Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345

Rasteem

Latest comment: 4 days ago21 comments8 people in discussion

Rasteem is topic banned from the subject of India and Pakistan, broadly construed, until both six months have elapsed and they have made 500 edits after being notified of this sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:42, 6 December 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 Rasteem

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rasteem (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:ARBIPA

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

07:15, 21 September 2024 - Introduces close paraphrased content into an article [1]
04:14, 30 October 2024 - Moves a page against the naming convention.
02:59, 1 November 2024 - Edit wars over the same page move with another user while calling it vandalism .
13:52, 9 November 2024 - Does not understand that he is edit warring in spite of being warned about it and doing exactly that.
13:58, 9 November 2024 - Labels edit warring warning he received from me as "retaliatory" when I never interacted with him before this encounter.
14:21, 9 November 2024 - Calling a general sanctions alert on caste topics as a "retaliatory warning".
00:51, 10 November 2024 - Accuses another editor of POV pushing when no one other than him was making a pseudohistorical claim that Zafar Khan of Muzaffarid dynasty was a Jat contravening the academic discussion on the same.
03:00, 10 November 2024 - Claims that he only made a single revert when he has made 3 in 24 hours. [2][3][4]
01:32, 10 November 2024 -Misidentifying an academic Priyanka Khanna with a fashion designer to remove sourced content [5]
11:28 10 November 2024 - Removes good faith talkpage message about above and a general note regarding using minor edits while calling them retaliatory.
01:49, 15 November 2024 - Does not understand WP:BRD, immediately restores his content after being reverted and then asks others to follow BRD.
17:31, 15 November 2024 - Tells others to follow WP:BRD while edit warring to restore his own edits that were reverted, the irony is lost on him.
01:13, 18 November 2024 - Tries to poison the well against me based on a made up on the spot rule ("2RR") when I simply gave my feedback which was requested by an Admin before granting their WP:PERM/RB request.
02:00, 25 November 2024 - Abuses warning templates on a new user's talkpage and then reverts the user when they clear their page. Also review this revision history of their page to see the severity of abuse of warning templates and WP:BITEY behaviour.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [6]

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Date (see the system log linked to above).
Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: Rasteem is repeatedly failing to meet the standards of acceptable behavior, biting new users, and assuming hostility and bad faith on the part of established editors. His editing in this topic area has been tendentious.Despite being alerted sanctions on caste and WP:ARBIPA, he continues to take part in this behavior and displays WP:CIR issues. There may also be a language barrier given his poorly written or incomprehensible responses. To prevent further disruption in this highly contentious area, I believe a topic ban is the minimum necessary measure here.Nxcrypto Message 10:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a lot to unpack in the wall of text posted by Rasteem.

6th - This is entirely misleading [7]. You did not address how my warning was retaliatory, in fact you are basically still saying that my first ever interaction with you was still somehow retaliatory, this explains it better than I can do
7th -It was not a copy edit, you used a poor cited source(that doesn't have an author) for pushing his caste as Jat, the source in question & quotation in question was added by you in the first place[8].Wikipedia is not a place for boosting a certain caste.
8th - You say that you understand what 3RR is but you are still claiming that making 3 reverts in 24 hours violates it which is not correct.
10th - If you are allowed to remove your messages after you read them, why did you restore your warnings on a newcomer's talkpage, if they have removed it themselves?
13th - Bringing up the conduct of other users in order to make their comments less valid when your own edits are under scrutiny is classic Poison the well fallacy. Your continued attempt to defend that hostile stance there is concerning
14th - You were simply told to leave warnings, not abuse them, abuse is when you give warnings that are not appropriate. I can see that you have given that user multiple final level warnings for vandalism when they clearly did not vandalise, see WP:NOTVANDAL and you are not supposed to issue a warning that is meant to be final again and again, for example you reverted this addition of hyperlinks by a new user @HistorianAlferedo: and issued them a final warning for vandalism,[9] when no one would ever regard that edit as vandalism. You reverted this sourced and well explained edit by the same user and gave them a final warning for vandalism[10][11] Similar thing here [12] [13]. You also restored your warnings after they had cleared them despite being aware of the fact that when a user clears their talkpage it is assumed they have read it. The fact that you do not understand that you were abusing the warnings and are now deflecting the blame saying admins told you to do that is very concerning. Nxcrypto Message 02:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested[14]

Discussion concerning Rasteem

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 Rasteem

Answers

1. This was my first sourced article. I wasn't aware of close paraphrasing. After this note,[15] I didn't repeat this mistake.

2. & 3. I moved Hoysala Kingdom > Hoysala kingdom twice. I thought the word "Kingdom" was not part of the full name. After this notice,[16] I didn't repeat such mistakes.

5. On Political marriages in India there was a content dispute among different editors.[17] I had talked to the editor who reverted my edits, explained to him why I considered his GC note as retaliatory. [18]

6. About General notice of GSCASTE. I gave an explanation to the editor who gave me this notice and explained to him why I considered his warning a retaliatory (see answer#5 & diif #[4]).

7. Addition in Zafar Khan's paragraph as Jat ruler was a copyedit per the cited source.^[1] I wasn't trying to promote a specific POV.

8. On 9 November, I accidentally committed a 3RR violation. At the time, 'I was unaware that the 3RR was not only about making 3 reverts using Twinkle. Please accept my apology considering it my first mistake. 'when I said I didn't conduct an edit war, I said it in the sense that I made only 2 reverts using the Twinkle'.

9. There are multiple authors named Priyanka Khanna. I thought journal written by this author[19] but actually was written by this.[20]

10. As I'm allowed to remove own talk page messages after reading it. For explainations about retaliatory warning (see answers #5)

11. & 12. On 14 November after this revert, I didn't make further reverts on this page.[21] And left a notice on Talk:page[22] regarding recent revert and removal of content.

13. I gave a reply to Crypto's comment.[23] I gave there my explanation; it wasn't in the intention of Poison in the well.

14. I was advised by admin that you have to leave an edit warning for every revert you made without checking edits of a user. I asked him, Will it be Back Bitting?[24] If I give many warnings for each revert I made or just after their 1st or 2nd vandalism. He said that's incorrect, & it is necessary to leave an edit warning for each revert.[25]

I've condensed my answers to fit the word limit, but I kindly request a slight extension to provide a more accurate and comprehensive summary. As this is my first time at WP:ARE ®asteem Talk 22:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

^ Indian History. Allied Publishers. 1988. pp. B_131. ISBN 978-81-8424-568-4.

Further answers

6. You didn't ask me for the clarification so I didn't get a chance to clarify. In this conversation I discussed how many warnings I considered retaliatory and for what reasons.[26]

7. Your provided diff is an older one when I added 3 paragraphs with four sources.[27] Later I removed the word 'Jat'[28] from this paragraph, then I thought someone would object why I removed this word then I copyedited.[29]

8. I think I understand the 3RR rule.

13. My clarification on the rollback request was just to reply to Crypto's comment.

14. I just gave a warning notice for each revert I made (See some disruptive edits).[30][31][32][33][34]

I reverted this edit[35] per WP:CASTECRUFT.
This edit removed the word 'Yaduvanshi rulers' & added random 2-3 links.[36]
This edit removed the content 'Chaudhary family & Lohar clan of Rajputs'.[37]

Users are allowed to blank their talk pages, so restoration of the old revision was not required. It was in the sense user learn nothing from their past disruptions & I was compelled to report user at WP:AIV.

Femke, Thank you for clarifying the 3RR rule for me. I'll step back from making mistakes & I'll make sure I understand the policies before discussing them. I will focus on the content rather than the person in future. I admit it was not a good practice leaving warning even after 3-4 warnings. Yes, I did report this user at AIV.[38]

Seraphimblade, ScottishFinnishRadish, I had a content dispute with two editors, and with one of them, I've talked and settled the dispute. The person who reported me here, I didn't get a chance to talk to him; that's my bad luck. Please don't topic ban me, as I've already slowed down editing in contentious areas. I've tried hard to refrain from repeating such first-time mistakes. I assure you I will not repeat these mistakes again. I've already accepted my mistakes, also shown by my behavior; I've always refrained from repeating it. ®asteem Talk 17:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note for Admin:

My first & last interactions with NXcrypto was limited to Political marriages in India there we had a content dispute. On my rollback request, he was asked for his opinion: "He claimed Rasteem is on the verge of the topic ban." Later, he filed this report instead of resolving the content dispute on article's talk page. This report seems like a coordinated attempt to get rid of edit disputes from Arbitration Enforcement. I'll request the admin please also consider this and check my contributions that is largely for reverting vandalism at RC patrol.[39]

Above in my answers I acknowledge and apologize for the mistakes I made, all of which were first-time errors those I didn't repeat. (just noting that this is a comment by User:Rasteem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC))Reply

Seraphimblade I respect your decision & appreciate your involvement in this report. I've seen your closing comment.[40] I kindly request you consider reducing the six-month period of topic ban, if possible, since most of the mistakes I made were first-time errors. If not possible, you can please ban me without the condition of an unban appeal after the time period of my fixed ban.? I asked for it because I've read the comment of admin:Valereee that the appeal is very hard[41] even though I'm not fully aware of the policies of WP:ARE. ®asteem Talk 05:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by LukeEmily

Looking at their edit history, I think Rasteem is doing a good job across wikipedia. I have had very brief interactions with @Rasteem:. Came across this page when I was posting a message on their talkpage and was surprised to find this complaint. I do not see any POV pushing for any caste by Rasteem. Most of the above items seem to be unintentional innocent mistakes - made by many senior editors - and I will go through each of them one by one. For example, Priyanka Khanna misidentification might just be because google showed up the incorrect search results. They are also polite, for example - [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=prev&oldid=1256533002 ] here they even apologised to @Adamantine123: although it was not necessary. I don't think any ban is necessary.LukeEmily (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rasteem

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

Definitely seeing some caste shenanigans and edit warring, although the edit warring is fairly widespread. Interested in seeing the response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Rasteem: your response is now over 2,000 words. Per the instructions, can you please summarize this within 500 words and 20 diffs or ask for a (small!) extension to the word limit and summarize it to the new word limit. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Rasteem, you're again over the word limit. I'll grant you a 200-word extension for your "Further answers", so please condense this significantly. Also, please avoid "shouting" via excessive bolding and colouring.

On the merits: in general, Rasteem is not the only to resort to disruptive behavior: there is too little discussion. In particular, Rasteem, you really need to WP:focus on content, rather than on the person. For edit warring, I expect an editor of your tenure to know that (a) you don't need to break the 3RR red line for something to count as edit warring. Experienced editors usually use BRD, meaning they only do 1 revert. (b) violating 3RR means at least 4 reverts, not 3. Move warring in particular is really not done (and WP:RM/TR is not the place for contentious moves. A normal WP:RM is). In terms of warning a new user, 4 final warnings does not make any sense, please ensure you report to AIV instead. The advice to leave a warning on each revert does not apply after 4 warnings. It's a good sign you admit when you're wrong in some cases, but you need to step back and ensure you understand policies before talking about them.

Given the willingness to learn, I wonder if a WP:1RR restriction and a warning for WP:civility might suffice. I'm not against a topic ban either. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rasteem: you're still well over the 700 word count (>1300). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think this is more a case of trying to go too far, too fast than any malicious intent, but in a highly contentious area, that can be every bit as disruptive, Regardless, once you know other editors are objecting to what you're doing, it's time to slow down and talk to them, not just carry right on. I think I would favor a topic ban at this time, but with the expectation that if Rasteem shows constructive editing and discussion in other areas for a good period of time, it is likely that such a topic ban could be lifted by a future appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Do you think a time and edit topic ban would fit here, or just a standard topic ban that has to be appealed? I find that the time and edit topic bans are a bit lighter-weight without letting people just sit them out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think the time-plus-edits topic ban is an interesting idea. If you've found them to work well, I don't have any objection to that. I think it's normally six months with 500 edits? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's generally how I do them. Saves the effort of an appeal if there has been no issues brought up during the tban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do prefer the user need not appeal, and in particular when they believe they're making a sincere attempt to learn. Appeals are hard. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hard for the appellant, and it's not exactly as if we're overflowing with administrators here, so it's a benefit all around. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is acceptable to me too. They seem keen to learn, and doing that outside of a contentious topic area for a while would be useful for them. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It appears that the consensus is for a topic ban from the India-Pakistan area for 6 months and 500 edits outside the topic area, whichever comes later. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by InedibleHulk

Latest comment: 1 day ago24 comments11 people in discussion

The American politics topic ban on InedibleHulk is lifted., while the GENSEX topic ban remains in place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, 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: InedibleHulk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: WP:CT/AP. (Original 1-year site ban, appeal converting this into t-bans)

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

Notification of that administrator: Here.

Statement by InedibleHulk

I was originally banned on July 13, 2023, for mostly GENSEX reasons. Since then, I've avoided both contentious topics and barely bothered anyone in other fields. The elections now over, what I perceive to be the problem others foresaw me causing is moot, and I'd like to be able to clean up uncontroversial articles like (but not strictly limited to) Mike Sherstad and Joseph Serra. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure I understand Femke's question. Problems (namely using female pronouns for a mass murderer most believed was a man and for too heavily arguing my case) led to my block; repeated assurance that I would stop eventually led to my unblock. I think the "avoid American politics" part came up because mass murder and gender disputes were hot-button issues at the time; some wanted me banned from gun control instead. It may have had something to do with things I said in previous elections about how Trump was preferable to Clinton or how Harris should have beat Biden. I didn't really have much to feel or say about Trump vs Harris, even if I could have, and that much hasn't changed. I was only as interested as I was in Trump's prior campaigns because he was a pro wrestling personality; now that he's more fully transitioned into a regular politician, I'll let politics regulars handle him, his opponents and whatever resultant subtopics and drama. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

If this doesn't address the circumstances of the ban/block and explain why this editing restriction is no longer necessary, I don't know what will. The elections are over and I've lost interest in the only politicians I've bickered about here. If there's something else this restriction was meant to stop that I haven't addressed, please, be specific. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

And while this appeal seeks an AP2 unban alone, I think GoodDay is right that I might prove myself an improved GENSEX editor now as well, if given that chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

To be clear, this is still entirely an AP2 appeal. I wouldn't mind a GENSEX unban, as "gravy", and have certainly learned my DEADNAME lesson long ago. But discussing both at once would get confusing and I run into far more AP2 pages "randomly", so that leads. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

ScottishFinnishRadish, my issue with your issue is that I wasn't topic-banned (from AP2) for any particular issue, so I can't say what I'll do to avoid whatever it is except to say I'll let politics regulars handle him, his opponents and whatever resultant subtopics and drama.

Femke, I agree that my summaries are often misunderstood. They have been for almost 19 years and, as always, when confusion arises, I try to explain. In this latest case, Read it again? was a question intended as a suggestion, not a demand, and not a dumb suggestion either (since Seraphimblade seemed to see what Liz didn't from reading the same part). Also, I'm IH, not EH.

Aquillion, last year, I vowed to back away from that case altogether and would rather say as little as possible about it still. Generally speaking, though, I don't use the word "believed" to imply just belief. Beliefs are at the root of all we say, think and know. I could have used either of those verbs instead, in hindsight, but they all have their own plausibly troubling connotations if one focuses on what's not written. They (just) thought (but didn't know), (merely) knew (but didn't say) or (only) said (but didn't believe). I'm far from always a perfect communicator, but that was me on my best behaviour. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

TiggerJay, consider the shouting and unduly harsh talk over. I'm not sure what these "other things" you allude to are, but I can guess swearing is one thing, questions (rhetorical or not) are another and the rest is probably reasonable and doable. I'll try to fall more in line with ESL, by simply and succinctly saying what I did, but won't follow the given examples precisely, on account of the roboticness. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seraphimblade, yes, I had an iffy feeling about that one shortly after I hit "Publish changes". Then it was confirmed a bad feeling on my talk page. Now you're the third one here to reinforce that sentiment, after I'd already agreed to save words like those for self-deprecation (which will likely stop now, too). Like all edit summaries, it's become unchangeable, but still forgivable. I'm sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Seraphimblade

I would tend to agree that this is pretty short on detail. I would like to see the response to Femke's question before making further comment. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the more complete statement more addresses what happened, and in the original scenario, the AP2 issue was a more tangential one, so I don't have a particular opposition to lifting that. If this request has now been modified to also be an appeal to the GENSEX topic ban, that was much more directly on point when the original incident occurred, and I don't support lifting that at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

InedibleHulk, I think the edit below ([42]) might kind of illustrate the problems with your approach. I realize it's certainly not related to either of politics or GENSEX, but that edit isn't so bad as to be a flagrant lie, and it doesn't even seem all that implausible to me. At most, it's unreferenced. Do you see how using the edit summary of "LIAR!" comes across as needlessly aggressive? You could still remove it with a summary of "I don't think this is accurate" or "This would need a citation" instead, and that would be far less confrontational. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by InedibleHulk

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 GoodDay

Lift the t-bans - IMHO, any editor deserves a chance to prove themselves & there's only one way for that to happen. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Aquillion

Describing what happened here as using female pronouns for a mass murderer most believed was a man and for too heavily arguing my case is downplaying the diffs; but beyond that it's hard to miss the fact that InedibleHulk is still, even in an appeal, carefully wording their statements to avoid referring to Hale as a man and is in fact presenting that as just a belief. While this isn't a GENSEX appeal, it's pretty glaring to see that sort of wording even in an appeal (where one would expect someone to be on their best behavior). --Aquillion (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Tiggerjay

While InedibleHulk has generally been contributing positively, making useful edits in non-TBAN areas, his edit summaries are concerning, sometimes falling under WP:ESDONTS and can appear as uncivil, even when doing otherwise mundane. Such as using the edit summary of "LIAR!" when removing an edit. Left unaddressed, this can easily spiral out of control again when these same edit summaries are applied to contentious articles. Even in his own defense above, he cites this on his talk page, and in it, clearly illustrates that he finds his edit summaries otherwise acceptable and that his summaries are simply a shout into the darkness instead of intended as a personal attack. I choose to AGF that he does not intend to be uncivil, however, before lifting any TBAN in any contentious topics, I would like to see his edit summaries conform more to WP:ESL and completely avoid the "shouting" or other things which, regardless of intention by Hulk, which can and have been broadly understood to be uncivil. TiggerJay (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by InedibleHulk

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

This appeal is very light on details. What problems were there that led to the unblock conditions and how do you plan to avoid them in the future? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm on two minds. On the one hand, AP2 is a wide topic ban and the GENSEX ban may sufficient to prevent behaviour like last time. On the other hand, I do find ~~EH's~~IH's use of edit summaries not that conducive to editing in contentious topics. For instance [43] (which said LIAR!), but also at this AE [44] "Read it again", after Liz indicates she still found the appeal to short on information. Most often, the edit summaries are simply cryptic. I'd like some more assurances for EHIH to improve communication via edit summaries. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
With the commitment around edit summaries, I'm now happy to give IH another try in AP2. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Femke. InedibleHulk, usually when an editor is appealing a topic ban or block, they make a formal request/argument that addresses the circumstances of the ban/block and why this editing restriction is no longer necessary. I don't really see that here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The issue I see with this appeal is that the argument is "the issue is moot, so I'm fine," rather than "I won't do this again, even if a similar issue arises." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd like to give this editor a chance to demonstrate they can edit constructively without having to stay miles away from the topic. Topic bans are something we should be using only when really needed. It's been a year. Let's see if it's still needed. Valereee (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
IH irks me sometimes (often his edit summaries, mentioned above by others), but I have no concerns about removing the AP topic ban and giving him a chance. I'd be slightly more concerned about the GENSEX topic ban, but (a) he's not asking for that to be lifted, and (b) I'll acknowledge that this might be a knee-jerk instinctive concern. But sure, let's at least lift the AP topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Let's lift the AP topic ban, and we can worry about the other stuff that IH is far less involved in later on. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm seeing consensus here to lift the AP topic ban, so barring any objections I'll close with that result shortly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Selfstudier

Latest comment: 6 days ago8 comments7 people in discussion

No action. Participants here may, if they wish, submit evidence at the currently open Palestine-Israel 5 case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:08, 4 December 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 Selfstudier

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ABHammad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Selfstudier (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:ARBPIA, WP:EDITWAR, WP:POVPUSH

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

Context: Following a content dispute whether the "Gaza genocide" should be included on the Israel article, an RfC on the topic was started on 22 November.
On 27 November, despite the ongoing RfC, User:Selfstudier added content related to the "Gaza genocide" to the article anyway. [45]
Another editor reverted the addition and requested that Selfstudier refrain from adding the disputed content while the RfC is still ongoing. [46]
A few minutes later, Selfstudier restored it anyway [47]

Selfstudier says the RfC is about the lead, not the body, but the RfC is clearly about the body too (check the text here [48]). I contacted Selfstudier on their talk page asking them to self-revert [49] but they said this wasn't edit warring [50], asking me to re-read the RfC (which I read, and is clearly on the body too) and threatened to report me for making a 'false accusation'. Then they went on to remove our discussion from the page [51].

Overall this isn't the first time I'm seeing Selfstudier forcibly pushing their own POV by restoring disputed content in the middle of dispute. For example see Genocide of indigenous peoples [52], Palestinians [53], Zionism [54]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[55] Formal warning on removing discussions (October 2024)

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

Selfstudier is the main editor posting PIA CTOP messages on user talk pages. [56].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[57]

Discussion concerning Selfstudier

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 Selfstudier

The first editor to respond thought the RFC was not actionable and did not understand why the RFC was "Considering a link alone in the aether..".

As second to respond, neither did I, since it would it not be possible to add a link in the lead (Option 2) without there being material in the article body discussing the Gaza genocide. So I first suggested that opener should pull the RFC while that was developed.

When that suggestion was not taken up, I prepared a suitable paragraph and posted it at the RFC with the intention of adding it to the article body and which I subsequently did. Any editor could have done this at any time nor was this edit warring, as reporting editor complained of at my talk, because the material that Huldra had previously added to the article was completely different and was added to the lead not to the article body.

When my addition was reverted, I reverted on the basis that the RFC was about adding a link to the lead and not about adding relevant material to the body. Thus, I made precisely one revert, which is not edit warring. In my subsequent !vote, I then indicated option 2 and specified where in the lead the link should be placed. I didn't go ahead and add that link because from my perspective, that is what the RFC is actually about and what RFC opener had actually tried to do initially.

I have no idea what the POV pushing allegation is about, seems reporting editor is simply padding their report. If they think those accusations have any merit, then I would suggest they include them with proper evidence at the current ARBCOM case, where I am a named party. Selfstudier (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

I'm only going to comment on the examples given concerning previous possible POV pushing

Genocide of indigenous peoples - The first RFC results were "no consensus" with the closing words: "Our policy on WP:NOCONSENSUS provides further guidance on what to do in situations like this." WP:NOCONSENSUS says "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.", so Selfstudier was correct to revert to the status quo, which was inclusion.
Palestinians - ABHammad also participated in the edit war several times, including after sources supporting the contested material were given.
Zionism - This was part of an edit war trying to undue the bold edit of a now blocked sock, discussed further here. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (Doug Weller)

I apologise for having no time right now for an indepth analysis, but when I first saw this I assumed it was Selfstudier bringing this here. So far as I know the 0revert imposed upon ABHammad by User:Barkeep49 still remains in place. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Selfstudier

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

The RFC clearly addresses the body of the article so saying Ongoing RFC is about adding Gaza genocide to the lead not this material to the body is incorrect. That said, Selfstudier is party to an open Arbcom case and this seems like it would be better addressed there. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would tend to agree that, if ABHammad believes that this is evidence of misconduct, it should be entered as evidence at the current ArbCom case. I do not see anything of such urgency that we would need to consider stepping in rather than letting that process run its course. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree this can be dealt with in PIA5. Valereee (talk) 19:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

Latest comment: 6 days ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Appeal declined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, 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: IdanST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sanction being appealed: 3 month block for topic ban violation

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

Notification of that administrator: I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by IdanST

I'm indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict for creating the Rapid Response Unit (Israel) (a translation of its Origin[he]) when I had approximately 460 edits with no WP:ECR permission.

I was subsequently blocked for 3 months due to my edit here, as ScottishFinnishRadish claimed it was a violation of my TBAN. My edit involved correcting the nationality of Yoav Gallant and Benjamin Netanyahu to indicate they are Israeli nationals, not Palestinian nationals. My intentions and the edit itself were not related to the conflict but rather focused on accurately representing their nationality.

It appears that my edit was reverted 3 hours later (here) by TRCRF22 because the table in question is not about personnels and their nationality but rather about personnels and the countries that the ICC's investigations concerned. This proves a misunderstanding on my part regarding the table's purpose, as I would not have edited in this area if I'd understood it correctly.

Approximately 10 hours after the revert, I was blocked for 3 months. IdanST (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

They were previously blocked twice for ECR violations, with two failed appeals, then topic banned for ECR violations, permission gaming, and NPOV issues. This block was made after violating that topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by IdanST

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by IdanST

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

You regret editing against your topic ban because you made an error in the edit. This gives me little confidence you would abide by the topic ban if you see future errors. I'm not seeing sufficient reason to grant the appeal. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think this illustrates very well why a topic ban means to not edit in the restricted area at all. If IdanST thinks that making an error is the problem, then I would decline this appeal. Don't edit anything that even seems close to the line. Go edit articles about chemical compounds, or Spanish literature, or medieval architecture, or any of the myriad of other subjects that aren't about Israel and Palestine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
IdanST, you cannot go anywhere near the topic, including not to make edits you think are correcting errors. You cannot discuss the topic anywhere, including leaving barnstars. When you are topic banned, you need to go edit somewhere else completely. From your user talk and your failed appeals, it seems clear you don't understand what a topic ban means. We tried to give you an opportunity to learn how to edit outside of a contentious topic, which is a terrible place to learn, and you didn't take advantage of that opportunity. I can't support an appeal right now. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mk8mlyb

Latest comment: 1 day ago36 comments12 people in discussion

Mk8mlyb is topic banned indefinitely from the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:39, 9 December 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 Mk8mlyb

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mk8mlyb (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:ARBPIA

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

16:19, 5 December 2024 Mk8mlyb remove material from article with edit summary "Source contains antisemitism"
15:21, 6 December 2024 M.Bitton leaves them a CTOP notice
14:53, 6 December 2024 Mk8mlyb removes the same material from the article again with edit summary "Stop using sources that are antisemitic. The statement is false."
15:08, 6 December 2024 I revert them and leave a message in my edit summary to refer to Talk:Zionism/Archive 24#Revert as it pertains to a section of the article they are removing.
15:15, 6 December 2024 Mk8mlyb removes the same material again with edit summary "This is garbage. If we have to discuss whether to remove something that's obviously antisemitic, then something's wrong."
15:34, 6 December 2024 I left a message on their talk advising them that they had violated active arbitration remedies in regards to compulsory BRD on the article and request they take more care (it turns out that they'd violated 1RR and enforced BRD twice)
16:42, 6 December 2024 Mk8mlyb leaves a comment on my talk "I'm sorry, but if you're going to use that as an excuse to justify not doing anything about what is obvious antisemitism, then something's wrong with you. Many of those sources are antisemitic propaganda, if not all of them."
17:10, 6 December 2024 comments at Talk:Zionism "No, it's not. Israel is not engaging in ethnic cleansing. That is pro-Hamas antisemitic propaganda used to distract from the truth."

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 15:21, 6 December 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I tried to be helpful and request that they take more care in the future and obviously this editor is not here to be a net positive. Of note, one of the sections of text that they were removing has the script  just before it.TarnishedPath^talk 12:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Update, since the filling of this report Mk8mlyb has made the following comments on his and Selfstudier's talk:

05:00, 7 December 2024, 05:10, 7 December 2024 and 06:07, 7 December 2024. All three comments throw around accusations of antisemitism. TarnishedPath^talk 01:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Following on from M.Bitton's statement below, this topic area already has enough heat in it without having editors wading in and weaponising accusations of antisemitism. TarnishedPath^talk 04:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: 23:30, 6 December 2024

Discussion concerning Mk8mlyb

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 Mk8mlyb

OK, so I got here after a brief discussion, and so I'd like to ask again: what did I do wrong? I'm trying to remove what is clearly antisemitic content and propaganda. I'm just trying to tell the truth. Zionism is not about clearing the land of Palestinian Arabs, at least not the mainstream type. And the sources I removed are from a guy who has demonstrated antisemitism and justified the October 7 massacre. I read the article I was given and it explains that Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased because of the variety among its users and to promote critical thinking. It seems that using an antisemite who justified a terrorist attack as a credible source, especially over sources that debunk his claims, goes against that. If you're willing to defend antisemitic content that violates the site's neutral point of view for the sake of procedure, that says more about you than me. And even if it didn't, presenting a neutral point of view does not mean ignoring basic facts and showing a false balance between facts and lies. I want an explanation for this. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

What? I didn't say that. I basically said that my edit was in line with the site's guidelines. The fact that you won't even explain what I did wrong and write me off as a bad guy is just dumb. If you have a good explanation for this that doesn't involve antisemitism, I'd be happy to hear it. I am here to be a net positive, it's just that people don't like what I think that involves. Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

What exactly are Wikipedia's standards on what is antisemitic? Because whatever they are, the result has been a swarm of anti-Israel bias. Article after article slams Israel, from accusing it of human rights abuses such as denying water and food, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, to outright genocide, to even comparing it to Nazi Germany, none of which are closely true. Losing a war is not genocide, and it's Hamas that started the war when they invaded Israel and killed hundreds of innocent Jewish people. Israel has repeatendly sent food and aid to Gaza and the West Bank to help the Palestinians, and it's Hamas that has repeatedly stolen the aid for its own selfish gains. Israel consistently put their own soldiers in danger to protect the Palestinians from their attacks on schools and mosques where Hamas hides its rockets and missiles. Look, I don't mind showing the suffering of the Palestinians and criticizing the Israeli government. Israel is not perfect. But to act like there are fine people on both sides of Israel and Hamas is a false balance. This is not American politics, where both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the situation. It's not both sides, and Israel is in the right to defend itself against genocidal terrorists. If Wikipedia is to truly maintain its credibility and commitment to facts and a neutral point of view, it needs to fix the articles to show these facts. But we're not. And that's the problem. You're probably wondering why I'm bringing this up here when I should have brought it up on the talk page, and I guess you'd be right. I probably could have handled this a little better. But my point still stands. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I guess I can see the issue. But I have to say, if the rules allow such bias to permeate through the articles of the Arab-Israeli conflict, then the rules have to be changed. And I am not acting on media misinformation or social media. I did some research on my own. Also, it's not just about one sentence or source. Mk8mlyb (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

What are you talking about? You haven't even fully explained what the problem is. I'm not here to cause trouble. If you give me a chance I'll back off and let it be. Mk8mlyb (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, I get it. I was wrong to edit the sentence against consensus and without checking the rules. I'm not doubling down. But I do have a source proving that the writer in question defended the October 7 massacre:^[1] Mk8mlyb (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Valereee: I understand the content policies just fine and I'm not trying to double down. I just don't think they're being followed. There's no need for a ban. Mk8mlyb (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Valereee: Yeah, I guess so. Though I'm not sure how that's related to policy. I probably took things a little too far. I'm sorry. I will go through the proper procedures next time I want to edit a contentious topic, and I will not call people antisemites without justification. Mk8mlyb (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, come on. I said I was sorry for ignoring the CTOP notice and taking things too far. I promise to go through the proper procedures next time I want to edit a contentious topic, and I will not call people antisemites without proper reason. Can we just call it a day? There's no need for a ban. Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello? Is anyone listening to me? I said I was sorry for ignoring the CTOP notice and taking things too far. After thinking about my actions, I understand what I did wrong. I promise to go through the proper procedures next time I want to edit a contentious topic, and I will not call people antisemites without proper reason. Can we please just call it a day? I'm willing to play ball. There's no need for a ban. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

What exactly does specific mean? I've acknowledged exactly where I went wrong and and have pledged not to repeat those things. I admit that I should have heeded the CTOP notice and not accused people of being antisemites without proper reason. I also admit that I should have brought up the issue on the talk page and sought a consensus rather than rush in headfirst, and that I should have made sure my sources followed the guidelines. What do I have to say to be more specific? I don't get it. If you give me a chance, I'll back off and let it be. Mk8mlyb (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

References

^ https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/ex-plo-spokesman-rashid-khalidi-explains-away-oct

Statement by M.Bitton

The above comment by Mk8mlyb says it all. Not only do they not recognize the issues with their editing, but they are insisting that they are right and everyone else is wrong (or pro antisemitism, to be precise). A topic ban will probably prevent them from digging themself into a bigger hole. M.Bitton (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Is it just me struggling to connect the words to the actions? There are 14 sources cited. What is the specific meaning of the statement "the sources I removed are from a guy who has demonstrated antisemitism and justified the October 7 massacre"? Why is the editor at that specific article out of 6,920,655 articles editing that specific sentence in such a seemingly bizarre way detached from policy? Have their actions been caused by external factors like misinformation in the media, social media commentary etc.? If they have an elevated susceptibility to misinformation, they should probably not be editing an encyclopedia, let alone articles in a contentious topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

If I may, Mk8mlyb, let's assume for the sake of argument that all statements after 'Because whatever they are...' are the case. It still doesn't explain or justify your actions, actions that resulted in this AE report, removal of a statement with 14 sources. Wikipedia claims to be a rules-based system. It looks like your actions, regardless of any larger scale patterns that may or may not exist in Wikipedia's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, are inconsistent with the rules. That seems to be the issue. Can you see it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Zero0000

This editor shows no sign of acknowledging fault or of understanding what editing within the rules requires. This (false) BLP violation would justify action all by itself. Besides that, it's about time that administrators cracked down on casual accusations of antisemitism, which are becoming more and more common. Zero^talk 04:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

This isn't the place for source discussion, but for the record Khalidi has been quoted many times calling the Hamas attack a war crime. Here, for example. Zero^talk 11:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mk8mlyb

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

I'd like to see if Mk8mlyb recognizes the issues with their editing and will commit to not doing that anymore so we can leave this with a logged warning, or if we'll end up at a topic ban. I looks like all of their problematic editing in the topic has happened just in the past day so I'm willing to go with a just a warning if some understanding is displayed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I think at this point a topic ban is called for because they're still substituting their own POV for sources (see Femke's diff). I also don't think this is something that a time and edit limited tban will address, so I'd say indeed so they have to explain the issues and how they would avoid them before being allowed back in the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mk8mlyb, it appears that what you consider to be "antisemitic" might not be in line with ~~Wikipedia's standards~~ that of reliable sources. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do not believe that a warning is sufficient here. Mk8mlyb has, I think, been presented here with the problems with their editing, and instead of taking that on board has just doubled down. I think all a warning does is see us right back here, probably sooner rather than later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
As it seems there is a clear consensus here for an indefinite topic ban from ARBPIA, unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have to agree with Vanamonde; I've seen what you've said, but it's a bit of "too little, too late". I'm not convinced that your participation in one of the most hotly contentious areas of Wikipedia is a good idea at this time. Certainly this is a case where "indefinite need not mean permanent"; if you edit constructively in other areas for a few months and come back with an appeal, I think you'll find us very willing to consider lifting the ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mk8mlyb is doubling down, which makes it difficult to avoid imposing a topic ban. They are fairly new, so may be able to demonstrate they can learn from feedback outside of the topic area and appeal in due course. To answer their questions: Antisemitism has no place on Wikipedia, but well-sourced content critisizing the current government of Israel is not antisemitism. If there are sources that are of insufficient quality, please do bring this up on talk when challenged, but don't WP:edit war over it: the topic area is sufficiently contentious as is. A more serious issue is the unsourced claim that some writer defended the October 7 massacre per WP:BLPREMOVE. You should never add contentious material about a living person without a source anywhere on Wikipedia. Just to note they also edit in line with their own interpretation rather than sources in different topic areas [58]. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Examining their edits I'd also support a topic ban. I'm very concerned about the link above on a different topic which violates WP:NOR.Doug Weller talk 16:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The issues here are pretty profound. I'd support a tban; maybe 6 months/500 instead of indef? Valereee (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mk8mlyb, FWIW: an opinion piece in Campus Watch is not proof of anything. It may echo what you believe to be true, but that doesn't make it a reliable source for 'proving that the writer in question defended the October 7 massacre'. That's the kind of policy you should start learning somewhere other than a highly contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Mk8mlyb, so you understand that the meforum.org post you used just a few hours ago to prove Khalidi defended Oct 7 was not proving that? Valereee (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I won't object if others think it needs to be indef. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
When I saw the request I was hopeful that a warning would be sufficient here, but given that Mk8mlyb has doubled down and has shown no inclination to understand the relevant content policies, a TBAN is called for. I would strongly prefer that it not be time-limited; for a relatively new user, I could see a convincing appeal being made in 3 months, and I could also see the issues never being addressed. Indefinite, appealable in 3 months, would be my preference. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mk8mlyb, I have seen your latest responses, and probably others have too: but they are not specific enough to convince me that you can constructively edit a topic this contentious at the moment. If you wish to edit in this area, show us that you can edit within the guidelines elsewhere, and we would likely grant an appeal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
User:Mk8mlyb, this discussion will close when it closes, maybe tomorrow or the day after or after a few days. You can't just say you're sorry and have this over with. We're trying to determine how to address a serious problem with your editing. You have very strong opinions about politics in this area and I'm not sure you can adhere to NPOV in your editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Entropyandvodka

Latest comment: 1 day ago6 comments4 people in discussion

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 Entropyandvodka

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Safrolic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Entropyandvodka (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:ARBPIA, WP:GAMING

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

Between Oct 6 and 7th, 2023, this user made over 500 edits changing short descriptions. example,contribs log during the time period A majority of the edits were on Oct 6th, about 325 by my very rough count. They stopped their edit chain a few minutes after getting EC on the 6th, then did a couple hundred more on the 7th. Granted at 16h00, final edit of the day at 16h03 They had never made this kind of edit before, and they've only made a few edits of this type ever since, all on one P-I article this spring. They now have over 1,400 edits. Since then they have focused almost entirely on the PIA space, but have dedicated some time to the invasion of Ukraine. In the Russian invasion space, they've concerned themselves with making sure that a pro-Russian narrative is represented. [59][60] They appear in Billedmammal (talk · contribs)'s ARBPIA statistics broadsheet, which shows their edits as being 100% in PIA for the remainder of 2023 and 75% PIA for 2024. I sought input from SFR before making this report, because I see deeper implications from a gaming run for PIA on Oct 6th 2023.

I have not interacted with this user, beyond notifying them of this report.

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 8 May 2024 by SeraphimBlade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 13 Oct 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 8 May 2024 (same incident as the warning).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re: Liz's comment, I was unsure whether this was stale given that their further edits would put them over EC by now, though likely not without counting the PIA-related edits. This was why I asked SFR on his talk page first, who advised me that there likely wasn't a stale period for permission gaming. I haven't tried to assess recent content or conduct beyond a brief look at the Russia/Ukraine related edits. Safrolic (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Entropyandvodka

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 Entropyandvodka

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Entropyandvodka

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

Since this editor now has about 1400 edits, if those edits had been gaming, they would be EC by now without them. I'm not sure how we assess possible gaming from over a year ago. Are there recent edits that concern you? I'd like to see what admins who frequent ARE think about this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
As Liz said, they'd be well over EC by now anyway. I'm really not inclined to go over stuff dredged up from a year ago unless there's been actual misconduct since then (and then it would be the more recent misconduct that would concern me). It evidently wasn't enough of a concern for anyone to raise in a timely fashion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I said on my talk page that I didn't really think that gaming could be stale, but I'm also interested in if there has been disruptive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Without further evidence of disruptive editing I will be closing this as no action taken. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tattipedia

Latest comment: 1 day ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Tattipedia blocked 1 week by ScottishFinnishRadish for ECR violations. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:04, 9 December 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 Tattipedia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tattipedia (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:ARBPIA

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

17:17, 7 December 2024 Comments in an RFC in violation of WP:ARBECR.
18:04, 7 December 2024 Remsense leaves Tattipedia a CTOP notice for PIA.
19:14, 7 December 2024 Tattipedia replies back to the CTOP notice "ohh thank you".
21:20, 7 December 2024 Tattipedia again comments in the same RFC as previous in violation of WP:ARBECR.

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 18:04, 7 December 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tattipedia has engaged in a RFC which is subject to WP:ARBECR after being advised that they can't and acknowledging it. Notably when @Theleekycauldron reverted their last violation of ARBECR at Special:Diff/1261677047 they noted that "ARBECR and probably a large language model". TarnishedPath^talk 11:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ScottishFinnishRadish, it happens. TarnishedPath^talk 15:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

22:25, 7 December 2024

Discussion concerning Tattipedia

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 Tattipedia

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tattipedia

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

Tattipedia, I would be very interested to hear your response here (and note, your response, not a chatbot's response). If you now understand the ECR restrictions and will abide by them, hopefully this can be resolved without the need for further action, but if you continue to violate it, that will certainly become a problem. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, sorry. I blocked for a week while you were posting this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
No troubles, but would you mind leaving this open and copying their response here if they make one? We still might need to figure out what to do going forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Will do. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

xDanielx

Latest comment: 24 minutes ago28 comments8 people in discussion

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 xDanielx

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: xDanielx (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:ARBPIA

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

Material was originally added to the infobox on 17 October and

Removed by reported editor on 4 Dec, 5 Dec 7 Dec and 8 December with the last revert coming despite an explicit warning.

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

PIA5 notice

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Experienced ex admin who should know better.

@Fiveby: It's out of scope for the PIA case as reported editor is not a named party. Both AE and Arbcom prefer not to deal with content issues. Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fiveby: I did not add the content nor have I edit warred over it. Obviously there are 3 editors who don't share your view while I have not as yet made up my mind, there is an ongoing RSN discussion now, and I will communicate my thoughts on the content there or possibly in an RFC if it ends up as that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion concerning xDanielX

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 xDanielX

I don't think the "explicit warning" by Selfstudier (Last time, RFC or RSN else AE) was appropriate; it seems like the sort of intimidation that WP:BATTLEGROUND prohibits. The idea of adjusting my editing based on intimidation by a highly involved non-admin didn't feel right.

Under the conventional view that removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert, I made two reverts here, with a lot of discussion in between (here, here, here, and this older discussion). My second revert was undoing what seemed like a ~~reflexive tag-team~~ revert, by a user who didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them asking for an explanation.

I normally revert very selectively - looking at my past 500 edits, there are only five reverts (at least obvious ones), with only these two being controversial. If I was a bit aggressive here, it was because the material violated our policies in a particularly blatant and severe manner.

The estimate in question falls under WP:SCHOLARSHIP since it's based on a novel methodology, and it fails that standard due to a lack of vetting by the relevant scholarly community (public health). The closest we have is this paper by an anthropologist, which includes the estimate but doesn't discuss whether the methodology is valid. The paper also appears to have no citations, and the group that published it doesn't appear to have any real scholarly vetting process.

The claim is also a highly WP:EXTRAORDINARY one. Health officials reported 38 starvations (as of Sep 16), which is quite different from the 62,413 (as of Sep 30) estimate. To me pushing to include such an extraordinary claim in wikivoice, with sources that clearly fall short of our relevant policies, indicates either POV pushing or a competence issue. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Responses to M.Bitton

@M.Bitton: removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring, and in practice are generally not understood as reverts, even if they appear to meet the literal definition. Some recent discussions on this were here and here.

I believe you misread the (confusing) history a bit; I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1. A related edit by Bogazicili had the effect of moving some footnote content, including a second instance of the 62,413 figure which I had initially missed, into the infobox. I hadn't understood this as an objection to my removal, since the edit summary conveyed a different purpose.

It didn't occur to me that you might not have seen my ping. I'll strike that remark, but I still feel that reverting an extensively discussed change with only there is no valid reason to remove this leaves something to be desired. I see that you've now joined the discussion, but still without substantive engagement; merely stating that you're unconvinced doesn't help to move the discussion forward. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@M.Bitton: okay I missed that footnote change, but I think the point stands that neither change clearly conveyed an objection to the idea of removing the estimate from the infobox. If there was such an objection, I would have expected it to be noted in an summary or the discussion thread. And please assume good faith. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@M.Bitton: there is no valid reason to remove this isn't really an explanation. I still have no idea what you disagree with and why. Is your position that the Watson paper is vetted scholarship, or that WP:SCHOLARSHIP doesn't apply, or something else? While this isn't the place, it would be good if you could explain your position in one of the relevant discussions. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Valereee: I would argue that EW enforcement should account for factors like scale, engagement in discussions, timing, policy support, consensus, and broader patterns of user behavior.

Scale: I thought I had made two reverts. Maybe there's an argument that it was really three, but I wasn't aware of it.
Engagement: I discussed very substantively (here, here), and tried to get more input.
Timing: I thought the discussion seemed to have settled. Noone appeared to be continuing to defend the content in a substantive manner, so I felt more justified in removing it. The latest points like this didn't receive a response (besides Still disagree).
Consensus: the local consensus appeared to be leaning toward at least requiring attribution (as we do in the body which I didn't remove). There's also just a very clear global consensus against including unvetted WP:SCHOLARSHIP (no peer review, citations, etc) in wikivoice.
Patterns of behavior: these were my only controversial reverts in recent memory (at least looking at 500 edits).

If I could rewind, I would at least give it extra time to make sure that the discussion had settled, and maybe leave it to someone else to enact the result. However, I think if this were to be considered actionable edit warring, then nearly all active editors in the topic area would be guilty of it. Even in this same dispute, a different user just made their second revert, with less engagement and so on. I would argue that the single revert with no explanation might actually be the most problematic EW here, although I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW (there have been some inconclusive discussions on that). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ealdgyth: understood, though I think you mean EW broadly rather than 1RR? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm receiving the message that the factors I mentioned aren't good enough, but would still appreciate input on what acceptable participation in an edit war could look like. Maybe the answer is that there is none, but that would seem to depart from convention as I understood it, and possibly lead to a lot more formal RfCs. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by M.Bitton

removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert old content means stable content (you know what that means).

I made two reverts this is factually incorrect. You made 3 reverts (excluding the first content removal):

Removal of stable content.
1st revert, after Stephan rostie restored it.
2nd revert, after Cdjp1 restored it.
3rd revert, after I restored it.

undoing what seemed like a reflexive tag-team revert casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets.

didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them this is extremely disingenuous as it implies that I was editing something else while ignoring your notification, when in fact, you pinged me long after I logged out and I haven't edited anything since (the editing history and the diffs don't lie). Furthermore, I already made it clear in the edit summary that I disagree with your reasoning (which consists of made-up rules and demands to satisfy you with answers).

The bottom line is that xDanielx is edit warring against multiple editors who disagree with them for various reasons. M.Bitton (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@XDanielx:

removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring we all know what edit warring is, so please don't make-up another rule.

I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1 ~~maybe that's because you only see what you want to see~~. Here is is. Like I said, diffs don't lie.

It didn't occur to me that's because you assumed bad faith. You made that clear with your aspersions casting that I highlighted above.

For the last time, I don't need to convince you. M.Bitton (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note: Instead of simply striking their aspersions, they doubled down on their bad faith assumption (see their edit summary); and to add insult to injury, they reversed the roles and asked me to "assume good faith" (see their comment above). M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

the single revert with no explanation xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with and that they'd rather edit war than take it to RSN or start a RfC"). Anyway, they can also argue all they want, but what they cannot do is justify what they did (edit warring, casting aspersions and assuming bad faith). M.Bitton (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW I hope not, because that would mean that you violated that rule three times. One thing is certain though, the 3 reverts that you made are considered EW. M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@XDanielx: quote the complete edit summary or don't bother quoting any of it. I didn't invite myself to this board to discuss content. All I'm interested in is your edit warring, your bad faith assumption and the fact that you doubled down on it after casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Theleekycauldron: Done. What about their aspersions casting and assumption of bad faith? M.Bitton (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Theleekycauldron: only when the person is not responding (i.e., they are editing something else and ignoring the other editor). I know that they struck the comment, but not without doubling down on the bad faith assumption (see above note). I covered all of this and more in my previous comments. M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by fiveby

I'm surprised that Selfstudier is making this report. If you're unable here to look at the article content and sources then this should go straight to the arbcom case as evidence. fiveby(zero) 03:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Selfstudier:, this is blatantly bad content. Like UFO level blatantly bad. It seems to me WP:PROFRINGE editors in some topic areas get told right off to go edit somewhere else, often harshly, quickly warned by admins, and finally sanctioned without a great deal of fuss about the thing. It seems no big deal when admins in those topic areas have some basic knowledge and apply a few research skills to start warning, topic banning, or blocking editors over content when they are otherwise following policies. @Valereee:, seems like an awfully high burden to impose on everyone here, especially when the RfC process seems to be a big part of the problem in the topic area. I could easily put the shoe on the other foot here, find some trivial bits of content: infobox, lead phrasing, or titles, complain on talk pages and then start a few RfC's. If i were to do that it seems best for WP that Selfstudier report me here for wasting everyone's time and admins here should be able to forcefully let me know that i'm just being a jerk. See ya back here when i've some idle time for the devil's work. fiveby(zero) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

3 editors who don't share your view... bad actors, not because they do not share my view but because they don't share Wikipedia's. Just like all those non-EC editors flooding Talk:Zionism with edit requests and EC editors who've gamed the system to get there. Bad policies. Now there are two good actors and reasonable looking editors here, and more with good work and ideas targets at arbcom. I'd say better to join the edit war and remove that nonsense rather than wasting time with this. fiveby(zero) 17:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Valereee: i think there are such reasonable editors in the topic area who can work things out and are trying to work things out on talk pages with WP:BESTSOURCES, and good work on the real article content in the bodies. Why are they ending up here and at arbcom? I think it's due to the bad policies and the bad actors gaming them. Wastes time and frustrates everyone. fiveby(zero) 18:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning xDanielX

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

Daniel, your excuse for edit-warring seems to be that the claim is extraordinary. I totally see your point on this being an extraordinary claim; to me it seems highly dubious that 62,000 people could have died of starvation over the course of a year and it wouldn't be ongoing international front page news rather than speculation/estimation in obscure sources, with multiple mainstream RS only reporting starvation deaths in the dozens. But edit-warring isn't the answer. The answer is an RfC with notification to projects and noticeboards. It would even be fair to suggest the content be removed as dubious until the RfC closes; there's no particular urgency for WP to include such a dubious number in an infobox, which as you pointed out is similar to providing that info in Wikivoice. Valereee (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Fiveby, sure, it would be better if editors at an article would just be able to work it out by saying to themselves, "Hm...yeah, that doesn't really make sense. 62,000+ people dead of starvation? And no one's talking about it except some obscure unpublished research and a letter to POTUS, and both of those estimates are based on a single unproven theory? Maybe we should rethink". But it seems like the editors at the article talk who want to keep this dubious content in the infobox have dug in their heels on defending the poor sourcing and are in the majority. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
So, looking at the diffs here, it seems like xDanielx removes the content once, it's reverted, removes a second time. Then someone else bundles the list into a footnote and a second person re-adds the content, which xDanielx doesn't recognize as a readdition and thinks that they forgot to remove the same content somewhere else, gets reverted, reverts back. If it were actually the situation that there were two instances of the same content, it'd merit maybe a reminder because it's generally not good practice to arm-wrestle in the revision history to get edits through. Given that and the fact that they weren't being careful, I'd say either a warning or reminder is best. As for the content dispute, both positions are reasonable enough that neither one would be sanctionable on its own as POV-pushing, so it's out of scope for this thread. @M.Bitton: maybe that's because you only see what you want to see is inappropriate for a civil discussion. Please strike that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
@M.Bitton: Seems like they struck the "reflexive tag-team revert" comment. As for the pinging, it's pretty reasonable to bring up that someone isn't responding when you try and engage with them, I'm not sure I see the same assumption of bad faith. Open to your thoughts on it, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Per Valereee above, the argument of an extraordinary claim is a reasonable one, but that isn't one of the very few exceptions we allow for edit-warring. I'm also not impressed by the dismissal of SelfStudier's warning as a threat. That said, there is engagement on the talk page, and no bright-line violation, so I would stop at a logged warning about edit-warring. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Daniel, there is no 1RR exemption for being right. You need to learn that the revert-button isn't a good first (or any) option in this topic area. Yes, it's frustrating to have to expend effort to discuss things but that's what system we have here at wikipedia. I'm okay with a logged warning, but I do want Daniel to understand that contentious topics such as this demand the best behavior. That's how you stay out of trouble, and yes, the filing against M.Bitton, while perhaps merited, certainly gave off a distinct impression of a retaliatory filing - too much of that sort of thing gets editors topic banned or worse. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

DoctorChkmt84

Latest comment: 1 day ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Indeffed and then unblocked by me, reblocked by Seraphimblade, all as standard admin actions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 9 December 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 DoctorChkmt84

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: DoctorChkmt84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM, indef per WP:NOTHERE.

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

[61] 8 December 2024 WP:CB
[62] 8 December 2024 WP:CB

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 [63] 8 December 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[64] 8 December 2024

Discussion concerning DoctorChkmt84

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 DoctorChkmt84

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DoctorChkmt84

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

This doesn't seem like an AE issue. Especially when the main remedy being sought is a nothere block. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's hard to develop a thorough case for a new editor with 9 edits. I also agree that AE doesn't seem like the place for this newbie. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also don't like that this is just coming straight to AE for an indef, rather than this editor being told why their editing is a problem. For clarity, these edits are a problem, but let's give people an opportunity to change course before we start talking about indef blocks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'm all for a chance to discuss and learn, but no sooner were they unblocked than they just went straight back to it without even trying to do that, so I've reinstated the indef (as a normal admin action). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mobile editor, hasn't found talk pages yet. Every edit so far reverted. AE isn't the right place for this, though. I'll post another warning at their talk. Valereee (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
NM, already indeffed by SFR. Valereee (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I actually unblocked, as I hadn't seen the discussion here. Was just going through my morning watchlist check. The CIA approving all Hollywood movies combined with multiple edits about microwave targeting, including add a BLP to an article was sufficient for me, but seeing this I see that others think differently. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I was just going to open a section, 'Please respond here before editing again', which I strongly suspect wouldn't be seen, then at the next edit pblock from article space to see if we could get them to a talk or help desk. Valereee (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's still a good idea. They are on mobile, but not using an app so I think they still reliably see notifications/alerts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Raladic

Latest comment: 25 minutes ago27 comments12 people in discussion

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 Raladic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Void if removed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Raladic (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

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

27/08/2024 SYNTH of a percentage to push a POV not present in the source
27/08/2024 Admitted this was to advance a particular POV
22/11/2024 Undoing consensus wording to hide negative connotations, with incorrect edit summary, and POV editorializing/SYNTH.
23/11/2024 POV / Misrepresenting a source (the source is SECONDARY for the relevant claim)
23/11/2024 Revert with misleading summary, describing a fair summary of sources as SYNTH
23/11/2024 POV / misrepresenting a source while trying to prevent its use (not published by SEGM)
23/11/2024 Continuing to misrespresent the source with 20 co-authors (only 2 are SEGM/Genspect affiliates), and citing a defamatory SPS to cast aspersions on a BMJ journalist source
23/11/2024 Dismissing a source as fringe, then:
23/11/2024 editing another article to add "fringe" to the lede to try to prove this point
07/12/2024 Unsourced POV addition of contentious labels to a WP:BLP, and an edit comment that misrepresented the state of talk
09/12/2024 After an AfD started by Raladic ended in keep but rename, unilaterally rewriting longstanding consensus content to strongly push a new POV, with a misleading edit comment.
09/12/2024 Ignored requests to discuss and continued POV pushing.
09/12/2024 After POV rewriting, immediately proposing it for deletion again.
09/12/2024 Edit warring

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12/07/2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After I was brought to AE earlier this year with no action, and the related action against Colin, there was a rough consensus among uninvolved administrators that there may need to be other AE requests to handle other problems raised. I have had no wish to engage in tit-for-tat reporting, but Raladic's conduct has, if anything, got worse in the months since. Raladic has a very strong POV on trans issues and pushes it constantly, exhibiting WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, bludgeoning, stonewalling and tendentious editing.

Some of these recent diffs revolve around a 3-month long dispute that began in August with Raladic reverting sourced content. Since then, despite the emergence of additional sources, Raladic has engaged in POV pushing, battleground behaviour, editing nonconstructively, and stonewalling, which is all evident in talk, culminating in Raladic bringing every opposing editor to ANI.

Raladic has a general habit of ignoring requests to follow BRD, and instead re-reverting prior to discussion, and then stonewalling any subsequent discussion.

What I've covered here is only some recent behaviour. I can provide numerous other examples if requested.

Raladic describing the changes at 11-14 as mere "removing puffery" is further obfuscation. See my comment on talk here for the sort of POV change to long-standing stable content that was pushed through.

Full timeline of the last two diffs, for clarity (times in GMT):

18:54 Raladic's AfD request closes as keep/rename

19:10 wholesale rewrite with POV changes to longstanding content, misleading edit reason. Content removal continues.

20:26 Revert my restoration of prior consensus, with no discussion.

20:41 Revert another editor's attempt to restore prior content.

21:08 Having cut much of the article, opens a new AfD

22:25 Reverts a third editors's attempt to restore prior content. Void if removed (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Extraordinary Writ Given that this not something I've ever either publicly disclosed or acknowledged, I consider this and the original comment an attempted WP:OUTING, and reject either way that it is a WP:COI. Void if removed (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vanamonde93 The most recent discussion of the "fringe medical organization" sources is here. Happy to explain further. Void if removed (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vanamonde93 Raladic's latest comment is exactly the POV pushing and source misrepresentation I'm raising. The mentions of "anti-trans" in the judgment are the statements made by her employer that led to them losing a discrimination case. What Raladic is doing is presenting the Judge's record of the actions of the respondents as facts about the claimant:

On the evening of 24 October Shaan Knan put a message on the STAG wall and on the STAG Facebook page. He said Allison Bailey of Garden Court supported the anti-trans LGB Alliance just launched.

As for the other, the balance of reliable secondary sources (rather than cherry-picking Pink News) don't support any of this, which I demonstrated on talk. Void if removed (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion concerning Raladic

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 Raladic

1 & 2: which resulted in consensus change that I made as noted in the talk page.
3-8: Maintaining WP:NPOV (as I explained to them), which results in the now stable version at the article. Note that the editors including VIR have repeatedly ignored the fact ([65], [66], [67]) that an investigative report is a WP:PRIMARYNEWS source. Other editors also had to explain to VIR and some other editors that refining articles is very common practice.
9: VIR then yet again followed me to an article I referenced where I noticed that text from the body was not in the lead and moved it up, which is now at the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine stable article. (But did require yet another endless thread of editors explaining started by VIR).
10: Literally sourced in the article. However it did prompt me to analyze the article and notice that it failed the notability criteria, so I started an AfD, which resulted in a move on the legal case as the closing admin was swayed by the prior puffery in the article.
11-14: Rewrote the article post move, removing WP:FLUFF that was tangential to the court case to bring the article up to standard for legal cases, focusing on the case, not celebrity endorsements and the likes. For some reason, this apparently needed explanation. After that it became pretty quickly clear that I was correct in my initial assessment that the legal case is a run-off-the-mill case that very likely fails WP:EVENTCRIT as routine news, so I separately nominated the legal case as directed by the closing admin in the discussion I had with them at their talk page, which I felt would be the best course of action, though arguably could also have been a DRV. With regards to the changes I reverted after I made the necessary re-write of the article post-AfD, I immediately engaged the talk thread after reverting VIR, as supported by @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist who re-iterated the removal of puffery and the obvious necessity that a article in different scope looks different to the prior article. I made two more reversions of editors who tried to reinstate the counter to guidelines content (mainly lead-follows-body puffery), so I made 3 reversions and of course could have waited for YFNS or another user to revert them instead, but in any case, I stopped short of the brightline.

All in all, as Shakespeare said, looks like Much ado about nothing up there. You'll note that in many of the talk threads related to these "reports" by @VIR, many editors have shared my sentiment and as the final edits at articles have shown, my sentiment also appears to typically on the right track. I am one of many highly active editors in the WP:LGBTQ+ space, and have made thousands of fact-based edits in the space and collaborated with many editors productively, so frankly this AE report appears to be little more than retaliation by someone with an apparent WP:COI (as was pointed out by several other editors in the past including in the previous AE of VIR, for the admins handling this case in case they are not aware, let me know if you need more details), so I think this report may be in WP:BOOMERANG territory, especially the ludicrous accusation that Colin's case in any way referenced me, it didn't. Raladic (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Extraordinary Writ - Preemptively requesting word extension (250 extra for now?) to respond to any followups (currently at 482 above). Raladic (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@YFNS - I was referencing the main part of the edit, which was the known for founding the anti-trans LGB alliance, as was sourced in the article ([68]). Fair enough on the Short-desc and category being more contentious, but the ref does say that she self-identifies as gender-critical, which we have synonymous as anti-trans/trans exclusionary. I had never been to this article before 12/2 (when I noticed its lack of notability, hence AfD nomination), so when I read it more, I found it surprising that her only presumed claim to notability as founder of the organization as cited was missing from the first sentence. That's what I meant with, the source was there, because it was. Raladic (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

With regards to the extra evidence presented by YFNS for a BOOMERANG for VIR, I'd like to add that VIR has really not taken the feedback since their AE on board and has since then continued with endless discussions that typically end up nowhere, continuing the WP:TENDENTIOUS nature of their WP:MWOT arguing in this space. Raladic (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Void if removed - Btw, in your additional comments by editor filing complaint, which is in a request that is obviously about me as is clear from the title, you referred to me exclusively by my username, 7 times. I do have pronouns, please use them. Raladic (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vanamonde93 - the fringe medical source can be accessed through the wikilibrary and has an entire section of the paper dedicated to it, looks like YFNS below already elaborated on it. As for the anti-trans advocacy of LGB Alliance, it's in the court documents, as well as [69] which I already elaborated on above. Raladic (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

I would like to suggest a boomerang. VIR's diffs are mostly links to their own WP:PROFRINGE behavior:

1 & 2 : WP:CALC is part of the policy WP:OR. Raladic had every right to add it and seek consensus.
3 - 5 : There was no consensus for the version VIR preferred. I will plainly state that I intensely dislike WPATH - but I don't let my personal feeling get in the way of RS and FRINGE
6-7 : This is clearly splitting hairs. Multiple SEGM members were authors of that paper. More affiliates and frequent collaborators on top. To list some choice names Stella O'Malley, Patrick Hunter, and Kenneth J Zucker were authors. Famous for, in order, 1) founding SEGM, Genspect, and Therapy First 2) banning trans healthcare in Florida for all ages while being part of SEGM, and 3) creating the living in your own skin model
8: SEGM is clearly WP:FRINGE, VIR has been arguing with anyone and everywhere for years that it is not. At his last case, he was warned to take the advice of admins to stop repeating arguments.[70]
9 : Medical researchers did explicitly describe SEGM as a "fringe medical organization", one of the kinder terms RS use (the SPLC calls it the hub of the modern anti-LGBT pseudoscience network)
10 : @Raladic: I suggest you double check/clarify. The sources in the article at the time of your edit described LGBA as an anti-trans group, but the body didn't.
11-14: Consensus was that Bailey wasn't independently notable but may be through the case. Rewriting a BLP to an article on a legal case obviously requires a rewrite - VIR went to talk to argue about just one line, glossing over the rest of the puffery removed.

I'll note that since VIR's last time at AE where told to drop arguments he's:

Restarted arguments at Conversion therapy about gender exploratory therapy almost immediately after the case.[71][72]
Argued at gender dysphoria in children trying to replace systematic medical reviews with the Cass Report and arguing that transgender children shouldn't be mentioned in the lead.[73]
Argued WPATH's (the world's largest/oldest health body for trans people) members have a COI with SEGM while trying to downplay their unequivocally false statements about conversion therapy[74]
At least 200 edits arguing SEGM doesn't actually push conversion therapy on talk and multiple noticeboards..[75]
Restarted arguments at ROGD trying to sanitize it in the lead.[76]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Raladic thanks for clarifying! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Colin The WP:SPLC doesn't just consider SEGM a hate group, but the "hub of anti-LGBT pseudoscience". WP:FRINGE applies.

@Vanamonde93 The article repeatedly refers to "fringe medical associations", has a section called "fringe medical associations" where they state Several international associations including the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM, 2023) and Genspect, 2023a, Genspect, 2023b have formed in reaction to GAC. According to a Yale School of Medicine report, both groups have spread “biased and unscientific content” about GAC and that SEGM is “without apparent ties to mainstream scientific or professional organizations”, and has a supplemental table of "fringe medical organizations" that lists SEGM.[77] The other ref supporting the statement is a CBC investigation citing multiple researchers and discussing SEGM's pseudoscience and calling them a "fringe group".[78] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell

I have experienced ongoing issues with Raladic’s behavior, including edit warring and stonewalling, for over three months in the article about WPATH. Initially, Raladic reverted my edit, which was supported by two highly reliable sources—The Economist and The New York Times—with a misleading edit summary claiming there was a consensus not to include the information.

[79]

The Economist reported that WPATH leaders interfered with the systematic reviews they commissioned from Johns Hopkins University. Additionally, both The Economist and The New York Times reported that WPATH removed minimum age requirements for treatment of children under pressure from a health official.

I raised the issue on the talk page, asking where this supposed consensus was reached.

[80]

Raladic kept insisting that the topic had been discussed and argued that the information about WPATH should be placed in another article, not the WPATH article itself: [81]

I pointed out that a consensus could not have been reached on information that only became available after prior discussions on the talk page were concluded. This indicated that Raladic’s claims were unfounded. Subsequently, Raladic shifted their argument, stating that criticism of WPATH should not be included due to WP:NOTNEWS, and asserting that a smear campaign against WPATH existed in mainstream media.

[82]

I brought the issue to WP:NPOVN.

[83]

There, Raladic argued that the story reported by The New York Times in June 2024 about Dr. Levine advocating for removing age limits was already addressed in the Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People (hereafter "SOC") article by referring to The New York Times' 2022 report. However, this was not possible since the June 2024 information did not exist in 2022, and Dr. Levine was not mentioned in the SOC article at the time of Raladic's posting.

[84]

I sought advice from Firefangledfeathers on how to handle this.

[85]

Raladic strongly opposed including the removal of age limits in the WPATH article, insisting it belonged in the SOC article. When I added The New York Times report to the Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People article, Raladic reverted it: [86]

I initiated another lengthy discussion on the talk page:

[87]

With Firefangledfeathers mediating, the information was finally included. However, The Economist's report was omitted because Raladic argued it was the sole source for the claim about WPATH suppressing the Johns Hopkins reviews. Later, The BMJ, a peer-reviewed journal, corroborated The Economist's findings. After discussion, multiple users (at least six) agreed on a compromise wording that I introduced to the article. Raladic, however, twice reverted the consensus version ([88], [89]), replacing it with their own version that lacked consensus and relied on primary sources, disregarding reporting by The Economist and The BMJ.

As evident, Raladic has consistently engaged in stonewalling and edit warring on WPATH and related articles, obstructing the inclusion of critical reporting by reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Economist, The BMJ, and The Hill. Despite consensus among other editors, Raladic continues to revert others’ edits, ignoring the reliability of sources and the opinions of fellow contributors. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Colin

I'm concerned to see the comment below about a logged warning for edit warring on both sides. That needs evidence of a pattern of behaviour, not one example plucked. If a single unwise revert was the standard, might as well give everyone a logged warning.

The issue here is largely down to Wikipedia's mechanism for working out what is a reliable source. Void has swiftly learned the rules and finds sources that meet WP:MEDRS and WP:V. Raladic has not. Raladic's working definition of a "reliable source" is "anything I can use to discredit sources that say inconvenient things" and "is not a reliable source" amounts to nothing more than "says things I disagree with". This is the very definition of an WP:ACTIVIST: "flexible approach to policy interpretation, depending on whether or not it aligns with the activist's". So we get blogs and random PDFs used to discredit systematic reviews in the highest tier of medical journals. We get endless "guilt by association" with the bogeyman of SEGM used repeatedly. As VIR notes, a paper written by over 20 international academics, published in the SAGE journal "Human Systems" is misleadingly described as "published by SEGM" in an attempt to discredit. This edit, claims a paper written by two authors represents the consensus views of "medical researchers". That's pretty typical. Those two people agree with Raladic therefore it's a reliable and authoritative source. This approach to source is not unique to Raladic (see Talk:Cass Review#See Also where User:WhatamIdoing complains about "editors post non-existent, made-up rules" wrt SEGM). But the fact that there are other editors with similar issues should not stop us dealing with this one.

Both WP:FRINGE and "anti-trans" is pushed on talk and in articles to describe anyone who's model of trans healthcare is not aligned with Raladic's, even if that model or the research is supported by leading journals and several nation's healthcare experts. This is not an approach compatible with editing a contentious topic, which requires editors to write about views and people they disagree with at a level above a Twitter attack piece, and to permit nuance and an appreciation that "its complicated". The BLP violations are particularly concerning. As editors at J. K. Rowling (e.g. User:SandyGeorgia) know, we can't go around randomly inserting "anti-trans" into such articles. This edit that VIR lists, sums up this activist approach that is WP:NOTHERE.

If this was writing about global warming or vaccine safety or the efficacy of a cancer treatment, an editor taking this approach to sourcing, to discrediting sources simply for believing the Wrong Thing would have been removed long ago. I don't think Raladic's approach is compatible with editing this contentious topic. -- Colin°^Talk 17:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Colin's concern the most based on what I've seen on the WPATH and SEGM pages. For example with respect to the "fringe medical organization" claim here It made me think about the label "fringe" within a contentious topic. I find that people go around saying "they're fringe" when they disagree more than people go around saying "they're not fringe" when they agree. So what is reasonable counter evidence that an org is not fringe? We have to go back to what the WP:FRINGE bar is for fringe. WP says "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." The fact that SCOTUS heard a case related to youth gender medicine, and the Economist quoted a SEGM representative in their coverage of it, is very strong evidence to me that SEGM doesn't meet the WP:FRINGE bar for fringe. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/12/02/a-big-transgender-rights-case-heads-to-americas-supreme-court

Most concerning was when Raladic overpowered a WPATH edit after very strong sources were presented and several editors came to a reasonable consensus. Raladic says consensus doesn't matter in very selective ways, consistent with WP:ACTIVIST.

PS I will bring the above to the respective talk pages as well. Evathedutch (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by WhatamIdoing

I was pinged and have glanced over this. Vanamonde93, I believe the answer to your question is that Wikipedia editors in this area do not operate via the Wikipedia:Amnesia test, but instead begin with certain ground truths in mind, so that the reliability of a source can be determined by comparing the source's POV against the ground truth. So, e.g., we know that "Organization X" is anti-trans, so sources that say they're anti-trans/pseudoscientific/bad can be tentatively assumed to be reliable until proven otherwise, and sources that say they're researchers/pro-science/pro-children/good can be assumed to be unreliable.

This sounds worse than it really is; in fact, we all do this. It's much faster and more efficient to say "Hmm, supports an obvious conspiracy theory – yeah, we can just dump this one" than to do a full evaluation of every source. But when the real world has strong divisions, we often end up with some editors whose ground truth is that the subject is "X" in other conflict with other editors whose ground truth is that the subject is "not-X", and there is no opportunity for compromise. They will never agree on which sources are reliable, because a source's reliability is determined by the source's POV, and there can only be one Right™ POV. Consider, e.g,. whether the Liancourt Rocks belong to Korea or to Japan. The reliable sources are the ones that agree with my POV, and the unreliable sources are the ones that agree with your POV. In this subject area, one of the ground truths held by one side is that WPATH's current recommendations represent a pro-trans and pro-science position. This is not entirely unreasonable, except that we then extend it to say that any person or organization that disagrees in any way is both anti-trans and pseudoscientific by definition.

The community is not set up to manage this kind of conflict well. In the past, we have reduced these conflict either by suppressing the POV whose editors are least suited to playing our games (see, e.g., WP:GAMERGATE) or by developing a durable supermajority against the minority POV (as we did, e.g., in WP:ARBSCI). I don't think we should take either of these approaches in this subject area, but we don't have many other tools left. But AE admins can rejoice: solving this problem is outside your remit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Statement by Simonm223

@Vanamonde93: regarding the description of the LGB alliance as anti-trans there are quite a few sources presently in LGB Alliance that support the description

The Times Cites founder Simon Fanshawe on the founding of LGB Alliance "He and 21 other signatories were concerned support for transgender policies, such as allowing primary school children to change their gender identity too quickly, are harming gay people and undermining women’s rights."
BBC Reports on the LGB Alliance opposing bans on Conversion Therapy "The letter was coordinated by the LGB Alliance, which describes itself as promoting the rights of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men. It expressed concern that "the current push to ban conversion therapy... is being used as political cover to promote an affirmation-only approach to gender identity"."
The Guardian describes one of the founders of the LGB alliance, apparently in an attempt to defend themselves against anti-trans claims saying, "The organisation LGB Alliance was founded to “prevent the dissemination of the lie of gender identity”" And, let's be honest, calling Gender identity a lie is WP:SKYBLUE anti-Trans rhetoric.
Pink News says of the LGB Alliance's attempt to stall or prevent gender recognition laws, "The LGB Alliance has been warned by the UK’s advertising watchdog over “potentially misleading” claims in two paid-for newspaper adverts in Scotland. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it received a number of complaints about the newspaper advert, called ‘Press Pause on the Gender Recognition Bill’. The ASA said the anti-trans group’s advert was “potentially misleading” because “the legislation it refers to is still under consultation”."
In Journal of Gender Studies, K. Guyan says "LGB Alliance (2019) (a UK trans-exclusionary LGB organization) argued the NRS proposal 'would suggest that other sexual orientations exist beyond attraction to the opposite sex, same sex or both sexes' (p. 2) and requested that the census not include the term 'Other sexual orientation' as a response option"
In Policy Studies Journal, Turnbull-Dugarte and McMillan say "The case of the LGB Alliance charity is of note. The trans-exclusionary position of the organization engendered significant debate among the LGBT+ community in Scotland."
In Metaphilosophy, Monique says "some trans‐exclusionary LGB movements have begun to form around TERF ideology (for example, the LGB Alliance in the United Kingdom and the Red LGB movement in Spain)"
In International Journal of Sociology, McLean says "Furthermore, the LGB Alliance has argued that ‘attempts to compel women to believe that male genitals can be female is a form of sexual assault, an attack on the rights of lesbians and a threat to their very existence’" This statement is housed in a section of the essay called "Anti-trans tropes".

So, basically, what we have here is an organization founded to exclude trans people (it's literally in the name) that advocates against gender identification laws and against conversion therapy bans and that regularly issues statements that make it clear the organization's focus is anti-trans activities. It's actually been very frustrating trying to navigate two editors with a long history of behaviour that looks a lot like tag-teaming [90] consistently pov pushing that this organization and its founders are not anti-trans despite this broad preponderance of evidence including several WP:BESTSOURCES such as the International Journal of Sociology. I think the frustration felt at such antics should, at the very least, buy Raladic some grace. Or possibly even result in a boomerang. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Evathedutch I suspect one of the good admins observing this page is going to instruct you to refactor you comment so that it doesn't appear to be part of Colin's. Might want to get a head start on that. Notwithstanding that I think you're missing an important part of WP:FRINGE's definition: "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". Neither the Supreme Court of the United States, nor the Economist is appropriate as a basis to adjudicate whether a medical organization is fringe. That would fall to WP:MEDRS compliant sources ideally but, at the very least, would come from reliable sources in medicine, psychology and sociology to make such an adjudication. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by DanielRigal

Sure, that second AfD was a bit overkeen but it is hard not to see this report as an attempt to take an opponent off the field. The suggestion of a boomerang is not unreasonable but I'd rather that Raladic chill out a bit and Void chill out a bit-and-a-half so that nobody needs to get sanctioned. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Result concerning Raladic

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

Raladic, how much of an extension are you looking for? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
- Raladic is granted an extension to 750 words. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't think very much of this is actionable: the disagreements about whether things are FRINGE, secondary, NPOV, etc. are fundamentally content disputes, and what VIR describes as misrepresentation or misleading comments looks more like reasonable disagreements or ambiguities to me. I do think everyone here could be a bit more careful with the revert button, particularly when it comes to reïnstating bold changes without discussion. That's true of Raladic (change, revert, adding it back without discussion; change, revert, adding it back while discussion is ongoing), but it's also true of VIR (change, revert, adding it back without discussion). While WP:BRD is not policy, it does reflect best practice in this area; once your addition has been contested by revert, it's time for discussion then, not for trying to gain the advantage with another revert. Besides that informal note, I'm not seeing a need for any action here at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd be more inclined to go with a logged warning for edit warring on both sides, and if it keeps up after that maybe step up to enforced BRD for those editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Void if removed, should be sorted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with my colleagues that most of this isn't actionable - whether a source is fringe or not is something the editor body needs to reach a consensus on, and talk page discussions are the way to do that. There are a few diffs above that are potentially concerning, but I cannot see the sources in question. I would like to hear from Raladic about what evidence supports the "anti-trans advocacy" claim here, and the "fringe medical organization" claim here (I cannot access the sources: I would like to see a quote, to determine whether sources are being misrepresented). Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

M.Bitton

Latest comment: 1 hour ago11 comments6 people in discussion

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 M.Bitton

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: XDanielx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: 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

WP:ARBPIA

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

I'll limit this to WP:CIVIL related issues for now, since they're easiest to evaluate with minimal context.

2024-12-09 xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with")
2024-12-08 casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets ... this is extremely disingenuous ... made-up rules and demands to satisfy you
2024-12-08 please don't make-up another rule ... maybe that's because you only see what you want to see (partly struck per admin request)
2024-12-01, 2024-12-01 Wikipedia is not a collection of every piece of alleged garbage
2024-11-18 When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness
2024-11-18 I'm starting to question your motives
2024-11-18 Please refrain from repeating your lies (edited to You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV)
2024-11-15 I don't take lessons from those who misrepresent the sources and edit war over WP:OR
2024-11-15 please don't attribute your nonsense to me (this is totally unacceptable)
2024-11-15 Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find
2024-11-15 you've been very busy adding whatever garbage you could find to the article
2024-11-15 Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is?
2024-11-14 I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense ... Your self-serving opinion is irrelevant
2024-11-12 offensive humor

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

I'm not aware of CTOP sanctions. The block log seems to show four blocks, but they're not that recent and I'm not sure how relevant they are.

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

Was a subject of a previous ARBPIA AE request.
Made a couple other statements in ARBPIA AE requests: 2024-12-06, 2024-12-08

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Another 15 diffs were (rightfully) removed by an admin for exceeding the diff limit as well as falling outside PIA scope; just mentioning for transparency. They might be relevant on a different forum but admittedly not here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Theleekycauldron: I planned to file something after the "garbage" comments (about BobFromBrockley) on Talk:Al-Manar. I reconsidered after being surprised by M.Bitton's diplomatic compromise there. Admittedly M.Bitton's comments in the thread above prompted me to reconsider again, but that wasn't about the fact that I might receive a warning there (irrespective of M.Bitton's participation); it was just about me personally being on the receiving end of some personal attacks. I don't really follow why me being emotionally affected by the conduct would affect the legitimacy of the report. Most of the incivility was directed at other users, and letting this conduct continue wouldn't seem fair to them. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2024-12-09

Discussion concerning 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 M.Bitton

Not content with edit warring, assuming bad faith and casting aspersions (see #xDanielx), they now decided to go even lower and file a retaliatory report. M.Bitton (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vanamonde93 and Ealdgyth: I just want to draw your attention to their aspersions casting tag-team revert (their edit summary, while striking it, leaves no doubt about they believe) and the fact that they falsely accused me: of ignoring their ping (when I was logged out) and reverting without an explanation (when, in fact, I did provide one). M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ealdgyth: I agree and will make sure that doesn't happen in the future, regardless of what's coming the other way. I should know better than let myself take the bait, but lesson learnt nonetheless. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning M.Bitton

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

This is shamelessly and obviously a retaliatory filing, and I'm leaning towards a one- or two-way interaction ban to stop the back-and-forth sniping. But I'd still draw uninvolved admins' attention to this thread and ask what their thoughts are. That seems like pretty battleground-y behavior to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see it as a bit retaliatory, but we do need to stop this sniping, especially at AE and other such venues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, this is retaliatory, and at the same time, M. Bitton's language is not acceptable. Bad behavior should be addressed at an administrator noticeboard, or in a civil post to a user talk page, not with what SFR accurately describes as sniping. I would log a warning for casting aspersions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with SFR and Vanamonde93 that the language used does not help the topic area at all. I don't know if M.Bitton's had a long history of logged warnings before (I'm a bit busy trying to get the farm ready for an artic clipper coming in) but I'm fine with a logged warning. But the filer should be aware that they need to also try to avoid retaliatory-filing look in the future... Ealdgyth (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I'm not happy about Daniel's behavior (but will try to find time to look at it in the earlier filing to avoid getting this one off track) but, M.Bitton, your comments are not just sub-par, but not at all what editors should be directing at others. An acknowledgment of that and working to avoid that in the future is something you need to seriously consider if you're not going to end up sanctioned in the future. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Freestyler Scientist

Latest comment: 35 minutes ago15 comments7 people in discussion

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 Freestyler Scientist

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: KoA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed

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

Dec 8 Initial large-scale change
Dec 10 Restoration of content, slow edit warring
Dec 10 2nd restoration on same day. Came to my talk page to claim this only counted as one (has been given guidance on 1RR 4 times as of now, hence coming here).[91]

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 Dec. 8 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a new account and WP:SPA, so I'm already getting a bit of WP:DUCK red flag with this account mentioning policy and the walls of text in a tendentious manner on the talk page, but I don't have additional suggestions for a WP:SPI right now.

The main issue here is the obviously 1RR violation by this account and ignoring the warnings not to restore the large-scale changes they made. One revert today would have still been slow edit warring in violation of 1RR, but two is clearly crossing the line. The article itself is somewhat the GMO equivalent of Andrew Wakefield and vaccines in terms of WP:FRINGE, in this case, claims that GMOs and glyphosate cause cancer despite MEDRS sources saying the opposite. Sometimes we get editors looking to WP:RGW that create timesinks in this topic between edit warring and behavior, so help would be appreciated.

Underlying this, there's a sort of WP:BLUDGEON/combative approach with this new account on the talk page that blows up talk sections in size to the point even I had trouble catching up with the discussion (bludgeon-style comments by Freestyler Scientist vs. succinct responses by others). When issues with their edits came up, they'll claim the comment wasn't legitimate or mistaken followed up by repeated Could I assume that you have withdrawn? Then there's this comment Every point you contested, even I disagreed, had been removed from the edition. I don't see reason everywhere explained.[92] The gist of what I'm getting from the talk page is that this account seemed justified in edit warring because they claim every single point about their massive edits were not addressed on the talk page in detail. There definitely is a tone that they're going to charge ahead anyways without hearing the issues with their edits. There's also a WP:ADVOCACY angle where they're primarily pulling from sources that have a financial conflict of interest in trying to claim glyphosate causes cancer and that it's ok do that because the article supposedly has tons of COI already (it doesnt).[93]

I mentioned socks above because I had been dealing with some following me in topics I edit in the last few days, so if this is a legitimate account, a controversial topic like the GMO/pesticide area doesn't seem like a good place for them to learn the ropes with the combination of edit warring and bludgeon/overbearingness. KoA (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Vanamonde93, the formal notification of 1RR listed in the AE template was on Dec. 8, two days before today's edits. They also would have seen the edit notice when you try to edit the article in their very first edit or the talk page. So at least 2-3 times before their edits today. Add in another time during my revert today before AE and the final straw before this AE when they came to my talk page still clearly asserting they didn't violate 1RR.[[94]]. If it had only been the 1RR issue in isolation, I would have tried to work with them a bit more before coming here, but there's enough exasperation with WP:IDHT at this point that I had to ask for help here. KoA (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ealdgyth I definitely get that based on 1RR in isolation, indef would be overkill. A warning might work, but new editor coming in with an advocacy/WP:FRINGE push like this gives me pause as such editors often become timesinks for regulars in the topic. For something super narrow, maybe a p-block just for Seralini affair? They could easily move to other glyphosate related topics though, so a next step up could be a glyphosate topic ban that would really just be a handful of pages. That's as far as I'd go with any sanctions for realistic options admins might want to consider. I think the key thing with any sanctions (including a warning) though is the message to step back from controversial topics like this and learn the ropes in other areas first. KoA (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[95]

Discussion concerning Freestyler Scientist

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 Freestyler Scientist

ScottishFinnishRadish there is currently no version to revert here. Also, I want to disagree, I'm writing my statement just now. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Bon courage

It's a violation in the face of warnings. There may be some change that would improve the article that draws on the material being proposed, but I don't think these edits are it at all, and edit-warring is not the way to go.

Also I suspect socking, based on an apparently oven-ready passing knowledge of Wikipedia norms and PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Freestyler Scientist

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

Freestyler Scientist, please self-revert so we can close this with a warning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
The second revert was undone by KoA prior to this report being filed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
In that case, I'll wait to see how they misunderstand 1rr and try to remedy that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is a clear 1RR violation, but this is an account with 18 edits: can someone show me evidence that they were aware of 1RR before they were reverted for violating 1RR? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also noting that I examined the history of that article, and I see no immediate basis to check for socks. I am not ruling out sockpuppetry, but absent evidence, they need to be treated as a new user. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit on the new user's talk predates the 1RR violation. Whether they understood what a revert is or not, I'm leaning towards they probably don't grasp that concept quite yet. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I see that the GMO CT notification included a 1RR warning, but per my colleagues below I'm betting they failed to understand it. A warning is appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
KoA - would you be okay with a warning, given that this appears to be a new editor (assuming good faith and all that) with low double digits of edits? I do understand the wanting someone else to make it clear to them that their behavior isn't good (and thus IDHT) so I'm not dinging you for bringing this here, but I'm not quite ready to jump to an indefinite block or something just yet...Ealdgyth (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
KoA wrote above that the formal notification of 1RR listed in the AE template was on Dec. 8, two days before today's edits, and it was present in this edit on December 9. I am, however, willing to believe that the new account genuinely doesn't understand how we count reverts—I think we should close this with a warning and with a good explanation to the new account regarding how we count reverts. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic

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

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

[3] Indian History. Allied Publishers. 1988. pp. B_131. ISBN 978-81-8424-568-4.

[4] ttps://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/ex-plo-spokesman-rashid-khalidi-explains-away-oct

[a]

[b]

[1]

[1]

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