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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	13 May 2024
Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	29 May 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

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

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

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

Clarification and Amendment archives

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

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

Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation

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

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

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

§ Contentious topic designation

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

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

Information about amendment request

§ Contentious topic designation

Split into two separate CTOP designations

Statement by HouseBlaster

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

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

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

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

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

Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction

There is a consensus among active arbitrators that the close of the conduct discussion was correct given that the initator did not have extended confirmed and the discussion fell with-in an extended confirmed restriction topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Initiated by Ivanvector at 13:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: WP:ARBECR

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

Ivanvector (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Valereee (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
PicturePerfect666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Bugghost (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Yoyo360 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Ivanvector

This request concerns the extended confirmed restriction and its applicability to complaints about user conduct within an affected topic.

A few days ago, editor BugGhost initiated a complaint at ANI regarding editor PicturePerfect666's conduct in discussions at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2024 (ANI permalink). The complaint was entirely focused on PicturePerfect666's allegedly tendentious conduct with regard to information critical of Israel's participation in the song contest, reflective of real-world criticism and activism regarding Israel's ongoing invasion of Palestine. BugGhost specifically asked that PicturePerfect666 be topic banned. Since BugGhost is not extendedconfirmed, and the complaint entirely concerns conduct within that topic, I advised that the complaint could not proceed, but made no comment on its merit.

My rationale for closing is that non-extendedconfirmed editors are not permitted to edit in topics where ARBECR has been imposed in good faith, other than talk page edit requests, therefore (in my view) since a conduct complaint is not an edit request, it is not permitted for non-extendedconfirmed editors to file them regarding conduct within the topic, nor to comment on them. On this I would like clarification, because I agree with some implicit criticism on my talk page that it is unreasonable.

I have listed Valereee as a party because she added the contentious topics notice to the talk page on 28 December 2023 (diff), but she is not involved at all in the incidents described. PicturePerfect666 and BugGhost should be self-explanatory, and Yoyo360 is an extendedconfirmed editor who asked about "adopting" (my words) BugGhost's complaint.

-- Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:20, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean.hoyland is referring to an earlier ANI filing which is also related to this same situation. An administrator not named here removed one comment by a non-EC editor from the Eurovision talk page. Seeing this, PicturePerfect666 then took it upon themselves to remove other comments from non-EC editors; Yoyo360 objected to one of their comments being removed, and that led PicturePerfect666 to file the complaint that Sean.hoyland is referring to. At the time that I reviewed that ANI complaint, Yoyo360 had 491 edits on this wiki (and as I mentioned, roughly 25,000 on French Wikipedia) and there were no other issues with their edits besides technically violating ARBECR, so it seemed to me that a reasonable way to resolve the complaint was to grant the clearly experienced editor EC "early". Had I not done so they would have been automatically granted EC by the software with 9 more edits, which they achieved later that day anyway. I don't think that this is relevant to the clarification request. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BugGhost is very clearly a new user interested in contributing to Wikipedia in good faith, even if we don't assume they are (which is still a policy by the way). We told them that they can't edit the topic they're interested in (a music competition, of all things) until they have 500 edits. They accepted that and went off to find something else to do, and now we're saying "oh, those 500 edits aren't the right kind of edits, do 500 more". And their response to that is still not complaining, they're just asking what they can do better. Well, what is it, then? Or are we just going to let them flail about the project for a while until they ask again and we still say no? How many more edits are we going to demand before we accept that they're here to contribute? How long before their already exemplary patience runs out, and they decide Wikipedia isn't worth the effort? What is the point of this exercise if it's not moving the goalposts just so that a genuinely interested new user can't participate? And for what? ECR is meant to prevent disruption, just like all of our enforcement mechanisms; our rules are not meant to be enforced just because they exist, and no rule should exist in the first place if it's only used to gatekeep portions of the encyclopedia to users we individually approve. This policing of new users' edits isn't teaching anyone anything other than that Wikipedia hates new users, and it's doing far more harm to the project than any newbie with a spellchecker has ever done nor will do.

@Bugghost: I am sorry for my role in this pointless focus on your edit count overshadowing your genuine complaint about an (allegedly) properly disruptive user. You're not the problem here. The Wikipedia that I've given nearly 15 years to is better than this, and it will be there waiting for you on the other side. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

Statement by PicturePerfect666

Statement by Bugghost

As the newbie here that this request is concerning, I'm not completely certain what kind of comment is expected of me here, so I apologise if anything I say is irrelevant or out of scope.

Before writing the AN/I, I looked at the ARBECR guidelines and didn't see any wording that said that my filing was against the spirit of it. My interpretation was that AN/I wasn't a page related to any specific contentious topic, and the filing I was making was about a specific user's conduct, not about the contentious topic itself, and so it wasn't against the spirit of the restriction. I still stand by that - I made sure that my filing did not in any way weigh in on arguments of the related contentious topic at hand, just the behaviour of the user as shown by their edits. My filing was neutral on the contentious topic itself, without editorialising and without any discussion of assumed motive behind the behaviour - only their edits were brought forward.

A consequence from this closure is that raising an AN/I about someone who is being disruptive on a contentious issue is harder than raising an AN/I about someone who is being disruptive on a non-contentious issue. If PicturePerfect666's disruptive behaviour on the Eurovision page was instead about a different topic (say, the Dutch entrant's surprise disqualification), then an AN/I filing from myself would have gone ahead, because that part of the page is not under the ARBECR. But seeing as they were disruptive about a contentious issue, they have been able to deflect my concerns - which seems counter to the ARBECR's aims of reducing disruption on contentious topics.

I think that the ARBECR is a good idea but can be hard to interpret, and has the ability to dismiss reasonable well intentioned actions. In my view, it can contradict the "assume good faith" mantra, as assumption that I filed the AN/I accurately and in good faith was "trumped" by the fact my edit count being too low. As I said on IvanVector's talk page, I spent a long amount of time compiling a long list of the user's disruptive behaviour for the filing, including very specific diffs to outline each example, and it being dismissed based wholly on my edit count was very demoralising. As backed up by Yoyo360 suggestion to "adopt" it, the AN/I has some merits worth considering. BugGhost🎤 16:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RE: @Bishonen's gaming concerns - I have been doing typo fixing recently, but it's worth noting that I started doing this on the 24th of May (not on the 19th, the day I received the EC notification, as was suggested). After I received the EC notification, I simply stopped interacting with the Eurovision talk page, as was suggested by the admin that posted it, and focused on my editing priorities (mainly the WPF article, as @Novem Linguae mentioned in their comment - which is where I have spent the vast majority of my time as an editor, far more than Eurovision or typo-fixing).

I want to stress that I have been doing these typo changes as a real task and in good faith. It's true that before this I hadn't done any large-scale spelling based changes, but as a relatively new user, I have been doing a lot of "firsts" recently.

I wasn't doing these changes in secret - I added this mission to my userpage, added it to the adopt-a-typo page, have suggested a page with 'pre-determined' in the title to be moved, and gave advice to a new editor who was prone to typos. I was under the impression that this was a regular Wikipedia-editor task, based on the adopt-a-typo page, the wikignome page, and seeing other editors with repeated spell-checking edits in their user contribs.

I know how this will sound given the circumstances, but I actually stopped doing typo changes yesterday (when I was at roughly 450 edits) because I thought if I hit 500 while this situation was happening it would only complicate matters, and went back to slower-paced editing instead in order to not become extended confirmed. I also have no desperate need to hit 500, because PP666 has not been disruptive since the AN/I was filed, and it sounds like Yoyo360 would have "re-raised" my AN/I whether I became EC or not, and overall the Eurovision page is solving the disruption problems without any input from me. I started typo-fixing after the point "gaming the system" would have been useful to me.

Regarding whether "pre-determined" is a typo - I researched it to double check prior to fixing, and found multiple sources implying that it should be unhyphenated as one word [1] [2], and similarly for "pre-suppose", as the rule (as I understand), is that you hyphenate "pre-" only when the following word begins with an E or I sound, or if it's a new compound not itself in the dictionary (eg. "pre-dinner snack"). I do 100% understand Bishonen's concerns though, and seeing as there's questions about my motives, and whether it's even a typo, I won't resume these edits until I get some go-ahead that it's ok to do.

BugGhost 🪲👻 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yoyo360

I don't have much to add actually. I don't edit much on wiki:en, I'm mostly watching the talk pages of the Eurovision wikiproject to inspire me on the French-language counterpart (which is quasi inactive). I only come in when discussions have relevance for topics I also could add on wiki:fr and I noticed PP666 behaviour in the past weeks. I concur with everything BugGhost noted in their AN/I, they argued the case way better than I ever could. Noticing the topic had been closed due to the extended confirmed restrictions, I put myself forward to push the AN/I to be treated (as I now have the EC status on wiki:en) asking if it could be reopened in my name. I even have a few things to add to it but that's rather minor compared to the rest and off-topic here I think. Yoyo360 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

My rationale for closing is that non-extendedconfirmed editors are not permitted to edit in topics where ARBECR has been imposed in good faith, other than talk page edit requests, therefore (in my view) since a conduct complaint is not an edit request, it is not permitted for non-extendedconfirmed editors to file them regarding conduct within the topic, nor to comment on them That is my experience, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive356#Selfstudier "As a non-EC editor, you essentially have no standing to make edits related to the topic. You can make an edit request, but any other editor can remove it, even without providing reason. Further, making a complaint against another editor as a non-EC editor in the WP:ARBPIA area is fully not allowed."· So I would agree, it's only logical. Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I think the closing was entirely appropriate and I agree with Selfstudier's statement. However, I think it is fair to say that the situation with respect to Yoyo360 at the time of the complaint posted by PicturePerfect666 at ANI is more complicated than "Yoyo360 is an extendedconfirmed editor". They were granted the privilege early (from an enwiki perspective) because, as the log says, they are a "10-year-old user with over 25,000 edits across all projects". This seems reasonable, pragmatic and it resolved the issue (although I'm sure imaginative people could cite it as yet another example of anti-Israel bias or rewarding complainers etc.), but for me, it's another reminder that none of us really know (based on evidence) the best way to implement/enforce EC restrictions in ARBPIA, how strictly they should be implemented, and that there is a lot of (costly) subjectivity and fuzziness involved at the moment. This is by no means a criticism or an endorsement of anything that happened in that thread by the way. I have no idea how to figure out how EC rules should work in practice to produce the best result. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On gaming, as far as I can tell (in ARBPIA anyway), the notion of gaming to acquire the EC privilege only becomes useful after a person has become extendedconfirmed and you can see what they did with it. Statements about potential gaming before someone has reached 500 edits are usually not verifiable (e.g. unreliable inferences about intent) and not based on agreed methods to reliably distinguish between gaming edits and normal edits (probably because we can't really do that without the benefit of post-EC hindsight). It's true that gaming happens in ARBPIA and that the gaming vs non-gaming signals can sometimes be distinguished, e.g. here, where all of the plots that look like gaming, anonymized ARBPIA editors 2,5,6 and 7, are for editors blocked as sockpuppets. But regardless, I don't think there is much utility in raising gaming questions until after someone becomes extendedconfirmed and there is post-EC activity evidence to look at. To do so asks questions that can't be answered without a lot of handwaving fuzziness about revision size, necessity, constructiveness, gnoming-ness, character witness-like statements etc. AGF until there is a reason not to seems like the best approach to gnoming-like pre-EC edits. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add some quick responses to Ivanvector's kindness and frustration from a different perspective (as someone only active in ARBPIA nowadays, and not to make content edits).

"no rule should exist in the first place if it's only used to gatekeep portions of the encyclopedia to users we individually approve." - WP:SOCK could be considered to be an example of such a rule. Many of the "interested in contributing to Wikipedia"/collateral damage-type arguments used against ARBECR could also be used against SOCK if you only consider the edits and exclude value judgements of the person making the edits. But the SOCK rule is enforced pretty consistently even though it is often much harder to tell whether someone is a sock than whether they are extendedconfirmed or their action complies with ARBECR, and even though it is probably not possible to measure whether blocking socks has a net positive or net negative impact on content etc.
"it's doing far more harm to the project than..." This might be true, but I've not seen any evidence that anyone knows how to measure it. I have a more positive view, probably because I'm only active in ARBPIA where the costs of not having or not enforcing the rules are obvious. To me, the benefits seem to outweigh the costs, with the caveat that most of the harm is probably not visible. The rules also introduce new costs because, although 'edit request' points at WP:EDITXY, what constitutes an edit request is, in practice, in the eye of the beholder. This might be bad, or good. Hard to tell.
I think ToBeFree's view that "This may be unfair or unreasonable in individual cases without being a general problem" applies to the arbitration remedies for ARBPIA in general.
If there are better solutions, they could be proposed and tested. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

After Bugghost was informed on May 19 about the EC restriction on Eurovision Song Contest 2024 and told they had "nowhere near 500 edits", they have started what looks like an attempt to game the 500 edits restriction by doing a lot of simple spelling corrections and are by this means now rapidly approaching the 500. In many cases the changes aren't even corrections — they changed the form pre-determined to predetermined in hundreds of articles yesterday, even though both forms are acceptable, and similarly changed lots of instances of pre-suppose to presuppose, where also both forms are acceptable. They made no spelling-"correction" edits before they were made aware of the EC rule for the Arab–Israeli conflict. I like to AGF, but this is ridiculous. See WP:GAME. Bishonen | tålk 10:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Novem Linguae

Bugghost has been rewriting the article Windows Presentation Foundation over the last week or so. In my mind he is a talented newer editor that is doing good content creation and article cleanup work. In light of the gaming concerns above, I'd like to make sure the positive aspects of this editor are also considered. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes

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

Extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion

One of the issues that led to ECR applying the way it does in this topic area were attempts by new accounts to weaponize our enforcement mechanisms. So while Eurovision 2024 as a whole does not, in my opinion, fall into ECR, edits relating to Israel's participation does as it is clearly WP:BROADLY construed in the topic area. As such non-ECR may not make enforcement requests There's also the past precedent of ArbCom granting ECR to people it was permitting to participate in an arbitraton process that would otherwise be ECR. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond what others have stated, let's not lose eye on the ball here: if there is gaming (and I agree on the whole with the analysis that there is not) it's to edit a particular part of a Eurovision article and not say Israel–Hamas war. I'm not pretending that there is nothing contentious about Israel's participation in Eurovision 2024 but even with a contentious topic area there are differing levels of things. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The closure text at [3] appears to be correct. This may be unfair or unreasonable in individual cases without being a general problem to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with my colleagues above: The ECR restriction is to prevent weaponization. It is also to encourage new users to get experience with Wikipedia policies and processes before filing accusations. If someone with ECR wants to adopt it, that is their prerogative, but they will also take responsibility for the filing. I have no concerns with this Ivanvector's close at ANI. I agree that Eurovision 2024 as a whole is not under ARBECR, but topics about Israel/Palestine are. Bugghost I encourage you to return to editing at a quicker pace if you desire, as you obtaining the ECR user right while this is open will not concern me. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with the views above; I would just add that as I see it I do entirely agree with Ivanvector's statement that BugGhost is very clearly a new user interested in contributing to Wikipedia in good faith. firefly ( t · c ) 18:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I also agree with my colleagues, and am concerned as Ivanvector is that participants here are moving the goalposts inappropriately. It was a policy-backed close of an otherwise good-faith report from an editor who is well-meaning but has not yet met the Extended Confirmed level of participation. Primefac (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way the restriction is currently worded and the way it is handled in practice (for example granting EC so that editors can participate in case requests) is in line with how Ivanvector closed the AN/I report. The first sentence in the report establishes that PIA is a major factor of the AN/I report itself, falling within its scope. - Aoidh (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads

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

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

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

Statement by Just Step Sideways

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Tryptofish

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

Statement by Floq

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

Statement by Vanamonde

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

Statement by Joe Roe

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

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

Aoidh makes a good point below about current policy (WP:OUTING) requiring disclosure of personal information on Wikipedia before it can be discussed. There are two pivot points there: where the disclosure should happen, but also whether profiles on external sites, and by extension posts associated with those profiles, can reasonably be considered "personal information". For me it's the latter that is the problem here; the former is a good rule when applied to genuine personal information. Interestingly, it's also a relatively recent addition to the harassment policy,[4][5] following this discussion in December 2020. The reason given for the addition was to bring the policy in line with the practice of oversighters, which rather speaks to my point of the OS team pushing things in a more conservative direction, not necessarily the community as a whole. – Joe (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ferret

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

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

Statement by Thryduulf

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

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

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

Statement by hako

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

mentioning the name of off-wiki threads: Clerk notes

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

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

Thanks for raising this issue JSS. As the OS who did the noticeboard suppression which named a thread, your facts aren't quite right there, but I don't think that takes away from the larger point you're raising. And it's one I admit to some discomfort with in an RfA context. As it stands I think the community wants to have pretty firm protections against doxxing. I also think the community would care about certain off-wiki activities. For instance, if User:Foo had lost Stewardship due to abuse on Miraheze/WikiTide there would be no cause for any action here, but I think the community would want to consider that information before passing someone at RfA. So don't have any answers (yet) but wanted to acknowledge some thoughts I had as I wait to see what other editors and arbs say. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf the wording about other projects is found in note 1 of the harassment policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to take more time to look into this so I can make a more informed opinion, but wanted to note that I am paying close attention to this and appreciate the statements given so far. I think it's important to note that the current wording of WP:OUTING requires self-disclosure on Wikipedia in order for the disclosure of off-wiki profiles to not constitute outing, and I think it's important to view these issues through that lens unless and until that policy is amended. - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Shortcuts

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

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

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

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

Requests for enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Makeandtoss and M.Bitton

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 Makeandtoss and M.Bitton

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

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

There has been a long running dispute at Israel-Hamas war, including multiple reverts and discussions (one, two, etc), over the lede's third paragraph; to resolve this I opened an RfC per dispute resolution. A few hours later, after three !votes including mine, Makeandtoss closed it, striking comments in violation of TPO. They had previously been involved in this dispute, in the article (example) and in discussions.

I reverted, but shortly after M.Bitton reclosed it. They weren't involved in the immediate dispute but are generally, including expressing strong opinions on related content. The RfC was necessary and lacked sufficient issues to justify a premature close making closing it generally disruptive, but more so here because of their involvement, locking in a status quo that they both appear to favor.

Previously discussed at ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page and ARCA, where Barkeep49 said they take a dim view of editors preventing this RfC and recommended AE.

M.Bitton declined to self-revert.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Makeandtoss:

20:45, 14 October 2023 Page blocked from Israel-Hamas war and its talk page for 48 hours, for disingenuous edit summaries, edit warring, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground
19:38, 26 January 2024 Warned for edit warring, including at Israel-Hamas war

M.Bitton:

No relevant sanctions

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

Makeandtoss:

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 11:32, 11 July 2017 (see the system log linked to above).

M.Bitton

Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 16:20, 6 March 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Extended content

@Black Kite: I always sign with just a timestamp, as permitted by RFCST, because I believe perceptions of the opener can influence perceptions of the RfC and I don't believe that benefits the process. The reverts were because I didn't believe it appropriate for others to insist on full signatures, given RFCST and our restrictions on editing others comments. 14:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: To avoid misunderstanding, I don't intend to start putting my username on RfC's I start, as it is permitted and there are valid reasons not to.

Regarding whether it was premature, the content had been restored and removed many times and heavily discussed:

It may be helpful to clarify whether it is appropriate for editors to add a username to RfC's started by others or if it is a violation of talk page guidelines; perhaps involved editors with concerns about signing with only a timestamp should contact the opener to attempt to resolve them, and if that fails contact an uninvolved admin? 21:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding other disruption, they have engaged in slow-motion edit warring, misleadingly cited BURDEN in edit summaries, and gamed and violated 1RR.

For example, edit warring against attributing casualty figures in the lede - given the low pace it would be less concerning except they closed the RfC intended to resolve the dispute:

20 May
29 April (misleadingly cited BURDEN)
13 April (described as "recently added nonsense")

May I have additional words and diffs to present the others? 18:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, ScottishFinnishRadish, and Newyorkbrad: Ping regarding request; 300 words and 20 diffs should be enough? 03:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Newyorkbrad. In response to Nableezy and Makeandtoss, I present these because admins noted no other recent problems had been identified; I understood that as asking whether they existed.

Disingenuous edit summaries

Claiming BURDEN (an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution) was not met

11:36, 20 May - Suggests BURDEN requires non-Israeli sources.
09:52, 14 May - Reverted 7,797 children and 4,959 women to 15,000 children and 10,000 women. Sourced.
14:24, 29 April - Removed Gaza Health Ministry attribution. Source says The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza said.
20:31, 17 April - Removed Amnesty International and others have described that use of the term as weaponization of antisemitism. Sourced.
09:55, 1 April - Removed In an interrogation of Hamas militants, one militant said they were given permission to perform necrophilia. Source said He also said they were given permission to rape the corpse of a girl. Also reintroduced a MOS:ALLEGED violation without explanation.

Restored unsourced content while claiming it was sourced

14:10, 19 May - restored where thousands ... were massacred by the Israeli military, saying restoring sourced content that was recently removed for no good reason; also clarifying perpetrator. Source contradicts this; the Christian Phalangists who committed the massacre were Israel’s allies in the war.

1RR violations and gaming

Gaming

Israel-Hamas war (Many edit warred over or part of the RfC):

2024 Iranian strikes against Israel:

10:52, 26 April (+00:17)
10:35, 25 April

Al-Shifa Hospital siege:

10:50, 21 April (+01:29)
09:21, 20 April

Unreverted violations

Destruction of cultural heritage during the 2023 Israeli invasion of Gaza:

Walid Daqqa:

Diffs unavailable (REVDEL)

South Africa's genocide case against Israel:

Other examples and issues exist, but were omitted because of diff and word restrictions. 08:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

To partially address Makeandtoss' response; the issue was misleading BURDEN allegations. Also citing other guidelines doesn't make those less misleading.

BURDEN #3: Source says The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza; it is disingenuous to quote only Hamas-run Gaza and say it isn't attributing to the health ministry.
1RR #1: Five weeks, with minimal activity or views; insufficient for status quo.
1RR #3: 10:07, 10 March reverted 22:23, 9 March, and 21:09, 9 March reverted 19:54, 9 March.

14:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: The meaning is unchanged, just reworded for conciseness as I was 600 words over; I believe this is allowed and sometimes required here. FYI, you are 1200 over, so you may also want to reword. 15:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

In full context, #2 still says you cited BURDEN disingenuously, #3 still says you restored content lacking a source. I can't find #1 in the former version, sorry. 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

May I have 200 words? I'm still 100 over; the other 100 to respond to Nableezy. FYI, word counts are out of control, making it difficult to remain within limits - enforcement may be helpful. 16:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Makeandtoss:

02:13, 10 May 2024

M.Bitton:

02:13, 10 May 2024

Discussion concerning Makeandtoss and M.Bitton

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 Makeandtoss

As evidenced by BilledMammal's own links above, there was no prior in-depth discussion on each of the four points, nor was there any attempt at conflict resolution that are outlined in WP:RFCBEFORE, which considers RFC a last option due to its time-consuming nature.

What I did was simply strike through the RFC, an action that was easily reverted, and I stopped and did not take it further. It would be disingenuous to claim that I had closed it, an irreversible action. Nevertheless, I will ensure to ask an uninvolved administrator to do this in upcoming incidents, which is indeed a better course of action.

That aside, this seems like an attempt to deflect from BilledMammal's own editing behavior, as they created the RFC in non-neutral phrasing without signing it, and then went ahead to vote with a signature, which creates a misleading first impression. Not to mention BilledMammal's edit warring by reverting other editors four times within the course of two hours relating to this incident: [6], [7], [8], [9].

I sincerely hope to see the day when editors are more interested in constructively contributing to Wikipedia than taking editors they disagree with to AE every time something happens. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized BM has been banned from the article for a week for edit warring, so to add to M.Bitton's statement below, this now worryingly seems more like a Samson's death kind of situation. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: and @Seraphimblade: First, thanks for the concerns. To add some context in response: I was blocked from that article on 14 October 2023, back when things were heated, and back when I did not completely understand what constitutes 1RR; I also wasn't able to appeal that 48 hour ban because it had passed while I was appealing. As for the second "sanction" on that article, I was warned for "slow motion edit warring" on that article backing in January 2024; because I had edited the same sentence multiple times in the lede over a few months according to developments on the talk page. Since then I have taken immense care to abide strictly by the guidelines at the article and across the topic.

My constructive and collaborative editing at the Israel-Hamas war article almost non-stop over the past seven months is evidenced by the fact that I am the third top editor by # of edits on the article having added 50k bytes and the 5th top editor on the talk page having added 70k bytes. Editing such a high-level and sensitive article while maintaining calm is not an easy task. Of course, striking through that RFC was a trout, which I have already pledged on SFR's talk page that it would not be repeated. The purpose of AE is to remedy behavior and not to punish editors. I really hope that a more balanced view of my editing is taken and that this minor mistake is not taken out of proportion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Of course, rules indeed apply to everyone, that is why I have tried my best to abide by all the guidelines. I did not know however that striking through an RFC would be a violation, which in that case I would have never done it. Even after being reverted, I let it go and did not pursue it further, as @Valereee: pointed out about the RFC's signing. And immediately after being notified by @ScottishFinnishRadish: on their talk page, who thankfully gave a better alternative of seeking uninvolved administrators' intervention, I pledged there that this mistake not be repeated. Looking back, now that I understand the issues surrounding it, it was definitely a mistake that should not have occurred, and for that I sincerely apologize. I believe that a heavy sanction would only prevent good contributions rather than the noble and very important goal of remedying any bad. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Thanks for weighing in. My perspective regarding the previous cases can be found above at the 09:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) comment.[reply]

@Ealdgyth: And thank you as well for weighing in. I only became very involved in this topic area recently, but I spent most of the past ten years editing Jordan-related articles, and I am aware of best editing practices. The whole approach was indeed not ideal, in a controversial article and tricky situation, but I am determined to ensure this never happens again. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I am extremely, deeply and absolutely aware of that. Again, I sincerely apologize for that mistake and vow that it would never be repeated again, and also to do my best to avoid any similar mistakes. You have my word for it. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I really appreciate the chance to present my perspective, and @ScottishFinnishRadish:'s comment that shows their genuine dedication to handling this request appropriately.

First, note that the Israel-Hamas war article sees dozens of edits every day, and numerous discussions. Over the course of months this accumulates and gets inevitably confusing for everyone, especially as the ideas or edits are sometimes discussed in different phrasings or closely resemble one another.

[10] Here I specifically raised doubts about the 9,000 militants killed claim since it did not fully align with the Haaretz source cited. This is different from discussing if the number of killed militants should be included or not in the RFC's second question.
[11] This took place on 20 March, two months before the RFC on 6 May; and it related to if the number of women should be included in lede. This is a bit different from the number of both women and children and also how these numbers are presented as the RFC's third question relates to.
[12] Indeed, here, it was related to the RFC's third question, but that month-old discussion that I had created on 29 April did not strike me at that moment as being relevant to the overall situation.

The fact that I have created or engaged in these discussions shows my good faith and collaborative approach. In summary, this unfortunate incident took place in a sensitive RFC opened controversially and in a sensitive and highly active article. I accordingly made a hasty decision, to which I apologize about and vow that it would not be repeated. A lot of lessons learnt here: to specifically never strike through or remove any RFC; and more generally, to demonstrate greater patience, to put in greater efforts to examine similar situations, and to never act in haste.

As for the separate older incident with Number57 on 1 January, I did not say in the edit summary that no discussion had taken place, but that the RFC went against WP:RFCBEFORE, which states that if a dispute is between two editors they should seek WP:Third opinion first. After I removed the RFC, another third editor agreed with Number57's edit and disagreed with mine, and I stopped and did not take the issue further. Again, I was only made aware of the issues surrounding removing an RFC only after the recent incident. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly answer for whatever is brought here, but I am feeling that this is turning into something other than a request to deal with an issue and now into an open-ended request to sanction a user. In that case, I think the editing behavior of all involved users should be closely examined as well in an open case aside from this venue here. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to extended request

First, thanks to all the admins who are taking a lot of their precious time and effort to diligently examine this extended request as well and the responses.

Regarding the citing of WP:BURDEN:

1. [13] Yes, relying exclusively on 3 Israeli sources for a controversial sentence is a conflict of interest (WP:QS section of WP:BURDEN).

2. [14] Misleading. My edit summary also cited the lack of consensus on talk page as well as the WP:ONUS and WP:BRD guidelines.

3. [15] Yes, according to the "Gaza Health Ministry" is not equal to the source's "Hamas-run Gaza".

4. [16] Misleading. My edit summary stated that there is no need for attribution for Amnesty International, and that editors should seek consensus for this addition, for which there is an ongoing RFC now. Here I actually meant WP:ONUS.

5. [17] Yes, here the controversial sentence was only sourced to an Israeli reference, contravening WP:QS of WP:BURDEN, and in the same edit summary I cited a source saying that these torture confessions were questionable. This removal came immediately after being reinstated following an initial removal by another editor, showing clear lack of consensus.

Alleged violation of WP:BURDEN

1. [18] The sentence that Palestinian refugees were massacred in Sabra and Shatila massacre is a universally sourced fact. I meant to say that the IDF helped facilitate, not perpetrate. After being corrected, I didn't pursue this further and did not restore, which is explicitly mentioned in WP:BURDEN as best practice.

Alleged "Gaming"

As seen in my timecard, my most common edits either take place on 10:00 and 11:00 after having started the day and/or 13:00 and 14:00 after having finished my lunch break, so this is a coincidence on different days with no deliberate editing.

Alleged 1RR violations

1. False. This move is not a revert since the article's name had been stable for 6 weeks.

2. False. I had written most of the Walid Daqqa article and as evident by the still existing (6) edit summaries [19], these reverts were made against non-confirmed users.

3. False. This is not a revert as the content removed had been stable since at least 6 weeks [20].

While I am assuming good faith and I am sure that BilledMammal is nobly seeking all editors comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, it is important to note that they have been warned by AE in 2021 that "groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions," with one admin then commenting that "It is time for a more robust pushback against the use of this page to knock-out opponents."

I genuinely hope that this large extended request, which suddenly came after the original request was reaching its conclusion, is not one of these vexatious incidents, as there is clear lack of assumption of good faith, as well as cherrypicking parts of edit summaries and decontextualizing the circumstances behind these edits and away from the talk page, not to mention the multiple false claims made. These are edit disputes which are discussed on talk pages and not violations of guidelines.

I am certain that the experienced admins here are able to identify between editors who spend their time contributing to improve Wikipedia, and editors spending their time tracking others over months to use at AE, in which they inevitably create a harmful culture of battleground. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: I kindly request that you promptly revert your recent far-reaching changes to your participation in this discussion by reinstating the original phrasing that both myself and others have relied upon to formulate our arguments. These retroactive changes violate WP:REDACT: "But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." I feel that this is an unacceptable behavior and urge administrative intervention to restore respect for everyone's invested time and efforts here. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, it seems this is even further misleading to claim that the meaning is "unchanged", given that everything has been changed, and to cite only three examples:

1# "remove WP:BURDEN" => "misleadingly cited WP:BURDEN"

2# "Falsely claiming WP:BURDEN" => "Claiming WP:BURDEN"

3# "Restored content in violation of WP:BURDEN" => "unsourced content"

Below WP:REDACT further elaborates that: "Persistently formatting your comments on a talk page in a non-compliant manner, after friendly notification by other editors, is a mild form of disruption."

@ScottishFinnishRadish: @Valereee: @Newyorkbrad: I respectfully request your kind intervention to remedy this situation. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M.Bitton

I already explained the close when asked by ScottishFinnishRadish, so I won't repeat it here. I also wasn't involved in any of the discussions that led to RfC. Frankly, this report raises more questions than answers: if BilledMammal was really interested in SFR's advice, then why did they ignore it and why did they ignore the question that SFR asked them (about how to best formulate the RFC)? Someone who's starting a RfC for the benefit of the project would have no issue with what SFR suggested (working with others), but I guess that wasn't what they were after. Approaching me four days later with an ultimatum doesn't strike me as very constructive, especially considering the fact that I chose not to report them for violating 1RR multiples times. Bringing it to AE after raising it with SFR is just plain forum shopping. M.Bitton (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

I dont think it was a good idea to shut down the RFC. But on the process, if a user is blocked from a page for edit-warring, are they allowed to pursue dispute resolution related to that page while blocked? Or is that not similar to an editor violating a topic ban by making a report about the topic? nableezy - 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

less relevant at this point

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

But the edit-warring was on this talk page, and they are blocked from the talk page. But its your world boss. nableezy - 13:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, you missed where they also moved a signed comment, which somehow isnt a TPO violation while adding an unsigned template supposedly is. nableezy - 13:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 nobody edited the signature, I added an {{unsigned}} template and when that was reverted a note, with my own signature, as to who started the RFC. Who started an RFC shouldnt matter, but when there is a dispute about the neutrality of the prompt then it obviously does matter. And, as WP:TPO says, attributing unsigned comments is perfectly acceptable. nableezy - 15:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep, that is not true, my initial edits were only adding an unsigned template. When that was reverted (twice) I added my own comment. Why exactly is BM moving my comment to place that decontextualized it entirely not a TPO violation? But what that portion of TPO is about is "attributing" comments, which is not simply a date and timestamp but also, obviously, a username. nableezy - 16:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, as far as I can see one editor "edit-warred" over this, not a bunch, unless you want to make the leap that a single revert is now "edit-warring". nableezy - 16:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see this is that BM attempted to have basically a first mover's advantage here. He created an RFC that had not had any input from anybody else, he left the prompt unsigned, and then he answered that RFC immediately. Other editors who had differing views would not have been prepared with sources and arguments the way he was to present his view. And given how RFCs attract views from uninvolved users who may not be as familiar with the universe of sources available as the editors involved in the dispute but rather often rely on the RFC arguments to formulate their view, he was giving himself the advantage of both framing the dispute and further presenting his own views unchallenged to any editors who were brought to the RFC through the normal means. The very least that should be done there is to inform others of the fact that the framing and the initial, prepared in advance, argument offered are by the same person. nableezy - 16:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this getting exceedingly unfair, this supposedly was about an RFC being closed out of process. It has now turned to a user being allowed to dig through diffs over literal months in an attempt to sanction another user. That is something more suited to an actual arbitration case than it is to one user presenting a case against another user in a forum where any single administrator can institute a sanction, largely without examining the full context, that is the behavior of all involved. nableezy - 00:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The added diffs are largely content disputes, and the characterization of them as disingenuous is, to me at least, quite disingenuous itself. Just looking at this one, the material that was replaced, lowering the number of children killed, was later clarified by the UN to be only about those fatalities who have been fully identified by the Ministry of Health. Many of the others is BilledMammal pretending like a claim by Israel should be treated as fact, such as this one which said In an interrogation of Hamas militants, one militant said they were given permission to perform necrophilia cited to Times of Israel which itself says
Israeli security agencies published video footage Monday from the apparent interrogations. BM themselves re-added that material, falsely claiming that it was attributed when it was not. If anything is disingenuous it is BM's edit summary there and their description of the edits here. BM took a source that says that an "apparent interrogation" released by a combatant in an armed conflict, a combatant with an established history of engaging in deceit and propaganda, and then simply said that in an interrogation somebody said this. If youre going to start adjudicating content disputes as BM appears to be asking that you do, maybe look at the entire story and not just one user's self-serving characterization of it. All the above is to say this forum is not suited to this type of request, and if anything should be done here it is should be to open an arbitration case where all party's actions may be reviewed. nableezy - 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

My sole contribution to the RFC was to add the comment "+1. Not signed either." to Makeandtoss rejection of it, the RFCbefore being unspecified as well as a transparent attempt to revisit old arguments that had not produced the desired outcome from the openers perspective, awkwardly lumped together in a single RFC. I sympathize with the frustration that led to its untimely closure and frankly think that complainant should devote some effort to figuring out ways to spend less time at this board. Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Seems it can't be both Well, it can, I speak as someone familiar with the article and its history, what I mean is that those prior discussions were nowhere apparent at the RFC or even on the talk page, it being usual to specify an RFCbefore detailing them. I can try to locate the multiplicity of them in the talk page archives if desired, I assume OP knows where they are? Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: does it being in an archive mean it no longer counts as prior discussion? That's the point, it is valid and that's why editors taking part in an RFC need to know about those discussions, generally I would link them as part of an RFC(before) Not all editors are aware of prior discussions of which there may have been several.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Would a better, less inflammatory way to handle this have been pointing out those earlier discussions in the RFC discussion or bringing up that you believe they should be linked on BMs talk page rather than closing the RM or modifying the RFC statement? From where I'm sitting, which is quite frequently on the opposite side of the table from complainant, that thought is one step removed from what I see as the actual source of the problem, namely the opening of that particular RFC in that particular way in the first instance, then persisting with it when three editors came out strongly against the process. I would not personally have closed out the RFC but I don't disagree with it either, I think complainant should have done so themselves and we wouldn't be here, not for this at any rate. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the question was put:

If this is a complete list of topic area closed RFCs then

there were two RFCs opened by complainant in that category, Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell#RfC on infobox image on 1 March, plus the current example.

In the current RFC category, taken from here, there is Talk:Israel–Hamas war#RFC: Primary title and alt titles in :the lede opened on 12 April.

The other two were also not signed. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: (and @Seraphimblade:), there is a current discussion about the signing/not signing thing Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Signing an RfC Selfstudier (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)´[reply]

It should not set a precedent, but given all the circumstances, I suggest treating the RFC close as procedural in this particular instance. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Makeandtoss was imo correct to say that there had been no discussion in the sense of an RFCbefore, the RFC just came out of the blue and did not reference any prior discussions.Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was this RFC, then there are some more diffs and now, here are even more diffs. Was any of this raised at the user talk page at any point? As was done with respect to complainant's editing at User talk:BilledMammal#RSN. Selfstudier (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Now there are diffs about diffs. Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

While BM is technically correct that an RfC does not have to be signed, when one of the principle disputants on a topic starts an RfC with their own preferences highlighted it is at least a very bad look if they refuse to have their name on it. And I mean "refuse", since BM twice deleted a signature that was added using {{unsigned}}. If there is a positive explanation for that I didn't manage to think of it. Zero^talk 13:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying...WP:Signatures says "Typing five tildes will convert to a date stamp with the current date and time, without adding your signature". So, while it is true that five tildes are permitted in an RfC, it is arguable whether that counts as a signature for the purposes of TPO. Zero^talk 01:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial

In this instance I am uninvolved in the RfC (and am largely uninvolved in ARBPIA). I wanted to draw attention to BilledMammal's using their own !vote in their own RfC as evidence that it should remain open, which I take to be a rather peculiar argument. Of the other two !votes, one largely resisted the way the RfC was framed, while the other did accept the framing but only answered two of the four RfC questions.

So to me, BM's argument amounts to an assertion that the way it is framed makes sense to them (though others evidently disagree) and that they have voted in it therefore it must stay open. To insist on this, in spite of the lack of RFCBEFORE and quite evident flaws in the RfC's construction, strikes me as an attempted deployment of bureaucratic proceduralism unworthy of BM or of enwiki in general.

To then "seek justice against one's enemies" (Plato, not a wikipedian) in this forum, after having been banned temporarily from the Talk page in question, seems to me like a failure of judgement given the overwhelming lack of support for BM's framing of the RfC in the first place. The only likely outcome of that RfC, given the responses to it on Talk and on SFR's Talk, was a "malformed RfC" outcome, and I don't see how devoting photons and editors' time to hashing out that outcome would have served anything but BURO. Newimpartial (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ealdgyth - "seek justice against one's enemies" was an allusion to Plato. I'll try refactoring to make this more clear. Newimpartial (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the uninvolved admin: BilledMammal has now expressed the intention od continuing to create RfCs without signing the RfC (and then presumably to !vote on them with a signature, thus obscuring the relationship between the RfC question and their !vote).

Therefore, to head off future disruption, I would appreciate clearly expressed opinion about whether it is appropriate to do so or whether this choice can be appropriately understood as disruptive. Comments to date have leaned towards BM's no-signature strategy being potentially disruptive (at least by my reading), but it would be great to have some more formal consideration before the next time a related confrontation occurs. Newimpartial (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this edit summary, I have read it several times, and I am unable to interpret it as disingenuous. I read "points" in the summary as meaning "proposals" and I don't see how any of the proposals received an appropriate RFCBEFORE. For any that did, it seems to me that it was up to the person filing the RfC to document the BEFORE, in any case, so the interpretation that "these points/proposals did not receive a prior discussion that satisfies RFCBEFORE" strikes me as entirely reasonable even if others read the situation differently. I certainly don't see anything "disingenuous" about the summary, even though of course nobody INVOLVED ought to he closing anyone's RfC but their own. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Number 57

I don't have a view on this particular situation, but for context, I thought it would be useful to flag up that I have also experienced Makeandtoss shutting down an RfC after others have commented (see here). Number 5 7 17:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alaexis

Closing an RfP this way seems rather disruptive (per WP:RFC, An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be). Usually users unhappy with an RfC would !vote Bad RfC and explain their reasoning. Why couldn't it have been done in this case? Alaexis_¿question? 21:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

It was a complex RFC from the get-go, and seemingly not prompted by sufficiently rigorous prior discussion so as to actually warrant such a complicated RFC (the only linked discussions are a couple that appear to have simply petered out). RFCs are by nature time consuming for the community, and can also hamstring routine discussion and editing but putting a freeze on any topic covered by the RFC until complete. It is not in the project's interest to have a proliferation of badly scripted, overly complex RFCs floating around, and closing such examples down is quite sensible from a WP:NOTBURO perspective. There aren't many other avenues open for nipping bad RFCs in the bud. If everyone just attends and votes "bad RFC" then that's time-consuming participation. Alternatively, editors could try to petition the admin noticeboard for an admin to strictly enforce WP:RFCBEFORE, but if this is a routine action, it's not one that I've observed, even though WP:RFCBEFORE is in principle quite strict and, one might think, enforceable. This close was a no-nonsense attempt to strictly adhere to WP:RFCBEFORE, and perhaps recourse to the admin board would have been a better option, but the intentions appear reasonable. It feels like the best way to deal with an RFC that fails WP:RFCBEFORE is actually a bit of a grey area, and one that perhaps needs better clearing up. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would second Makeandtoss' reminder that sanctions are too prevent not punish, and I see little merit in punishing them for this very one-off and unlikely to be repeated episode involving an RFC. It is not clear that anything here forms part of a pattern of abuse, and the dust has now settled on this incident. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, @Seraphimblade: I would also second Vice Regent's exhortation to consider Makeandtoss' conduct in the context of their total contribution to the project. To sanction them would be punitive and with little merit. I certainly don't see how it would be preventative given both the one-off nature of this particular set of circumstances in this dispute, or given the comparative rarity of their disorderly conduct relative to their output. It would only punish the project. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kashmiri

I agree that RFCs shouldn't be closed so early by involved editors. However, on seeing the closure, I was glad it helped us avoid another heated discussion on that very Talk page that was extremely unlikely to produce anything resembling consensus. BilledMammal was right to write that perceptions of the editor who opened the RfC may influence how editors perceive the RfC, and so given their rather contentious editing history in Palestine-related topics, they decided not not to sign their name. Yet we were at it again. When going through the questions, I was disappointed (but not surprised) to find out how POV the structure was – it concerned adding inline attribution to the internationally accepted numbers of Palestinian victims of the Israeli invasion (inline attribution is not normally necessary and suggests an opinion, not a fact – our policy requires it if there is a disagreement between sources) or contrasting these numbers with Israeli-provided numbers of supposedly killed militants, even though the latter are widely considered unreliable and few media carry them. Judging from the past discussion history on that article and the POV split of the most active editors, this RfC was not going to end up in a consensus.

So, as much as the close was procedurally wrong, I'm of the view that it ultimately befitted that article and the wider readership. A trout for everyone, as Valereee wrote, and move on. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coretheapple

Lots of verbiage above but it's a simple issue. RfCs are not to be closed by involved editors. Involved editors who do so should get sanctioned, for this is a contentious topic area and there needs to be extra efforts made to enforce the rules, and I don't mean "trout slaps." Coretheapple (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vice regent

@ScottishFinnishRadish: and @Seraphimblade: as you consider sanctions, I'd like to add that Makeandtoss is exceptionally productive. They are one of the very few users I see regularly creating new articles or significantly expanding existing ones in the Arab-Israeli conflict area. They have an impressive User:Makeandtoss/DYK record (many of them in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area), with some DYKs of articles they created still active (eg Killing of David Ben Avraham). They helped promote articles in this topic area to GA status (eg Battle of Karameh, Black September, Hussein of Jordan etc). Just last month, they wrote the entire History of Palestinian journalism article. I've also seen them create useful stubs (eg Mohammad Hyasat of the Jordanian Air Force, who helped defend Israel from Iranian attacks).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish can you clarify the topic you are considering for a ban? Is it "Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed"? If so, might you please consider something narrower like "Israel-Hamas war broadly construed"? I suggest that because I have not seen any problematic behavior by Makeandtoss when making excellent contributions to Jordanian and Palestinian history, but "Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed" covers most of the history of those two nations.

I recall in the WP:ARBIRP case, the arbs tailored a topic-ban[21][22] that was narrower than the scope of arbitration to take into account a user's productive edits in the topic.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Makeandtoss and M.Bitton

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

Although I don't think the RFC formulation is great, based on my experience as a closer, the formulation is not disruptively bad. There has been a significant amount of discussion on some of the points in the RFC, and there's something to be said for just heading to an RFC when it's obvious there will be no consensus through plain discussion. Editors thoroughly involved in a topic area should only be shutting down an RFC, closing discussions, or removing discussions when the material is plainly disruptive or in violation of WP:PAGS. Not following the advice on an information page to the letter, for me, does not meet that threshold. I have been approached by editors on several occasions about closing down RMs/RFCs that are retreading topics, but I'm loath to step in on such discussions because they are part of our formal dispute resolution. Involved editors should be even more reticent to do so. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, not like a topic ban. Normally the edit warring is in article space and I'll block just the article so they can only engage on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was there was no prior in-depth discussion on each of the four points or was this a transparent attempt to revisit old arguments. Seems it can't be both. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, what I mean is that those prior discussions, so there was prior in-depth discussion? Those talk pages are fast moving, and the archives are already huge. If the discussion happened a couple months ago, does it being in an archive mean it no longer counts as prior discussion? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, I don't want to make this seem as if you're on the hook for anything here as you simply made a comment at the RFC, so take this as a hypothetical. Would a better, less inflammatory way to handle this have been pointing out those earlier discussions in the RFC discussion or bringing up that you believe they should be linked on BMs talk page rather than closing the RM or modifying the RFC statement? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, rather than a bunch of involved editors edit warring and violating TPGs over this, why did no one seek to remedy any issues with the RFC on BMs talk page, or ask an uninvolved administrator to do so. User talk:BilledMammal#Talk:Flour massacre#Requested move 28 April 2024, for example, is how this could have played out. To me, this is just more evidence of battleground editing in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, there were a bunch of involved editors, there was edit warring, and there were WP:TPG violations. All of that could have been avoided, except for involved editors, if not for pervasive battleground behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent, I wouldn't be opposed to something narrower like the current conflict or post 2000. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the expansion of word limits back and forth was the wrong call, since now we're getting far beyond the original complaint and into arbcase territory. With the battleground editing going on anyone could pick 50 not great diffs of any of the active editors in the topic.

To restate, I think that the behavior after a block and a warning demonstrates a need for a forced time-out from the topic area. The disruption caused by the battleground editing is evident because it's still causing a disruption, after my talk page and after a trip to ARCA, and now here. However my judgement isn't the final arbiter and I wasn't comfortable taking unilateral action, so here we are.

Let's try and focus on the report and if the behavior reported, in light of prior sanctions and warnings, requires action.

If administrators believe this requires Arbcom case level word and diff allowances maybe we should just refer it to Arbcom. If any editor believes that this needs Arbcom intervention they should feel welcome to it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned about the "trying to avoid scrutiny for the RfC" bit highlighted by Zero0000. BilledMammal, why did you do that (twice)? If I'm submitting an RfC, I want my name on it so that people can discuss it with me. It all seems very ... I don't know, underhand? Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial - did someone say "seek justice against one's enemies" or did you use quotes for some other reason? I'm confused as to why that statement is in quotes - if someone (on either side of the dispute) is saying that about the other side that's not good. If it hasn't been said, it's not really helpful to throw that around like it IS a quote from someone, it just confuses uninvolved admins (like me) and, in my view, just ups the heat in the topic area. I'm going back to looking into this as my time permits ... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I was forced to read Plato in university but... I try REALLY hard to forget it. Still reading - I read SFR's plea for help in this area and am trying to formulate something to say that I think might help things (not that I think I'm going to have much luck with this but ... hope springs eternal) Ealdgyth (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - SFR (and others) sorry I haven't been weighing in here, I've been busy outside wiki and trying to read more about this topic area. I'm good with a time-limited topic ban for Makeandtoss. It's not so much the single edit but the whole approach. Frankly, I think there are a lot of editors who might consider whether or not they should try to edit outside this topic area so that they aren't quite so burned out and fall into really bad battleground behavior. When all you see is one very contentious topic, you're going to think that battleground behavior is the norm on the project, but most non-contentious topic areas are not this filled with bad behavior and habits from editors. Getting outside the topic area would help editors regain some perspective about their own editing behavior and what best editing practices are. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of weighing in substantively on this request beyond a few thoughts that I had when this was at ARCA. In a talk page like this one which is active and with a lot of peristent editors, a lower threshold for how much discussion is necessary before starting an RfC can, in my judgement, be appropriate. The reason for this can be that there is a local consensus that is at odds with a project wide consensus and so lots of discussion would lead to a false consensus (and even accusations of bad faith RfCs that "relitigate" things already decided in discussions). It strikes me as incredibly important that we are very cautious before closing a major dispute resolution method to an editor, especially one who has demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and norms. An RfC for information that is in the lead also strikes me as more appropriate than RfC for information in the body of an article precisely because of the visibility/importance of having consensus there for me. Now it can also be true that someone who has repeatedly shown that they are at odds with project consensus about a topic can be disruptive in starting new RfCs. In looking at the last half dozen or so RfCs it did not seem like Billed Mammal fell into this second category but it's entirely possible there is better evidence out there on this front. However, given the evidence as I understand it I continue to take that "dim view" of editors using procedural means to potentially enforce a local consensus and perhaps even to seek sanctions against someone attempting to ascertain what the project consensus is through the written dispute resolution system. As for the signature bit I believe I start all my RfCs with ~~~~~ because who started the RfC should be irrelevant and WP:RFCOPEN explicitly allows it as an equally valid choice to ~~~~ . I have no idea if date/time sig rather than full signature is normal or not for BM and I hope the uninvolved administrators assess that - there are no shortage of RfCs started by BM - before judging the intent. If this was out of practice for BM that clearly signifies trouble but if it's normal for BM to operate that way - as it is for me - that sends a different signal. Now if someone were to change an RfC sig I started from 5 ~ to one that included my name (and I think this has happened once), I wouldn't do anything about that because let's have a sense of perspective about things. But I would be annoyed and I would think it a violation of WP:TPO given that editing of signatures is only allowed If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information and TPO is clear that editors may ...not modify the signature on others' posts for any other reason. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy I wasn't going to respond to your ping because I mean it when I say that I want the uninvolved admin to be making the call here. But your this edit to your comment goes too far for me. WP:RFCOPEN explicitly allows for ~~~~~ and so the comment was appropriately signed, based on Wikipedia norms and practices. As such you were not fixing an unsigned signature, but instead (as I understand it) trying to make a point that the RfC was not neutral and were working to have the statements attributed to BilledMammal in order to help advance that point. I have offered no comment on the neutrality or not of the RfC. But trying to raise problems with a non-neutral RfC is not the same as a neutral fixing/improvement as allowed by the talk page guidelines, in my view. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy: I'm not commenting on BM's comment move because that wasn't part of my analysis at ARCA and I'm not interested in substantively weighing in things at AE beyond what was discussed at the ARCA given that ArbCom is where the rare AE appeal goes; I expect that other uninvolved administrators will weigh that when determining what sanctions, if any, are appropriate to levy for this incident. Frankly I'm a bit flummoxed why you're continuing to debate with me - and attempting to shift the focus of discussion in this last comment. I have explicitly refrained from saying that your adding the unsigned template was wrong. That too goes beyond the analysis I've done. What I am saying that if it is BM's practice, as they've stated and so far no one has contradicted with evidence, to open RfCs with 5 tildes that this is supported by practice and norms. In that case their action is not a behavioral problem and so you cannot justify your actions based on the talk page guidelines. I have offered no opinion about whether your adding the unsigned template could be supported on other grounds. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's plenty not to love here. I am definitely not enamored of "anonymously" starting an RfC—if I'm coming to an RfC, and an editor involved in the discussion is the one who started it, I want to know that. It looks to me like RFCOPEN is more saying that the bot is able to recognize timestamp-only signatures, rather than actually endorsing that as a good practice. In any case, since it's clearly controversial, I would very much prefer not to see that done in the future here, but it's not actually against policy. What is against policy is to start an RfC instead of discussing a matter, rather than after a discussion has been held, and "open discussion on the matter first" should not be considered optional. An RfC is a significant investment of community time and should only be resorted to when absolutely necessary. RfC is often the result of such a discussion reaching an impasse, but if there's a plausible case that the result of the discussion was a "local consensus" that the wider community wouldn't support, it's appropriate to hold an RfC to call in people from the wider community who haven't been involved and I would not criticize that as being "re-litigating" or forum shopping. I think we've all seen cases where a small number of "owners" try to enforce something that the wider community wouldn't approve of, and bringing an RfC is a good way to draw attention to that and put a stop to it. But, whether an RfC is appropriate or inappropriate, involved editors shouldn't be shutting it down. So, I think in this case, trouts all around—the RfC was premature, the "anonymous" nature of it needlessly fanned the controversy, and even with that said, people involved shouldn't have closed it. If lessons can be learned from that without bringing out any bigger sticks, that's of course the optimal solution; if we find the problems reoccurring, then we'd have to evaluate that at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to pretty much agree with all of this. I don't object to an RfC being unsigned if it's inarguably neutrally worded. This is on the edge for me. I don't object to an RfC being opened in contentious topics possibly slightly early if there's been some discussion. Again on the edge. I do object to edit-warring over signing; once it's been objected to, just let it go. I do object to involved editors closing an RfC early. Trouts all around. Valereee (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that Makeandtoss has already been warned for edit warring in the topic area and blocked from this article for battleground conduct. To me, we're past the level of a trout in this instance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no problem with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of moving this along. I know you're generally not a fan of time-limited topic bans, but I think this topic area is one that can benefit from time-limited topic bans, allowing a cool down for an editor, and hopefully a cool down for the real world circumstances. At the least it can allow for some firming up in sources on the issues that are being discussed. Would you be amenable to 90 days in this circumstance? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a case where I'd be okay with it. Makeandtoss certainly has provided plenty of positive contribution in the area, but everyone has to follow the same rules, and especially in CT areas. I certainly hope they will return to doing the good work afterwards, minus the downsides. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, you're the only other one who gave any opinion on possible sanctions. Any thoughts on a 90 day topic ban for Makeandtoss, as they've been both blocked and warned for behavior in this topic area recently? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A time-limited t-ban...okay, I guess. I don't like them, I think they're both punitive and not very productive. But if that's what you and Seraphimblade think works, I won't object. Valereee (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, hadn't seen NYB's post. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am missing something, the complaint against Makeandtoss is based on a single edit, made two weeks ago, of a type he has specifically agreed never to make again. If that is the case, I oppose any topic-ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a partial block from the page for battleground editing and disingenuous edit summaries they closed an RFC on that page out of process, with a disingenuous edit summary. I guess you could call that "one edit" if reviewing the behavior in a vacuum.
That the report has been here for 10 days, after the behavior was reported soon after the close was made, just demonstrates what I was saying at the request for clarification, AE isn't attended well enough to work. That a report has been open without significant administrator input is the default here, and 2-3 weeks is common for non-obvious cases. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not negating the prior issues, but no one has identified more than the single problematic edit by this user in, let's say, the past three months. That is what I mean by referring to a single edit. I'm also not sure why you consider the edit summary disingenuous. More than one person above seems to agree that the RfC did not satisfy "RFCBEFORE", even though others feel differently. The edit summary was disputable, maybe even erroneous, but I see no evidence that it was "disingenuous" in the sense of knowingly asserting something one does not actually believe. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm waffling again. @Makeandtoss, do you understand that admins are extremely likely to find anything that comes anywhere near repeating this very unamusing? Valereee (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created a discussion with about the count of militants killed, specifically mentions the lead [lede] in the discussion

Took part in a discussion about including the number of women killed in the lead

Created a section on women and children casualties in the lead

Closed an RFC asking Should the number of militants that Israel has stated they have killed be included? Should we describe the number of women and children killed as... with a summary of no discussion has taken place about these points.

Those threads are just a few from the most recent archive. That is disingenuous. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given their fullthroated response, I'd be willing to just warn. They sound sincere. Valereee (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're considering some kind of final warning here instead, I think we need to be crystal clear that it is very final, and anything else like this is going to mean sanctions. "But they also do good stuff" cannot remain an excuse indefinitely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss: Please respond briefly in your section to ScottishFinnishRadish's last post above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Valereee (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's also worth noting Number 57's diff where Makeandtoss closed another RFC with a third party response after taking part in a discussion. WP:RFCBEFORE doesn't require anything, and doesn't suggest extensive discussion, only that a discussion should take place. If it is obvious that a consensus isn't forthcoming there is no need to continue in circles for a certain number of words. No one involved in a discussion should be closing any but the most malformed RFCs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: The extension request is granted. @Makeandtoss: You are granted an extension of the same length if you wish to respond to what BilledMammal posts. We should try to wrap up this thread within the next couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(placeholder comment) I'm at a family event today and will review the recent posts and comment here either tonight or in the morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand ScottishFinnishRadish's view that the extension has allowed this thread to run far afield, though I do think it's helpful to evaluate the edit that led to the thread being opened in the context of the editor's other contributions. I adhere to my view that that original edit, of a type that the editor promised not to make again and indeed has not made again, does not warrant a sanction. With regard to the broader array of diffs cited by BilledMammal, while I do not personally agree with all of those edits or edit summaries, Makeandtoss appears to have a good-faith explanation for them. Given the ongoing disagreements about the facts (let alone causes or implications) of what is happening in Gaza, it is to be expected that editors will disagree about what should be contained in these articles and what the best sources for them might be. I would stress the need for everyone to be on their best behavior in this topic-area (including in edit summaries), difficult though that might be, but I would impose no other sanction at this time. Leaving the thread open, although hopefully not for too much longer, for other admins to comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, M.Bitton hasn't even been mentioned in this thread since he responded to the OP, so clearly no action needed against him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay, so we're at:
  - Newyorkbrad - no action
  - Valereee - very final warning
  - Ealdgyth - topic ban
  - ScottishFinnishRadish - topic ban
  - Seraphimblade - topic ban or very final warning
  Seraphimblade, looks like it's hinging on you between a very final warning or a topic ban. Do you have a preference one way or another? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galamore

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 Galamore

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ecrusized (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Galamore (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/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

Removing referenced statements & replacing with original research
Gaza Health Ministry
1. 15:12, 13 May 2024
Rafah offensive
2. 09:55, 9 May 2024

General 1RR violations:

Rafah offensive
1. 09:55, 9 May 2024 - Referenced sentence removed
Palestinian political violence
2. 17:19, 8 May 2024 - User revert
War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war
3. 08.13, 25 April 2024 - Referenced sentence removed
Gaza–Israel conflict
4. 17:56, 24 April 2024 - User revert
Zionism
5. 21:05, 21 April 2024 - User revert
Israel and apartheid
6. 15:38, 21 April 2024 - User revert
Palestinian political violence
7. 14:35, 21 April 2024 - User revert
2024 Israeli strikes on Iran
8. 16:58, 19 April 2024 - User revert
9. 09:25, 19 April 2024 - Reverted to a previous version
10. 08:25, 19 April 2024 - Sentence removed without edit summary

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 11:20, 14 April 2024
Warned by another user about 1RR violation on 10:45, 14 April 2024. Did not self-revert.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I typically don't mind trivial 1RR violations if they were made in good faith. However, it struck me that the user had made hundreds of copy edits, from 20 to 31 March 2024, spamming categories to articles, in order to pass the 500 edit requirement for extended confirmed protection. Subsequently, they solely began editing controversial ECP articles in an aggressive manner. Additionally, it concerns me that the user was previously blocked for not disclosing their paid editing. Ecrusized (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the names of the articles above their diffs, if that is what you meant. User was warned about previous 1RR violations and enforcement. I have not warned them about their latest reverts since those edits have already been undone by other editors. Ecrusized (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

11:20, 14 April 2024

Discussion concerning Galamore

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 Galamore

Hi, everyone My name is Gal, Gal the teacher (in Hebrew with English letters it comes out GALAMORE). I entered Wikipedia because I wanted to write about technology, I wrote the article on Perplexity.ai (which received 568,902 views so far!!), after I wrote about a few more high-tech companies I was temporarily blocked and warned not to engage in business matters probably for fear of receiving money for it. Almost every morning, before I start teaching, I go to Wikipedia to edit and I enjoy it very much. I am Israeli, so the Israel related topics interest me. If it is relevant, politically, in Israel I believe in peace with our neighbors and want an end to wars. When I see something that is biased, I try to balance it and bring sources from both sides. Even if there is an Israeli editor who makes claims that are "in favor of Israel" but are not substantiated, I will correct it - because I truly believe in balanced coverage of topics. I am not obssessive to my edits, I just enjoy adding information and I think it is productive to humanity.

On this occasion, may I ask where and when can I request that the prohibition to write on tech companies be removed? Galamore (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

Regarding the WP:OR concerns:

At Rafah offensive they removed:

In addition, the offensive resulted in the temporary closure of the Kerem Shalom and Rafah crossings, further exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

In their edit summary they said Kerem Shalom was closed due to the Hamas attacks, and now reopened, this is wrong and outdated.

The first part of their claim appears to be correct; the source provided for the content says:

But Israel closed the Kerem Shalom crossing after a Hamas attack on Sunday killed four soldiers in the area, then mounted an incursion on Tuesday that closed the Rafah crossing along the border with Egypt.

At Gaza Health Ministry they changed the lede from:

The GHM's casualty reports have received significant attention during the course of the Gaza–Israel conflict. GHM's casualty reports are considered credible by two scientific studies published in The Lancet.

To:

The casualty reports issued by the GHM during the Israel–Hamas war have been subject to significant scrutiny. While some advocate for their accuracy, others cast doubt on their reliability.

This change appears defensible based on the body which includes claims that the figures are reliable alongside claims that they are unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Warned by another user about 1RR violation on 10:45, 14 April 2024. Did not self-revert.

They appear to have attempted to self revert this violation, with 07:52, 14 April 2024 - however they self-reverted the wrong edit, 07:09, 14 April 2024 rather than 07:36, 14 April 2024. BilledMammal (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Selfstudier has linked it and it relates to two of the editors involved here, this comment, which was made by Ecrusized, wasn't appropriate in my opinion:

the latest change seems to come from virtually inexperienced editors, Galamore and GidiD with a heavy Israeli bias

It only adds heat to the topic. BilledMammal (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

OP doesn't seem to know what 1RR means. Zero^talk 09:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

For the sake of completeness, see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Galamore, gaming the system Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the discussion Talk:Israel–Hamas war#UN changes reported casualty figures.Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Galamore

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

Ecrusized, can you break the 1RR violations down by article, and have they been warned about or asked to revert any 1RR violations? I don't see any engagement about that on their talk page. No comment yet on possible OR issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite and Drmies: just making sure you're aware this thread is here. The reported 1rr violations don't seem to be violations, but I am concerned about the edit warring over content that socks and editors banned and tbanned by Arbcom had been edit warring over. I try not to judge content choices unless there is a clear issue, and the edits to the lead are a summary of parts of the body. I think NPOV is a bit lacking, but it's not flagrant and I'm not sure if that alone is enough for action. Combining that with the history of the content being edit warred over brings me a lot closer to a sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I said at the AN/I thread: Speaking as the administrator who a few months ago indeffed Galamore as a suspected UPE, after they wrote several extremely promotional articles about non-notable subjects: this doesn't seem like gaming the system. This seems like somebody -- I despise more than anybody for this to be true, but I must admit it -- editing in good faith, or at least not doing anything visibly wrong, along the rules that we explicitly tell them that they have to follow. If we don't think that "500 edits and one month" is enough for someone to edit CT articles, we shouldn't have thousands of words of policy teling people, repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that making 500 edits and having an account for a month is required to edit CT articles. jp×g 🗯️ 19:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, are you at all concerned about their continuing an edit war primarily edited on one side by socks and people banned by Arbcom for off-wiki canvassing and proxying? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of the sanctioned topic in its own right, I defer to the judgment of persons such as yourself. jp×g 🗯️ 08:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the chance to dig into this yet (though I will try to over the next couple of days), but I will say that such guidelines should not be treated like black-letter law which can have "loopholes". We can take an extreme case, say that an editor makes an account, waits thirty days, and then runs a script which adds and then removes a single character from their sandbox 500 times. It is perfectly valid, in such a case, to say "That is not what we meant, and that doesn't count. Make 500 real edits before you start editing in this area." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if it is literally somebody adding and removing a period from their sandbox that is one thing, but if it's five hundred non-deleted, non-reverted edits that improve the articles they're being made on, we have to accept that this was what we told people to do. jp×g 🗯️ 08:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned at the AN posting about this, I saw the edits when they started editing in ARBPIA, and they looked constructive enough where I didn't take any action then. Those types of edits combined with immediately leaping into a long-term edit war that has been pushed by a sock, and had been supported by editors banned by Arbcom for off-wiki canvassing/proxying is more concerning, and I think that is where we should focus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I have indefinitely topic banned the filer of this report, which doesn't actually clear up my concerns about Galamore. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, I'm thinking a topic ban of 6 months and 500 edits in this circumstance. That forces more out-of-topic contributions, gives them more experience, and puts them further from any sock/proxy/canvass concerns. I'm also okay with no action if you're not convinced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't see doing anything time-limited here. If you're going to do any sanction, I think it ought to be indefinite, but very much in the "indefinite need not mean permanent" vein, and that constructive edits in other areas would likely be viewed favorably at a future appeal. I also don't think they've been previously warned, so unless I'm wrong about that, another thing to consider would be a logged warning, with a clear understanding that further issues will all but certainly result in a topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Logged warning for what, though? The NPOV stuff wasn't out of the norm. For me it really comes down to concerns about resuming an edit war where socks and canvased editors were originally taking part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would think for that? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A warning to not look suspicious? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AtikaAtikawa

Blocked one week for ECR violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning AtikaAtikawa

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Alalch E. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, WP:ECR

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

Background evidence: 18 May 2024 AtikaAtikawa knows how to post an edit request

Various comments on Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war (permalink)

16:29, 22 May 2024 Left prior to being notified about the extended-confirmed restriction at 16:36, 22 May 2024
17:29, 22 May 2024 Continues to comment after being notified saying "sadly I can't talk there", but he can not talk on the concerned page either
23 May 2024 Not an edit request
23 May 2024 Not an edit request

Creation of Israel–Palestine conflict userboxes

23 May 2024 Creates "From the river to the sea!" userbox
23 May 2024 Creates a repugnant userbox equating violent acts against Israel and Israeli population which includes atrocities against the Israeli population to a law of nature (action and reaction), thereby excusing even atrocities as natural, necessary and just
23 May 2024 Creates a polemical text as an apologia for violence including atrocities against civilians to prop up the repugnant userbox

Polemicizing in MfDs for the aforementioned userboxes:

25 May 2024 Polemical comment
25 May 2024 Polemical comment
25 May 2024 Polemical comment with a dose of wikilawyering
25 May 2024 Further comment
25 May 2024 Further comment

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, at 16:36, 22 May 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic: 17:29, 22 May 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor has eight mainspace edits. All of their mainspace edits have been made between January and September 2020. The editor has 177 total edits, of which 31.1% have been deleted. 69.7% of their live edits have been to userspace. The user is generally inactive as an editor of Wikipedia, but has increased activity probably due to interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict, but instead of resuming normal editorial activity, which would mean making edit requests for a while, the activity has been predominantly polemical. Therefore, seeing all of this user's edits in total, the user is WP:NOTHERE.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

Discussion concerning AtikaAtikawa

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 AtikaAtikawa

As for the comments on Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war. I acknowledge that I failed at understanding ECR limitations when I made them; A rookie mistake that stems from the fact that I just started having interest in editing Wikipedia, and I'm still familiarising myself with the rules. In fact I was warned and I did obey. Briefly, I acknowledge my mistake here.

As for the userboxes. I hope that you take into consideration my arguments in their MfD entries. Basically, I think that Alalch E. is assuming bad faith since he is accusing me of endorsing violence and deeming atrocities as just with no basis, and I think that I actually clarified that through the documentation that the filer deemed as "apologia for violence including atrocities against civilians" when it is just a statement of a viewpoint, that is against violence from both sides.

As for the polemical comments. They were basically just answers to comments that were polemical themselves rather than referring clearly to policies that I did break. I totally understands that two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm really open to advices that concern how could I have handled this better.

As stated above, I'm well aware that I'm unexperienced, and I hope that my niche interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict will not be somehow held against me, rather I hope for whatever answer I'll get to this to contain referrals to the rules I broke in order to be mindful to them from now on.

I acknowledge that my behaviour was suboptimal, and I acknowledge that it did stem from a potential lack of understanding the rules from my part, and I welcome any decision that comes from your part with the hope that it will serve the noble goal of making me a better editor with a better service to the encyclopedia rather than punishment just for the sake of it.— Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 15:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Technical picky point, defendant is non EC and not permitted to make statements here (or anywhere, really). An admin could/should deal with this? Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the power invested in me as an editor (or admin, if you insist), IAR :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Kip

Seconding Selfstudier here - the defendant is several hundred edits short of XC status anyways, so this should be a fairly textbook warning (or TBAN) for violating the ARBPIA XC restriction rather than a drawn-out AE case. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vice regent

@Alalch E.: can you remove this inflammatory comment? There are AGF interpretations of AtikaAtikawa's userbox, and these were given by Robert McClenon and Chaotic Enby. AtikaAtikawa themself wrote that the userbox doesn't support political violence, yet you still throw words like "pro-terrorism" around, and that raises the temperature.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning AtikaAtikawa

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

Blocked one week for ECR violations. Didn't go with a topic ban because they're already prohibited from editing about the topic except for making constructive edit requests on article talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User has managed to land themselves at AE at 183 edits, ~170 which have no effect on mainspace (and of those remaining 13, most are from 2020). That rings some WP:NOTHERE alarm bells for me... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just went with my standard block for ECR violations. I have no objection to further sanctions, or just letting it ride and seeing if their behavior improves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by אקעגן

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

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

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

Sanction being appealed: 1 week block for ECR violations

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

Notification of that administrator

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

Statement by אקעגן

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

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

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

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

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

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

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by אקעגן

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

Statement by starship.paint

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

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

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

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

Statement by Selfstudier

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

Result of the appeal by אקעגן

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

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

Sentaso

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

Request concerning Sentaso

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1226739756

Discussion concerning Sentaso

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

Statement by Sentaso

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Duplicate content, see my point 2 above.

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

8. Duplicate content

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sentaso

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

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

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

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

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

LokiTheLiar

No issues with the notification to the LGBT Wikiproject. BilledMammal, when you're frequently the target of accusations that you're weaponizing AE maybe don't weaponize AE in this way. You're more than aware of the community consensus around these notifications, as you've been involved in some of the discussions where it has come up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning LokiTheLiar

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: LokiTheLiar (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

Notified a partisan forum, violating WP:CANVASS. They were aware of this issue, and the RfC that this is a repeat of raised the same issue, but they rejected it and decided to issue the notification anyway.

That this is canvassing can be seen in the evidence below, which analyses three recent RfC's held at the Village Pump and proves that the WikiProject is non-representative on this topic, with a collective opinion that deviates by a significant margin from that of the broader community. These WP:ARBCOM principles are also relevant (emphasis mine):

Participation:

The determination of proper consensus is vulnerable to unrepresentative participation from the community. Because of the generally limited number of editors likely to participate in any given discussion, an influx of biased or partisan editors is likely to generate an improper illusion of a consensus where none (or a different one) would exist in a wider population.

Canvassing:

While it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided.

Note that this only applies to transgender topics. As far as I know the Wikiproject is not partisan on other topics within its area of interest and thus there are no issues with notifying them on those topics.

Extended content

Discussion	Group	Support		Oppose
Discussion	Group	Count	Percent	Count	Percent
RFC: Names of deceased trans people	Members	9	82%	2	18%
	Non-members	32	52%	30	48%
	Both	41	56%	32	44%
RfC: Proposed addition to MOS:GENDERID - when to include deadnames	Members	10	83%	2	17%
	Non-members	26	37%	45	63%
	Both	36	43%	47	57%
Topic 1: What principal reference? (MOS:GENDERID 1st paragraph)	Members	10	100%	0	0%
	Non-members	33	69%	15	31%
	Both	43	74%	15	26%

Discussion	Group	Option 1		Option 2		Option 3		Option 4
Discussion	Group	Count	Percent	Count	Percent	Count	Percent	Count	Percent
Topic 2: When to mention deadnames? (MOS:GENDERID 2nd/3rd paragraphs)	Members	0	0%	4	29%	10	71%	0	0%
	Non-members	5	7%	15	21%	30	43%	20	29%
	Both	5	6%	19	22%	40	48%	20	24%
Topic 3: How often to mention deadnames? (MOS:GENDERID 3rd paragraph*)	Members	0	0%	1	9%	10	91%	0	0%
	Non-members	2	5%	10	25%	13	33%	14	35%
	Both	2	4%	11	22%	23	46%	14	28%

"Members" are determined by either being listed on the member list or having made five or more edits to the talk page

For multi-choice RfC's, editors who voted equally for multiple options were placed in both categories. Editors who voted "No" were placed in "No change".

Other issues related to this RfC including misrepresenting sources; they have claimed that the Telegraph promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school - but none of the articles they provide in support of this claim promotes it, and one of them actually states such claims are a hoax.

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)

Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive323#Colin.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There was a consensus in that discussion that notifying Wikiprojects is almost never canvassing; given the number of editors who qualified their comments there wasn’t a consensus that it never is.

Further, this is a contentious topic; editors should stay well clear of violating policy, and notifying a fora that is known to be partisan isn’t doing that, regardless of what you believe consensus at an informal and non-specific discussion says. 12:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: APPNOTE is clear that it doesn't create an exception to INAPPNOTE; Do not send inappropriate notices, as defined in the section directly below BilledMammal (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LokitheLiar: Our article on the hoax is about literal litterboxes, and at no point in your !vote do you suggest - even with the close reading Colin suggests - that you are talking about anything other than literal litterboxes.

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: I haven’t read the DRV, but I haven't seen the consensus upheld even once in the past month; the VPP per above, while the rest the question was only considered by a couple of editors - and as a general note, why would you want to notify a partisan forum? (And FYI, you mischaracterise FFF’s post) BilledMammal (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: What part of In one case, it promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school every day for a week, and even when the hoax was proven false they didn't retract or correct any of it is them not saying that the telegraph was promoting the litter box in school hoax - a hoax that, I shouldn't need to state, involves litter boxes in schools? Even interpreting it more broadly, on the basis of a couple of examples in the article, to include any hoax related to claimed accommodations for otherkin, doesn't make Loki's claim any more truthful - none of the sources they provided claim any accommodations.

Since I'm commenting, as a general note - editors at the village pump discussion are now saying that this is the correct place to take concerns, when supported by evidence, that notifying a specific WikiProject is a WP:CANVASS violation. BilledMammal (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

08:33, 3 June 2024

Discussion concerning LokiTheLiar

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 LokiTheLiar

I anticipated that this user would make a tendentious report like this based on comments made on previous discussions, which is why I asked the village pump about this situation before I did it.

In short, there is a strong and recent community consensus that notifying all relevant Wikiprojects is not WP:CANVASSING. And I would like to point out to any admins evaluating here that BilledMammal must know this because they participated in the thread. Loki (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If NYB needs it to be satisfied, my response is per Colin: despite the title, a literal litter box is not really the subject of the litter boxes in schools hoax. The actual claim at issue is students identifying at animals with school support, all of which are met by the articles I linked. We even have examples in the article itself with no literal litter box alleged. Loki (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't deny I'm very sympathetic to YFNS's argument for a WP:BOOMERANG. I think that pursuing this argument at WP:AE days after it was rejected at the village pump is clearly tendentious, and I also think that BM is not going to stop trying to bring people to drama boards for this, some possibly not as well prepared for it. Loki (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A statement by starship.paint

I'm really not sure about this. Is it a surprise that WP:LGBT would be partisan on LGBT issues? No. But is the topic of the coverage of trans issues by the Telegraph related to WP:LGBT? Definitely yes? starship .paint (RUN) 09:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Echoing starship.paint. In AI area, we routinely post to 3 projects, one each on either side and the other theoretically neutral. Here there is no other "side" so presumably editors with an interest in the subject matter camp out at the given project and then we are led to believe there is evidence that this forum is "partisan". Not convinced that this is a sufficient reason to invoke canvassing, though, it's not as if it isn't being done in plain sight and projects are seemingly a natural place to advertise a discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

This is a particularly frivolous report that has been brought.
Per WP:APPNOTE:
An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.

This should be closed with no action. TarnishedPath^talk 12:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal, it is clear that the behavioural guideline says one or more WikiProjects. If you contend that the posting was inappropriate per WP:INAPPNOTE then you need to bring specific evidence beyond them posting to only one WikiProjects which is clearly allowed per WP:APPNOTE. The implicit contention of your whole argument is that WikiProject LGBT studies would only have editors of one side and none other. I find your argument extremely lacking. TarnishedPath^talk 13:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Colin

Suggest trout for BilledMammal. Wrt "Other issues related to this RfC including misrepresenting sources; they have claimed that the Telegraph promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school - but none of the articles they provide in support of this claim makes it, and one of them actually states such claims are a hoax.". But reading the opening paragraph makes it clear to any careful reader that Loki is complaining the Telegraph reported that the school let a child identify as a cat, not that they provided litter trays. Loki goes onto say this is an example of "this general style of dubious claim in right wing media" which is discussed at our article on the litter tray hoax. The specifics of this one UK example doesn't include litter trays, but it contains all the other elements including continued coverage of the story after debunking. I admit that in my comments later in the RFC, I referred to it as "the cat litter story", which was my own carelessness. So what Loki claimed is directly supported by the sources (heading: "School that allowed child to identify as cat faces government investigation", "School engulfed in ‘cat gender’ row turns to parents for views on self-identity", "Schools let children identify as horses, dinosaurs... and a moon", etc) One can debate how closely this tracks the cat litter hoax or not, but I don't think Loki misrepresented the source. Multiple other sources have criticised the Telegraph story as an example of something too good to check and patently false so on. So this isn't something Loki just invented themselves. -- Colin°^Talk 13:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I don't think it is helpful for Loki and BilledMammal to argue about the focus/content of our Litter boxes in schools hoax article. The point is that a close reading of Loki's post at the RFC does not in fact say the Telegraph article was about litter boxes, vs about children identifying (and being allowed to) as cats in schools. Which is patent nonsense. Anyone is allowed to make a mistake, but when claiming someone else is egregiously wrong as part of a sanctions request, being told that in fact this mistake is on you demands retraction and perhaps recognition that one is overcooking things. -- Colin°^Talk 07:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. I was referring to this RSN discussion where Loki wrote what I said he did and in which I participated. Seems there's now a second discussion on the very same page about the same thing. WTF Loki, what a mess. Didn't you RTM about not polling unless there was a clear consensus for your proposal? It was already an uphill battle to convince anyone to deprecate the Telegraph on this matter without you opening with careless comments about the cat litter story and then essentially saying that because they don't accept trans women are women, or have been interviewing The Wrong People, the are actually unreliable vs just believe different things to you. BilledMammal apologies about this. I think part of your latest post here is still wrong, but this isn't the forum to discuss that. Overall, though, I think BilledMammal should withdraw this. Being Wrong on the Internet isn't a crime and hasn't helped Loki's RFC. The notification thing clearly isn't something you've persuaded people here about, so likely is an area that needs some work elsewhere, where it isn't focussing on an individual. Since the RFC is a spectacular failure anyway, couldn't you just have got some popcorn? -- Colin°^Talk 12:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by -sche

Suggest trout for BilledMammal per Colin and TarnishedPath; notifying relevant wikiprojects (Loki notified the journalism, LGBT and UK projects and the NEWS page) is well- and long-established as fine, and (as pointed out above) was just recently affirmed. That BilledMammal presented his argument so recently in the VPP and consensus was clearly that notifying relevant projects is appropriate makes this filing look...tendentious; I don't know if it's forum-shopping per se, but it comes across as WP:IDHT-y. -sche (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the additional context YFNS provided, which I was not aware of, BM's filing looks an awful lot like forum-shopping. I admit to not recalling what the differences in implication between a warning and a trout are (they're both basically telling the user 'you shouldn't've done that', yes? but a trout is friendlier?); may someone apply whichever they deem more appropriate. -sche (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

BM should recieve a warning, not just a trout, for wasting the community's time for a month over this issue and this ridiculous filing based on WP:IDHT. Some context:

April 30 - May 1: BM argues that notifying WT:LGBT of a deletion discussion for WP:No queerphobes is canvassing. It is closed as a keep.
May 8: An editor takes the discussion to DRV, arguing it was canvassing - nobody endorses this
May 8: FFF tells BM this is not canvassing
May 26: BM tries to relitigate "notifying WT:LGBT of LGBT discussions is canvassing" at an RSN discussion. I hat the discussion noting the MFD, DRV, and discussions upholding this consensus from a decade ago.
May 26: BM asks me to unhat, I politely decline but say others can unhat, reiterating this is attempting to relitigate a decade old consensus and referring to the MFD and DRV
May 27: Loki launches the aforementioned VP discussion on the issue, where there's an overwhelming consensus it is not canvassing. BM participates in the thread
June 3, here we are....

BM is attempting to sanction an editor for upholding a consensus that BM is not only aware has existed for a decade, but has been re-affirmed 3 times in the last month. WP:TE and WP:IDHT are obvious. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing BM's comment: I haven’t read the DRV but I haven't seen the consensus upheld even once in the past month - WP:IDHT even at AE, with threads and diffs linked (which also link to discussions from a decade ago).

Addressing the question bordering on a personal attack: and as a general note, why would you want to notify a partisan forum? - for the love of god will an uninvolved admin warn them about this continued WP:BATTLEGROUND claim and tell them to WP:DROPTHESTICK on it?

Btw, BM, as a sociologist - a friendly note your methodology behind the "evidence" of "partisanship" is self-evidently flawed: you never polled the oppose votes to ask if they were notified via WT:LGBT... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning LokiTheLiar

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

I see a good-faith effort to comply with the canvassing policy, and would find no misconduct with respect to that issue. I ask Loki to respond briefly to the "misrepresenting sources" allegation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The community has found time after time that these notifications are fine when made with a neutral statement. If NYB hadn't already responded I would have just closed this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @ScottishFinnishRadish: I'd be okay with that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Close with no action against LokiTheLiar. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to Newyorkbrad, I'm not seeing any misconduct in the notification. I don't think LokiTheLiar's actions warrant sanctions based on the complaint. That said, there's a secondary question of whether WP:LGBT is actually biased in a way that violates Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I remember conduct issues with ARS, roads, and weather WikiProjects, so it's possible. Only Arbcom is really qualified to investigate that, and I'd note that it would take a lot more evidence than what was presented here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JDiala

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

Request concerning JDiala

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [23] by @Doug Weller

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Discussion concerning JDiala

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

Statement by JDiala

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

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

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

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

Statement by Rajoub570

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

Statement by kashmiri

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

Statement by Zanahary

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

Statement by Coffee Crumbs

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

Statement by BilledMammal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by The Kip

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

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

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

Statement by Red Rock Canyon

I am not involved in this case, but I saw this user's edits on the Leo Frank talk page. [24] is a lie, since even the line in the lead had another source right before the CNN one. It is not credible that they somehow missed it. And this [25] is worse. I see that this editor was already warned for these comments, but I think the warning is insufficient. They should not be allowed to edit any article that has anything to do with Jews. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

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

Statement by Longhornsg

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

Statement by Makeandtoss

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

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

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

Result concerning JDiala

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

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

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

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

This sort of behaviour goes back at least December 2014 when I warned them over a statement thye made that seemed a breach of the sanctions {"perverse, POV Zionist narrative" which he then struck through}. Looking at that I found this post to an editor who is no longer around.[26] See the whole paragraph starting with "Classic Jewish supremacism." I don't think this will change and would support a TB from the s-i area. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dustfreeworld

Dustfreeworld is indefinitely topic banned from medical topics, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Dustfreeworld

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dustfreeworld (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:ARBCAM and WP:ARBPS

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

[27] 5 June 2024—WP:PROFRINGE whitewashing
[28] 5 June 2024—tag bombing
Almost all their edits at Reiki 4 June 2024—tag bombing

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 [29] 30 May 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

“Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Quoted from PMID: 15208545. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld: You cry consensus too many times, like the boy who cried wolf. I don't think you got a consensus, either at NPOVN, or at the article talk page. E.g. two of your edit summaries at Talk:Reiki claim consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld: ignorant appears twice at the definition at [30]. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld: I don't think you had consensus around 18:00 UTC, today, since at 17:13 UTC Valjean strongly disagreed with you at NPOVN. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld: pointless tautology does not mean that the claim would be false (being a tautology means it's always true, regardless of circumstances). must be cited to a source that says its practice has been characterized as quackery, not just sources that call it quackery does not mean it should not be called quackery, it just means rejecting the words "characterized as quackery". The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, and there is nothing about such aspects in the article. means what it literally means. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: I warned them about contentious topics because they have tag-bombed Detoxification (alternative medicine). tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie: You're right: I tried to approach this diplomatically by giving them an awareness notification for controversial topics, followed by hints that what they do is not commendable. But this all was more or less guessiology on my behalf, till they replied here: they are still unaware they are doing something not commendable, and that is a WP:CIR issue in respect to alt-med articles. That is, if their intentions were unclear to us beforehand, now it is perfectly clear where they are coming from. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld: About "granting your consensus": it's a mystery to me how you can read all what I wrote here, but still have no WP:CLUE what I've meant. The same applies to WP:RULES: you appear to have read all the applying WP:RULES, but you still have no idea what their purpose is. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld: The truth is that if you did not double down on your claims at this venue, the end result would have been leaving you largely unscathed (as an editor). But you show a conspicuous lack of awareness that your edits are seen as problematic. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustfreeworld: Sometimes the best strategy in a dispute is admit you were wrong, accept your defeat, and back off from the dispute. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[31] 5 June 2024

Discussion concerning Dustfreeworld

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 Dustfreeworld

For pt 1, the 1st diff, my paraphrased ES:

Remove poorly sourced material (contentious labels) that may damage the reputation of Reiki practitioners / participants, per WP:PROVEIT: “Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of [living people] or existing groups”

All contentious labels I removed were supported by non-MEDRS sources (>10 years or opinion pieces / blog posts of maybe COI authors (e.g., David of SBM).

For pt 2, the 2nd diff, my ES (tag subpar sources per policies, consensus, & potential derogatory claims from maybe COI of SBM):

*[32]

FYI, it’s made before the one above, i.e. I tagged before I removed (not needed per WP:PROVEIT, a section of WP:V; I tagged first just for transparency).

For pt 3, all edits on 4/6 were reverted, & my response (another ES, prior to the above 2) to “overtag” (“overtag” because many dated sources, & switched to section tag from inline tag):

*[33]

My edits’re *not* “pro fringe whitewash” as the OP claimed, (& I've never tried Reiki, not a proponent, & don’t have any RL association with it). Edits are based on consensus on NPOVN:

Special:Diff/1227423119 [34]

And our WP:V policy (WP:PROVEIT), WP:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source, WP:V#Best_sources & WP:BESTSOURCES (in WP:NPOV; as opposed to poor sources). (Article’s talk page: [35]. Further, this is the main reason for my edits. Reiki is a relatively safe practice of which the practitioners haven't claimed their practice as "scientific". We shouldn’t state potentially false claims from advocates, against them in Wikivoice). The OP's claim is untrue. Thx. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu, there’re words like fraud, fraudulent (twice), pretender & pretends in "quackery". Further, what I’m talking about is, the views, feelings, & their definition of "quackery", of a Reiki practitioner (who is alleged as a pseudoscience/quackery practitioner by us) & his/her children, & the classmates; & also those who receive Reiki. Thx --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu, if you think that 5 editors at NPOVN together with at least 2-4 more on article’s talk with similar opinion don’t constitute consensus, I don’t know what to say. Thx again. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I’m glad that you agree with me that there’s consensus at NPOVN before 17:13 UTC 5 June. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most reliable source described Reiki as “complementary”, e.g., [36] &,

Vic.gov.au
- ”.. standards of practice and codes of ethics” ... “Reiki is a complementary therapy. In Australia, .. provided in many hospitals, palliative care hospices.. to support the relief of side effects, reduce pain and promote wellness.”

I can't find any high-quality source that describes Reiki as “quackery”.

I don’t think tagging elderly sources, contentious label^{[contentious label]} (Per our MOS, Words to watch: cult, racist, pseudo- ...),etc. is “tag bombing” as the OP said. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tgeorgescu; I know some practitioners may be quackery, & we can include that info with high-quality sources. What we shouldn’t do is, claiming that all of them, the whole thing, are quackery, in wikivoice. Thx. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full version --Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrOllie

Dustfreeworld's own statements in response to this report are plenty to demonstrate the problem here. The ideas expressed above include: that Wikipedia cannot acknowledge that Reiki is pseudoscience and quackery for fear of damaging the reputation of Reiki practitioners, and that a surgical oncologist has a conflict of interest on the subject by virtue of their profession. This shows a lack of competence to edit in this topic area. I would suggest a topic ban from altmed, broadly construed. - MrOllie (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Given the attempt by Dustfreeworld at WP:NPOVN to argue in favour of parity between knowledge and ignorance on the basis that doing otherwise might upset someone's feelings, [37] I'd have to suggest that the scope of the obviously necessary topic ban needs to be broad. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dustfreeworld

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

Looking at the discussion at NPOVN, the edits made by Dustfreeworld do not match any consensus I see there. It's so far off from the thrust of that discussion that is either deliberate misrepresentation or a CIR issue. I'm leaning towards a topic ban, although I'd have to see how widespread the issues are before deciding on scope. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We may argue about the need to use the word "quackery" here. But Dustfreeworld has been removed the word "pseudoscience/pseudoscientific" as well, about which there is absolutely no debate amongst reality-based sources. Whitewashing useless "medical remedies" is simply doing a dis-service to readers; indeed I'd go as far as to say that it's bordering on vandalism. I would look at a full, and indefinite, topic ban on all medical topics, whether they are scientific or not. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skitash

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

Request concerning Skitash

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles WP:1RR

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

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

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

Discussion concerning Skitash

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

Statement by Skitash

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Skitash

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

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

[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]