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

Balkanite

Balkanite banned from Bosniak identity topics for 6 months and 500 edits. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:02, 3 October 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 Balkanite

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Rosguill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Balkanite (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/Eastern_Europe#Contentious_topic_designation

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

September 26, 2023 adding unreferenced information to Bosniaks in Germany, misuse of minor edit
September 14, 2023 adding unreferenced information to Hidroelektra workers massacre, misuse of minor edit

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Warned for incivility at ANI February 2022 (arguably not relevant to this case)

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

Balkans/EE DS notification February 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Balkanite has had issues with providing proper sourcing dating back to when they first started editing (talk page warning w/ explanation from 2020). This has continued to the present day, with many examples including the creation of articles entirely comprising OR at Draft:Bosniaks in the United Kingdom (6 May 2023) and similar titles. Their misuse of minor edits has also been continuous since they started editing, and they received a talk page notice about it in February 2022. The edits that I've highlighted at the beginning of this report, are particularly egregious, however, as they not only fail to provide adequate (or really, any) sourcing, they show clear intent to emphasize a specific ethnonationalist perspective (and, in the case of Bosniaks in Germany, directly contradict seemingly well-referenced claims at Bosniaks regarding the history of Bosniak vs."Muslim" identification under the successive governments of Yugoslavia. Given the persistence of sourcing issues over multiple years, there is a case to be made for a regular site block (although there perhaps has not been enough escalating warnings for that); I think that the persistent failure to cite sources and clear POV bent mean that at a minimum a topic ban from Bosniak history and identity is needed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1177485386

Discussion concerning Balkanite

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 Balkanite

I've been made aware of these accusations for a while.

Since then, I've always ensured to properly cite my contributions towards any article that I made the decision to create or edit. Also, noting that there has not been any progress in the making of such articles in the page, I simply wanted to fill in the gap that was not addressed towards anyone who may have been interested in the topic.

Also, the accusation that I'm attempting to "emphasize a specific ethnonationalist perspective" is perposterous, because it was evident at the time that there were zero recording of anyone in SFR Yugoslavia that identified as "Bosniaks" up until its dissolution. I'm beginning to be concerned that you're accusing me of propping up a nationalist perspective of an ethnic group that has recently became more prevalent since 1991, especially given the fact that I belong to said group, and preventing the addition of more information about them to fulfill WP:CITE and WP:NPOV, even though I have made it evident that I made sure to include the involvement of the ethnic group in various sides during World War I and II, and including information about the diaspora in other countries. You can see the same thing being done with other ethnic groups, however no action has been taken against them. I understand that your concerns may seem alarming as I have been misusing the "minor edit" button when it came to editing articles, but the reason being that misusage is that the majority of the contributions that I've made are actually minor, and do not entirely change more than half of the article that has been written.

I do suggest that you refrain from the idea of banning me from providing more information to Bosniak history and identity, as I'm one of the few that finds time to add more information about the people, and its diaspora. I have not seen you made ANY contribution to any of the articles you're accusing me of editing and contributing towards, and it's unfair to accuse someone of emphasize a specific ethnonationalist perspective, especially when I do not mean to spread information intended to incite or mislead, AND when it comes from someone who has done absolutely ZERO research on the various subjects that led to the creation/editing of said articles.

Wikipedia suffered a similar situation with the Croatian page back in 2013, as it suffered from a group of nationalists that wanted to smear Croatia's history to those that may have taken an interest in it by abusing the administrative powers that were given to them, and it became severe to the point where the Croatian government advised its citizens to not use Wikipedia as a source of information. Since then, there were countermeasures made to prevent such an incident from happening again. The reason why I'm named "Balkanite" in the first place is because of the fact that ethnic identity in the Balkans is based on the individual's perception of their origins, and given that it does not show any ethnic connotations other than what I've previously mentioned, I believe it shows exactly my stance on my perception of my own identity. Balkanite (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Balkanite

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

I haven't read over all of this yet, but I'd point out the issues on the Croatian Wikipedia are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand here. That doesn't give me a lot of confidence, but I'll have to do a more detailed review. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Edits like this, which was marked minor and added a large chunk of unsourced text certainly seem to demonstrate an issue with their editing. Something like a topic ban for 6 months and 500 edits might do to let them learn how better to source their edits and follow community norms. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me. Anyone else have another idea? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also happy to give that a go. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there aren't any objections in the next day or so I'll implement that, if someone doesn't close it before me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

F2Milk

F2Milk blocked (as a normal admin action) indefinitely for clear battleground attitude and not being here to build an encyclopedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:05, 1 October 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 F2Milk

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Carter00000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: F2Milk (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/American politics 2

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

Current Issue

28 September 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Portal:Current events/2023 September 26, making vague references to wrongdoing "...please read the rules on reverting"
28 September 2023 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks on user-talk.
28 September 2023 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks on user-talk.

Previous Issues

3 December 2022 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks at AFD. The vote was later moved to the talk-page by Administrator Tamzin as being off-topic/inappropriate.
3 December 2022 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks in edit summary.
3 December 2022 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks in edit summary.

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 28 September.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Editor has persistently casted aspersions and made personal attacks in content disputes relating to the AP2 topic area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification to User

Discussion concerning F2Milk

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 F2Milk

Let me put say it out aloud about the current state of Wikipedia. We have a lot of gatekeepers and editors who make editing seem a chore. I am not going to mince words here. I have been editing Wikipedia for the last 20 years or more. There have been editors who seem to have an ulterior motive in removing other editor's edits citing 101 rules. eg notability, reliable sources etc. I have faced my fair share of editors (so called left-leaning editors) who want to shape Wikipedia in their own image. Reliable sources to them is CNN, Washington Post, etc. I put in an edit from Daily Mail saying 100 people died in a Hurricane, and the edit is removed. What difference does it make if CNN says 100 people died in Hurricane or if Daily Mail says 100 people died in Hurricane? None at all. We live in a polarized world where gatekeepers try to paint all conservative websites as unreliable, but put their so-called bias references like CNN, Washington Post, etc as reliable. Post something negative even if it is factual about their golden boy or party. eg the Democrats, they try to scrub everything to paint themselves as angels.

Now if you call out the editors such as this, they will cry victim (the story of the boy who cried wolf comes to mind) and waste resources saying the other editor has cast aspersions on them. Give me a break. If you want civility, you better be more respectful of other's contributions and don't give flimsy excuses in your summary when removing other people's edits, especially in the Current Events section. I am not going to change my upfront approach to these matters. I will continue to point out the hypocrisy that we are currently witnessing in Wikipedia today. F2Milk (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24

Non-admin, never edited that page, never met either of these people before. I'm going to address only the accusation that F2Milk cast aspersions and made personal attacks.

First accusation of personal attack: [1] Nope. F2Milk states what actions the addressee made and objects to a post they put on F's talk page. The closest this gets to an attack is "you probably have a left-leaning bias." I don't call that an attack. The person F is talking to might feel attacked by detecting F's disapproval, but that's not the same thing as F violating any rules or norms.
Second accusation: [2] Eh. Closest this comes is "You should stick to facts instead of removing edits to the Current Events that don't fit your agenda."
Third: [3] Huh. This is an attack but it's not personal. FMilk is not directing hostility at any one person, only at a non-specific "There is a lot of bad faith actors in Wikipedia at the moment." It does rise to an attack with the words "legacy media sycophants," but it's not directed at anyone. It's better classified as a negative opinion of Wikipedia in general.
Fourth: [4] I think Carter might have put the wrong diff here, because it's just FM adding a link to Forbes, a reliable source. That's what we want editors to do. Oh wait, the edit description mentions "bad faith actors." Carter, is there some context, perhaps on another talk page, that shows that this is directed at specific Wikieditors? Because then it's name-calling.
Fifth: [5] See above. The diff shows FM adding sources (good) with the diff summary stating that he wants to neutralize (my word) "bad faith actors" (F's words).

Conclusion: Not all of these diffs show personal attacks, but if there is context showing that FM was referring to specific Wikieditors as "bad faith actors," then FM engaged in name-calling, which violates WP:CIVIL. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning F2Milk

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

I think with the obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND statement here that a topic ban is probably warranted. It seems unlikely that they will constructively contribute. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, either an indef AP2 topic ban or a NOTHERE block. The battleground comment here combined with the single purpose makes me lean towards NOTHERE but I'm okay with a TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the above, we've got the statement I have been editing Wikipedia for the last 20 years or more, from an account less than half that old, which certainly leads one to wonder. Given the circumstances here, I would lean very much toward a NOTHERE indef, and will probably do exactly that unless an uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am not going to change my upfront approach to these matters. I will continue to point out the hypocrisy that we are currently witnessing in Wikipedia today. No objection here barring a drastic rethink of their approach to editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closetside

Closetside given a logged warning regarding edit warring and 1RR. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:04, 3 October 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 Closetside

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbpia

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

23:34, 27 September 2023 reverting this edit
11:36, 28 September 2023 reverting this edit

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 10 September (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor was subject of a 1R complaint filed recently and still on this page as I write this, resolved without sanction. There is a content dispute about the material subject of the reversions which will be dealt with in the usual way. Editor was offered the opportunity to self revert but has not, instead producing an unhelpful and false response alleging that I have broken 1R instead.

@Closetside: Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. Please show that previous version in respect of Diff 3.Selfstudier (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Closetside: Diff 2 removed " a pro-Israel US based press monitoring organization"<Intercept ref>. Diff 3 added "a Washington-based media-monitoring group considered close to Israel"<Reuters ref>. Please explain how Diff 3 is a revert of Diff 2.Selfstudier (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Closetside: On the contrary, this was a normal editing process, the removal was only because the given source did not support the material, I edited to give a new source and quoted it directly. The removing editor, whom you cited in edit summary in support of your revert, states that they have no problem with adding the material as long as it is supported by the source, which it is, and that is another reason, apart from the 1R breach, why reverting relevant properly sourced material was inappropriate. Selfstudier (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Closetside

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 Closetside

First, clearly explained why Selfstudier is guilty of violating 1RR.

Second, I mentioned Selfstudier's userspace harrasment towards me in my response without elaborating. Selfstudier made three false allegations that I violated the rules: (a) claiming that my self-reverts violated 3RR and claiming (b) one of my disambiguating edits expressed a POV and (c) I was hounding Selfstudier. Repeated false allegations about rule violations constitute userspace harrassment.

Third, Selfstudier claimed that Diff 3 in my explanation was not a revert. WP:3RR clearly states: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours." Other editors' actions include reverts. Therefore, both Diff 3 and Diff 5, which occured within 24 hours, prove that Selfstudier violated 3RR.

Fourth, based on Longhornsg's clarification I may have misrepresented Longhornsg's position. However, I reverted before the clarification, so the potential misrepresentation of their view is irrelevant here. I reverted based on the information I had.

Fifth, I would like to redouble on my concession that by executing Diff 6, I violated 1RR. However, Diff 6 restored the page to the version right before Selfstudier's illegal revert. Next time, I will confront the 1RR-breaking (or 3RR-breaking for most articles) editor, asking them to self-revert, instead of reverting myself. I have never experienced such a situation before. I would like to apologize to the Wikipedia community for my error. In contrast, Selfstudier is clearly aware of the standard case of 1RR, but violated it anyway.

In conclusion, Selfstudier's violation is far worse than mine. I regret my violation and pledge not to repeat it in the future. Selfstudier shows no regret for his clear violation; they even deny it. Additionally, they harassed me in my userspace. I appeal to a neutral administrator for a just verdict.

@Selfstudier, you reverted Diff 2 in Diff 3. Then, you reverted Diff 4 in Diff 5. All in a span in less then 24 hours which violated 1RR. As I established earlier, undoing a revert is itself a revert. Please thoroughly read my comment before critiquing it. Thanks! Closetside (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those two statements are functionally equivalent. They both mean that MEMRI is an organization with an ideology that supports Israel that monitors Arab media. You don’t need to restore a previous version character-by-character for it to be a revert.

Same for sources. The use of a different source which makes the same point doesn’t mean the edit wasn’t a revert. The version before the original reversion and the version after the new reversion are functionally equivalent.

If either wasn’t the case, dubious information would be the status quo on Wikipedia. Just use a synonym and/or a source that makes the point in a slightly different way and it’s not a revert for 3RR. @Selfstudier, that is why Diff 3 is a revert. Closetside (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'm convinced per you and Longhornsg. I concede Diff 3 wasn't a revert and apologize to you for the mess-up. I will self-revert both Diff 4 and Diff 6, and then restore Diff 6 (both per local consensus). I will revert and restore Diff 6 implicitly, without actually going through the motions to achieve the same result. I know this is my second time, but I will extra careful regarding 1RR in the future. Closetside (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24

Okay, the two edits were made within 24 hours of each other, and they're on the same page, so yes this is a 1RR violation, but on a fundamental level this looks like two invested editors with different worldviews in a content dispute. Closetside broke a clearly posted rule, so Closetside should get the standard response, but the core problem could be solved by more active use of dispute resolution. The talk page goes back to January 2023, and I don't see any RfC requests or 3O on that talk page. I do see Closetside and Selfstudier initiating talk page discussions about keeping/removing questionable material. I know how much pressure a person can feel to not let a wrong/"wrong" version of the article stand, especially if they think the other party will take that as giving up or tacitly conceding on the facts. Can you two reach an agreement not to make those assumptions or pretend to have made them? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Closetside

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

I think a logged warning about edit violating 1RR would be reasonable here. Closetside, you're a relatively new user swooning in the deep end of the pool. I suggest that you fully familiarize yourself with contentious topics and editing norms. You would probably be well served to bow out of conflicts in contentious areas, or at the least hold yourself to 0rr until you're more experienced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I think we're past the point were leaving it at advice is reasonable but not at the point were a ban or block are necessary. A logged warning would be a final chance though, anything after this will likely be met with an extended topic ban or block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CapnJackSp

Editors of this article need to engage in dispute resolution collaboratively and without turning discussions about content and sourcing into discussions about editors. Editors also need to ensure that they engage in reasonable and purposeful consensus building. If editors fail to do this and are preventing discussions from reaching consensus we can look at sanctions at that point. My intention is to keep an eye on talk page discussions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 3 October 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 CapnJackSp

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Solblaze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIP

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

CaptainJackSparrow refuses to drop the stick. Despite multiple warnings, he repeatedly uses WP:OR and prevaricates about the obvious meaning of quotes from WP:RS to justify the removal of the result on 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff, and attempts to WP:GASLIGHT me instead of engaging with me in good faith.

09:27, 3 September 2023 Removes result directly cited from Vipin Narang and Christopher Clary published in International Security, calls said material contentious and certainly problematic, as well as justifying Smahwk's (who has since not spoken) removal of this material on the basis of their personal assesment of the conflict (diff).
12:18, 16 September 2023 Informed that the cited source is highly reliable, and scholarly content cannot be reverted based off the personal assessments of editors. Ghosts the talk page for weeks in response, but instantly returns when the result is restored with additional supporting citations, only to once again remove the result on the basis of their personal analysis of the conflict, claiming the result is out of context POV pushing (every citation provided for the result has used in-context quotes clearly referring to the failure of the Indian military's standoff with Pakistan - you can read them yourself).
19:35, 16 September 2023 After being provided multiple quotes from the previously cited academic literature (even of Indian analysts stating the conflict was a failure on India's part), CaptainJackSparrow again claims I am presenting words out of context.
18:22, 21 September 2023 In the spirit of WP:AGF, I once again directly quoted the words of scholars and Indian analysts stating the standoff was a failure on India's part, and asked CJS what specifically he may have had trouble understanding. However, CaptainJackSparrow again resorted to responding with his personal analysis.
13:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Despite being warned countless times that his original research carries no weight in the face of scholarly literature, CaptainJackSparrow again declares based off nothing but his prevarication and personal analysis and that the conflict is not an Indian failure, going as far as to suggest his original research takes precedence over the words of scholars. For example, while Clary and Narang (quoted repeatedly) refer to the the failure of the military standoff with Pakistan - CaptainJackSparrow claims even then, the "standoff" didnt fail.
CaptainJackSparrow also claims that the multiple scholars being cited are stating a fringe minority viewpoint being given undue weight in the lead. CaptainJackSparrow has not cited a single source in this entire discussion, while I have cited to death. However, the version of the lead which CaptainJackSparrow is edit warring for cites one source - some Indian news anchor with the Indian military claiming the conflict showed how brave India was and therefore achieved "some" objectives. A single Indian news anchor's comments on a conflict with Pakistan do not outweigh the works of multiple scholars writing in reputed published journals years after the conflict ended.
10:40, 26 September 2023 At this point, four citations (incl. three scholars, Indian analysts, and Indian media) have been cited as saying the standoff was an Indian failure. Captain Jack Sparrow calls this obtruse reading of two sources to try and overrule the vast majority of sources (what majority of sources? the single Indian news anchor?) and declares he will keep removing the result. It is pertinent to note Captain Jack Sparrow has cited nothing but his WP:OR and prevarication ad nauseam so far.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No sanctions issued, but warning issued - see below.

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

User has posted template on their talk page in early 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User previously warned for behaviour on ARE and given very short piece of WP:ROPE by @Dennis Brown:. Asked to discuss more, in good faith.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Link

Discussion concerning User:CapnJackSp

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 User:CapnJackSp

While I may be held guilty of not investing too much time in the discussion cited, the string of allegations are widely inaccurate. When making the reverts, I saw someone using one source to justify writing the result of an India - Pakistan confrontation as being the "failure" of someone, as is frequently done by by vandals and new accounts with a POV to push - Which was the reason for my actions and arguments, which admittedly, could be framed better. I will do so below.

Detailed explanation of the disagreement and the issues with sourcing of the material introduced by OP

The op in their edit introduced a new change to the article, changing the longstanding version, which stated

Status quo ante bellum

Nuclear war averted

to instead say

Indian failure

Status quo ante bellum
Nuclear war averted

They also introduced one line in the lead to repeat the claim that the standoff was an "Indian failure".

Since then, they have edit warred to try and reintroduce this content, making 7 separate reverts to introduce this material despite knowing they were contentious.

They have described themselves as using "four citations" to prove their point. However, the only actual citations that are somewhat usable are both authored or co-authored by the same analyst. The other two citations in fact do not support their claim - The OP has conflated a mobilisation operation with the standoff itself. They claim that the current version is supported only by the version as told by one Indian news media source. Yet the fact that the standoff ended without Nuclear war, and did not escalate into war, is not a controversial statement. If necessary, it can easily be supplanted by more citations, though the OP has not made such a request.

Interestingly, this is not the first time the OP has made controversial change to the lead and been reverted by me on this page - The OP had previously removed a mention of the loss of territory by Pakistan towards the end of the standoff, where the Indian army captured a strategic point. While the OP cited MOS, their succeeding series of edits make the assumption of good faith much more difficult.

I also hope that OP understands Watchlists and how they might be reviewed occasionally, since they seem quite aggrieved that I missed a message where I was not tagged but noticed a bunch of edits on the page days later. Despite complaining about a slow rate of response, the OP did not tag me during the time they purport that I "ghosted" them. Regardless, the delay was regretted and was apologised for immediately upon noticing; It is unexpected to see that being used as a sign of misbehaviour here.

OP in this complaint and in the discussion the preceded it has also ignored the concept of WP:VERIFIABLE vs WP:DUE - Just because one analyst supports their position does not mean their perspective deserves to dictate the result. Indeed, the infobox skims over several aspects (for example, the loss of territory by Pakistan) that are supported by much more than one analyst.

In essence, this is at best a content dispute that the OP has presented here. The OP has not even justified their claims against me - The claims regarding WP:GASLIGHT and WP:CIR do not match up to even their summary of events, let alone an unbiased reading of the situation. Indeed, the OP has continued to introduce material that has already been challenged, for which they know there is no consensus, and is changing longstanding material in the lead - This is not the mark of an editor interested in collaborative editing. The editor made no attempt at resolving the impasses through third opinion or RFC, instead attempting to brute force their preferred version through repeated reverts. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc I would be open to addressing the concerns of the OP through discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the OP keeps dragging up the year and a half old ARE, I find it pertinent to bring to notice that the concerns were in particular with my misunderstanding of WP:CLOP at the time, something which has long since been remedied. Indeed, the point that I had been arguing (too harshly, as noted in the close), regarding maintaining strict attribution instead of stating accusations against WP:BLP subjects in wikivoice, turned out to be well founded as the news organisation withdrew those articles and allegations later on after being found to be untrue and fabricated by an employee of the news organisation. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TrangaBellam

This doesn't look good to me - I agree with literally everything said by the OP. And, not the first time that I have seen CJS engage in an idiosyncratic reading of sources that would have smacked of trolling if not for their usual competence in most areas. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Googlegy007

I dont have much to contribute here, I agree with the OP. Recently I recieved this comment from CJS which struck me as offposting, I proceeded to check their contribs which, while nothing immediately jumped out as a policy violation, also felt off. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DSP2092

Solblaze (talk · contribs) has accused CapnJackSp of violating Wikipedia policies, including WP:OR (original research), WP:GASLIGHT (gaslighting), and WP:AGF (assume good faith), and seeks enforcement of WP:ARBIP sanctions.

Solblaze claims that CapnJackSp has been engaging in disruptive behavior by repeatedly removing content from the article that describes the standoff as an "Indian failure." They argue that CapnJackSp's removal of this content is not supported by reliable sources and that he has instead relied on his personal analysis, which violates WP:OR. I find Solblaze this edit problamatic here, he explained the reason for changes in the summary as 'trim lead to <4 paragraphs per MOS. Solblaze asserts that CapnJackSp has not adequately supported content regarding the "Indian failure" in the article. Solblaze should provide sufficient evidence or reliable sources to justify the Indian failure and appears that the burden of evidence lies with Solblaze to justify the inclusion of this specific content, especially if it's considered contentious.

CapnJackSp (talk · contribs) claims that the changes made by Solblaze were contentious and introduced a new perspective into the article without sufficient consensus. CapnJackSp claims that the sources provided by Solblaze do not unequivocally support the claim that the standoff was an "Indian failure." He also asserts that Solblaze has failed to justify their changes according to WP:DUE (due weight) and WP:VERIFIABLE policies.

Based on the arguments, this appears to be a content dispute rather than a clear-cut case of policy violations. The issue revolves around the interpretation of sources and the inclusion of specific content in the article. It is recommended that the involved parties seek consensus on the T/P or consider dispute resolution mechanisms, such as a request for comments (RFC), to address the dispute. DSP2092^talk 05:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Solblaze

@Callanecc: I've tried my best to engage in good faith with CJS for the last month. But it's like talking to a wall. I can quote scholarly sources ad nauseam only for CJS to ignore it all and respond with WP:OR and prevaricate in a manner that seems like borderline trolling.

I have not violated the 1RR restrictions on the article, and I am welcome to other uninvolved editors' input on the matter (@TrangaBellam:, @Googleguy007: and @DSP2092: included). I will also start an RFC.

I reiterate that my concern does not stem from a mere difference in points of view held by CJS, but rather from CJS's prevaricatory behaviour and defiance of WP:RS.

CJS's conduct has not only been noted by myself but also been condemned by others within the community including a closing admin on ARE. Solblaze (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abhishek

The edits by Solblaze clearly violates MOS:MIL (especially this and it was unwise for him to edit war over this thing without gaining consensus in the first place.

That's all I have to say. Since "MOS:MIL" was not mentioned on the whole talk page,[6] I recommend no sanctions for any parties here. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning User:CapnJackSp

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

This seems very much like a content dispute that needs to be resolved with dispute resolution rather than edit warring. I am hopeful that both of you will be able to move forward with discussion rather than needing have sanctions applied related to the edit warring which would likely be 1RR at this point. @Solblaze and CapnJackSp: Can you both commit to doing that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nhradek

Normal indef admin block as NOTHERE. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 3 October 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 Nhradek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPS

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

[7] 29 September 2023 — they are not willing to obey WP:PSCI
[8] 29 September 2023 — they are not willing to obey WP:PSCI
[9] 29 September 2023 — they even deny that WP:PSCI is applicable to precognition
[10] 29 September 2023 — total WP:IDHT

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [11] 29 September 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Reply: WP:PSCI is WP:NPOV, there is no WP:NPOV without obeying WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12] 29 September 2023

Discussion concerning Nhradek

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 Nhradek

Read what we said in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Precognition. He can argue that I'm violating Wikipedia:Psci but they are violating WP:Neutral point of view in Precognition.

Precognition is not WP:PSCI. Multiple studies and meta-analyses have shown this.

Here's a link to the meta-analysis by Bem and Tressoldi, et al. disputing the claims of WP:PSCI. If I'm violating WP:PSCI then certainly they are violating WP:NPOV by not including the meta-analysis. I tried to include it but was reverted in this diff with the response " Daryl Bem is a hack" by @Hob Gadling. How does this not violate the core principle of WP:NPOV?

I hit a nerve with the "skeptics" on this community but WP is not a posting board for their idealogical agenda. It's an online encyclopedia. Might I have violated WP:PSCI? Maybe, but they sure violated WP:NPOV and haven't given Daryl Bem a fair article in Precognition.

In addition in Wikipedia:FRINGE/QS it clearly states an article should not be labeled WP:PSCI if reasonable debate still exists in the scientific community which it does.

I quote from WP:FRINGE/QS Articles about hypotheses that have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views; however, such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists.

How does the meta-analysis I included violate this?

How did I violate WP:PSCI if there are meta-analyses and many studies providing evidence for precognition in the parapsychological literature?

I don't wish to argue too much about violations in the Precognition article here, but how does the following statement in the article not violate WP:NPOV and WP:No_reliable_sources,_no_verifiability,_no_article? Despite the lack of scientific evidence, many people believe it to be real; it is still widely reported and remains a topic of research and discussion within the parapsychology community.

It's like that everywhere and almost no supporting evidence for Bem or Tressoldi's research.

There is scientific evidence in support of precognition including the analysis I cited earlier and in Talk. Claims that my edits and the topic of Precognition in general are WP:PSCI are nonsense and my citation of Bem and Tressoldi's meta-analysis should be included. Nhradek (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24

I don't know either party and have never edited the pages in question. Given the diffs offered, the problem isn't that Nhradek refuses to respect Wikipedia's rules about pseudoscience. It's that Nhradek does not accept that precognition is pseudoscience. (It is; DGMW, Nhardek is wrong about this.) I noticed something else: All of the diffs offered here are talk page statements. Nhradek is saying on article and Wikipedia talk pages that they think precognition isn't pseudoscience. Yes, it's a bit strange, but it's not a problem the way, say, adding unsourced or improperly sourced material to Wikipedia articles about precognition would be a problem. This boils down to "Someone on the talk page has an annoying cherished belief."

Nhradek, can you promise that you won't add anything to the articles if you can't find support for it in the types of sources that Wikipedia respects (just like everyone else has to)? Can you promise that you if you remove text from an article and others put it back, you'll use established dispute resolution processes (WP:3O, WP:RFC)? Also, I'd recommend that when you talk to any given individual person on that talk page, remember what you already said to them and whether or not that specific person found it unconvincing. During the Trump administration, we got a lot more information about how to change people's minds and why they believe what they believe, and it turns out that "show the same people the same evidence and arguments over and over" doesn't work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nhradek

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

I'm hesitant to leap to anything too harsh with what appears to be a new, good faith editor who's behavior is disruptive. I feel that some of the issue is due to unfamiliarity with WP:DR. Nhradek, the reliability of the source you've provided has been challenged. WP:RSN would be the next stop if you'd like broader input on the reliability of your source. You also need to focus on why the source you provided is reliable, not calling anyone who disagrees with the author of the source as pseudoskeptic. A general dialing back of your engagement style would also be wise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good block. I was on the edge of blocking, but was hoping a little advice and some AGF might work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since ScottishFinnishRadish's message above, that it's clear Nhradek has read, they have engaged in similar conduct in the RSN discussion. That is bludgening and failure to listen and accept Wikipedia norms, see in particular this comment. Given that I've blocked as NOTHERE but am happy to modify or for other admins to modify that if that's the belief here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good block. Bishonen | tålk 08:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Darkfrog24

Not a topic ban violation, so no action is taken. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:38, 4 October 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 Darkfrog24

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Darkfrog24 (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/Article titles and capitalisation#December 2016

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

3 October 2023 DF24 is violating their topic ban against discussing the MoS and quotation style in particular, by specificially linking to two MoS sections, one about quotation style, labeling the latter an "issue" at MoS, expressing skepticism that any of MoS's subpages are within the scope of their restrictions (!!), and casting the T-ban as simply a matter of having being subject to "accusations" instead of being found disruptive. This is entirely consistent with DF24's at least six-year pattern of "not understanding" the specifics of the restriction, and trying to convince anyone who will listen that DF24 is a victim who has been improperly restricted.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

DF24's long-standing restrictions are entirely absent from Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive, for no explicable reason. This should certainly be fixed, even if no action is taken with regard to the diff above. The two still-extant restrictions are detailed below.

9 April 2022 DF24 was unblocked, but told "All other topic bans remain in place—as per my comments in the close, I strongly advise you to collate a list of which bans you're currently subject to, both to make it clear to you which restrictions you're operating under and to make it clear to other people who may think you've violated a restriction that you've not in fact done so." DF24 did not comply with this.
9 April 2022 Consensus was "marginally" reached to unblock, and DF24 was instructed to "create... a list of which topic/interaction bans they're currently under and their precise wording, and either links it from their user or usertalk page or adds it to the WP:EDR master list", but has not done so. Was warned "against not just any return to the kind of conduct that got you blocked, but any discussions on stylistic issues in general or any discussion with the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/ prefix".
7 June 2018 Blocked for a month after failed appeal of topic ban (and "indefinite one-way interaction ban with SMcCandlish is also imposed", which still stands); then DF24 was almost immediately indeffed again [13].
29 February 2016 DF24 indeffed for playing endless WP:IDONTGETIT games with multiple admins about what their restrictions actually meant.
4 February 2016 DF24 "indefinitely topic banned from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including his and other's user talk pages." This restriction still stands, and this is the one applicable here.
22 January 2016 DF24 "indefinitely topic banned from articles, discussions, and guidelines, explicitly including the manual of style, related to quotation marks and quotation styles, broadly interpreted."

Elided here are multiple doomed appeals, and all the original AE cases that led to the above sanctions. Throughout all of that, DF24 endlessly recycled both a (real or performative) failure to understand the nature of the restrictions, and a persecution-complex approach, in which DF24 was simply a victim of "accusations" and seemingly could not understand the nature of their disruption. And here we are again with exactly the same problems in evidence.

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The unblocking admin in 2022 was pretty specific: "Given the history here, WP:AGF is not going to apply to you for some time" and "I reiterate my comment that this was a marginal close which could equally well have concluded with your remaining blocked. In the event of any future disruption you won't receive the benefit of the doubt".

And ArbCom's own notes, on the case page: "The Committee notes that Darkfrog24 disputes some elements of the original AE filings. We emphasize that imposing an AE sanction requires only that a reviewing admin finds sufficient disruption to warrant action and is not an endorsement of every individual claim that may be made by the filer. After review of the current appeal, we find that there is no evidence in favor of lifting or modifying the topic ban, and the disruptive behavior, in the form of repeated relitigation of the circumstances of the topic ban, has continued."

PS: I believe DF24 is also subject to one or more older T-bans that relate to specific fiction franchises, or something like that; they don't seem pertinent to this particular matter, though should be added to a DF24 entry at EDR.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14]

@Courcelles: Yes, that resriction is certainly still in force. It's the one DF24 has appealed unsuccessfully over and over, and the reason their unblock was so marginal. Saying "I can't talk about that" is very different from linking pointedly to two sections of it, theorizing about whether you can get away with talking about MoS material because it happens to be on MoS subpages instead of the main MoS page, painting yourself as an "accusations" victim in the whole affair, and returning to the very subtopic that got you most in trouble, quotation puncutation, and declaring it an "issue" at MOS. If this isn't a T-ban violation, then I don't know what is. If it's allowed to slide, it will be taken as pure victory in having gamed the sanctions, and will surely escalate to more boundary pushing and more pretense that the crystal-clear T-ban is somehow incomprehensible. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 16:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that it's important to note (aside from "This applies on all pages, including his and other's user talk pages") that the reason DF24 was indeffed (twice) on top of the T-ban was a remarkably persistent pattern of pretending that the T-ban wasn't clear and had to be "clarified". This pattern has resurfaced, in the form of a new supposed uncertainty whether subpages are included, and whether their own talk page is included, and whether links to MoS sections are included, and whether discussion of MoS stuff as "issues" is included, and .... DF24 should not be linking to and talking about MoS stuff with anyone on-wiki at all, for any reason. That's what a T-ban is. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see where this is heading, so go ahead a close it. I really hope I'm wrong about later escalation into yet more boundary pushing and demands for "clarification". But this editor has expressed in no uncertain terms that their goal is to get back into MoS editing. It was the focus of all their appeals (along with how wronged they are) with utterly no awareness shown of the disruption they caused. And one of the first things DF24 did after getting unblocked is announce their intent to appeal the T-ban yet again (I'm surprised it has not happened yet). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh: I really want to see the list of restrictions compiled – Yes, if nothing else comes of this, the fact that DF24 is subject to various restrictions, and what they are, should be properly recorded. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Darkfrog24

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 Darkfrog24

Statement by Thryduulf

I was very unimpressed by Darkfrog24's actions between the topic ban being imposed and their being unblocked and have been accused of various bad things by SMcCandlish recently so it's best I'm not regarded as neutral here (hence not posting in the section below) but the diff in this report is not, in my opinion, a violation of the topic ban I imposed all those years ago. Generally it is never a violation of a topic ban to discuss that topic ban, which includes explaining why it prevents you answering questions you've been asked or cannot take part in a discussion you've been invited to, as long as the discussion is not so extensive as to be disruptive. DF should not need it clarifying that their topic ban covers all MOS subpages (and their talk pages), but now that it has been clarified there should be no issues going forwards. I have not been following DF's editing since their unblock so I make no comment about whether their behaviour has improved only that there is no evidence presented here to show it hasn't. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Darkfrog24

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

Is the WP:AELOG/2016 restriction "That topic ban replaced with: Darkfrog24 is indefinitely topic banned from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including his and other's user talk pages. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months from today (4 February 2016). Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)" still in force? Even if so, I don't see that one diff as enough to be blockable; a response of "I can't talk about these areas" isn't, in itself, a topic ban violation when directly asked about such areas. I really want to see the list of restrictions compiled, but this filing in itself doesn't appear to produce an actionable case. Courcelles (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's patently obvious an MOS topic ban covers all MOS subpages. Had they actually edited one, I'd block them right now. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, so would I. But I'm pretty sure that linking to a page isn't a violation, especially when it was in response to a question asking them about the scope of their topic ban. I'm actually quite unimpressed with this filing, frankly - it's a waste of everyone's time. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Simply stating that you are topic banned, and that you are therefore not permitted to participate in a discussion, is not a violation of the ban. Unless anyone shortly objects, I will close this with no action. I would also agree that this request is bordering on frivolous, and that the filer should exercise better judgment about what is brought up here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KhndzorUtogh

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 KhndzorUtogh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: KhndzorUtogh (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#Remedies

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

Massive, 11,000+ undiscussed addition of WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:UNDUE that actually belongs to Azerbaijani laundromat and corruption in Azerbaijan, after which concerns were pointed out with an ask to discuss
Reverts while discussion is only freshly opened
Another user reverts to the problematic version, possibly in a WP:TAGTEAM manner, while the discussion is in progress
Reverts again insisting on inclusion

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

Warning of sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KhndzorUtogh showed some persistent unhelpful behavior where they try to override any concerns through edit-warring, reverting to their favorite version - typical for the WP:AA3 area. In this particular case the discussion has stalled and indeed, I think there isn't much to discuss further amid such problematic additions. Currently this significantly impairs article content and I placed the NPOV tag on the article. Perhaps an administrative action is now warranted.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[15]

Discussion concerning KhndzorUtogh

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 KhndzorUtogh

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KhndzorUtogh

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

Obviously, edit warring should be avoided, but I don't see how this is anything but a content dispute (specifically discussed here). El_C 08:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... and I suspect that what is effectively the same issue should not be at WP:ANI (here) and AE at the same time. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Well, that's not great. There should not be competing WP:AA3 complaints running in parallel. El_C 18:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst

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 Lightburst

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

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

For explanation, see below.

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

Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 2023-06-06.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After British transgender activist and ex-convict Sarah Jane Baker was scheduled to run at DYK, Lightburst made a post at DYK's noticeboard in opposition; he objected to the specific hook and image, as well as the notion of finding any alternative. As a result, Baker was pulled from prep, where discussion continued. Lightburst criticized the hook as gratuitous, provocative, and confusing; he also criticized her scheduled DYK appearance in general (and the image slot in particular) as giving exposure to a person he feels does not deserve it. Throughout both discussions, Lightburst displayed the following behaviour:

Criticizing the article and hook's use of Baker's proper pronouns as "confusing", on the grounds that women do not have testicles. He later defended this position, writing for thousands of years that was accepted biology.
Not using Baker's proper pronouns, repeatedly referring to her as "they", "this person", or "a[] male".
Speculating on the medical condition of Baker, a living person, arguing that the article omits her "gender dysphoria" without providing sourcing to support that claim. (He also referred to her as "mentally unbalanced", and opined that she should still be in prison.)

I wrote that I was dismayed by the seeming transphobic/transmedicalist rhetoric in the initial post. 4meter4 similarly criticized his comments, connecting them to Lightburst's opposition to the nomination. In both cases, Lightburst perceived our comments as personal attacks. Both of us attempted to clarify that we were not commenting on his character, but he was not receptive. In 4meter4's case, Lightburst responded with rather incivil rhetoric, including: I will consider you persona non grata; I remembered you from seeing you around the project and thought of you as a level headed editor. I see I was wrong and I will avoid you on the project. Please stop shitting on the nomination template with your wrong-headed attacks; and Jump in the lake. I do not wish you well.

Taken together, this request is not about Lightburst's personal views on gender and sexuality. It is about disruptive and belligerent behavior in a contentious topic area as it pertains to the Main Page. Lightburst has spuriously advocated to bar Baker from running at DYK at all, citing only his view that Baker is a bad person and therefore should not be given Main Page exposure. This push was sprinkled with objectionable rhetoric, as well as Lightburst's personal opinions on Baker; when that rhetoric was challenged collegially, Lightburst refused to engage constructively. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

message left on user talk

Discussion concerning Lightburst

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 Lightburst

I have no history of editing articles in this area of the project. I engaged collegially with every editor in the the discussions and I discussed the subject of the nomination. The name calling began with Theleekycauldron referring to my valid concerns as transphobic. Enough people agreed with me that the nomination was pulled and sent back to discussion. But Theleekycauldron was still pushing for a version of the hook that was rejected. New hooks were proposed and I weighed in on which ones seemed best. 4meter4 then did a full review of the nomination which ended with them referring to my previous comments as transphobic; they specifically cited the fact that Theleekycauldron gave them license to call me the name. I asked 4meter4 to retract their PA but instead they sent up a wall of text justifying the PA. I tried again and they sent up another wall of text. I knew it would raise hackles for me to say "jump in the lake" or to place a charged request on 4meter4's talk page. If I need to be sanctioned for being curt with an editor who leveled a PA I can accept that. For me the matter was closed after the 4meter4 nomination review and there appeared to be a consensus to run one of the new hooks. I was only trying to get 4meter4 to remove what I consider to be a PA. As for the charge that I refused to use correct pronouns It is my practice to refer to "the person" or "the subject" when commenting on articles. See here in my nomination statement and here in this rationale for how I customarily refer to people in discussions. Both 4meter4 and Theleekycauldron have not assumed good faith in violation of WP:5P4. Many people collegially discussed the issues with the nomination and got it back on track - but only two editors leveled a PA against me: 4meter4 and Theleekycauldron. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my statement on El C's page - note I supported the ban. My issues are with El C's braggadocios block first behavior. They do not enjoy me calling them out for their shoot from the hip blocks like I did at ANI last week (see I do not give a fuck and will block... with edit summary: "...misrepresentations per usual"). I first began editing in 2018, I did not know how things worked. I asked El C to intervene in an edit war I was a part of and they blocked me immediately saying WP:CIR. Lightburst (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 4meter4

For my own part, I was doing my best to shepherd a contentious DYK hook through the nomination process. This meant summarizing and reading through both conversations at Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Jane Baker and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Sarah Jane Baker and Nomination at Prep 2 and attempting to arrive at a consensus opinion. Lightburst made formal requests in both places to not promote this topic to the main page based on moral grounds, and it seemed impossible to promote a hook without addressing that request per our policies at WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED and the DYK hook approval process. This inevitably required addressing some of the problematic comments made by Lightburst which were identified by theleekycauldron as transphobic. It would be impossible to address a censorship request without looking at the POV of the person making the request. It's unfortunate that Lightburst took these comments as personal attacks, but I don't really see how these conversations could have happened differently given Lightburst's behavior, his choice of language, and his goal of trying to impose censorship within a DYK review.4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Lightburst

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

Last time Lightburst appeared on my talk page, he referred to my closure of the Roxy the dog ANI thread (in which WP:GENSEX was the alpha and omega) to have been, among other things, virtue signal. And while I chose not to engage that attack and simply let it go, I can't say I'm surprised to see other complaints of GENSEX-related misconduct. Recommend sanctions. El_C 18:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the (only) admin to have previously blocked Lightburst, I did notice that ever since that block, they'd regularly go out of their way to, as they put it above, 'call me out.' Which is fine, I suppose, as nothing ever comes of these 'critiques' due to them consistently being based on misrepresentations, and very obviously always with the aim of painting me in a negative light (pun unintended). All this is somewhat an aside to their seeming inability to edit GENSEX-related topics and discussions un-disruptively. But, if sanctions were to be imposed here, the risk of similar targeting by them of whomever the sanctioning admin might be — that risk is very real. So, if that were to happen, someone with a thick skin should be the one to take that on. El_C 19:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I say the only admin to have previously blocked them—the reason was WP:COPYVIO btw—but I see that TPA was revoked for the duration of that block by another admin. I'm not sure if that action counts as a block. I suppose it doesn't really matter, but I thought I'd clear up that up as well as the grounds for the block itself. El_C 19:37, 5 October 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