would ping the admin who placed them but that admin is me (I thought they did at the time but have since come to doubt that). That said I've resisted including these when we've proposed areas to rescind because I know controversey remains. So where that leaves us here, I'm not sure, other than I wouldn't want to split them. In terms of not understanding their scope, the awareness template mentions Manual of Style and Article Topics so I think understanding that scope matters for the person saying their aware? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Extraordinary Writ that splitting this CTOP is more trouble than it is worth. I would be willing to rescind the CTOP for article titles, as MOS pretty much covers the same territory. If there is still controversy in this area as Barkeep suggests, then it seems like the CTOP is not addressing the concerns if it is not being used. Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an issue of the wording of the CTOP being ambiguous then that should be clarified, but the MoS and the Wikipedia:Article titles policy both are similar enough that I don't think they need to be split. If there's evidence that the scope isn't working that should be addressed by expanding or narrowing it. - Aoidh (talk) 03:58, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Aoidh has said-- I understand why this was filed and the rationale for splitting them, but I think it might overcomplicate things. I think this is a useful CT regime to have otherwise, but I'm open to amending it if there's evidence of issues with the application/scope. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally fine with the existence of WP:CT/MOS and no change appears to be happening, so I think this should be closed without action for now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support closing this without action, I think the comments above from my colleagues cover everything. firefly ( t · c ) 15:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads

Initiated by Just Step Sideways at 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Just Step Sideways (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Just Step Sideways

Two recent situations have revealed what appears to be some vagueness regarding when and if users should email private evidence to the committee, the utility of doing so when it concerns a curent on-wiki, but non-ArbCom discussion, and also if merely saying that a thread exists is not permitted.

(I seem to recall that there is a case somewhere where the committee discussed very similar issues, but I've been unable to locate it in the archives.)

In one case a user posted nothing more than the name of a very long thread at an off-wiki criticism site (they actually didn't even spell it the same as the actual thread title). It turned out that within this off-wiki thread, if one dug through it long enough, there was a link to a different thread where the very user who had made the on-wiki post was outed. This resulted in a very large number of diffs on a busy page being supressed, even though there was no direct link to any outing.

In an ongoing RFA, some users are opposing based on what could only be described as completely harmless posts on that same forum. The recent supression action would seem to indicate that even posting the name of the thread on-wiki would lead to further supression, which is obviously to be avoided. One of these users has stated that they contacted the committee before posting, but it is unclear what this was meant to accomplish or what the committee may or may not have said back to them, if anything.

I considered reproducing some or all of the RFA candidates posts on-wiki to demonstrate the point that they are comletely unproblematic unto themselves, but given the events described above I don't know if that would also lead to supression actions.

I feel like this has the potantial to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites, no matter how innocuous their posts are the topic being discussed may be, and that even mentioning the name of a thread on such a site is now forbidden, which seems a bit extreme to me.

I understand and agree that directly posting a link on-wiki to a specific post that contains outing is a clear violation of the outing policy. It is less clear to me that posting merely the name of an extremely long thread with no actual link to the thread at all is a violation. I would therefore ask that the committee clarify where the line is.

I've deliberately not named the individuals involved in these incidents as this is matter of interpretation of policy, specifically Wikipedia:Oversight. I can email more detailed information if needed but I imagine it should be fairly easy for you all to determine what I'm referring to. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Barkeep, I'm not sure what I've got wrong, because I had to kind of piece together what actually happened as the material was supressed. I was pretty sure I'd got it right but guesswork is risky that way. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, I guess it comes as no surprise that we don't see eye-to-eye on this, but there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread. seems a bit extreme to me. Do I agree with everything that is said and done over there? No, but I could say the same about here. There are several ongoing threads over there that contain valid and insightful criticism of Wikipedia content and policy. I have personally taken multiple actions here that have improved the project, that I likely wouldn't have done had I not read the criticism over there. I'd tell you which ones but right now it is unclear to me if I'm even allowed to say. Dispairaiging remarks like No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it. aren't helpful. I seem to recall you saying at some point that you have never actually read anything over there, so it's hard to understand how you formed your opinions. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:56, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree there are aspects of this that are outside of the committee's remit, but one thing that is for sure inside of it is the question of "emailing the evidence to the committee." If there is evidence over there that, say, an admin is blocking users for invalid reasons at the urging of others over there, and going back to laugh about it with them, that would obviously be an issue for the committee. That isn't what we just saw at RFA. I feel like "I told ArbCom" was in this case meant as a shield, to allow the user to say they had infomred the proper authorities of the supposed wrongdoing, when the wrongdoing amounted to "they have an account and have made a very small number of completely non-objectionable posts." What was emailing the committee meant to accomplish? What, if anything, did it accomplish? What, if any, was the committee's reply? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many times I need to explain that collective guilt is generally believed to be a bad thing. Let's just reverse this scenario: If I comment on an ArbCom case, and later the committee makes a profoundly stupid decision, is that my fault? Obviosuly not. Am I obligated to explicitly call it out and distance myself from it even though I had nothing to do with it? Of course not. Ignoring it as having nothing to do with me is a valid option. WPO is no more a monolith hive mind that WP is, opinions differ on a wide variety of topics. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 20:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're certainly seeing new levels of crazy here, calling people "traitors" for posting there and saying Editors need to make a choice between their loyalty to Wikipedia and its editors versus their social life elsewhere. is pretty wild. You can't be critical of Wikipedia content or contributors or you're a traitor, choose a side. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 17:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I think it would be very interesting to hear ArbCom opinions on this question. In part, this issue comes up in the context of the 2024 RfA reform discussions heading in the direction of wanting accusations of wrongdoing against RfA candidates to be backed up with specific evidence, and the question comes up of how to provide specific evidence when it cannot be posted onsite. Does ArbCom want editors to submit such evidence about RfA candidates to ArbCom, and if so, can ArbCom respond to the evidence in a way that is sufficiently timely to be useful for RfA? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I have lots of thoughts, but they boil down to: we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA (or anywhere else at WP). Sorry, the world is imperfect. Based on this, you would very often be able to discuss a Discord discussion, and very often not be able to discuss a WO discussion, but with exceptions in both cases. It seems like further details on this aren't useful until and unless I become God Emperor of WP, and can just implement it, but I can expand if someone wants. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I see this as a matter for the community, rather than ARBCOM. To me the heart of the matter is if, and how, we can discuss Wikipedia editors' off-wiki activities. ARBCOM has a role to play when off-wiki conduct impinges on on-wiki matters enough; typically, for harassment, collusion, or other disruption of our core purpose. The off-wiki conduct that has become a matter of discussion at RFA is very different: it isn't a violation of any of our PAGs, it is just behavior some editors find objectionable in an RFA candidate. We treat the off-wiki lives of our editors as private, and rightfully so. Discord and WPO are weird, in that they are strictly off-wiki fora populated by a large number of Wikipedians in good standing. I don't think it's an unreasonable position to take that behavior there shouldn't be immune to on-wiki scrutiny if it becomes relevant to on-wiki matters; I also don't think it's unreasonable to say that what happens off-wiki should stay there until and unless our PAGs are being violated, and then it needs to go to ARBCOM. But that's an area in which current policy seems to not cover all the contingencies, and the community needs to grapple with that. I don't see how a comment like this is useful to send to ARBCOM, or what ARBCOM could do if it was; but we're clearly unsettled as a community that it was posted, and we need to figure out guidelines for it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Joe Roe

I agree that some clarification from the committee on these matters would be helpful. This isn't entirely up to them—for example, the ban on discussing Discord discussions is the result of a community RfC and it would be inappropriate to modify it either way here—but ArbCom has historically played a role in making editors feel generally uncomfortable about linking to things off-wiki. More specifically, a 2007 remedy pronouncing that quoting private correspondence is a copyright violation is still on the books and still cited in WP:EMAILPOST. Does the current committee agree with this interpretation?

In addition, ArbCom has a responsibility to regulate the oversight team, and I've had a feeling for a long time now that they been enforce an extremely broad understanding of what constitutes "outing" that is not necessarily reflective of broader community opinion. Some direction there could also be very helpful: OS is used as "tool of first resort", or so the mantra goes, but we shouldn't underestimate how chilling it is to have an edit suppressed. – Joe (talk) 08:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh makes a good point below about current policy (WP:OUTING) requiring disclosure of personal information on Wikipedia before it can be discussed. There are two pivot points there: where the disclosure should happen, but also whether profiles on external sites, and by extension posts associated with those profiles, can reasonably be considered "personal information". For me it's the latter that is the problem here; the former is a good rule when applied to genuine personal information. Interestingly, it's also a relatively recent addition to the harassment policy,[1][2] following this discussion in December 2020. The reason given for the addition was to bring the policy in line with the practice of oversighters, which rather speaks to my point of the OS team pushing things in a more conservative direction, not necessarily the community as a whole. – Joe (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moneytrees and Barkeep49: The "copyright email" correspondence is cited in WP:EMAILPOST, albeit in a roundabout way. I think it would be helpful for the committee to formally retract that remedy, even if it won't change things immediately, just to remove the spectre of that particular armchair lawyer from subsequent discussions. As Barkeep also alludes to, a lot of the appearance of support for these rules comes not from people really reflecting on the core issue, but transferring a (faulty) logic originally applied to emails to IRC, and then from IRC to Discord, and so on. If the sender of an email wants to control what happens to it, they can do so completely: by not sending it. If the operator of a Discord channel wants to control what happens to the logs, they can do so completely: by not making them public. But what we're talking about here is material that has already been published on the internet. It is not private and never will be again. All we achieve by trying to put the cat back in the bag is to create a charade where we have to pretend not to be able to see messages that we can all see, not to know things that we all know, and not to talk about things that we can all talk about elsewhere. Nobody's privacy is protected, it just makes it easier for editors who behave badly off-wiki to evade accountability, and makes good-faith editors look like idiots because they're not allowed to provide evidence for the opinions they've formed based on off-wiki activity.
@CaptainEek: What is ArbCom supposed to do with it, though? The precipitating incident here is an RfA where there was opposition based on the candidates activity on Discord and Wikipediocracy (so no it's not just about WPO). The opposers (including me) could not point to specific incidents, because of the rules discussed here which, at least in part, stem from a prior ArbCom remedy on from the practice of the oversight team. How would emailing ArbCom help there? And in general, what role is ArbCom supposed to play when the off-wiki material that people want to discuss is relevant to on-wiki activities, but doesn't rise to the level of something needing ArbCom intervention?
And to nobody in particular, I do think it would aid transparency if committee members who are active on the off-wiki forums we're discussing here disclose it when voting or offering an opinion. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ferret

I'd like an opinion on this as well, not necessarily just for RFA. Specific to WP:Discord, I !voted in the Discord RFC to restrict copying and linking Discord messages. I did so based on my reading of OUTING, HARASSMENT, and the community expectations of IRC logs, rather than strictly what I'd prefer. That consideration included what Joe references about the copyright concern of "private" messages, which seems to be part of the long standing rationale around IRC messages. I've also seen several times people suggest that OUTING goes as far as covering someone outing themselves on another Wikimedia project (i.e. a user page on eswiki), meaning that's not good enough to mention here on English Wikipedia. Prior to SUL, that may well have been, but SUL is long done. So what I'm really driving at is: Where is the line on identifying yourself sufficiently to be mentioned on site? Particular to the Discord, we have OAuth integration through an open source bot hosted on WMF resources. Is this enough to count as self-disclosure? Or does the connection to Discord have to be on-site (i.e. a userbox or otherwise)? Revisiting the Discord RFC is on the community, but some of these questions, such as EMAILPOST and how OS will act, are at least partially under Arbcom as Joe notes. -- ferret (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 Thanks. I have heard this said (Re: disclosure on other Wikimedia projects) repeatedly, but I did not know where it might actually be stated. -- ferret (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Regarding Ferret's comments regarding disclosures on other SUL wikis. I have a vague recollection that this was discussed previously, but I don't remember where. I don't think a single hard and fast rule can be applied to that, but it's a matter of how reasonable it is to expect en.wp editors to be aware of the disclosure. For example if you make a disclosure on another wiki and you prominently link to that page from your userpage here, that should count as disclosing it here. If you disclose something on your e.g. eswiki userpage and make it clear on your userpage here that you contribute to eswiki, then again it's reasonable to take that as having been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. However, if you state something on the e.g. Russian wikisource's equivalent of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and don't link to that page here, then it has not been disclosed to the English Wikipedia. Obviously there will be many things in between the extremes that can only be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, unless you are sure it has been intentionally or obviously disclosed somewhere it is reasonable to expect English Wikipedia editors to be aware of, then assume it has not been disclosed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 so basically what I said just more clearly and a lot more concisely! Thryduulf (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: there are two issues with connecting accounts elsewhere. The first is ensuring that connections are actually correct, i.e. User X here is the same person as user X elsewhere - even sharing relatively unusual names like Thryduulf is not a guarantee (I remember finding a user Thryduulf that was nothing to do with me a few years ago, user:Thrydwulf is nothing to do with me). The second issue is that editors have a reasonable expectation of privacy and are allowed to choose to disclose things in other communities that they do not want to disclose here. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by hako

I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing I'd like the committee to make an explicit distinction between persons involved in the act of doxxing (or say vote canvassing or any other misconduct) on third-party sites, and persons who participate on those sites but are not abettors. It's futile to overreach and police what editors do and say outside wikipedia. Hypothetically speaking, I can say whatever I want on any third party site with a fictitious name, without any possibility of repercussion on my activity on wikipedia. Arbcom should act exclusively on cases where they find evidence of misconduct by an editor off-wiki without attaching any vicarious liability to other participants on that off-wiki platform. — hako9 (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich JSS/Beebs, you posted in that same thread over there six times since that post was made, and not a single word about this very open threat. What is JSS supposed to do? Chide Vigilant aggressively so that they stop doxxing? As if that would work? The doxxing is going to happen whether editors here participate there or not. — hako9 (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens

CaptainEek Statements like there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread are problematic. Are you suggesting that if I were to discuss my resignation of the tools in late 2013, a Wikipediocracy post--that persists to this day in somewhat redacted form--doxxing me and listing my employer's name and phone number and my home address and phone number (that were redacted so quickly by WPO leadership I couldn't confirm their accuracy) and several other identifying bits of information would be off limits for me to bring up to discuss the circumstances of my tools resignation? I'd like to think that, as the person doxxed, it is my prerogative to mention, discuss, or even link to such a thread, and the clear sense of WP:OUTING is that such linkage would be permitted if done by me. (For the record, none of the information is particularly threatening to me 10 1/2 years later. Those overly interested can Google my current employer and discover why.) Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first things I did after learning about it was searching my own name on there; boy was that a bad decision. CaptainEek, you highlight one of the ongoing negatives of Wikipediocracy: regulars there have a love/hate, but mostly hate, relationship with Wikipedia administrators that can have a demoralizing effect on Wikipedia editors. While I would also not recommend any admin or outspoken user search the site for their username, once having done so, it can be instructive to see how particular actions are discussed. In at least one case, only after being pointed to Wikipediocracy and reading the relevant thread did I understand the opposition to a stance I took. So while linking to criticism of another editor may well remain off limits, each mentioned editor should be made aware of the potential to review critics' unfiltered thoughts at the site. Jclemens (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

A couple of days ago on WPO, Vigilant, the WPO user who most often doxes Wikipedia editors and openly threatens to continue doing so, wrote, in response to Eek's comments here, "Sounds like Eek needs an exposé" (link omitted). JSS/Beebs, you posted in that same thread over there six times since that post was made, and not a single word about this very open threat. Here, your third post is "Dispairaiging remarks like 'No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it.' aren't helpful." That's pretty bad: you take the time to criticize someone for criticizing WPO, but you don't criticize WPO for threatening to 'expose' editors.

(Also, Beebs, give up the "but they read it!" line of argument. Of course people who criticize WPO read it. Just like people on WPO read Wikipedia even though they criticize Wikipedia. This is not the "gotcha" that you seem to think it is: if people didn't criticize things they read, or didn't read the things they criticize, there would no criticism at all. Perhaps that's what you want?)

So w/r/t JSS's comment in the OP that "this has the potential to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites," that chilling effect is good and we want that. Just like WPO is trying to create a chilling effect on Wikipedia by threatening to dox editors they disagree with, Wikipedia should create a chilling effect, or a taboo, about participating in off-wiki websites that dox editors, even if those websites refer to themselves as "criticism sites." There are other reasons not to have a blanket prohibition on linking or referring to another website (one of those reasons is so we can call people out for their ~~wikipediocracy~~ hypocrisy, as I am doing here), but "chilling effect" ain't it. Levivich (talk) 19:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

While I think the idea of prohibiting mention of the ignominious badsites and offsites was done with the best of intentions, it seems to very obviously and directly facilitate and enable any manner of bad behavior. In general, the way it ends up working in practice is something like:

There is some RfC onwiki about whatever subject.
Somebody (whether an editor here or not) makes a thread on WPO called "Giant Morons Trying To Ruin Everything By Voting For Option 2".
Nobody can bring up the existence of this thread, because it is an unmentionable badsite.
For some mysterious reason that nobody could possibly fathom, the RfC has 500% more participation than usual, and is uncharacteristically nasty.
We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.

Here is another example:

Someone on WPO makes a thread gratuitously insulting a Wikipedia user, in which all sorts of unbelievably nasty things are said about them, possibly under their real name.
Nobody can mention or link to this thread, because it is an unmentionable badsite.
Someone says: "Uh, well, nobody has any evidence that WPO ever did anything wrong, you know it's just a myth".
We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.

Another:

Somebody signs up for a WPO account to respond to a thread about them, or to correct a misunderstanding, or something along these lines, and their posts are 100% anodyne and unobjectionable.
Nobody can link to the posts, or mention what they actually said, because it is an unmentionable badsite.
Someone says: "Uh, well, I could NEVER trust someone who hangs out on WPO, you know they dox people there".
We all have to just sit there and grit our teeth at this skulduggery.

Whatever the reasoning was behind this omerta stuff, it seems in practice to have almost entirely bad implications -- it certainly doesn't stop people from going to WPO and doing whatever they want (trash-talking other editors, getting out the vote for RfCs/AfDs/etc, weird mafioso larping) -- the only thing it actually stops is us talking about it or doing something about it.

Contrariwise, this isn't even much of a benefit for WPO -- people onwiki are also completely free to just say stuff with no evidence because "well I can't link to it or tell anybody what it is". jp×g 🗯️ 03:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if there's any way for me to mention this site and avoid the inevitable dual-front pissing and moaning where somebody on here accuses me of being pro-WPO and threatens to drag me to whatever, while simultaneously somebody on WPO accuses me of being anti-WPO while posting a thread under my real name in the public section of the forum and also claims that it's not doxing because if you spend a half-hour digging through my contributions you can see that my username was originally my real name -- well, whatever man, can I at least get a T-shirt? jp×g 🗯️ 03:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While we are on the subject, the idea that single-sentence quotations of offsite communications need to be removed as copyright violations is just completely false as far as I can tell -- there is literally no other part of Wikipedia where we make the ridiculous claim that quoting with attribution one sentence from a published work is a copyvio. It's one thing if we want to have a rule against it, but it would be better to do so without unnecessarily lying about how copyright law works, and if we actually do this in policy anywhere it should really be fixed for the sake of avoiding embarrassment. jp×g 🗯️ 03:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: If it's possible to clarify that we are allowed to discuss offsite happenings, I think this would be a big improvement. Currently, if I link to a Wikipediocracy thread, I do so by ignoring what people have told me the rules are; the examples I give are meant as a rejoinder to "there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread".

@Just Step Sideways: I think this thing about "collective punishment" doesn't make a whole lot of sense -- I agree that it would be dumb to block somebody simply because they hang out on the daily with a strange stalker online, and you clearly do not exert control over the dox guy. At the same time, though, isn't it kind of straightforward why people would dislike when you show up to a thread on WPO where someone is being harassed, and then make posts in the thread to say negative things about them? jp×g 🗯️ 04:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

As the victim of doxxing (and threats of same) and nasty, uncivil, and snide criticism on the named off-wiki website by at least one admin (who should lose their tools) and a few fringe(*) editors here, the comment by @Just Step Sideways: is very ironic. (* "Fringe" is defined as editors who get their POV from unreliable sources and edit and discuss accordingly here.) Just Step Sideways writes:

"I feel like this has the potantial to create a chilling effect where users will be afraid to post anything at all on off-wiki criticism sites,.."

Whatever happened to the matter of far more importance to Wikipedia, and that is the chilling effect HERE created by those nasty off-wiki comments from other editors who should be considered good-faith colleagues here? How can one edit and discuss around such editors and ever feel safe again? The "enjoyment of editing" here is totally undermined by them. Trust has been violated. The chilling effect is enormous and constant, and one lives under a cloud of pressure from their illicit and bad faith stalking and harassment. I know this will immediately be reported there by traitors from here, but it needs to be said.

Editors need to be protected, and their enjoyment of editing here should not be threatened by uncollegial criticism, snide comments, and threats of doxxing elsewhere. It invites even worse behavior from bad actors who may not even be editors here. It's a dog whistle. Editors need to make a choice between their loyalty to Wikipedia and its editors versus their social life elsewhere. Keep a wall between them. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Levivich:, @Vanamonde93:, and @JPxG: for your insights. You seem to understand the problem. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:23, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Carrite

Puzzling that Beebs would feel the need to poke a stick into a beehive. This is not an Arb matter, if anything it is a community matter, and it's really not that. Criticism websites have existed almost as long as there has been a Wikipedia and over these 15+ years, people have a pretty good implied understanding of what is in and what is out. Mentions are one thing, links maybe another. In any event, it strikes me as dumb to overgeneralize about a message board as it is to overgeneralize about Wikipedia — projecting its worst foibles as in some way representative of the whole. This is clearly a No Action sort of request, methinks, and good for that. For those of you who demonize WPO, pop over and have a beer with us sometime, we don't bite very hard. —tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:37, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens - >>While I would also not recommend any admin or outspoken user search the site for their username, once having done so, it can be instructive to see how particular actions are discussed. In at least one case, only after being pointed to Wikipediocracy and reading the relevant thread did I understand the opposition to a stance I took. So while linking to criticism of another editor may well remain off limits, each mentioned editor should be made aware of the potential to review critics' unfiltered thoughts at the site. — This pretty much gets to the heart of things. It's a criticism site, by definition. If one is above criticism or if one never makes mistakes or if one believes that Wikipedia is flawless and problemless — back off, stay away, there is nothing to see because you have nothing to learn. If you want to partake of slightly-filtered criticism, to have issues raised in an aggressive manner under a spotlight, venture forth if you desire. At its best, WPO is to Wikipedia as Sixty Minutes is to government agencies. The mission is not "to out and harass." Carrite (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich - Do not necessarily conclude that the lack of publicly-viewable criticism of a WPO poster's material means there is nothing happening backstage. WPO has a Direct Messages system and there are behavioral requests made there periodically which will never show up in a thread. Don't make the mistake of calling out inaction until you know there was actually no action. Carrite (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG - See you soon. ;-) Carrite (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mangoe

We rejected this back in 2007. Could we please stop trying to sneak it back in? Mangoe (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

mentioning the name of off-wiki threads: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

mentioning the name of off-wiki threads: Arbitrator views and discussion

Thanks for raising this issue JSS. As the OS who did the noticeboard suppression which named a thread, your facts aren't quite right there, but I don't think that takes away from the larger point you're raising. And it's one I admit to some discomfort with in an RfA context. As it stands I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing. I also think the community would care about certain off-wiki activities. For instance, if User:Foo had lost Stewardship due to abuse on Miraheze/WikiTide there would be no cause for any action here, but I think the community would want to consider that information before passing someone at RfA. So don't have any answers (yet) but wanted to acknowledge some thoughts I had as I wait to see what other editors and arbs say. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf the wording about other projects is found in note 1 of the harassment policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: your 3 situations confuse me. At the moment I'm not aware of anyone taking administrative action against scenario 1. Am I wrong here? For situation 2, it feels like whether or not "possibly under their real name" happens will matter a huge amount. If there's not a real name, I'm not aware of practice/procedure to suggestion action against (as with scenario 1). If there is a real name that has not been revealed under policy, it would seem to be eligible for oversighting. Are you suggesting that WPO be exempt from Oversighting in this scenario? And I don't understand what you're suggesting is the real impact of scenario 3. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, thanks that's helpful in explaining things. No arb - not even CaptainEek who has spoken out the most strongly against WPO - is saying you can't ever link (let along mention) WPO and we both know WP:BADSITES is a failed proposal. However, if a link reasonably serves to harass someone the link would be inappropriate and writing a comment that includes such a link could be a conduct issue (depending on other factors). If the link reasonably serves to doxx someone (which is one form of harassment), it would make the comment with the link eligible for overisghting. The odds are higher that a link to WPO is a form of harassment than a link to say reddit (as another forum based community), but even that doesn't mean linking to most threads at WPO would be harassment. Most threads at WPO not having harassment also doesn't mean that a link couldn't have been harmless when posted, but turns into harassment (though no fault of the person posting) after the fact because there is subsequently outing that could reasonably be found by clicking on the link. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to take more time to look into this so I can make a more informed opinion, but wanted to note that I am paying close attention to this and appreciate the statements given so far. I think it's important to note that the current wording of WP:OUTING requires self-disclosure on Wikipedia in order for the disclosure of off-wiki profiles to not constitute outing, and I think it's important to view these issues through that lens unless and until that policy is amended. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this is something that the community as a whole needs to address, as these effect fundamental policies. If there are aspects that only ArbCom can address then we should do so, but the broad discussion is something the community should shape and change as needed. @Just Step Sideways: emailing ArbCom and saying that you did so on Wikipedia should not in and of itself carry any weight whatsoever, and doing this should not protect that editor from the consequences of their actions on Wikipedia or negate their responsibilities as an editor (WP:CIVILITY, WP:OUTING, etc.). @Joe Roe: there is a userbox disclosing the fact that I am on the Wikimedia Community Discord server. I am also on a few English Wikipedia-related IRC channels. Outside of that, I do not and to the best of my knowledge have never posted on any Wikipedia-focused off-wiki forum or made any comments about Wikipedia on any off-wiki forum. - Aoidh (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of thoughts about this but might take some time to make them digestible. One thing though, I agree with you @Joe that the "copyright" justification for not posting emails is pretty dubious, at least in a modern Wikipedia context, and I know at least one other Arb felt a similar way last year. That said, I think it's reasonable to prohibit the posting of emails (or at least discourage it), and WP:EMAILPOST doesn't actually cite the "copyright" portion of the remedy~-- so I'm not actually sure if it's something that needs to be amended? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:52, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'm the arb mentioned (could be!), but there was a reason in the Discord RfC mentioned above that I said it and IRC should be treated equally. I think there's a fairly reasonable case that channel/server operators should be able to decide if logs can be posted onwiki or not and for that decision to be respected onwiki. Further the copyright justification (as opposed to just straight up "Wikipedians are concerned about privacy and this is one way we choose to protect it) for OS'ing off-wiki stuff has always felt weak to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of beating around the bush here, but it seems clear that the real issue here is Wikipediocracy. I do not recommend participation in WPO even as a "good guy" (the classic adage about wrestling with pigs applies). It has gotten more people into more drama than highschool theatre.
With that said, there are two possible situations involving off-wiki content: 1) the content relies entirely on on-wiki evidence, but collates/comments on/brings to light the issue; or 2) the content relies on off-wiki/private evidence. In case of situation 1, if the underlying diffs could be posted on wiki without say outing someone, then just post the underlying diffs. No need to point people to WPO to hear ten blocked trolls give their opinions on it. Its not that you're forbidden from discussing the nonsense at WPO, but its not recommended and can in fact be avoided. In the case of situation 2, you shouldn't be posting that on-wiki, because you're linking to content that wouldn't be okay on-wiki, like doxxing. Alluding to it is not an improvement in my book, because then you're just casting aspersions. Instead, it should get emailed to ArbCom, who can take action as necessary. The moral is that there is never a situation that calls for linking to or discussing a Wikipediocracy thread. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens raises a good point about a situation I hadn't considered. If a person wants to acknowledge their own doxxing, they are free to do so, though it's again something I don't recommend. I agree that "never" is a bit hyperbolic, but my point with that phrase was not to say that it was verboten, but rather that it wasn't a wise choice. I stand by the idea that Its not that you're forbidden from discussing the nonsense at WPO, but its not recommended and can in fact be avoided. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To extend on that idea and reply in part to Joe, I understand that this has been brought forward as a line drawing exercise. The community wants to know how close to the line it can get on linking this kind of stuff. My suggestion is that's the wrong inquiry. I go out of my way to avoid having to discuss WPO, because I find it a problematic and unhelpful site and think that referencing it feeds the trolls. If you don't share my opinion, than I understand how you might find my advice not helpful at resolving the underlying issue here. I stand by my aversion to WPO though; one of the best pieces of advice I have received was to never get a WPO account (and to any newer editors reading, please, avoid WPO. It will only do you harm).
To reply to JSS, I have read WPO threads; it's an unpleasant experience. One of the first things I did after learning about it was searching my own name on there; boy was that a bad decision. Still, having to read WPO threads is an occasional part of Arb business. Thus I stand by my blocked trolls comment, the power posters at WPO include a lot of our nastiest trolls. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In furtherance of the line drawing exercise, I suggest that perhaps ArbCom isn't the one to answer that question. I think the issue is that the recent RfA reforms and our harassment/doxxing policy are slightly at odds. The community has expressed a very strong desire to not have doxxing material on-wiki. But it has also expressed it wants detailed reasonings for oppose votes at RfA. Those two aspects have come into conflict with one another, and absent further input from the community, we are continuing to lean on the side of caution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the feedback and discussion among the community (and arbs) so far. I am inclined to say that the community will need to reconcile its wishes. In particular it's up to the community to decide how it wants to reconcile OUTING and the new expectations at RfA and whether or not it wants to review past decisions about DISCORD/IRC/EMAIL (Joe Roe rightly points out that some of this sprung from arbcom interpretations, but as I think it has been adopted and expanded by the community it's not for ArbCom to say one way or another anymore as that would be a policy change). As it stands I agree with Floquenbeam's analysis when it comes to RfA: we will not link to (or obliquely mention) any thread with outing/doxxing; consider whether it is accessible to the public so it can be verified; and consider whether the WP user has linked themselves to the off-wiki account. If any of the 3 tests fail, then you can't bring it up at RFA. However, I do agree with Joe and others that the Committee has some role to play, though I would prefer to share that role with the broader Oversight team. With OS, I find that 98% or so of the OS requests are clear yes or clear no under policy and require little thought on my part to action. It's the remaining 2% where the OS team should work to have consistency (I think ArbCom should set the expectation that there be less variation in OS response than in other admin areas, including CU). In the noticeboard example that JSS gives, this fell in that 2% which is why I consulted with someone else before taking action. Beyond this, there has been a lot of discussion about WPO of which I have a number of opinions about but is also not a unique use case when it comes to mentioning/linking to off-wiki threads/discussions which I see as the matter before us and thus doesn't need any special analysis beyond what I've written above. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: India-Pakistan

Initiated by Jéské Couriano at 16:07, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Contentious topic designation

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Contentious topic designation

Adding the 500/30 rule specifically to the India military regiments topic area (defined as List of regiments and corps of the Indian Army and any page that is or could potentially be listed there)

Statement by Jéské Couriano

Over the past month or so we've been having members of the Indian Armed Forces either editing or attempting to create articles concerning military regiments in India. It's only recently come to light that this is a concerted effort by the Indian Army itself; practically all accounts involved have failed to disclose their connexions and very few have used their talk pages (and those that do tend to describe it as an order from higher up that they don't really have a choice but to obey). I'm not as concerned about the drafts, as they're G5-eligible. What I am concerned about are the pages already in mainspace that have been targeted by this campaign, such as 1889 Missile Regiment (India) and a host of others; see User:Jéské Couriano/2024 Indian Military Regiment Spam for a more complete list. I'm seeking to have the 500/30 rule apply specifically in the Indian military regiments topic area to stymie editing of this sort and to force these editors to the talk pages of the articles to make their case.

@Guerillero: The community has been playing whac-a-mole and finding both older accounts and created-in-the-past-12-hours accounts on a daily basis, which get listed at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/832LT on discovery. The drafts as I said are easily dealt with, but there's little the community can really do to stop the article editing other than roll dice on protection (which will likely be ECP, due to the age and habits of several of these accounts) as the accounts appear to be under orders to violate WP:OWN and there's no realistic way to predict which specific article the newest sock, either registered or IP, is going to edit. All we know is it's going to be about an Indian military regiment. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith (ARBIPA)

It seems like page protection is already available in the standard set of CTOP restrictions, and the Committee has confirmed in the past that 30/500 is included in that. Protecting such a large number of articles might be slightly stretching the intended limits of what a single administrator can do, but since page restrictions may be imposed to minimize disruption in a contentious topic rather than disruption on a single page, it seems like it would be valid. Unless the Committee disagrees with my interpretation, I'd be willing to temporarily ECP the necessary pages. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

Has the community gotten a chance to resolve this issue? If not, I am inclined to deny the request --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that 500/30 is the right response to this disruption. However, IPA along with PIA and EE are topics where I don't really expect much community attempts at resolution prior to arbcom given the nature of those disputes on and off wiki. So I am open to doing something here. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I know we generally protect pages as a result of disruption and not pre-emptively, I think the argument could be made that because of past disruption at related pages, it is not unreasonable to extend that protection to a class of article (in this case Indian military articles). In other words, would ECP across all of the related pages solve this issue? WP:ARBECR doesn't seem like it would solve the issue because the edits/editors are already being reverted on-sight, and it is really meant more to restrict all editing to those who have been around for a while. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Primefac with questioning the efficacy of this proposed solution. Jéské Couriano's assessment that there's no realistic way to predict which specific article the newest sock, either registered or IP, is going to edit means that short of applying ECP to most or all of the articles in this topic area (which isn't reasonable) WP:ARBECR doesn't seem like it would address the issue. It would, however, create more barriers to other editors who would like to edit those articles. - Aoidh (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions

Initiated by EggRoll97 at 03:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

EggRoll97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by EggRoll97

Multiple pages protected under contentious topics procedures this year alone (see WP:AEL#Armenia-Azerbaijan_(CT/A-A) for just a sample) have been protected under arbitration enforcement but have no editnotice or other restriction notice applied to the page. This is despite a line recurring in contentious topics procedures pages being, in part, When a page has active page restrictions, the following template must be used as an editnotice, and the contentious topics procedures page itself stating that an editnotice is required prior to blocking an editor for a violation, even if they are aware of contentious topics procedures, with the language of However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if: The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and The restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template) specifying the page restriction.

Because of this, I ask for clarification as to whether these editnotices can be added to pages by any editor if the enforcing administrator has not done so, or whether they may only be added by the administrator who has applied the page restriction.

ToBeFree Based on your statement, would I be correct in assuming there would be no problem (procedurally-wise?), if, for example, I went through the list of pages logged as "indef ECP" or similar in the enforcement log, and added topic-specific editnotices to them? While I've seen some commentary below about the efficacy of these editnotices, I personally find it helpful to have these types of editnotices present on pages just for the purposes of having a big banner to tell me a certain page is applicable to CTOP. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 23:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

The edit notice can be added by editors with the page mover permission. Idk whether the idea of CT was to do away with this requirement but I don't think it did so in my usual area (AI/IP), the Arbpia edit notice (and talk page notice which can be added by any editor) is needed in general.Selfstudier (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Editnotices can be created by administrators, page movers, and template editors. If an editnotice exists, most editors can edit it, and I'd support non-admins rectifying clerical errors wherever possible. Speaking of which, if someone wants to collect some pages that need editnotices, I'm happy to cross a bunch of them off the list.

Arbs, I'd suggest that common practice has moved away from such editnotices being necessary. Between admins forgetting, banner blindness, and mobile editors not seeing them at all, I don't think the notices are meaningful in generating awareness of the restriction. Enforcement of restrictions these days tends to be dependent on both formal CTOP awareness and a request to self-revert being ignored or declined, meaning a few other checks are in place to avoid unwarranted sanctions. Would the committee consider changing this requirement to a recommendation? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Contentious topics restrictions: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Contentious topics restrictions: Arbitrator views and discussion

My read of the procedures is that edit notices are not required when an entire topic area is under a particular restriction (e.g. 1RR) or if an individual administrator changes the protection level under the CT procedures. They are required id an individual administrator places a page restriction (other than protection) on an individual page. The key phrasing is, for me, An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.(formatting removed). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main purpose of these edit notices, to me, is informing users about a restriction so they can adhere to it. This is not needed for page protection; MediaWiki both displays details about the protection and prevents restriction violations at the same time. The protection text already contains the needed information (Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Logging). All users automatically adhere to page protections, which is probably why Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices explicitly exempts them from the editnotice requirement.
Topic-wide restrictions such as the extended-confirmed restriction can be enforced with blocks as long as a user is (formally) aware of the restriction; edit notices are not required for the imposition or enforcement of topic-wide restrictions. A user restricted from editing about weather must not edit about weather, and they may be blocked to prevent them from continuing to do so even if the affected pages didn't display a huge "this is a weather-related page" edit notice above them.
This makes the actual question less relevant than EggRoll97 may have thought, but the answer is that {{Contentious topics/editnotice}}, which explains topic-wide restrictions, may be added by anyone technically able to do so, and {{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} is for use by administrators who impose a different page restriction than page protection. It will rarely be missing where it is actually required, but it if is actually clearly missing somewhere, I'd recommend simply asking the enforcing administrator to fix the issue. The existence of a page restriction (other than page protection) begins with the creation of the edit notice to my understanding, so failing to place the edit notice doesn't do the action incorrectly, it simply fails to take action at all. This is why, to me, page restrictions other than page protection can't be "fixed" by anyone else. They simply don't exist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EggRoll97, I think adding {{Contentious topics/editnotice|XYZ}} as an edit notice to pages clearly fully related to XYZ would be helpful, even if no protection has happened yet.
Adding {{Contentious topics/editnotice|...|section=yes}} as an edit notice to pages related to XYZ closely enough to justify an existing CTOP page protection would also be helpful.
There's an exception though: I wouldn't add {{Contentious topics/editnotice|blp}} to BLPs, as being in Category:Living people already causes {{BLP editnotice}} to appear. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Shortcuts

This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by אקעגן

The sanction being appealed expired; following this, אקעגן violated the sanctions again and was blocked for one month. If they wish to appeal that block, it will be necessary to do so with a separate appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: אקעגן (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – אקעגן (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 1 week block for ECR violations

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

Notification of that administrator

I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by אקעגן

I only made a change to a talk page, which is usually the way I can make my opinions known on a locked or protected page. The notice that it was only for extended confirmed users was on the top of the section, and not on the top of the page, so I missed it. I believe a week block is fairly severe under this circumstance. I have read through CTOP and ARBECR, and will abide by these rules to avoid this in the future.

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

I told them You could also read the information that was provided about the WP:CTOP designation on the Arab/Israel conflict and WP:ARBECR and demonstrate that you understand and will abide by the sanctions in the topic area in an unblock request and yet we're still here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a demonstration that they understand, rather than simply stating they understand. In my experience a lack of demonstration leads to further blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, I've read and understand everything. I also didn't read the block message that explains unblock requests. This is why I require a demonstration that they understand. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint, actually explain how their edits violated the sanction, what is covered by the sanction, and how they'll avoid future violations. The same general gist we expect of all unblock requests. See WP:GAB which is linked in the block template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the block expired and I have blocked them for a month for ECR violations after the one week block expired. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by אקעגן

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by starship.paint

אקעגן said that they have read through CTOP and ARBECR, and will abide by these rules. ~~I think that's good enough for an unblock. If they abide by these rules, and not WP:GAME ARBECR, we should be fine?~~ Don't make 100+ trivial edits to reach 500 edits. starship .paint (RUN) 14:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: - you have made a mistake, this is not a complaint, this is a block appeal. starship .paint (RUN) 15:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: - you linked to a complaint at WP:ANI, but this is not a complaint. Editors are allowed to appeal their blocks, even if they have violated WP:ARBECR. In fact ScottishFinnishRadish copied over this appeal from אקעגן talk page, so if it was not allowed, I am pretty sure ScottishFinnishRadish would not have done that. starship .paint (RUN) 15:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: - what demonstration can an editor make when still blocked? starship .paint (RUN) 15:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, אקעגן should do what ScottishFinnishRadish said. starship .paint (RUN) 16:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Complainant per WP:ARBECR has no standing to even make this complaint and it should be dismissed with prejudice. See, for example see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive356#Selfstudier "As a non-EC editor, you essentially have no standing to make edits related to the topic. You can make an edit request, but any other editor can remove it, even without providing reason. Further, making a complaint against another editor as a non-EC editor in the WP:ARBPIA area is fully not allowed." Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: WP:ARBECR limits editors to edit requests at article talk pages, no exceptions. Blocked for ARBECR breach, complaint not allowed. Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: No, because this is merely an ARBECR continuation, the editor has no standing to do anything in relation to the topic area except make edit requests. Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I don't object to an editor being permitted to edit in non CT areas, in fact we are trying to encourage that with ECR restrictions. Then, for the future imposed sanctions for ECR breach should be such that no appeal is permitted, time limited tbans? Selfstudier (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I have a question for אקעגן. You were notified of the ARBPIA restrictions on 2024-03-20, and by convention, the assumption is that you read it because you removed it. You then made 9 edits to Portal:Current events/2024 to include content unambiguously within scope of the restrictions over a period of a month or so. Why did you think that was okay and what could have prevented it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier's reasoning is interesting. Not sure I buy the "this is not a complaint" idea. It is a complaint against something, an admin action, the severity of the action, and it's a block appeal. It can be both. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

@Newyorkbrad and Seraphimblade: this is ready for closure, given that the block being appealed has expired. You may want to note the new violations and new block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by אקעגן

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

The ECR violation appears to have resulted from a good-faith misunderstanding, and the appellant indicates he now understands the issue, so I would grant the appeal. It's worth bearing in mind sometimes that ECR is a major change from how Wikipedia usually works, and that the nuances of the rules surrounding it are not inherently obvious to editors who don't spend much of their wikilives on the arbitration pages. @ScottishFinnishRadish: Based on reading the user talkpage, I think the appellant did not understand that your suggestion of "an unblock request" was a different process from an AE or AN appeal, especially since the appeal contains the same substance you suggested for the unblock request. @Selfstudier: The block prevents the editor from editing not just IP topics but Wikipedia as a whole, so there is clearly standing to appeal it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original block was clearly justified, but I believe it is now very clear to this editor what is and is not allowed (as to some side discussion above, appealing a sanction is a longstanding exception to being a violation of that or any sanction, so of course blocked or otherwise sanctioned editors are permitted to appeal). So, at this point I would essentially reduce it to "time served". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentaso

Sentaso is indefinitely topic banned from WP:BLPs, broadly construed, and is given a final warning to avoid incivility. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Sentaso

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sentaso (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

User_talk:Sentaso#Introduction_to_contentious_topics In this discussion I have advised them of what existing consensus is at Nick McKenzie
10:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Sentaso edits the archives of Talk:Nick McKenzie to insert a thread that never happened in the article talk. In their thread they make accusations that editors have "vandalizing this page" in reference to the talk archive without providing evidence. Additionally they have stated that JML1148, who closed an RFC, broke WP guidelines and again without providing evidence. Finally they have claimed that "It appears several Australian WP editors with possible conflicts of interest re. Mckenzie are attempting to whitewash his WP page". They have not provided any evidence for their claims of bad faith.
12:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Editor stated in a response to myself "You were dishonest with your initial reply stating "Consensus was determined to be that the material should not be covered at all" when the consensus was the opposite"". Editor has not provided any evidence for claims of my bad faith.
7:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Editor has reverted Talk:Nick McKenzie/Archive 1 to reinsert a discussion in there that never happened at Talk:Nick McKenzie
8:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Editor is WP:BADGERING me on my talk page in relation to Talk:Nick McKenzie by repeating to ask a question which I'd previously chosen not to answer because it is aggressive and meaningless.
8:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Editor is casting WP:ASPERSIONs in regards to my editing at Nick McKenzie. Once again evidence is not provided for the claims being made.
10:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Editor has reverted my talk page restoring a post that I archived after I [[Special:Diff/1226872000|specifically told them to never, under any circumstances, post on my talk page again. Post was in regards to Nick McKenzie.
10:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC) continued to post of my talk in violation of my request to not post on my talk page. Again post was in regards to Nick McKenzie.

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

Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 02:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor had edited Nick McKenzie to insert material which RfC determined should not be in the article. Upon being advised by myself of consensus (as determined by RfC close) and what they could do if disagree with the close, editor has sought to misinterpret WP policy and engaged in casting WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:ABF. Editor appears to be a WP:SPA who is editing to WP:RGW. TarnishedPath^talk 14:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the diffs to include a revert that the editor just performed to re-insert a discussion into Talk:Nick McKenzie's archives which never occurred in the article talk. TarnishedPath^talk 07:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentaso, I have moved your comment to your section. Please write any comments you have in your section of the notice. TarnishedPath^talk 09:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1226739756

Discussion concerning Sentaso

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Sentaso

2. @TarnishedPath: JML1148 in their own words stated "numerical majority against removing the content" and then claimed there was consensus to remove the content.

- Yes, yourself and others related to this appear to be Australian as per your Wikipedia profiles. Mckenzie is Australian, and there's seems to be a commonality of those in favor of removing content related him are also Australian. Certainly potential for Conflict_of_interest

3. Evidence was in point 2 above re JML1148 comment.

4. I didn't reinsert anything, I don't know why you're making things up that WP history shows to be false. I added to the discussion highlighting it had been prematurely closed. I've also asked who/when the discussion was deemed over and with what authority, which you didn't answer. If yourself and associates had followed WP best practice there would clear sections on the page detailing why the page would be archived. The page has been blasted with text claiming the discussion is closed, but there appears to be no grounds for closure. I've asked you several times if you could source why this page was archived, which you've ignored, likely because you cannot.

5. As per comments on their Talk page (which he keeps removing) it appears TarnishedPath does not understand some aspects of WP:BLP.

A quote of yours from the Mckenzie archive "if McKenzie is not named, then what is the material doing on a WP:BLP about McKenzie? TarnishedPathtalk 00:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)"

BLPs do not always need to explicitly mention the subject's name as long as the information can be clearly and unambiguously attributed to the subject

6. Duplicate content, see my point 2 above.

7. You don't understand BLP, one should be grateful I highlighted your misunderstanding on your talk page

8. Duplicate content

Sentaso (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comments below, these references to talk pages are a red herring. The real issue is why the Mckenzie discussion page was archived, the sham RFC and why BLP is not being followed correctly for the Mckenzie page. Tarnished Path falsely suggested that BLP need to name the person which is incorrect. I did him a favor by raising this issue on his talk page and he gets aggressive and removes the content. Why not focus on the main issues instead of the number of edits a user has? Unhelpful Sentaso (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sentaso

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

I see one edit to the article, and some snarky discussion that displays they don't understand BLP. If they can demonstrate some understanding of WP:BLP I'd be willing to let this to with a warning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that editing Tarnished Path's talk page four times after they'd been asked not to post there, included reverting Tarnished Path's own edits, is suggestive that they don't understand a lot more than BLP. (They've edited the article seven times, incidentally). When you also take into account the insertion into a talk page Archive of a discussion that never happened at that page, together with casting aspersions at other editors of COI and whitewashing (same diff), I'm unconvinced that an editor with 87 edits and this much disruption is a net positive at all. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Sentaso, they're not a red herring, they're persistent poor editing behaviour and are a large part of your very limited editing history. Most good-faith editors amass hundreds if not thousands of edits without even one of those issues coming up, let alone multiple ones. He told you to stay off his talk page. You didn't, because you think you know better (" I did him a favor by raising this issue on his talk page"). You don't. What you need to say here is what you're going to do better in the future. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 87 edits is why I'd let this go with a warning if there was a demonstration that they understand the issue and will remedy it. I'm not opposed to something more substantial, however. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I do not see this from their comments here, however. Black Kite (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite, most of their editing has dealt with this conflict. Are we going with a topic ban on BLP topics which doesn't address the talk page behavior but may get the point across, or are we going with a block? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking a final warning for incivility, and an indefinite topic ban on BLPs. If there is no objection in the next day or two I'll close with that result. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd go with that, since they haven't responded. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentaso's edits at Nick McKenzie (now a total of 11) don't seem unusually bad but the clueless engagement at Talk:Nick McKenzie/Archive 1 and unhelpful comments here and at User talk:Sentaso and User talk:TarnishedPath lead me to support the proposed close by ScottishFinnishRadish above. I note that the article talk page has had no substantive comment since 11 March 2024 whereas the current dispute relates to edits more than two months after then. To spell that out, both participants should have used article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JDiala

JDiala is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Doug Weller talk 10:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning JDiala

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FortunateSons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: JDiala (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

User has a pattern of edit warring, incivility and NotForum violations, including but not limited to:

1 January 2024 improper use of Zionist and Soapboxing
14 February 2024 inappropriate use of “Zionist”, having received multiple warnings on their talk page; also Soapboxing warning by @ScottishFinnishRadish
28 March 2024 edit warring (most recent example)
26 April 2024 uses quotes by Yahya Sinwar on user page, removes them after inconclusive AN thread and request by Admin
27 May 2024 NotForum on Leo Frank, warned by @Acroterion @Doug Weller (see talk page)
29 May 2024 NotForum and two personal attacks, including against @BilledMammal
31 May 2024 Improper close followed by incivility
Beans

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocks 1 day in 2015, 1 Week in 2023 (both for edit warring in I/P area) by @Mike V and @Daniel Case

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 [3] by @Doug Weller

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Issue is generally apparent on topics regarding I/P, with at least one occurrence in topics regarding Judaism. This is my first AE filing, so apologies for any errors.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JDiala&diff=prev&oldid=1227053862

Discussion concerning JDiala

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by JDiala

The issue of the userpage quotes was brought up on WP:AN in this thread. The discussion was inconclusive. Two people on that thread arguing against me are proven or suspected sockpuppets (Galamore and ElLuzDelSur). Excluding them, far more people than not viewed the complaint as frivolous. Despite the inconclusive result, I voluntarily removed the quotes. Is this not indicative of my desire to be cooperative?
A note on alleged edit-warring. The 28 March 2024 allegation of edit warring cites an allegation by SelfStudier without corresponding diffs. This is meritless. I admit there were three 1RR violations in November 2023. This was my first month following a near-decade WP hiatus. I don't think in recent months 1RR has been an issue for me.
The issue of Leo Frank was an honest mistake where I mistakenly assumed that the sources for a particularly strong claim re: scholarly consensus came from a single CNN piece. Rejoinder to Red Rock Canyon: There are two citations in the lead, but the first has an unusual form "[n 1]" which struck me as a footnote. An honest error.
The discussion on edits prior to 2016 is not fair. There needs to be a statute of limitations. FWIW I was born in the year 1998. I was a minor during those years.
On the the self-closed RfC, this was an honest mistake, as I indicated in the AN discussion, based on a strict reading of WP:RFCEND which failed to take into account cultural norms regarding RfCs in contentious areas.

Update 06/05/24: In response to The Wordsmith's comment regarding recent diffs, I will say that while my tone was not the best, I think each case ultimately reflected a desire to cooperate and contribute meaningfully. I was not being uncivil for the sake of being uncivil. In this case it is true that I made an uncalled for comparison between closing an RfC and Israeli settlements. But the actual motivation here is to cooperate and accept that the community decided my RfC (and my closure) were not good and started a new one. In this case, I will concede that my tone was poor. The claim "[other] states like China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies" could be perceived as bigoted towards Israelis, and I should have worded it better in retrospect. I apologize to those offended. However, if one can get past the initial gut reaction that my comment was ridiculous, there was a legitimate underlying motivation. Other editors were questioning why other countries did not have war crimes in their leads, but Israel does. I responded with what I considered a policy-based reason for this: that WP:RS for Israel tends to disproportionately focus on war crimes (narrower focus), whereas for some other states (Russia, China) the RS discuss things more broadly ("richer"). That said, I will be more mindful of tone in the future if given a second chance.

Note: to stay within the 500-word limit after the update, I significantly shortened the points I wrote earlier.

JDiala (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rajoub570

After posting a message on the admin noticeboard regarding this issue, I saw that there is already a discussion here. So reposting it here (shortened): The Israeli–Palestinian conflict, what is known here as ARBPIA, is a very sensitive issue. My personal opinion, as someone that the conflict also concerns his personal life (I am Palestinian :)) One should deal with the issue carefully. I would like to raise the issue of one editor - @JDiala's behavior that, as I see it, not only harm's Wikipedia's objectivity, but also harms the chance of a peaceful life in our area. Here are some examples:

In the past, they featured quotes from Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar (who, no matter how we define him, is probably one of those responsible, along with Netanyahu and the extreme right from Israel, for the ongoing war) on their talk page [link], meant to praise Sinwar [link]. They were removed only after a lengthy discussion on this page.
They currently have a quote on their talk page [link] that can be understood as a justification for the murder of Jews by Palestinians. I think that any quote that starts with "X do not go out to murder Y because they are Y" should not be acceptable on Wikipedia.
A few days ago, they closed an RFC that they themselves opened, which raises a question of integrity [ongoing discussion: link].
Recently, they stated that Israel is a rough state of the same level of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan [link]. In the same message they wrote that "For Israel, war crimes are a sine qua non, a core aspect of its existence", and stated that, unlike Israel, "Other states like China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies, with large economies, deep histories.", a weird comment.

I saw that editors have been asking them to moderate their language many times before. [link - 2014], [link - 2015], [link - January 2024], [link - February 2024].

The editor even received a week-long ban in December for violating 1RR. [link]

As a Palestinian, whose life is affected daily by the conflict, with my criticisms of Israel, I find this behavior problematic for Wikipedia. We have to stay objective. I think JDiala should be asked not to deal at all with a topic that clearly arouses their anger. Their edits hurt the project, and ultimately the Palestinians as well.

Please don't add fuel to the fire. Rajoub570 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I think both FortunateSons and JDiala are assets for ARBPIA. Very different kinds of assets with very different tones. This conversation shows how hard it is to build bridges and find common ground in ARBPIA. It would be good if JDiala could find a way to live with and adapt to what they regard as tone policing in the topic area. It's unfortunate that, in my view anyway, ARBCOM constraints accidentally create a selection pressure that give a fitness advantage to quiet, nearly invisible, highly motivated sockpuppets over noisy editors like JDiala.

Regarding "X do not go out to murder Y because they are Y", quotes from award winning Israeli journalists like Amira Hass are normally acceptable on Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The Kip's objection to the (evidence-free) labeling of someone as a suspected sockpuppet, this seems all well and good, and is consistent with AGF etc., but for me, it's another example of the fitness asymmetry between sockpuppets and noisy, undiplomatic editors like JDiala. Editors can't cast sock-related aspersions at AE, but undetected/unreported ban evading sockpuppets can make statements at AE. And as history shows, in the WP:PIA topic area, AE attracts socks. This seems problematic and difficult to solve. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the views would be here if JDiala had never posted any personal views to a talk page and only made content edits. Is the issue what an editor believes or what an editor says in discussions? If it is the latter, couldn't there be a PIA remedy between a warning and a topic ban that formally promotes WP:TALKPOV from a guideline to a policy for an editor as a step before a topic ban. That kind of WP:TALKPOV-as-policy remedy is effectively already enforced for non-EC editors posting to PIA talk pages. Comments that are just personal opinions about the real world have a near-zero survival rate. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by kashmiri

While certainly not raising to the level of an immediate block, the continuous low-lewel disruption by JDiala, evidenced above, has been annoying enough to many editors, including to me, that a temporary TBAN feels like an appropriate response. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zanahary

Very BATTLEGROUND-y in a way that is disruptive. I'd support a TBAN. On the user page quote: though I find the quote disgusting, and my interpretation of its presence on the user page is, to say the least, not positive, I don't believe in trying to interpret editors' views when it comes to making decisions about how to treat them, nor in sanctioning editors for their apparent views—I think sanctions should only be practical, and I think everyone has the right to whatever expressions and whatever impressions they desire (out of article-space). But I understand I'm in a serious minority there (right?). Anyways, that's all irrelevant. This user is disruptive and clearly doesn't edit with the care and spirit of collaboration that this topic area demands. Zanahary (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Doug Weller’s 2014 comment—

Oh my god. I thought JD was a new editor! This is obviously unacceptable; I am now twice as convinced that they ought to be banned from this topic. Zanahary (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coffee Crumbs

For the record, I'm at least slightly involved now as I have expressed dislike of JDiala's tone during the current RFC. As Kashmiri notes, it's not vandalism or one big blowup, but tiny bits of pecking away. The RFC close was absolutely atrocious; rather than see an unusually sparsely attended RFC on what is normally a well-attended topic, JDiala took it upon themself to close their own RFC in favor of their own proposal in an extremely contentious area. Between the quotes that ended up at ANI and the constant pushing of the singular subject as far as civility and stretching WP:NPOV like taffy, JDiala's a net negative in this area. Justifying their extreme one-sided behavior towards Israel by saying that there are "other states like China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies" and then comparing the idea of having a proper RFC to Israel's response when settlers' war crimes are alleged, is just more gasoline on the fire. Real WP:BATTLEGROUND stuff here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And they're now bludgeoning Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation to the best of their ability. This is getting absurd. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

I do not think in recent months 1RR has been an issue for me isn't accurate. Just glancing through their contributions I see they violated it when trying to implement their close:

16:56, 25 May 2024 (reverted 09:39, 14 May 2024)
21:18, 25 May 2024 (reverted 19:53, 25 May 2024, which reverted 16:56, 25 May 2024)

BilledMammal (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsmith, the first one is a revert because it undoes BillyPreset's rearrangement of the sentence. BilledMammal (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BillyPreset moved from human rights organizations and United Nations officials from the end of the sentence to the middle; you moved it back to its former position at the end. That is a revert. As reverts go, not overly concerning, but it is a revert - and your second revert, edit warring to try to enforce an out-of-process close, is very concerning.

FYI, vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia. Reverting the implementation of an out-of-process close does not meet this definition. BilledMammal (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This was in reply to this comment, which JDiala has now removed BilledMammal (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by The Kip

I've had little to no direct interactions with the user in question prior to today - I believe the closest I've come was voting to overturn the questionable RfC closure on account of it being a self-close in a CTOP. Upon interacting with their talk page (in a notice to move their comments in other users' sections above), I personally don't believe dismissing RSes as wholly unreliable due to being "sourced from Israel," nor referring to above complainants as "opponents," is indicative of one who will contribute constructively and cooperatively in the area over the long term; there certainly seems to be a considerable WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset at play. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reviewing their statement here - with the multiple admissions of "mistakes," "errors," "misunderstandings," and such, I'm wondering if an "indefinite does not mean infinite" TBAN may be the ideal solution here. It would give them a chance to edit away from the topic area for a little while, learn to avoid these mistakes/work around these sorts of misunderstandings rather than letting them spiral into disputes, moderate their tone/rhetoric, and otherwise hopefully develop the cooperative skills necessary to constructively edit. If those conditions are met, an appeal sometime down the road shouldn't be difficult.

As an aside, and despite their own ongoing AE concerns/case above, I'm not keen on the labeling of Galamore as a suspected sockpuppet due to a six-month-old case, in which a CheckUser found such allegations unlikely - while not quite a PA/aspersion, it feels uncomfortably close to one. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland it’s unfortunate, but it’s just the reality of sockpuppets - they’re nearly impossible to detect unless they out themselves via behavior or outright admission. Not much that can be done beyond continued vigilance. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red Rock Canyon

I am not involved in this case, but I saw this user's edits on the Leo Frank talk page. [4] is a lie, since even the line in the lead had another source right before the CNN one. It is not credible that they somehow missed it. And this [5] is worse. I see that this editor was already warned for these comments, but I think the warning is insufficient. They should not be allowed to edit any article that has anything to do with Jews. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

I have had a couple of differences with this editor but over content only. Should really dial the rhetoric back a couple of notches or a sanction is a foregone conclusion. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Longhornsg

These additional diffs from a few days ago leave a lot to be desired on WP:NOTFORUM and WP:CIVILITY. Longhornsg (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Makeandtoss

I have dealt with JDiala and they were very open to discussion on the talk page. Over the past few months I have personally witnessed firsthand how quick they improved their behavior as soon as they were notified about a guideline or policy that they had not been aware about. I think it is a learning experience for them and so far they have shown no disruptive behavior of the sort that requires anything beyond a notification or a warning. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Just noting that I'm staying out of this since some of the recent stuff deals with their response to my close of the close review at AN and their behavior on my talk page. Although I don't see myself as INVOLVED since it looks like there's some engagement from other uninvolved admins it's probably best to let them handle it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ABHammad

I believe the diffs presented above demonstrate a pattern of deeply inflammatory, battleground behavior in this topic area that unfortunately, wouldn't be solved by just a temporary topic ban. The recurring use of problematic language over the past decade, throughout the past few months and even in this very discussion, suggests the need for a reset, focusing on positive contributions elsewhere. I believe this would improve the current state of this topic area, which, at the moment, suffers from significant battleground behavior and neutrality issues. ABHammad (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Arkon

Can the admins maybe stop dragging their feet and do something here? It's almost enabling at this point. Arkon (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Unbandito

I felt that I should point out that JDiala has made significant, enduring contributions on the mainspace, particularly at Israel-Hamas war, that have made the article better as a whole. Their edits on that page remain 93% un-reverted. Whatever other issues exist with their conduct, I don't think it could be said that JDiala is here only to argue, or use Wikipedia as a battleground or forum. They are clearly invested in the project, and perhaps some leniency is justified on those grounds. Unbandito (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning JDiala

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

A few of the diffs presented in the initial complaint seem to be malformed, but I think I get the context. Looking over these issues, they seem to be things that JDiala was already warned or blocked for, so I'm not sure why we're here. Regarding the userpage quotes, I find them distasteful but the community did not find that they were against policy, and the user removed them when asked. It looks like the RFC was already overturned at WP:AN, and there didn't seem to be any real apetite for sanctions based on that.It gives the impression of seeking another bite at the apple. Regarding the diffs presented by BilledMammal, only the second one looks to be an actual revert.

That said, there are definitely issues with tone and civility. I'm not sure a full topic ban is needed here, but a warning to tone down the rhetoric might accomplish the desired goal. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the more recent diffs, there does seem to be an issue of rhetoric that's unhelpful if not outright hostile. I'd like to hear what JDiala has to say about them, but at this point a topic ban might be necessary. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of behaviour goes back at least December 2014 when I warned them over a statement they made that seemed a breach of the sanctions {"perverse, POV Zionist narrative" which he then struck through}. Looking at that I found this post to an editor who is no longer around.[6] See the whole paragraph starting with "Classic Jewish supremacism." I don't think this will change and would support a TB from the s-i area. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bludgeoning at Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation#POV title plus an unnecessary link to an X thread includin extremely toxic comments has convinced me that a topic ban is required. I'll implement it in the next few hours unless another Admin objects. Doug Weller talk 11:07, June 9, 2024‎

Skitash

Skitash and Stephan rostie are reminded to follow 1RR, to bring up possible violations at the editor's talk page to allow for self-reversion, to self-revert when in violation, and generally not to edit war. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Skitash

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Stephan rostie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Skitash (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 WP:1RR

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

Skitash reverted me at two different times in the same contentious topic article at two different unrelated sections, one in the lead and the other in another section. After his first revert i added a new content in unrelated section in the same article but he reverted me for the second time. After each of them i opened a talk section regarding his reverts, he didn’t reply in the to the first talk section about his own revert despite mentioning him, in the second talks section about his second revert i notified him about his 1RR violation following his second revert where he replied but seemingly ignored what i said about the 1RR violation.

I did notify him in the talks where he replied to me that he had made more than one revert, but he didn’t revert himself and seemingly completely ignored what i said regarding his violation. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Skitash

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Skitash

@ScottishFinnishRadish I didn't realize initially that I had violated the rule, and I also seem to have overlooked the part in Stephan rostie's message that mentioned a potential WP:1RR violation. I could self-revert if that solves the issue, but I'm uncertain whether this is necessary, considering that this edit dispute took place over 48 hours ago. Could you please clarify if the rule still applies in this case? Skitash (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Skitash seemingly not aware so posted notice. OK, so not officially aware and no opportunity on users talk for self revert, so free pass this time. Complainant, ensure awareness and allow for self revert before filing future complaints. Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

Note that both parties violated WP:1RR here. Stephan rostie violated it with:

15:18, 4 June 2024 (partial revert of 09:28, 1 May 2024, among others^[a])
15:35, 4 June 2024 (revert of 15:34, 4 June 2024)
15:50, 4 June 2024 (partial revert of 15:38, 4 June 2024)

Skitash is already documented. BilledMammal (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

^ Rajoub570 changed the description of the Palestinians from an ethnonational group residing in the Southern Levant to the Arab inhabitants of the former Mandatory Palestine and their descendants. Stephan rostie changed it back to a Levantine ethnonational group

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Skitash

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

Stephan rostie, did you give them an opportunity to self-revert? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally I'd expect something a bit more than lastly, i wonder if skitash had violated the WP:1RR of the article for requesting a self-revert. I'll wait for Skitash's response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that they just got their ARBPIA notification, so unless there's some evidence they were aware of the CTOP we'll just be at a warning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skitash, it still applies, yes. What I would like to see is a return to the version from before the edit war started, and then no one touches the contested prose until there is consensus on the talk page.
Other than that, I think a warning to Skitash and Stephan rostie to mind 1RR and to follow BRD is all that is neccessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Pofka

Pofka's indefinite TBAN is narrowed to articles and edits about the Holocaust in Lithuania, broadly construed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – -- Pofka (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: I was topic banned from Lithuania, broadly construed.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Proof that Barkeep49 was informed by me about this appeal.

Statement by Pofka

Hello, I was topic banned from Lithuania in early January 2024 (see: HERE) due to my expressed opinion in a discussion (see: HERE) in which I stated that the Holocaust in Lithuania was executed by Nazis (who occupied Lithuania) and Lithuanian Nazi collaborators, but not by the State of Lithuania, which at the time was occupied by Nazis. The request to sanction me (see: HERE) did not include any of mine changes in English Wikipedia's articles, so I was sanctioned purely for expressing my opinion there, but not for POV pushing in any articles. Moreover, I was never before sanctioned for Holocaust-related changes in articles/discussions and as far as I remember I was not even reported for that during over 13 years of participation in Wikipedia before this. I was previously sanctioned quite long time ago for wrongly describing other editors mass removal of content from articles as "vandalism" (and reverting it) and for personal attacks against a user with whom I did not agree in topics not related with the Holocaust (I still have active interaction ban with that user, which I did not violate).

For contributing exceptionally high-quality content to the English Wikipedia about Lithuania (see examples: HERE) I was recognized in 2022 as one of only two best editors in "Lithuania" topic (see: HERE, the other identically recognized editor is sysop Renata3).

Over 6 months had already passed after this sanction was applied to me and I did not violate it. However, my aim in English Wikipedia always was to contribute high-quality content about Lithuania and with this broadly construed sanction active I simply cannot contribute anything to English Wikipedia in a field where I have exceptional knowledge of information and sources (due to my extensive capability to research Lithuanian language sources, etc.), so for me this sanction is equal to a total block in English Wikipedia and I believe that it is too strict given all the circumstances. Sadly, with this broadly construed sanction in Lithuania's topic active I plan to quit Wikipedia completely.

Consequently, I appeal this sanction and request to reconsider it and to allow me to again contribute exceptionally high-quality content about Lithuania. I would like to stress that I never had plans to POV push malicious content about the Holocaust in Lithuania and I fully condemn horrific crimes which were committed against Jewish people in Lithuania (including those that were committed by Lithuanian nationality representatives). If Barkeep49 and other participants of this request procedure think that I am not trustworthy enough to edit articles related with the Holocaust in Lithuania, I request to at least narrow this broadly construed sanction to "anything related with the Holocaust in Lithuania" because per report this imposed sanction is not associated with other Lithuania-related topics (e.g. Lithuanian sports, culture, etc.). -- Pofka (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

Just noting that this sanction was placed by me, acting on behalf of ArbCom acting as its own AE. As such I think it can be appealed and considered as any other AE placed topic ban would be. A major factor here was what had occurred after a previous topic ban was lifted. Beyond that while I'm happy to answer questions, I'll leave it to uninvolved administrators to consider the appeal. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Pofka

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by MKW100

Pofka used contribute nearly endless HIGH QUALITY EDITS in the Lithuania topic and was OFFICIALLY RECOCGNIZED as a FINEST EDITOR in this topic. Banning him from the same is a contradiction. Since 99% of his overall edits happened to be in the Lithuania topic, of course this is the topic where any type of conflict could appear at all.

Banning him from his topic of expertise equals like a global perma ban to him. Obviously, this punishment is way too harsh, and his finest editor status was not considered in the first discussion.

(see)

In this almost automatic process, nobody defended pofka's position in the first discussion.

I hope we can get a different result this time. MKW100 (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Pofka

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

I'm generally favorable to loosening the tban to the holocaust in Lithuania, but I'd like to hear a bit more from people with more familiarity with the situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the same boat as SFR. I see that at least one Arb considered narrowing the TBAN to Holocaust topics, but they rejected that option given that the full TBAN's successful appeal had been approved partially on WP:ROPE grounds. If we grant such a narrowing here, I'd want it to explicitly note that it's based on similar grounds, meaning that future problematic edits or comments in the broader Lithuania topic area would likely result in a restoration of the full TBAN or a site block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am mostly uninvolved with Lithuanian topics, and I remain concerned about this editor's appeal. The whole tone here is that "I got topic banned because I voiced an opinion" which is not how I read the conversations about the topic ban. I'm not seeing anything about how they are going to change going forward to avoid the issues that originally came up. And I'm also a bit concerned about the whole "For contributing exceptionally high-quality content to the English Wikipedia about Lithuania ... I was recognized in 2022 as one of only two best editors in "Lithuania" topic..." which award is actually one of Gerda's "precious" awards which are not "officially recognized" awards of any kind. They are just Gerda's view of something. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did mostly gloss over that puffery. I think their point about being sanctioned for expressing their opinion at ARCA, as opposed to being involved in any problematic article editing, is correct. As far as I can tell, they were sanctioned because their opinion was broadly held to be incorrect, and distastefully so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with ScottishFinnishRadish: I am not prepared to lift the topic-ban entirely at this stage, but I agree it may be overbroad. As an analogy, if an American editor proved unable to edit neutrally about some aspect of American history, we might topic-ban them from that aspect or conceivably from American history as a whole; it is less likely we would topic-ban them from "articles concerning the United States, broadly construed." Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylanvt

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

Request concerning Dylanvt

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:

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

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:

13:09, 11 June 2024 (partial revert of 08:01, 10 June 2024; "698 were wounded" → "400 were wounded" → "698 were wounded")
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

Discussion concerning Dylanvt

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Dylanvt

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]

Statement by Ivanvector

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]

Statement by Selfstudier

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]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dylanvt

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]

KronosAlight

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

Request concerning KronosAlight

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

08:02, 11 June 2024 Partial revert of this and this.
20:55, 10 June 2024 Revert of this.
20:26, 10 June 2024 Combined revert of this and this.
14:03, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of this.
13:49, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of this.
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

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

Nuseirat refugee camp massacre

08:14, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of this.
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

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.

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.

Discussion concerning KronosAlight

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by KronosAlight

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]

Statement by BilledMammal

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]

Statement by Selfstudier

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]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KronosAlight

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]

Ltbdl

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

Request concerning Ltbdl

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

12:26, 12 June 2024 - in an RSN RFC: The Telegraph on trans issues, Ltbdl voted oppositely from User:Springee, despite writing per springee.
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.
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

Discussion concerning ltbdl

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by ltbdl

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

Statement by FortunateSons

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]

Statement by Springee

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]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ltbdl

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]

Riposte97

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

Request concerning Riposte97

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

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.
4:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC) New sentence is removed by myself from the lead.
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”.
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.
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.
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]
@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

Discussion concerning Riposte97

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Riposte97

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.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Riposte97

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]

Konanen

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

Request concerning Konanen

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

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
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Use of contentious labels in lead of an article - parallel discussion started by Konanen
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
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

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. [7], [8]), that the tag should be removed ([9], [10]), and that Konanen should drop the issue (e.g. [11], [12], [13], [14]), 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

Discussion concerning Konanen

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Konanen

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 ([15]), 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 ([16]), so alleging that discussion concluded on the 30th of May is disingenuous when there has been some activity since ([17] [18] [19]).

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 ([20] [21]) 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 ([22] [23] [24] [25] [26]). 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 ([27]). 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]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Konanen

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]

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

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

[3] Rajoub570 changed the description of the Palestinians from an ethnonational group residing in the Southern Levant to the Arab inhabitants of the former Mandatory Palestine and their descendants. Stephan rostie changed it back to a Levantine ethnonational group

[a]

[b]

[a]