Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

WP:AE
WP:ARE

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

Leyo

Closed without action. – bradv 14:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Leyo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: KoA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Leyo (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#Contentious_topic_designation

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions

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

August 20, 2016 The single user opposing it by stressing non-applicable guideline/essay might have some kind of agenda. Casting WP:ASPERSIONS
October 17, 2018 You have a well-known history of man-on-a-mission edits. Your actions are not the consensus. WP:TPNO
October 17, 2018 I wouldn't call it filibustering, but the fact that he explained his point of view (that has been well known before) in detail does not make it more valid. Switching to veiled accusations.
June 2, 2023 Overall, actions of certain users seem to have led to a bias in the selection of references used in this field. More veiled accusations with "certain users", more background in Recent edits section below.
June 4, 2023 You are describing your own behavior here, in past and now. WP:POT when cautioned the 3rd time about aspsersions/CT designation.

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
August 21, 2016
October 17, 2018
June 4, 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This comes off the heels of a recent admin action review started by Doug Weller on August 6 where Leyo made a bad block against me both on substance and as a WP:INVOLVED admin. One of the main suggestions from that review was to look at an interaction ban.[1] Before this, I had been dealing with aspersions from Leyo in GMO/pesticide topics in article space in violation of WP:TPNO since 2016. The sniping was sporadic enough then I hoped sanctions weren't needed. Given the recent escalation of that behavior to using admin tools in that hounding, I'm requesting an interaction-ban be imposed on Leyo towards me.

Older WP:TPNO sniping and aspersions

I warned Leyo about WP:ASPERSIONS in the GMO topic 2016 and 2018. The older diffs in evidence show a history of under-the-radar sniping/battleground. Back at the GMO ArbCom, we crafted that aspersions principle because people would take to the talk page to bludgeon/poison-the-well with comments ranging from broadly accusing editors of having an agenda without evidence, COI, etc. to outright or thinly veiled comments insinuating someone was a Monsanto shill.

The "You have a well-known history of man-on-a-mission edits" comment shows the poisoning-the-well that's part of the problem. There they tried singling me out on talk pages as just a lone actor with an agenda. In that case, others had to chime in to contradict that mischaracterization.[2] Generally the interactions were only occasional sniping, but still disrupted talk pages.

Recent edits

I cautioned about the GMO restrictions again just a few months ago between Leyo's certain users hounding comment above where they had not edited until after I posted in the previous section and promoting a WP:FRINGE organization (denial of scientific consensus on GMOs) as reliable in this discussion. This revival of the battleground attitude led to Leyo following me this month into another topic outside the GMO CT where they had never edited where the block occurred. When pushed at XRV about following edits, Leyo claimed they just picked me out of RecentChanges log, which editors were highly skeptical of.[3] @BilledMammal: also had a really good analysis of this interaction at XRV[4] concerning Leyo following my edits.

Where that ties into the GMO topic is that they ignored warnings about their behavior toward me in this topic to the point Leyo believed they were uninvolved when they tried to block me. At the review, multiple editors were concerned Leyo appeared dismissive of the history between us and carried on as if they had just merely given me warnings through their sniping detailed above. Because nearly all of this until the recent INVOLVED issue was centered around GMO/pesticides, I'm hoping a one-way interaction ban prevents this behavior from resurfacing in agriculture topics where we cross paths given the severity of the bad block I just had to deal with. KoA (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admin replies

Seraphimblade just to be clear, I opened in this AE so that I don't have to worry about the GMO-based interaction pursuing me anymore (the action reviewed at XRV has been the sole exception outside this CT topic). The admin conduct was already addressed at XRV, so there wouldn't by much for us to rehash here on that except the GMO behavior that led to that escalation. I'm just looking for the simplest solution right now to be able to move on, so I thought this was more appropriate given the CT designation. I don't plan to personally ask for desysop at ArbCom because that still doesn't solve the behavior in this topic. KoA (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin, I'm at my word limit, so I'll just briefly say we regularly deal with this subject at AE with the Arb principle and WP:GAMING of it.[5][6][7][8] Doug Weller also had to block an editor for aspersions just recently.[9] It's a recurring problem in this topic with editors often making veiled claims (i.e., not specifically naming, but "certain editors" statements) of a user having an agenda in this space (and sanctioned for it).

The present concern is that while Leyo eventually said it was a bad block, they were still saying things that showed they did not really see an issue with their behavior explained at the very end of the XRV. They've only said they are taking a break from admin actions, so that's why I am still concerned about the "normal" editor interaction side here in the future. At least as the target here over the years, I think the admin-related discussion can be set aside for now if it's clear the non-admin pursuit of me will stop, however that occurs. KoA (talk) 14:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[10]

Discussion concerning Leyo

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 Leyo

Sorry for the late response due to the holiday season.
Over the years, I've watchlisted a number of articles that have been a target of major disputes, even though the articles aren't within my primary interests. As far as time allowed, I have been trying to keep an eye on NPOV (acknowledging that I have been devoting more time to such tasks in de.wikipedia). In some cases, I have noticed deviations from NPOV. In some of these articles, KoA was involved.
I feel that I am being put in the NGO/environmental activism corner. I therefore would like to provide an example that shows a different point of view: A few years ago, a very knowledgeable user in the field of agriculture was indef-blocked for suspected undisclosed paid editing on behalf of an agrochemical company/association (confirmed by a too hasty closed block review). I had pushed for a more thorough block review/an unblock, although such a procedure is not foreseen. I was criticized by several users for being pro agrochemical industry. Being criticized for not being eutral in two opposing ways could be an indication of having an intermediate position. In any case, it's a key aim of mine to work towards NPOV.
BTW, it seems to me that KoA is pretty quick when it comes to warning other users such as recently fellow admin Steven Walling for edit-warring after a single revert.
As previously mentioned it's striking to see the difference in KoA's approach to content disputes, depending on whether he prefers the pre-dispute/edit-war version or the other one:

If he prefers the pre-dispute/edit-war version, he won't allow any changes, unless a consensus on the talk page is reached (which can't be reached since he opposes, even if the majority would agree). Even when KoA is involved in the reverting/edit-war (sometimes even as the only one from "his side"), he uses edit summaries that give the impression that he is acting as an uninvolved user or even as an admin. Examples:
As seen in Dominion (2018 film), the attitude is completely different, if KoA disagrees with the pre-edit-war version: In such a case, he considers several reverts to be fine, after only waiting a few days to see if the other users repeat their disagreement.

That's all for now. --Leyo 22:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

I do believe that action is required here; based on the evidence I have seen I believe that Leyo used their admin tools to target an editor they were engaged in a dispute with. This is not behavior that can be swept under the rug; at a minimum, Leyo needs to be put on notice that further abuses of the tools will result in the tools being removed. If a reviewing admin wishes me to present the evidence here I will do so, but for now I will just direct any interested editors towards the XRV discussion.

However, I don't believe that AE is the correct location for action to take place; I believe either ANI or ARBCOM is required, and over the past few days I have been considering opening an ARBCOM case on this topic, and have been leaning heavily towards doing so. Now that this AE case is open I will hold off on doing so, with my current intention being to open one after discussion has taken its course here if it is still warranted. 11:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish and Tamzin: My concern is less with repeated use of the admin tools against KoA, but instead use of the admin tools in a dispute with a less established editor, whose block will not face the same scrutiny that the block of KoA faced, or that a block of any of us would face.

This is compounded by what I felt was an inadequate reply; they haven't laid forth any plan to avoiding these actions in the future, they haven't acknowledged that it was the ongoing dispute that made them involved (as opposed to the warnings they issued KoA), or even agreed that it was clearly an inappropriate block - the closest they have come to this is saying As for the user, I can partly understand why some people think I'm involved because of the warnings I've issued to the user due to his conduct. It is difficult to draw a line, where an involvement begins. BilledMammal (talk) 01:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin: You're right; I forgot that. However, it doesn't address my overarching concerns - that Leyo has demonstrated themselves capable of abusing the admin tools, that we have no protection against them abusing them again, and that the next time they do it it might be to an editor whose block will face less scrutiny. BilledMammal (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I've been following and commenting on this situation, so I might as well comment here. I suppose one option that is within scope for AE would be to TBAN Leyo from GMOs, but I don't see much recent evidence that this would be anything urgent to do now. I agree with other comments here, that Leyo's stated intention to step back is something that is worth giving a chance, to see if it holds up. So it seems to me to be reasonable to close this AE without formal action, and wait and see if there is any recidivism on Leyo's part. If we're lucky, there won't be, and if not, this would be something for ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that Leyo is continuing to edit in the GMO topic area as of today: [11], although there is nothing at all wrong with the edit, as it is simple gnoming and not contentious. The only reason I post about it is that I think we need to be clear as to what Leyo has or has not voluntarily agreed to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gtoffoletto

I was not involved in the content dispute that lead to KoA's block and never edited that page. However, I have been part of this saga for a few months and my one week block for disputes in this area with KoA has been mentioned in this request. I will partially repost here a comment I made in the Admin action review that was also mentioned in this case.

KoA mentions that "Leyo made a bad block against [him] both on substance and..." (emphasis mine). As Thryduulf stated clearly in their reply to me: The community not endorsing the block is not the same as the community endorsing KOA's behaviour or any side of the content dispute - the consensus is simply that a block was not the right course of action at the time. His edits were clearly non neutral and disruptive in my view (and I sincerely hope the community widely agrees on this):

KoA was repeatedly changing the text documentary film with the text vegan anti-livestock farming film [12] against the objections of several different editors Special:Diff/1166825517, Special:Diff/1167229773, Special:Diff/1167935777, Special:Diff/1168612971. This was clearly disruptive, egregiously against WP:NPOV, and should have been sanctioned.

As I stated in the admin action review I feel that policies enacted for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms are being used to attack and block users (even when the disputes have little or nothing to do with the subject).

This all started months ago when I began investigating evidence of a systemic issue with the selection of our sources that privileges industry interests (here, User talk:Headbomb/unreliable/Archive 1#EWG.org Generally Unreliable?), with troubling evidence showing that CropLife International and American Chemistry Council, for example, are cited in 19 articles and 53 articles respectively, while we are regularly flagging as inaccurate, and removing entirely, citations from independent non profits and advocacy groups (such as Environmental Working Group or Pesticide Action Network). This is what started this whole saga and it is extremely worrisome. Wikipedia is highly vulnerable to manipulation from outside interests. If any proof is required of this we can look at this recent well publicised incident: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-07-17/In the media. How can we ensure the independence of Wikipedia if we use the policies we built to defend our encyclopaedia in this way? Corporate capture is extremely easy and all but guaranteed in this environment.

I'm just a casual editor so I don't have the resources to participate in this (wide reaching issue) appropriately and I am on holiday. But I hope the community will find a way to investigate thoroughly on what is happening here. This additional enforcement request does not feel right at all. It feels like a WP:BATTLEGROUND attack against an adversary. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 19:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

Gtoffoletto’s comments were made after the Administrative Review and were not part of it. User:Thryduulf responded by telling them that “ The content dispute and the behaviour of KOA unrelated to this block are off-topic for this forum, but you are free to raise them in the appropriate location if you wish.”[13] I agreed and hatted it which has upset them.[14] Perhaps it’s appropriate here, although I doubt it. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Leyo

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

This appears to be primarily an issue regarding admin conduct and concerns about it. Given that, I think that would be much better addressed by ArbCom than at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leyo has acknowledged that the block was inappropriate, and based on that and other responses at XRV, I think they know that any subsequent interaction with KoA in an admin capacity would be a one-way trip to ArbCom. So I tend to agree with KoA that referring this to ArbCom as an ADMINCOND matter is not necessary at this time. (That said, Leyo, you may want consider taking a voluntary but enforceable restriction from admin tool use regarding environmental activism and editors active in that topic area, or at least explicitly recusing indefinitely.)
As to an IBAN, I'm not yet convinced. This is a rarer topic area to see at AE, and I don't entirely know its discussion norms, but as a matter of rough impression I would tend toward a logged warning for WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Leyo would not be the first admin to be sanctioned at AE, and probably not the last either. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal, just to nitpick one thing there: In the diff I cite above, Leyo did say, boldfaced, I do acknowledge that my block was inappropriate. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think an IBAN is needed at this time, as I do not see how Leyo is specifically targeting KoA in their 2023 comments. I think the 2016 and 2018 comments are too old to do anything about, and evidence that this is a recent pattern of behaviour was not presented above (an instance in 2023, 5 years after the previous instance, is not a pattern in my opinion). However, I agree with the conclusion at WP:XRV that this was a bad block, that Leyo should be now deemed WP:INVOLVED with anything to do with KoA, and Leyo needs to slow down their use of the block button. If this concerning behaviour continues, I would support an ARBCOM case concerning Leyo, but I don't think there's anything more to be done here. Z1720 (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KoA left this message on my talk page responding to my comment above [15] in which I responded [16]. My response, summarised, is for KoA to WP:DROPTHESTICK and come back if Leyo starts bothering them again. Z1720 (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing without action. Further instances of subpar behaviour can be brought back here, or directly to ArbCom. – bradv 14:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NMW03

Filing appears to have been in violation of WP:PROXYING, so closing as procedurally invalid, although this probably wasn't going to result in any sanctions regardless. Per Callanecc, more admin eyes on Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) would be good. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning NMW03

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: R.Lemkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: NMW03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

14:22, 12 August 2023 Stalks me to yet another article to drop a POV issues template on top, linking two discussions (including one on my talk page) despite taking part in neither and never editing this article before
22:36, 13 August 2023 Stalks me to another Wikimedia project to nominate my image that's clearly protected by 2013 copyright laws for deletion in bad faith
22:11, 13 August 2023 removes quotation marks for MOS:SCAREQUOTES for being "POV" but there are numerous sources casting doubt on the eco-activist claim and the sources themselves use quotation marks to express doubt
22:14, 13 August 2023 same as #3
22:07, 13 August 2023 same as #3
11:15, 14 August 2023 same as #3 but now edit warring
11:30, 14 August 2023 same as #3 but now edit warring
18:36, 8 August 2023 took part in a canvassing vote with several other users who are Admins on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, as another user pointed out

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

02:15, 16 July 2023 Warned less than a month after all of these incidents by User:Callanecc: "I would strongly caution you to be consider your editing and ensure that you are not following other editors around to revert them specifically."

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 12 August 2023
AA2 advisory and warned for Edit warring
Introduction to contentious topics and warned for breaking WP:1RR

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Although it had been less than a month since NMW03 had been warned by Callanecc for WP:HOUNDING, NMW03 still continued following me around and getting into edit wars, not only on Wikipedia but following my account to Commons as well. And while stopping NMW03's bad faith attempt to delete my photo, I noticed that NMW03 had uploaded 500 photos of a "Young Wikipedians Wikicamp Azerbaijan" organization that, according to the description, is organized by the Ministry of Youth and Sports of Azerbaijan. Even more peculiar is that the indef-blocked and topic-banned Solavirum (talk · contribs · logs) is in these photos and appears to be teaching the camp.

And as listed above in the final diff of the list, Solavirum made a deletion request on Commons and was consecutively given votes of support by three users who, like him, are also Azerbaijani Wiki admins, including NMW03. Seems that this Wikicamp Azerbaijan is not beyond gaming the consensus system on Wikimedia. I'm aware that Commons is a different project, but this seems relevant both because NMW03 followed me from Wikipedia to Commons and for the evidence of meatpuppeting on both sites.

So not only is NMW03 still hounding after recently being explicitly told not to do that, NMW03 also seems to be a part of a meatpuppetry group for Wikimedia projects. R.Lemkin (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk I never mentioned socking (these are clearly two different people), it's meatpuppetry that seems possible. A few months ago, the NMW03 account awoke from a 2 year slumber and is suddenly engaging in edit wars on Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict articles, including ones that Solavirum previously edited frequently such as Battle of Shusha (2020), Talk:Battle of Shusha (2020), Ghazanchetsots Cathedral, List of massacres of Armenians, Aras Valley campaign, and Armenian–Azerbaijani war (1918–1920). These articles are not only completely different from the editing interests NMW03 had before 2023, they are also articles Solavirum used to edit often before being topic-banned if you look at the article histories.

In addition, according to the descriptions of those Wikicamp Azerbaijan images, NMW03, Solavirum, and dozens of other users are working for the Ministry of Youth and Sports (Azerbaijan), something they haven't disclosed on their userpages as WP:PCD requires. R.Lemkin (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin @Callanecc Although NMW03 said they do not work for the Ministry of Youth and Sports, the photos NMW03 uploaded show the participants being given certificates and awards in images 379-463,[17][18] with Solavirum himself being awarded in 388.[19] And images 479-491 show participants lining up to receive bags of goods.[20][21] This means that the participants are receiving undisclosed compensation as defined in the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use WP:PCD. R.Lemkin (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin Does NMW03 following me to Commons at least merit a formal caution this time?

And, although NMW03 said they do not work for the Ministry of Youth and Sports, the photos NMW03 uploaded show the participants being given certificates and awards in images 379-463,[22][23] with Solavirum himself being awarded in 388.[24] And images 479-491 show participants lining up to receive bags of goods.[25][26] This means that the participants are receiving undisclosed compensation as defined in the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use WP:PCD. R.Lemkin (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

Discussion concerning NMW03

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 NMW03

Putting a POV tag on an article that two other editors also had concerns about is not stalking. R.Lemkin, you don't own the Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) article, and simply editing the article (not even reverting any of your edits) is not harassment towards you. Last time, you claimed I was stalking you because my first edits to those articles were reverts of your edits. Now, my first edit does not even have anything to do with you. Red-tailed hawk has given a great reply to your claims in points two and eight. About the scare quotes, I did what Wikipedia guidelines told me to do. I'll let an admin decide whether that's valid or not. This is now R.Lemkin's second report of me within a month.

There are things I'd like the admins to review in R.Lemkin's contributions too. In the Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh article, R.Lemkin removed a POV tag, saying that they've "Replied on the article's talk page" without waiting for any response from me, who added the POV tag, or two other editors who have expressed concern at the POV issues in the article. Also, R.Lemkin is demanding other editors to discuss every edit before they make it ("Please engage in the discussion before introducing more changes.", "if there any specific issue, it should be discussed and replied first (if you have a good rationale)"). The article also has copyright problems with several sources, all in the content added by R.Lemkin, which need to be looked at. See Earwig's copyvio detector for the problems. NMW03 (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous @R.Lemkin. I do not work for the Ministry of Youth and Sports. I simply attended an event that received financial support from them, like many other youth events in Azerbaijan. And I did not edit for 1,5 years because I was conscripted for the army at that time. I was an active editor before my conscription as well. You can see that I resigned from adminship before that. NMW03 (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can learn more about the event here to avoid jumping to conclusions like Kevo327 has: az:Vikipediya:Gənclərin Vikipediya düşərgəsi 2023. The awards were given to people who won a game of What? Where? When? (pictures of game, from 51 to 80). The "bag of goods" includes outfits, notepads, and pens that were given to us on the first day of the camp. They were not gifts. Wearing the shirts was mandatory throughout the event. We were not awarded anything for any editing that took place during the camp. Every award is listed in the link above. The only editing that took place was when we were asked to create new articles generally related to Youth, Sports, or Lankaran (the city where the camp was hosted) in Azerbaijani Wikipedia. The certificates was given to everyone who participated in the camp for their participation, not for the edits they made. (picture of certificate) I do not see how any of this relates to the English Wikipedia or my conduct on it. NMW03 (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red-tailed hawk

I write only with respect to the parts of this report that allege impropriety at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Rza Talibov as a pattern of cross-wiki bad faith behavior and/or Commons socking.

Regarding that DR, if multiple AzWiki admins were present in a discussion, and they know that the uploader has previously engaged in deception and/or provided false information, it's a good thing that they would go to Commons and question the image submissions. And, as it turns out, there were multiple discussions on AzWiki not all that long ago about the behavior of the uploader of the images: and you will find NMW03 as a participant in at least one of them. Consequently, it doesn't look like NMW03 was gaming the consensus system on Commons. Meanwhile, Solavirum is a prolific editor on AzWiki, where they hold sysop rights. I would understand the concern about potential socking, but socking isn't really much of a concern if the uploader of that image is the photographer. And, there is a plausible alternative explanation for why there's a high level of Azerbaijani participation in the DR—all those comments from the Azerbaijani editors were posted on Commons after the relevant local AzWiki conduct discussion began.

Speaking as a Commons sysop, the participation in that DR on Commons doesn't look all that nefarious to me. It doesn't really serve as evidence of some sort of Commons socking ring, and the allegations of secret canvassing of Commons by "Wikicamp Azerbaijan" seem a bit off-base in light of the very public discussion about the uploader's conduct that began before AzWiki users began to comment on that DR.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kevo327

@Tamzin @Callanecc My 2 cents – although NMW03 said they do not work for the Ministry of Youth and Sports, the photos NMW03 uploaded show the participants being given certificates and awards in images 379-463,[28][29] with Solavirum himself being awarded in 388.[30] And images 479-491 show participants lining up to receive bags of goods.[31][32] This means that the participants are receiving undisclosed compensation as defined in the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use WP:PCD. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning NMW03

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

Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) is too high-profile an article within the topic area for me to see it as hounding to show up there, even with Callanecc's informal caution in July. The other alleged violations I'm likewise unconvinced can be distinguished from being active in the topic area. My preferred course of action here is a 1RR for the blockade article, but no user sanctions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the assessment regarding user sanctions. I'd been spending some time looking through these edits to find a clear demonstration of hounding and I just can't see it in this instance. Regarding 1RR I'm not sure it's necessary. While there has been some back and forth on the article it appears to have settled down and resulted in finding consensus versions of text and discussion. I would tend to use 1RR when there is persistent back and forth that is preventing consensus building rather than where there is consensus building occuring. My thinking is that what this article needs is a couple admins to monitor and apply user sanctions to anyone who is persistently reverting and not consensus building. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevo327

Kevo327 warned and 1RR/72h applied to Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:43, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Kevo327

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NMW03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kevo327 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

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

14 August Restoring clearly POV language with the edit summary "comment on talk first with good rationale" (implying that these edits did not have good rationale [33], [34]).
17 August Reverting the restoration of a POV tag in the same article, after preventing a user from removing the POV wordings.
17 August Restoring POV scare quotes and reverting perfectly fine edits simply because they were not discussed beforehand.
17 August Reverting the same user and restoring UNDUE wording in lead.
4 August Restoring an exceptional claim with problematic sourcing. See below for more explanation.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

4 December 2020 Blocked for 72 hours for edit warring in several AA2 articles

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 24 January 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Kevo327 has been repeatedly reverting edits made by Paul Vaurie on various articles with strange and demanding edit summaries. Kevo327 restores obvious POV wordings ("Ethnically cleanse the region of indigenous Armenians", "so-called 'eco-activists'", and "Many observers do not believe that Artsakh Armenians can live safely under President Aliyev's regime" among others) and tells Paul to discuss the edit first "with good rationale" in the edit summary. When Paul approaches Kevo327 about the revert, Kevo327 tells him to "gain consensus first" [35] before making an edit. In the third diff, Kevo327 reverts Paul again, restoring POV scare quotes and irrelevant material that was removed by Paul, demanding that the edit be explained in the talk page first. In the fourth diff, Kevo327 again reverts Paul, for the third time in a single day, and restores UNDUE wording in lead and irrelevant content in the article. Again, they demand that Paul discuss the edits in the talk page first.

In the fifth diff, Kevo327 restores an exceptional claim one minute after posting a reply to my explanation of why the content was problematic. The source Kevo327 added, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) was a copy-paste of an article from Al-Masdar News, which actually cites SOHR as its own source. So, there's no actual source and these two articles cite each other as their source. Moreover, Kevo327 claims the source to be an "extremely reputable source" [36]. I find it weird how any editor can believe either Al-Masdar News (See #Notable reports, fake news and disinformation) or SOHR (See #Accuracy) can be described as such. In our discussion, Kevo327 ignores this citogenesis and tells me "If you can't grasp this, I suggest you disengage from the discussion" [37] and later "What is this and how do you expect others to see good faith in your comments? Because you just jump the ship every time your previous argument fails, and try to come up with something new to keep arguing." [38]

Kevo327 is obviously here to spread their POV and not contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia. They are uncivil, do not assume good faith, and carefully edit war to not pass 3RR. Their behavior violates the recent WP:AA3 case's principles of Standards of editor behavior, Edit warring and Tendentious editing. Additionally, they were warned last year for using the CSD process politically. NMW03 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC); edited 19:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About this: I only added diffs to the quotes above. I have not changed any word or sentence in my comment. I put the added diffs inside <ins>. NMW03 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks for taking your time to review the report. I think this is also relevant.--NMW03 (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

Discussion concerning Kevo327

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 Kevo327

Going through the diff list provides:

Paul Vaurie had not participated in the talk page discussion and when asked to do so, said "I don't want to get involved in a content dispute right now". But Paul Vaurie proceeded to remove content that was well sourced.
Paul Vaurie kept adding the POV tag without explaining what was a POV violation, which is required for using the tag. Instead, Paul added the tag, was reverted and asked to discuss on talk, and then added the tag again, never explaining the reasoning. So, it was Paul Vaurie that was edit warring.
NMW03 refers to these are "POV scare quotes" but that is completely false. WP:NPOV is "all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and the reliable sources put these terms in quotes ('Azerbaijani "activists" are blocking the road...', '...claims that the Karabakh Armenians were "illegally" extracting gold from mines...'. I had pointed this out to NMW03 but they still reverted.
Paul Vaurie removed cited content and an entire section that had been on the article for years without any consensus, or reason besides being "unnecessary". By the way, why is NMW03 reporting incidents they weren't involved in on behalf of other users?
As I explained on the talk page, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is a very reliable source. I had checked the WP:RSN to verify this, and came across and informative discussion where multiple users agreed that when SOHR and Al-Masdar report identical things related to Syrian affairs, these can be considered well cited. In another discussion, another user pointed out that when it comes to Syrian news, there is either "pro-government Masdar or pro-opposition SOHR" to chose from. In this case, both sources reported the same thing.

As if making an enforcement request over content disputes wasn't bad enough, in 3 out of 4 articles NMW03 has linked in their diffs list, they haven't even made a single comment on the respective talk pages. Maybe they should start discussing content first? - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NMW03 now changes their comment after my response despite violating WP:TALK#REPLIED. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc Here are additional details of NMW’s conduct:

12 August – it was actually NMW first who re-added the POV tag with no valid reason [40]. Initially it was added by a non-EC WP:GS/AA user [41]. Bear in mind, NMW reverts users just for being under WP:GS/AA [42], but in this instance, when it suits his POV, NMW restores a non-EC user's added unexplained tag without valid reason.
13 August – NMW removes "scare quotes" on 3 different articles [43], [44], [45]. The supposed "scare quotes" are actually sourced and used by reliable sources.
14 August – I point out to NMW that these aren't "POV scare quotes" as they're directly used by RS [46]. But NMW proceeds to revert and edit-war (the quotes are still removed) [47].

All while NMW hasn't made a single talk comment in any of the articles above. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Vaurie

Will you stop dragging me into this? I have no interest in any arbitration/enforcement type of stuff. The way I see it is that some people have contrasting views on what should be in the page, and that doesn't require enforcement but simply dispute resolution. However, there are many problems with Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present), including POV weasel words, which R.Lemkin and Kevo327 must recognize, and stop reverting constructive edits which really do not need discussion. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summary by Callanecc

I've been looking into these diffs and related examples for some time now. This is where I got up to:
- Paul Vaurie:
  - On 25 April Paul Vaurie raised a non-specific concern on the article talk page regarding the POV of the article.
  - Paul Vaurie raised a concern on R.Lemkin's talk page (12 August) regarding reference bombing and NPOV the Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) article. On 15 August R.Lemkin replies and asks Paul Vaurie to engage on the talk page, Paul Vaurie replies and says they are disengaging as they don't want to get into a dispute.
  - On 14 August Paul Vaurie raised a concern about Kevo327's revert and the POV of the article. Kevo327 replies that due to the dispute on the article Paul Vaurie should have sought consensus for large changes first and to check talk page archives to see what already had consensus
  - On 14 August Paul Vaurie added a {{POV}} tag to the article with no further comment in the edit summary or article talk page.
  - On 15 August R.Lemkin reverts the POV tag and asked Paul Vaurie to engage on the talk page in the edit summary.
  - On 17 August Paul Vaurie readded the POV tag. During the period between adding and readding the POV tag Paul Vaurie's only comment on the talk page was TL;DR. Learn to be WP:CONCISE, please.
- Kevo327 (in addition to anything above):
  - On 17 August Kevo327 reverted Paul Vaurie across three different articles. On 17 August Kevo327 readded quotes to "eco-activists" which have been labelled WP:SCAREQUOTES by NMW03. Kevo327 justifies the quote marks as they appear in the source.
  - There has been some discussion/disagreement on whether SOHR is a reliable sources with different editors pointing to different reasons why it is or is not reliable. That should be a discussion on RSN (and Kevo327 has pointed to two of them).

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kevo327

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

I've posted a summary of my thinking so far in a statement above so it doesnt't fill up this section. I'm still looking but any further comments on my points in particular anything I've missed would be helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:17, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding where to from here following Z1720's comments:
  - I don't believe that any action is necessary against PV at this point but they should be careful about editing in contentious topics per Z1720's comment.
  - Tamzin suggested in a separate thread that 1RR might be useful on this topic so she may want to weigh in? I didn't agree at the time but I'm more in favour of it now than I was. It would likely need to be 1RR/week to have an impact given that the reverts were over a longer time period. I'd suggest it should probably be time limted rather than indefinite (3-6 months or liftable by any admin?)
  - Regarding the Kevo diff Z1720 (are there supposed to be two different ones @Z1720?) linked I agree that it is problematic and there's a similarly concerning comment [48] on my talk page. I'm not yet convinced that there is a pattern of comments like this and further evidence in this area would be useful in determining what if any action we should take.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I still think a 1RR is a good idea. I'd prefer 24h or 72h over 1w, just because on an article that's getting a reasonably large number of edits, keeping track of what counts as a revert over the course of a week can be complicated. But I think any 1RR is better than nothing. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there were supposed to be two different links, I can't find the other link right now but I'll add it in when I do. I don't think the second link makes much of a difference; it's similar behaviour to the first one from what I remember. I like the 1RR/week, even if it is difficult to keep track of, as editors familiar with the topic area can help us if there are any concerns. However, the timeframe is not a big deal for me so if others like 1RR/72 hours I will not be against. Z1720 (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with 1RR/72h. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after reading the above and various talk pages:

I do not see any concerns with Kevo327's reversion of Paul Vaurie's edits: I do not see consensus on the talk page about keeping the POV banner and PV seemed to remove sourced prose. Under WP:BRD, neither editor did anything wrong in this situation, although I wish PV would engage on the talk page more thoroughly if they want to edit in this contentious topic.
The scare quotes concern should be discussed on the talk page, and perhaps an RfC should be opened to get wider community input.
I think Blockade of the Republic of Artsakh (2022–present) needs to be put on a 1RR restriction for all users until the content dispute dies down, in order to prevent reversion cycles.
I'm not happy with these two diffs of Kevo: [49] [50]. I'd like to remind Kevo to avoid comments like these.
Kevo's comment, "NMW03 now changes their comment after my response" links to a diff showing NMW03 adding links to diffs to support their claims. It was probably better for NMW03 to note this addition below their comment, but I don't think it violates WP:TALK#REPLIED.
I agree with Callanecc that if users are concerned about the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, they should open a new discussion on RSN.

Let me know if there are additional questions or concerns I should look at. Z1720 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NMW03: concerning Dsrlisan85's concern on Callanecc's talk page, I do not know what progress Callanecc has made on this, so I will reserve judgment if/until one of the two of them brings it here. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani 2

Sanction imposed and vacated by imposing admin. Closed without action, as everyone appears to have said their piece. Courcelles (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Nishidani 2

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nishidani (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: Logged warning in AE case just closed, which see for details

Evidence

[51] Yesterday, Nishidani made revisions to the lead section of Zionism, race and genetics.
[52] I then made this edit, see edit summary for why. I think my edit summary explains the reasoning clearly, and was in good faith.
[53] Subsequently, other editors have further revised the lead sentence, and in my opinion they have significantly improved on what I did, as is expected during the normal editing process.

[54] Today, Nishidani created this section on the talk page. Note: calling the language in my edit "Extraordinary", and comparing it to a defense of parapsychology. That's quite at odds with the edit I actually made, and is exactly the kind of thing that the logged warning says not to do.
[55] Reply from another editor, self-explanatory.
[56] Reply from me.

[57] I notified Nishidani about it, hoping to just leave an expression of concern without having to escalate it further.
[58] Nishidani's reply to my message, which strikes me as defiant and lacking in self-awareness, clearly intending to continue the kind of conduct that the warning was about. So here we are.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Well, this is awkward. The previous AE thread was just closed, and hasn't even been archived yet. But the fact that Nishidani's post, coming so soon after the logged warning, so obviously violates the warning, and his subsequent reaction of acting like nothing was wrong with it, leads me to think that we are in "Further disruption may result in sanctions without further warning" territory. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reply to what Iskandar323 says. I changed a sentence that said that science "affirmed" that there was "a hierarchy of races", to say that it had "provided evidence" of "genetically distinct races". Saying that there are genetic differences between races is a lot farther from scientific racism, than the claim of a hierarchy of races that came before: hierarchy implies that some races are "above" others, as I said in my edit summary. "Provid[ing] evidence" is more tentative than "affirmed". I changed the language away from scientific racism, although in retrospect not far enough. I agree that it needed to be changed even more, and I already said that I appreciate that other editors did so.

And I'm not criticizing Nishidani for taking it to the talk page, obviously. I'm criticizing the mocking and theatrical way he said it, as though I had introduced the problem into the language, when I was actually trying to fix a problem that was there when I found it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Although this is essentially finished, I want to say that I appreciate Ealdgyth's comment. And that diff was made after this AE thread had already been opened and Nishidani had been notified. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logging back in today, I see an awful lot of pages where I should be replying, but I'll reply here first in the hope that it will make it easier for someone to close the thread. It seems to me that there's a pretty impressive who's who of admins below who are all saying pretty much the same thing, so a little fish like me is perfectly happy to see a congenial end result, and leave it at that. I especially appreciate how NYB sums it up at the bottom, and I'm willing to accept that my understanding of "affirmed", as a scientist, did not allow for that alternative definition. (But I'll stand by my understanding of "a hierarchy of races" as something that absolutely needed to be changed to something else, even as I continue to acknowledge that I did a crummy job of fixing it and other editors greatly improved on my version.)

I hope that editors can see that I'm willing to recognize that I made mistakes. So far, I haven't seen the same from Nishidani, but, whatever. But Nishidani, if you stay around, please at least take a few moments before posting talk page comments that will set other editors off. You're intelligent enough to see what does that, after all this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[59]

Discussion concerning Nishidani 2

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

Statement by Nishidani 2

I won't defend myself other than say this. I'm responsible for the comprehensive rewrite. All editors desisted as they kindly allowed me to do so. The only thing I hadn't touched was the lead. I specifically notified the page that, given the persisting troubles over the lead, I would try to rewrite it stringently according to WP:MOS/WP:LEDE, and asked if there were any objections. there were none. I went ahead. I managed three of four paragraphs, but was struck down with a raging fever, and spent 18 hours in bed. Unlike many others, I do not check who added what. In my view, that is a waste of time. All that matters is the conformity of text to sources via close paraphrase. Tryptofish apparently wrote it, and was offended by my opening a talk page discussion (brief, because I'm still somewhat feverish, but no headaches, so I can drop in to make a note now and then). My objections are strictly technical. I will say that the alacrity with which AE is being once more resorted to looks like 'harassment'. I don't mind my language being minutely parsed, but articles are written by attention to reading sources, not constantly suspecting editors' motives from some perceived 'tone'. Whatever. Good night. (My fever is not mentioned as an excuse. I wrote with lucidity, and if it is problematical under the ruling, I accept whatever judgment will be forthcoming) Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking my rule. I appreciate the kind interventions on my behalf, but I think what's happened is a salutary reminder to me that it's time I moved on. My wife always thought I should have continued writing books, rather than edit wikipedia. Best wishes to everyone, good friends and those who regard me as a nuisance alike. Tamzin may well have done me an inadvertent service by reading this complaint in the way she has. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 03:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, re your concluding statement, (and this is mine). I used the term 'affirm' in its precise and general English acceptance from Shakespeare's time down to the present day, certainly in the English of the so-called Commonwealth countries.

(Affirm)'To make a statement and stand by it, to maintain or assert strongly, to declare or state positively, to aver.' Oxford English Dictionary 2nd ed. 1989 vol.1 p.218 column 2.

As I now learn with surprise from some comments below, apparently not even the OED can keep abreast of shifts in meaning, perhaps regional, or even mainstream elsewhere, over recent decades. I can't be held responsible for, or under an obligation to be aware of, an interpretation of a word I'd never heard till today, and I'm fairly well-read. In any case, this is settled, and I hope this unfortunate matter can be closed and archived.Nishidani (talk) 21:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

I fail to see the behavioural issue worthy of censure here, let alone AE. Nishidani quite rightly pointed out the decidedly dodgy turn the first sentence of the lead had taken. While it was presumably inadvertent, the wording that has been landed on at the time of Nishidani's post basically all but said that racism has an evidential basis, essentially affirming scientific racism in Wikivoice. Nishidani then did exactly the right thing and, rather than reverting anyone (which might have ruffled feathers, had that been his inclination), took it straight to talk, i.e. the correct approach to resolving a content issue. I also found the wording that has been arrived at "extraordinary" (Nishidani's only commentary) in its inadvertent blunder, and I also emphasized the alarming nature of the lead wording in the summary for the edit that I made immediately afterwards to address it. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Self banning myself from the page for two weeks since I find nothing whatsoever actionable in Nishidani conduct and would have been tempted to respond similarly in the same circumstances.Selfstudier (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Posting here because I have too strong a positive opinion about both Tryptofish and Nishidani to be an uninvolved admin. I am having trouble seeing Nishidani's comment as an example of the conduct he was warned against. Both the "extraordinary" and the analogy to parapsychology are descriptions of the content in question. I would have to strain to read them as comments on other editors or their motivations. If our goal is to place Nishidani under a restriction that stops him from criticizing content, such a sanction should be explicit in saying so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Sorry, I just don't get it. Where is the offense? Tryptofish made a bad edit and Nishidani explained why it is bad without making any claim about Tryptofish's motives. "Affirm" does not mean "confirm" except in specific legal contexts, so replacing "science affirmed" by "science provided evidence for" is simply wrong. "Science affirmed" means "Science asserted/claimed", which is quite different. Nishidani (who knows more about word usage than all of us combined) correctly pointed out the error using an analogy that fits perfectly. Zero^talk 02:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nishidani 2

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

The warning I gave yesterday was pretty clear, including the bit about further sanctions without further warning. That said, this is really just above the threshold of being actionable. It's not nothing—it's a temperature-raising comment and a failure to walk it back—but it's not something massive, and Nishidani is still on a positive trajectory from before. So, I've split the difference between doing nothing and the sanction I contemplated in the previous thread, and am pagebanning Nishidani for two weeks from the article and the talkpage, in the hopes that that will get things across where a warning didn't. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:55, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to some comments above: It's not AE's place to decide content, and it was certainly reasonable for Nishidani to object to Tryptofish' edit. This sanction was about the tone of that objection, and the tone of the response to Tryptofish' request to dial it back, and the timing relative to yesterday's warning, and being generally at wit's end regarding this article and talkpage. Of every admin action I've taken in the past 16 months, I think this is the one I've been the least happy to make—I think I made the right call, but I don't at all like what that call was.
Nishidani, I'll never tell someone not to leave a situation if they think that's what's best for them, but I do hope you know the circumstances of this pageban are not fully generalizable, and I was not saying that a comment like that would always, or even usually, be sanctionable. I wish you the best in whatever comes next, either way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to weigh in on an actual sanction but I'd like to point out that this diff where Nishidani says "My impression is that the lead is troublesome because some editors want a different article to be summarized, not the one we have." is sub-optimal, because they are speculating on editor behavior - which Tamzin specifically warned on the talk page to avoid: "On the article talk page, editors should discuss article content only, not editor behaviour." It would be helpful if such discussions of editor behavior/motivations was dropped going forward. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Callanecc: I'm reopening this based on statements from Bishonen, Vanamonde93, and Bradv that they had wished to comment on the matter. I'm not reversing the pageban, but if there is rough consensus against it, I'm fine with it being overturned or downgraded. I just want whatever outcome is best for the topic area, and I trust my colleagues to find that, whether it's what I imposed or something else or no action. Courtesy pings also @Nishidani, Ealdgyth, and Floquenbeam. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Tamzin. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reopening this, Tamzin. It seems to me that this whole dispute is based on a good-faith misunderstanding of the two competing lede sentences (see User talk:Nishidani#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction), wherein both editors were trying to avoid hints of scientific racism in the article, but using different words. Nishidani's comment on the talk page reacting to Tryptofish's edits was one of genuine confusion, and does not, in my view, constitute battleground conduct. In the complaint above Tryptofish characterized this comment as "mocking and theatrical", but I suspect they read into it the same misinterpretation I made with the word "affirm" in the text. It's also worth mentioning that as of now, neither of the proposed lede sentences remain in the article and the discussion appears to have reached a resolution. – bradv 04:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I find no misconduct in the edit giving rise to this thread, even in the context of the prior warning. As Bradv explains well, this situation appears to have resulted from a good-faith misunderstanding. I would vacate the sanction and close without action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:33, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I’m not seeing the sanctionable misconduct here, either. This feels like a rush back here on very little cause, so I would have dismissed it without action. Now that a sanction has been issued and this not being a formal appeal, I’m unaware of a procedural precedent to follow. Courcelles (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Like the recent posts above, I think the matter is a misunderstanding. It would be clear if Nishidani wanted to abuse others—you wouldn't have to read the tea leaves. I don't think there is a constitutional problem as Tamzin has said above that she would be fine with the sanction being overturned or downgraded. I'm not sure that would influence whether Nishidani continues editing but that's not really the point here. The question is whether the evidence above warrants a sanction and I don't see it. Johnuniq (talk) 04:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the procedural note, my understanding of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments is that an enforcing admin can consent to a reversal outside the formal appeal process. But I'll save us the ambiguity either way and self-reverse. If the underlying issue has indeed been resolved, this can probably be reclosed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you have reversed your unjust sanction, Tamzin, but I'll give my opinion anyway, to reinforce the consensus here. I do not believe either of these diffs, of which Tryptofish complains, have any tendency to violate the warning previously given to Nishidani, and I'm baffled that they could even be read that way. Bishonen | tålk 07:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Also chiming in to reinforce the consensus. I don't see a violation of the warning and I felt that there the ban decision was made too swiftly, surely there was no urgency demanding a fast resolution before people in different time zones (like me) could respond. But credit to you for your post to Nishidani's talk page, I don't think I could have asked for a better one. Doug Weller talk 07:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reopening, Tamzin. As I've said elsewhere, my view is that no violation serious enough to sanction occurred, and I would in any case give some leeway to sharp language when editors are attempting to address scientific racism in the lead of a prominent article. Bradv above sums up my views also. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:44, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarity and to avoid the possibility of any further misunderstandings, it's clear that neither of these editors intended to endorse any form of scientific racism or to reflect it in the article. There was simply an ambiguity in the language used, resulting from the fact that the word "affirmed" in this context could be understood as meaning either "contended" (which was the intended meaning) or "proved" (which was not the intended meaning but could potentially be read as such). Given the poisonous nature of any form of racism, much less the perception that a Wikipedia article is endorsing it, it is understandable why tempers flared, but hopefully all can now move on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- With Tryptofish's response above, I believe this request can now be closed without action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Outnproud

Outnproud indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action shortly after this was filed, closing as there isn't anything else to do here. Hut 8.5 16:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Outnproud

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Outnproud (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#Contentious topic designation

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

12:15, August 22, 2023 Personal attack and personalization on article talk, "Reading through your comments, you sound like a Bond villain "do a preponderance of highest quality sources (translation: scholarly) raise this issue ? [...] I could be misremembering (but I don't think I am)". So in a Bond-like response, there's a useful four-letter word and you're full of it. We know what you're trying to do with your blocking tactics; nobody's buying your bull[useful four-letter word]."

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 June 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Outnproud is an SPA who began their editing at FA J. K. Rowling with edit warring,12:31 13:20 (after the 12:44 CT alert) and is now unhappy that consensus has not developed for their desired change to an FA, on a topic that was well covered at last year's Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Outnproud

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 Outnproud

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Outnproud

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

Fowler&fowler

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 Fowler&fowler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: CapnJackSp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Fowler&fowler (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/India-Pakistan

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

Less than one month ago, Fowler was brought to this noticeboard for behavioral issues. At the time, they promised to improve their behavior, and the report was closed without action.

In that report, I had brought up their edit warring, especially when the edits are not exactly in line with what they want [60]. That pattern is repeated here. In these edits, Fowler has made reverts ignoring the 1RR restrictions on the page due to their disagreements with the material.

[61] First revert today
[62] Second revert today, in violation of 1RR restriction on article

A separate set of violations, see caveat in additional comments.

[63] Also, first revert on 12th
[64] Second revert in violation of 1RR restriction
[65] Third revert in double violation of 1RR restriction

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Warned in October 2022 for "personal attacks and incivility" involving WP:ARBIND.

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

Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For context, my involvement began when I made an edit to the article, to substitute a word in the lead that could be easily misinterpreted, to a wording supplied by a third editor. Fowler objected, and despite there being little to no grounds, I accepted their request for giving them time till the 16th of August. In the meantime, Fowler continued to revert sourced material others inserted in other sections, insisting on maintaining their preferred version. When asked to discuss their reverts, they again asked to wait till the 16th, and I was fine by it. See Talk:2020 Delhi riots#Inaccuracies for context.

Since then, Fowler has been making multiple edits on several pages, however, has chosen not to reply to the discussion that they had help up with requests of additional time. I reinstated the clearer wording today, due to Fowler's failure to discuss. They reverted me again in violation of 1RR, saying they had discussed enough (they had not discussed any further after asking for more time), accused me of edit warring, and threatened me with "A trip to the wood shed". These actions are in stark contrast to their promises for good behaviour on this thread when they were under the threat of sanctions.

In most of these reverts that were made in violation of the 1RR restriction, they used marked them as good-faith edits - Therefore they cannot use the argument that these were exempt from 1RR under WP:NOT3RR. As full disclosure, the second set of edits includes edits of an editor by a sock; However, The sock was not indicated as being so at the time, and Fowler did not make any indication they even had any suspicions of the user being a sock. Since there is a long term behavioural issue being brought up, this should not affect the fact they reverted edits, accepting them as good faith, while breaking 1RR. Even if admins accept this line of reasoning, today's violations still remain.

In light of these recurring violations, I request a 0RR restriction on Fowler&fowler, or if the admins wish to see these violation of CTOPS restrictions more leniently, at the very least 1RR.

@Bradv and @Extraordinary Writ - Fowler seems to have doubled down instead of admitting their error; Instead of reverting their edit, they reverted another editors edit with a "self revert" edit summary, and then had to be asked again again to actually do the revert.

Their response focuses more on trying to paint me as some sort of agenda warrior than accepting their own violations; They have made several allegations without bothering to substantiate any of them, making accusations of WP:HOUNDING and WP:BAIT; A simple interaction timeline shows how laughable the first is; And to accuse me of baiting, for their own reverts breaking CTOPS restrictions after failure to discuss? Their abuse of the label "Hindu Nationalist POV editor" has been previously also noted, with attempts to escape admin action by casting aspersions on those they disagree with.

In all, their battleground mentality and failure to accept their violations of the existing page sanctions merits atleast a logged warning, if their self reversion is deemed to be enough to not be sanctioned more hashly. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [66]

Discussion concerning Fowler&fowler

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 Fowler&fowler

I wasn't really aware of the 2020 Delhi riots, until March 2, 2020, when @Kautilya3: made a post on my user talk page requesting help on that page. See here. If you scroll up in archive 23 of my user talk page, you'll see that I was busy at the time at FAC with very different kinds of subject matter (archbishops of Canterbury, volcanoes in South America, and so forth). The Delhi riots was a fraught topic area that people were afraid to edit. An editor user:DbigXray who had edited the page earlier had been outed by some Hindu nationalists and had to leave Wikipedia. That is the kind of article in which my help had been sought. I devised a strategy for editing the lead neutrally, utilizing the reports of the large number of international reporters that had been present in Delhi at the time (for an unrelated event—the visit of Donald Trump). The strategy evolved over a few weeks in the presence of a large number of editors, including several administrators and I rewrote the lead in their full view, with the help of some other editors. They were pinged when I posted the guidelines on 5 April 2020: Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_17#Fowler&fowler's:_Developing_the_article_main_body,_and_eventually_rewriting_the_lead_(in_POV-embattled_India-related_articles). As far as I am aware, the guidelines have been followed for the three and half years that have elapsed. This is not an article that I have edited much since that time, except for occasional reverts. I certainly did not remember that it had a 1RR restriction until admin @Firefangledfeathers: reminded me on my user talk page a little while ago. I immediately self-reverted.

CapnJackSp (talk · contribs), CJS hereafter, is a user with almost no history of any purposeful engagement with me on Wikipedia. The editor interaction analyser is very interesting: except on one page, Talk:Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction railway station, where I was pinged by @Fylindfotberserk:, CJS have followed me on every other page of our mutual editing interest. See here. My first memory of them is on Talk:Mahatma Gandhi where they appeared a few months ago. I had written the lead of Mahatma Gandhi in an admin-supervised revision some four or five years earlier. It had stood the test of time until March or April of 2023 when an editor, with no history of editing either the page or the talk page, objected to one sentence in the lead. I began to compile sources supporting that sentence. There are now some 30 of the best quality sources found anywhere on Wikipedia. My interlocutors are not satisfied. I am waiting for admin @Abecedare:'s opinion. They might have been called away by RL. See Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi#F&f's_sources:_Gandhi's_last_fast_&_cash_assets_owed_to_Pakistan. That is when CJS appeared. They too had no history of editing Gandhi or the talk page. They soon posted on my user talk page, giving me advice about behavior. When I asked CJS if they had looked at the sources, they said they hadn't found the time. But have found the time to come after me with unparalleled focus and dispatch both in the previous ARE of a month ago, where they were the most prolific of the editors asking for a pound of my flesh, and now in this one. I am incredulous that they know so much about my edits for someone who has not only had no interaction with me but has not edited our pages of mutual interest beyond the barest of ritual edits. 2020 Delhi riots is another page in which they had no history of any editing. CJS seems to be following me around and looking to bait me. I request that editors I had pinged on April 5, 2020, several of whom were administrators, take a look at CJS's editing history: @Kautilya3, Slatersteven, DIYeditor, RegentsPark, Abecedare, DougWeller, El C, Anachronist, Drmies, Johnbod, and Vanamonde93: as well as @331dot:, with whom I have been interacting on the article's talk page.

Proposal I am flat out of time for digging out diffs, but I request that these editors examine CJS's history, and if there is evidence of POV promotion, that CapnJackSp (talk · contribs) be topic banned from South Asia-related articles broadly construed. In my own view, born of a 17-year-long intuition on Wikipedia. they are very cautiously, but doggedly, promoting the Hindu nationalist POV on Wikipedia's controversial pages. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS Also pinging @Courcelles: who closed the last ARE. As far as I am aware, I've been bending over backwards to be polite to other editors and to listen to their arguments. See [ But it doesn't mean that editors examine my user page for the pages I have edited and play gotcha to make a point or trap me. For example, no sooner had one new editor, Imaginie (talk · contribs) been blocked than another new user Padurina (talk · contribs) appeared and began to edit the 2020 Delhi riots in the third or fourth edit! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 00:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: Thank you for your statement. I have self-reverted. As you state, I was using Twinkle in which the 1RR warning does not appear during the revert. I may have been aware of the 1RR restriction long ago, when I made nearly 200 edits in the article; but since April 2020, I have made but 29 of which the last 20—made during the last 18 months— were reverts. I apologize and will be especially careful from here on out. Best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers (re:F&F)

I've been involved at the disputed article for a couple years now, and I'm just now learning that 1RR and 24h-BRD are in place. Since the AE log was properly updated and the page edit notice in place, I think admins are procedurally permitted to sanction F&F. The talk page notice is not required; see WP:CT#Enforcement of restrictions, which requires only formal awareness and the edit notice.

That said, I urge that we give F&F a pass here. I, and other editors with experience in ARBPIA (where 1RR is automatically enforced), know that best practice is to inform an editor of a 1RR breach and give at least a short time to allow for self-reversion. It's a nice moment of "I disagree with you, but I get that people forget and mistakes happen". For an article like this one, where editors are less likely to be sensitive of potential page restrictions, I think the courtesy notice is doubly needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bookku

On side note: In previous ARE, I had made some points, seem still pertinent, hence I would encourage both sides to go through them again. Happen to observed instance of some digression on part of F&F -seem to have been also noted by other users in that discussion- at WT:INB#RFC- I hope and wish F&F will continue to work on avoiding digression. Bookku (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serial

To be honest, I was intending to keep as far away from this as I do the general topic, but now I see we're talking inclination to sanction. This is the second time Fowler has been dragged here recently (that I know of), yet he's one of the few solid guys over at that department. If we are, then I must insist that the characters who just keep rolling up waiting to drag Fowler to this board should be those that face increasing scrutiny every time they do so. Everybody knows the topic area is a mine of blackhat advertising, ethnoreligious bigotry—in which Wikipedia articles can and do have RL consequences—caste warriors and COI spamming. It is the Mos Eisley of our project. The dogs on the street know this. Editors know this. Arbcom knows this. And the bloody Admins here know this. But so few of any of these editors are willing to dirty our hands on the subject that all we can do is wring our hands on the touchline and complain about the harsh language. Meanwhile, we emasculate and drive away those editors who understand the nuances and minutiae of this ~~blighted~~ contentious topic and by doing so reward their editorial opponents. I am no particular friend of Fowler—if casts his mind back to some of our encounters at WP:FAC I'm sure he'll testify to that—but I for one am sick of seeing the same small pool of editors get reamed in high profile topics, mostly over trivia, with them eventually walking away and leaving it to crumble.

'Inclined to sanction', pfft. SN54129 19:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Padurina

As someone who's been around the Wikipedia block for a while (as a lowly IP editor), I finally took the plunge and made an account when I realized most pages had slammed their doors on IPs. In my short time here, I've gotten quite the crash course from Fowler&Fowler on Wikipedia policies. It's a real head-shaker when someone who practically sings the Wikipedia rulebook suddenly belts out, "Oops, wasn't aware I was bending a rule. My bad!" Time for F&F to tango with the consequences of their whoopsies – let's see those dance moves.Padurina (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toddy1

CapnJackSp complained [at 08:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)] that Fowler&fowler made several allegations without bothering to substantiate any of them, but then said that Fowler&fowler has displayed a battleground mentality and that this merits at least a logged warning.^[67]

But is not CapnJackSp also making an allegation without bothering to substantiate it? I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with Fowler&fowler; I have not noticed this alleged "battleground mentality". I am not convinced it exists.

If the extent of this alleged "battleground mentality" is what Fowler&Fowler wrote on this page, then CapnJackSp should have read Wikipedia:ANI advice before participating. I am sure that advice also applies here.

It might be best to accept that both have faults and drop this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Fowler&fowler

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

The 1RR sanction does not appear to have been correctly applied to this article. While it is shown in the edit notice, it does not appear either on the talk page of the article, or, more critically, in the AELOG as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Logging. In my opinion, the complaint of Fowler&fowler violating 1RR is unactionable. – bradv 16:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I looked at the history of the edit notice, and failed to notice the earlier entry in the log. – bradv 18:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding the somewhat complicated history here, El C properly logged the 1RR (under the article's previous name North East Delhi riots) in 2020 (diff), and Anachronist then added the forgotten editnotice in 2021. This all seems fine procedurally. That said, while the 1RR was violated, it doesn't appear to have been a willful violation (especially since Fowler&fowler was using Twinkle, which doesn't show editnotices when reverting), so I'm not inclined to sanction anyone here so long as F&f self-reverts and commits to being more careful about this issue in the future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Fowler&fowler has self-reverted I also don't see any need to issue any sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards