Wikipedia:Administrative action review: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:17, 16 July 2022

Administrative action review (XRV/AARV) determines whether use of the administrator tools or other advanced permissions is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Any action (or set of related actions) involving a tool not available to all confirmed editors—except those covered by another, more specific review process—may be submitted here for community review. The purpose of an administrative review discussion is to reach a consensus on whether a specific action was appropriate, not to assign blame. It is not the place to request comment on an editor's general conduct, to seek retribution or removal of an editor's advanced permissions, or to quibble about technicalities.

To request an administrative action review, please first read the "Purpose" section to make sure that it is in scope. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose

Shortcut

WP:XRVPURPOSE

Administrative action review may be used to request review of:

an administrator action
an action using an advanced permission

Administrative action review should not be used:

to request an appeal or review of an action with a dedicated review process
For review of page deletions or review of deletion discussion closures, use Wikipedia:Deletion review (DRV)

For review of page moves, use Wikipedia:Move review (MRV)
to ask to remove a user's permissions:
Permissions granted at WP:PERM may be revoked by an administrator if XRV finds them to be misused.

Repeated or egregious misuse of permissions may form the basis of an administrators' noticeboard or incidents noticeboard report, or a request for arbitration, as appropriate.
to argue technicalities and nuances (about what the optimal action would have been, for example), outside of an argument that the action was inconsistent with policy.
to ask for a review of arbitration enforcement actions. Such reviews must be done at arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), or directly to the Arbitration Committee at the amendment requests page ("ARCA").
for urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioural problems; use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ("ANI") instead
for serious, entrenched or persistent disputes and cases of rule-breaking; use Wikipedia:Arbitration ("ArbCom") instead
for a block marked with any variation of {{CheckUser block}}, {{OversightBlock}}, or {{ArbComBlock}}; Contact the Arbitration Committee instead
to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias. Such requests may be speedily closed.

Instructions
Initiating a review

Before listing a review request, try to resolve the matter by discussing it with the performer of the action.
Start a new discussion by clicking the button below and filling in the preloaded template.
Notify the performer of the action of the discussion.
You must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. You may use {{subst:XRV-notice}} for this purpose.

Use of the notification system is not sufficient.

Start a new discussion

Participating in a discussion
Any editor in good standing may request a review or participate in discussing an action being reviewed. Participation is voluntary. The goal of the discussion is to determine whether the action is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Contributions that are off-topic may be removed by any uninvolved administrator. You may choose to lead your comment with a bold and bulleted endorse or not endorsed/overturn, though any helpful comment is welcome. Please add new comments at the bottom of the discussion.

Closing a review
Reviews can be closed by any uninvolved administrator after there has been sufficient discussion and either a consensus has been reached, or it is clear that no consensus will be reached. Do not rush to close a review: while there is no fixed minimum time, it is expected that most good faith requests for review will remain open for at least a few days.

The closer should summarize the consensus reached in the discussion and clearly state whether the action is endorsed, not endorsed, or if there is no consensus.

After a review
Any follow-up outcomes of a review are deferred to existing processes. Individual actions can be reversed by any editor with sufficient permissions. Permissions granted at WP:PERM may be revoked by an administrator.

Closed reviews will be automatically archived after a period of time. Do not archive reviews that have not been formally closed.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Tamzin's revdels at Hari Nef

Endorsed. There was a unanimous consensus that these revision deletions were appropriate and supported by the biographies of living persons policy. – Joe (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

59 edit revdels and 1 edit summary revdel

59 edit revdels and 1 edit summary revdel on Hari Nef performed by Tamzin (talk · contribs · logs)

This is a self-requested review. An editor requested in #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect the revision deletion of several edits giving the alleged deadname of Hari Nef. She was never notable under this name, and so under MOS:DEADNAME it is treated as a privacy interest separate from (and often greater than) the person's current name. Some admins felt that revdel for such material was not explicitly covered under WP:CRD, but none went as far as to say that revdel was outright improper. After some discussion of applicable policies, I revdelled those edits and a few dozen older ones, for the following reasons:

There is a history of revdelling such material, for instance at ContraPoints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Laverne Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
RD2 covers (emphasis original) Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little to no encyclopedic or project value, or violates our biographies of living people policy. WP:BLPPRIVACY is part of the BLP policy. As trans people's deadnames are routinely used in "insulting" or "degrading" fashions, I feel that both that prong and the BLP prong of RD2 are met.
Even were they not met, application of revdel, like any other tool, should be dictated by common sense. I would submit that it is common sense that we not host material that is both personally identifiable and offensive—about trans people or anyone else—and that arguments against this are excessively bureaucratic.

However, since I took this action knowing that several other admins would not have, I submit it here for review, in hopes of establishing a precedent that such an action is a valid application of or revdel. If no such consensus can be reached, I will seek an explicit clarification to RD2, but in my opinion this is a straightforward application of the existing policy.

(Not mentioned above is this third revdel, the removal of an edit summary containing a slur, as hopefully that's noncontroversial.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: Seems non-controversial to me. Editors may also be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Should wording be added linking REVDEL as a possible remedy for DEADNAMING? which was opened about this sort of issue a few hours ago. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The report that led to that thread being opened is the same as what Tamzin chose to act on here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse obviously... who had an issue with this? Sigh — TNT (talk • she/her) 20:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. In the case of a living subject, WP:BLP absolutely applies to suppressing the deadname. In the case of a deceased subject, I'd extend the offensive material criteria to apply there, especially in the case of an "aggressive" outing of the deadname. (I think revdel is probably a sufficient action to take, although there might be circumstances where the material needs oversighted.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but... - While I don't believe that BLP requires revdelling deadnames in all cases, it surely permits it in some cases, and it's really within admin discretion whether a particular case is one of those cases. I see no reason to second-guess Tamzin's judgment in this case. I say "but..." because this is a self-requested review, and the problem with self-requested reviews is that you'll almost always endorse because nobody is really making the argument against the action. So I'm also not sure who had a problem with this or why, and in the absence of knowing why, I think the action should be endorsed, but I don't think this really has much precedential value, because we're all only hearing one side of the argument. (For this reason, I don't really think self-requested reviews are very useful. If no one cares enough to actually challenge the action, consider it endorsed, it's probably not worth taking the time to discuss.) Levivich^[block] 20:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What Levivich said. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don't understand why this is at all controversial? Deadnaming someone can be a BLP violation (it was in this instance) and BLP violations can be revision deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but this should be oversighted: WP:OSPOL#1 makes clear that "non-public personal information" should be oversighted. Nef's birth name appears to be such a piece of information (let me know if it has been published somewhere with Nef's permission). The potential issues are identity theft and use for harassment. It is no different to publishing my birth name on Wikipedia, as I have not made it public. As such, WP:CRD#4 applies (so long as Tamzin has a reasonable belief that it may be OSPOL eligible, even if OSers end up rejecting oversight). However, even without this, CRD 2/3 apply. — Bilorv (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the deadname is given in a reliable source (and not just a newspaper that's generally reliable, but an article from a newspaper that is reliable), then I take back the above about oversighting. It appears that an article in The Philadelphia Inquirer may meet this condition, though I haven't seen it. — Bilorv (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (as within discretion). Wikipedia should not be the place where a person’s personal information is first reliably published. Certainly this applies to the mainspace page, where it is considered reliable by most of the world, even if not by Wikipedia itself. This reasonably extends to the page history, which makes the revision deletion justified. I note at the birth name exists on the internet, but it is not reliably published, and that it is good that Wikipedia actively discourages primary source sleuthing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The Philadelphia Inquirer is unreliable? Then why did Hari Nef still cite it in three places? And the same article that was used to ref her deadname, no less? I mean, sure, we shouldn't include her former name, and hiding the revisions to make it more inconvenient for random driveby anons to put it back in is justified, but let's not fool ourselves that we're doing anything more than making it inconvenient to put it back in. —Cryptic 17:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I haven’t seen that source. It’s behind a paywall. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  User:Cryptic, yes The Philadelphia Inquirer is a reliable publication. Are you saying that it previously posted an article noting Nef’s birth name? Can you verify that, from a reputable reliable source? If the newspaper redacted the online version, that is important information and Wikipedia should respect the redaction, unless another reputable source commented on the redaction. I would discourage Wikipedia citing a microfiche copy of a printed version. Why was it redacted? Was it wrong? Did the newspaper consider it like a BLP violation? SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  See my recent edits. —Cryptic 00:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I can be slow at solving little riddles.
  
  If the subject’s birth name has been noted (is noted) in a reliable and reputable publication, then it is ok to include in the article, noting NOTCENSORED.
  
  If the subject’s birth name has never (but subject to redactions) been noted in a reliable and reputable source, then it should not be in Wikipedia mainspace, and subject to any admins discretion, may be quietly rev-deleted, subject to review (review by DRV or XRV or oversighters, I’m not sure, it probably doesn’t matter). SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  If the subject’s birth name has been noted (is noted) in a reliable and reputable publication, then it is ok to include in the article, noting NOTCENSORED. WP:NOTCENSORED is never a reason to include something in an article (it is a reason not to exclude it) and WP:DEADNAME says If a living transgender or non-binary person was not notable under a former name (a deadname), it should not be included in any page [...] even if reliable sourcing exists. (my emphasis). Revision deletion can be reviewed here, at AN or at AN/I but do note that doing so in a very high profile environment can be a poor choice for a (potential) BLP violation. Appeals and queries regarding oversighting can be sent to the Oversight team or to arbcom. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I think you’re talking a technical cross-point at me. DEADNAME, as a mere MOS line, cannot be the basis for revdeletion. If you think it should be, get it written into a tougher policy, such at WP:BLP. An MOS “should” does not trigger deletion policy.
  
  The justification for Tazmin’s revision deletions comes mainly from the angle of preventing Wikipedia being (mis)used as the primary reliable source for the BLP-dubious information. If there were a quality source providing the information, revdeletion would be unjustified. Some justification comes from WP:DENY. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  The revdeletions were consistent, although not explicitly covered, with multiple parts of WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME. The information revdelled is easily considered private information of a living person. The REVDELetion of the private and personal information was not covered by WP:CRD, but is covered by Wikipedia:Revision deletion#HIDINGBEFORESIGHT, and this difference is an oddity. I recommend that WP:CRD be expanded to include “deletion of a living person’s personal private information that is unsourced or sourced only to primary sources”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd endorse this particular decision. What I do think is open to question is why, in 2022, the mechanism for anonymously requesting revision deletions is an irc channel?—S Marshall T/C 17:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can email the oversight team asking for revision deletion. If you don't want the request to be associated with your Wikipedia account you can just use a throw-away email (although it is best to check it until you get a response in case we have any questions about the request). Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discretionarily permitted, not obligated, not OSPOL - Cryptic notes that it is included in the PI. Now, I don't see notability established so we shouldn't include it, but it doesn't appear to be an OSPOL case (however, some DEADNAME cases could be). Actually agreeing to have it published is not required - yes, we wouldn't allow say, a stolen set of information be included, but journalistic publications don't only post information with the subject's sign-off. But, I concur that it's with the discretion. However, I would oppose any standard viewing it as inherently revdellable. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I strongly believe that I was unjustly blocked after I spent many hours defending my edits

Out of scope (complaint is about the German Wikipedia). – Joe (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Action: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Diff/224158314#Stilo72

User: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Johannnes89 (talk · contribs · logs) ([discussion])

I was completely blocked from the German Wikipedia with the reason "lack of will for encyclopedia building cooperation" by https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Johannnes89. The block was proposed by https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Succu who named this as their reason: "Has been bothering me since June 22, 2022 with his discussion posts about Miltenyi Biotec (see disc there)". This is truly surreal. I "bothering" him by answering his questions!

I was trying to add my section called Controversies (see English Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miltenyi_Biotec#Controversies and my German Wiki text: https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miltenyi_Biotec&diff=223758204&oldid=223267749)

My section has 7 great sources from two countries, it was added after ONE MONTH of warning on the Talk page (I forced to do this by another user, now I know that forcing me to use the Talk page before adding content is illegal according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_content#Statements).

This user https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Succu promptly deleted my section with the reason "What is your problem?" and an admin called https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Nordprinz SUPPORTED this change. He told me to answer all questions. I did, I spent many hours doing it here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Miltenyi_Biotec Since https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Succu was obviously hostile to me for some reason, I ended up being a little emotional on his talk page (I asked him to stop deleting my messages, asked him why he is against these sick children and why he equates the words "Ukrainian" and "stupid" - it was his mistake, not mine. He is vehemently opposed to me.

However I acknowledge that I should not have gotten overly emotional and I promise not to do that again.

I only want is to add widely publicized information and I have spent a lot of hours defending my edits. Now https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Johannnes89 has blocked me completely from editing German Wikipedia, saying I don't have a desire to cooperate. If you are in doubt that I desire to cooperatively discuss things, read the talk page - I have been answering everyone for hours. Admin https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Nordprinz also says this: "The attempt to clarify the topic of the change in an article discussion has failed." What is to clarify here? I want to add TWO SENTENCES with very good sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miltenyi_Biotec#Controversies here they are, deleted with the reason "What is your problem?"

Please note the following key points:

1. I warned about my edits on the Talk page a month before I published them.

2. My section was deleted with the reason "What is your problem?" and an admin supported that.

3. My ban was initiated by the same person who deleted my section with the reason "Has been bothering me since June 22, 2022 with his discussion posts about Miltenyi Biotec (see disc there)". I was "bothering" him by answering his questions. And an admin supported that - I was blocked indefinitely, even from sending email and editing my own page.

Please note the following Wikipedia Blocking Policy violations:

A. Blocking policy violation: Blocking: Preliminary: education and warnings: I was not given a warning by an administrator. Only "users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning". My main activity wasn't vandalism. I only made a couple of emotional (non vulgar) comments on a user's Talk page, this was a mistake, but this wasn't my main activity.

B. Blocking policy violation: Blocking: Implementing blocks: Duration of blocks: "accounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning;" - I was given indefinite block for "incidents of disruptive behavior" which "typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations;"

C. Blocking policy violation: Setting block options: "Prevent user from sending email will restrict the user from accessing the Special:EmailUser function for the duration of the block. This option is not checked by default and should not be enabled when blocking an account except only in cases where either the blocked user abuses it, or uses it to harass, threaten, intimidate, or cause disruption toward other editors." ... "When enabled, efforts should be taken to ensure that the user's talk page remains unprotected" - I never used the Email function and should not have been blocked from it. Much less when my Talk page has also been blocked.

D. Blocking policy violation: "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked, if checked, will prevent the blocked user from editing their own user talk page (including the ability to create unblock requests) during the duration of their block. This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations or outing which needs to be prevented from reoccurring" - I am prevented from editing my own page, although I never abused my page or threatened anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stilo72 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even talk to any admin on German Wiki, much less to the one who blocked me. I can't even notify him about this review. Is it fair to completely block a person because he has been "bothering" someone "with his discussion posts about Miltenyi Biotec"? I did not ask this user to come and delete my changes (which I suggested on the Talk page ONE MONTH before I published them) with the reason "What is your problem?". I did not ask for him to deny every proof that I have been providing on the talk page. Yet it was "bothering" him. Of course I got emotional, but are my emotions a reason enough for a complete block? Is a complete block without an ability to appeal an adequate punishment for a couple of emotional sentences on someone's talk page, after I have shown my good will by waiting one month before making changes and answering all questions on the article's Talk page in a civil manner? If it's not, then please, restore my faith in humanity (this is not a joke) and in Wikipedia and revoke this surreal decision.

NOTE: I CAN'T NOTIFY THE USER WITH XRV BECAUSE I WAS COMPLETELY BLOCKED FROM THE GERMAN WIKI, DO NOT PUNISH ME FOR THIS, THIS WAS NOT MY DECISION

Stilo72 (talk) 23:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stilo72: It's outside of our scope. There's nothing we can do, since this all relates to actions on the German Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But what can I do? Not even email admin works now. Please help me at least somehow. Stilo72 (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stilo72: Your de.wiki talk page access and email access have been revoked. You'll have to find de.wiki's equivalent of Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. Es tut mir leid, dass ich nicht mehr helfen kann. Ich habe seit dem Gymnasium zu viel Deutsch vergessen. (I'm sorry that I can't help more. I have forgotten too much German since high school.) —C.Fred (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you, I will try it. Please do not delete my request, I will need it for my Unblock Ticket. Stilo72 (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this page and sent them an email. How long do I have to wait? (On English Wikipedia, at least) Stilo72 (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stilo72: The English and German Wikipedias are entirely separate projects. We can't help you. – Joe (talk) 07:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dennis Brown's block of Levivich

Action: Dennis Brown's block of Levivich

User: Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · logs) ([discussion])

This seems to be a clear breach of WP:3RRNO and WP:BLPRESTORE. Contentious BLP material challenged in good faith must have consensus to be added if challenged. The block was for edit warring on Rania Khalek and they're is currently discussion on the talk page about inclusion of the material, and no consensus to include it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should be changed to an ARBPIA block. The BLP exemption would apply to only the removal of the parts that are poorly sourced. Is anybody seriously arguing that left-wing is poorly sourced? Levivich accepts it is not on the talk page. Is anybody arguing that the Jerusalem Post is not a reliable source for a well known journalist's view on Khalek either? Of course not. You cant just say BLP and exempt edit-warring, you can only exempt obvious BLP violations and only the removals of those BLP violations. But this should be logged as an ARBPIA block, thats the only change thats justified. The ONUS argument is not an excuse for edit-warring, the only valid exemption is BLP and that does not allow for the removal of the entire edit, as parts of it are clearly not BLP violations. 24 hours without an ARBPIA logged action is getting off easy for 3 reverts on a 1RR page. But this belongs at WP:AN if anywhere at all, I generally thought the blocked user is who needs to appeal it. nableezy - 23:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at 3RRNO, the seventh exception says Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. The content claims that her views have been described as pro-Assadist and pro-Kremlin; this is clearly contentious material; I see on the talk page that some editors consider it poorly sourced, as well being potentially biased or libellous. As it does not currently enjoy consensus I believe that the exception Levivich claims does apply; I would support overturning this block. BilledMammal (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You missed a bit in your quote, What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Nothing at WP:BLP/N, and parts of the revert are clearly not contentious, and somebody just saying something is poorly sourced does not make it so. Again, you cannot just say BLP and use that as a shield, if it is not actually a BLP violation then the exemption is not valid, and with the sources cited this is not a valid claim of an exemption. nableezy - 00:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of WP:3RRNO #7 is to ensure that contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced is kept out of BLP's until it is clear that its inclusion is warranted under our policies, particularly core policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V. This exception is not limited to obvious cases, and since outside of obvious cases we cannot determine until after the discussion whether it is libellous, biased, or poorly sourced we need to assess whether the editors belief that it was libellous, biased, or poorly sourced was reasonable - whether it was controversial is irrelevant to this.

In this case, I believe it was; the discussion on the talk page suggests their belief was supported by multiple editors, and to label someone as "pro-Assad" or "pro-Kremlin" is contentious in the absence of very strong evidence and consensus.

To put this another way, if a consensus for the inclusion of this material does not emerge then Levivich was indisputably correct to claim the exemption. Since we cannot currently determine this, then we instead have to consider whether it is reasonable to believe that such consensus will not emerge, and based on the talk page such a belief is reasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 01:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
if a consensus for the inclusion of this material does not emerge then Levivich was indisputably correct to claim the exemption is not true. If consensus that the material was a BLP violation then that is true. And let me state that I dont think it is at all possible that all of the removed material violates BLP, even if I dont think all of it should be retained. But material can be excluded for all sorts of reasons, and nearly all of them do not excuse edit-warring. This is not a valid BLP exemption claim, and it was edit-warring on a 1RR article. nableezy - 01:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of many reasons it would be excluded that don't meet some aspects of WP:3RRNO #7; if there are WP:NPOV issues, it meets the biased exemption, if there are WP:V issues it meets the poorly sourced exemption. You are correct that there are some, but I don't believe any are applicable here, and none have been raised on the talk page. BilledMammal (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It says “libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced”. It doesn’t say “contentious”. ANYTHING can be contentious if someone just chooses to make it so with a bit of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. The material in question is not libelous, not biased, and very well sourced. Volunteer Marek 02:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It says contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced. It has to be both contentious and libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced; it is clearly contentious and looking at the talk page the belief that it is biased or poorly sourced is not unreasonable. BilledMammal (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Theres twelve sources given, it is neither “biased” nor poorly sourced. Volunteer Marek 02:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

This was a wholesale removal of content, which had more than a few valid sources and was too broad to be considered a BLP violation. Simply stating you are removing information for BLP reasons isn't a free pass to do 3 reverts in 24 hours on a 1RR article (or any article, for that matter). As the policy clearly says, what is exempt can be controversial and often it is better to go to the BLP noticeboard. In this instance, I think Levivich became overzealous but was well aware they were swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. Being "contentious" alone isn't enough to get a pass on a 1RR article, it needs to meet the other criteria, which it doesn't. Because he doesn't have a history of blocks, I did the mildest block I could, avoiding sanctions under WP:ARBPIA and instead doing 24 hours as a standard admin block. Given that there is a lot of heating going on, including Levivich filing a report at AE regarding another editor, and was well aware (or should have been) of the relevant policies, I feel the sanction is rather mild. That's all I have to say. Whatever the community decides is fine, but given the totality of circumstances, I feel there is no valid BLP exemption at play, and the block was the mildest sanction that could have been given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am with Dennis on this one, sorry. It's another one of those awful BLPs that's all opinions and opinions on opinions--but "her work has been described as" is not a BLP violation, with this many sources. There's discussion on the talk page, but if this was such a big deal, then it should have been brought up at BLPN. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:ONUS which states: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. It's one of our 3 core content policies coupled with BLP. When Lev removed the material, the onus was on the editor seeking to include disputed content, not the editor who removed it. That statement is very clear but when coupled with a potential BLP vio, it certainly appears to be a no-brainer. We just had a discussion about ONUS which is what brought this to my attention. Atsme 💬 📧 01:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no BLP violation, and certainly not for the entire 4800 bytes. Besides, ONUS isn't an exemption for 1RR/3RR. It is irrelevant to the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Of that 4800 bytes, 147 is a statement that would be a BLP violation if unsourced, and the remaining 4600 are the sources that accompany it. If a revert was to be made, it's the entire 4800 bytes or nothing. Tazerdadog (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is enforcing WP:ONUS listed as an exemption to WP:EW? Or does it show up as an exception to WP:A/I/PIA#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions? nableezy - 01:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POT would have a little to say about that too. That others may have been wrong doesn't suddenly make Levi's actions ok. KoA (talk) 02:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse largely per the blocking admin's rationale A claim that is is BLP exempt doesn't make it so. The material may be contentious but it was well sourced, so it doesn't seem in bad faith or an obvious BLP violation. and Drmies addition. WP:GAMING of BLP to continue battleground behavior is part of the focus of a WP:BOOMERANG at Levivich's AE case right now too. Doubling down was not a wise choice for Levivich considering one could be technically correct on a BLP issue and still be disruptive and blocked. If you invoke the BLP exception, you better not be wiki-lawyering, and you need a very strong case rather than the nuh-uh or no backsies wiki-lawyering attitude they were showing on their talk page when warned about edit warring. They were creating more heat than light, but that wider discussion is moreso for AE.

Given the amount of sources though (each of variable suitability), the blanket reverts to entirely remove all the content at least would not fall under an obvious BLP exception. That's not to say those edit warring the content back in were correct either though. However, even a partial revert could be questionable in terms of the BLP exception too, so this action was really Levivich overextending their hand in an already disrupted topic rather than just testing the boundary. That was instead a matter to hash out on the talk page like a "normal dispute" or go straight to the noticeboard rather instead of jumping in to existing edit warring. It was pretty clear a block was needed to stem disruption and hopefully give Levivich a wakeup call to step back and realize what they're doing. KoA (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know basically nothing about this dispute, but just looking at the section Levivich removed: I think it's very relevant to bring up that the thing Levivich removed had ten citations, five of which were broken. That's such a suspicious edit I'm definitely inclined to say this ban should be overturned. Loki (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, even as someone uninvolved in the article or even the topic, I can click on each of those links. There wasn't anything really broken, they were just bare urls without citation templates that should have been filled in. Not ideal, but far from the point of jumping to WP:ASPERSIONS of suspicious edits or claiming they were somehow under WP:OVERSIGHT in your wikilink. Blanket reverting due to poor formatting is not an exception for edit warring. KoA (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant WP:OVERCITE, not WP:OVERSIGHT.

But yeah, I do think that a pejorative statement with ten citations, five of which are broken, is a presumptive BLP violation in a BLP. The problem with that sort of thing is the same as the reasons stated in WP:OVERCITE: adding so many citations doesn't show the information you're adding is strong and well-cited, it shows that it's weak and contentious, because if it was strong enough to stand on its own, you'd trust the ordinary two or three reliable sources instead of needing ten. And especially the broken citations show it was added in a hurry and without a lot of thought, which presumably means without consensus. In short, it's exactly the sort of thing that shouldn't be added to a BLP. Loki (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the links are broken though. That they do not use {{citation}} templates does not make them broken. nableezy - 04:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citation formatting on many of them was broken. The links indeed were not broken, I agree. That distinction doesn't matter for what I'm talking about though. Loki (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ONUS applies, and the material should be removed pending affirmative consensus (it's not even sufficiently mentioned in the body of the article). However, that's a separate question from whether violating 1RR was justified, and so kind of beside the point here. Regarding 3RRNO#7, it's not poorly sourced, so that mainly leaves us with "biased". I tend to read "biased" in this context as a particularly egregious form of bias like misrepresenting sources or adding something that's obviously WP:UNDUE. There has to be some line between, I don't know, run-of-the-mill disagreements about bias, and the sort of extreme case that creates an exception to edit warring rules. This seems closer to the former IMO, and probably within admin discretion. It's just a 24h block, and could probably even be converted to a 24h page-specific block without much of an issue. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it is poorly sourced. Ten unreliable sources are not very good sourcing. Quality beats quantity here, and all of the sources are opinion pieces, many of which are in relatively poor quality publications. For a BLP that's really not great sourcing. I could source basically any politician you want as a baby-eater if you let me get away with sourcing it to random opinion pieces. Loki (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
False. All of these sources are reliable - WaPo, JPost, Haaretz, AlJ, Foreign Policy, Tablet, etc. None of them are “random”, whatever that means. Please stop making transparently false and ridiculous claims. Volunteer Marek 04:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing perhaps is not good enough to include the material, and the framing is perhaps not neutral enough (attribution, nuance, etc.), but again we're not talking about whether the material should be included but whether this constitutes the sort of emergency that throws edit warring rules out the window. I don't quite think it is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Levivich's talk page:

There's some misunderstanding at XRV. What I removed (Special:Diff/1098031293, Special:Diff/1098031293, and Special:Diff/1098168196) was this content: Her views have been described as pro-Assadist and pro-Kremlin via her work for the RT television network and its subsidiaries. So the controversial content is pro-Assadist and pro-Kremlin, not "left-wing" or "far left". The first time I removed the content, it had 10 sources; the second time, 12 sources. The 12 sources were:

An opinion piece, labeled "Opinion", by Alexander Reid Ross in Haaretz: Ross, Alexander Reid (April 17, 2018). "How Assad's War Crimes Bring Far Left and Right Together - Under Putin's Benevolent Gaze". Haaretz. regular RT contributor and pro-Assad leftist Rania Khalek

A WaPo opinion piece, labeled "Perspective by Annia Ciezadlo", described as "a journalist who writes about food, politics and power in times of crisis." It calls her "far-left", not "pro-Assad" or "pro-Kremlin". Ciezadlo, Annia (April 11, 2017). "Why would Assad use sarin in a war he's winning? To terrify Syrians". The Washington Post. Retrieved 5 July 2022. 'We still don't know exactly what happened in Syria and who was responsible,' far-left writer and commentator Rania Khalek wrote on Twitter, 'but fact remains that Syrian govt gains nothing from a CW attack.'

Straight news from Jerusalem Post, but it doesn't say "pro-Assad" or "pro-Kremlin", in its own voice, it says "controversial journalist and activist", and it quotes Andrea Chalupa "asserting that Khalek supports 'Kremlin propaganda'". Frantzman, Seth J. (January 26, 2019). "Rep. Omar Slammed for Supporting Venezuela's Brutal Regime". The Jerusalem Post. Author and journalist Andrea Chalupa accused Omar of "amplifying an RT contributor," asserting that Khalek supports 'Kremlin propaganda'.

An opinion piece, labeled opinion, by Malak Chabkoun, described as "an independent Middle East researcher and writer based in the US", in Al Jazeera. It says Khalek is a "pro-Palestinian 'activist'" (with scare quotes) and that she has "joined in on the whitewashing" and "repeat[s] the [Assad] regime’s propaganda almost verbatim, claiming that what’s happening in Syria is a war against terrorists". That's not the same thing as "pro-Assad". Chabkoun, Malak (December 24, 2016). "Whitewashing Assad and his allies must be challenged". al jazeera. The regime and its allies' crimes in Syria have been whitewashed in several ways by journalists and academics alike. Bartlett, Beeley, Fisk and Khalek, for example, repeat the regime's propaganda almost verbatim, claiming that what's happening in Syria is a war against terrorists

An opinion piece, labeled opinion, by Muhammad Idrees Ahmad, described as "Lecturer in Digital Journalism at the University of Stirling" and "a contributing editor at the Los Angeles Review of Books.", in Al Jazeera. He complains that Khalek visited Syria: "The modern form of disaster tourist is a pure mercenary, bereft of conviction, indifferent to suffering, driven purely by avarice. They are acutely aware of the regimes’ repressive character and the odiousness of their role. Both Blumenthal and Khalek have in the past acknowledged the Assad regime’s criminality and, in the case of Blumenthal, denounced those who serve as its apologists. Their embrace of the same role shows self-aware intention. Their flimsy attempts at justifying the visit are telling." He says Khalek was joined on the trip by "pro-regime Syrian Solidarity Movement" and "Ajamu Baraka, Jill Stein’s running mate, and various other pro-Assad conspiracy theorists". Ahmad, Muhammad Idrees (September 15, 2018). "Junket journalism in the shadow of genocide". al Jazeera. Retrieved July 5, 2022. Rania Khalek, a Twitter personality who produces viral videos for the Russia Today subsidiary "In the Now".

HuffPo piece by a HuffPo reporter, but it doesn't say Khalek is pro-Assad or pro-Kremlin, it says Khalek joined Tulsi Gabbard in making the case that armed opposition to Assad is dominated by extremists. And to quote WP:RSP, where HuffPo is yellow for politics, "In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics. The community considers HuffPost openly biased on US politics. There is no consensus on its reliability for international politics." Ahmed, Akbar Shahid (April 10, 2017). "Here's Who Still Supports Bashar Assad". HuffPost. Gabbard for years has argued that the armed opposition to Assad is dominated by extremists. While U.S. and regime policies have arguably made the extremists more powerful, this has never been fully true, according to experts. A coterie of left-wing writers and activists, notably journalist Rania Khalek, have joined Gabbard in making this case.

I mean, OK, it's labelled "News", but it's so obviously an op-ed by Lee Smith (journalist) in Tablet (magazine), who writes: "That even Khalek, a political activist and openly pro-Assad apologist, had some sense that this looks really, really bad does not reflect well on mainstream media organizations like The Washington Post, NPR, and The New Yorker." Tell me that's not op-ed. The opening is "Bashar al-Assad’s regime has pulled off a grotesque PR coup by corralling a number of prominent American journalists from outlets like The New York Times, National Public Radio, The Washington Post, and The New Yorker to participate in a conference designed to legitimize the rule of Syria’s genocidal head of state." He's calling a lot of people pro-Assad. Smith, Lee (October 31, 2016). "Assad Regime's Grotesque PR Conference in Damascus Uses 'New York Times,' 'Washington Post,' NPR, and 'New Yorker' Reporters to Whitewash War Crimes". Tablet. Retrieved July 5, 2022. Khalek...[an] openly pro-Assad apologist ... Khalek wrote against sanctions in an article for the Intercept, which was recycled by the Syrian press agency, SANA.

From Commentary (magazine), which is an opinion blog; it's by Jonathan Marks. He says Khalek thinks the media is tilted against Assad; that's not really pro-Assad, it's anti-media. Marks, Jonathan (November 1, 2016). "An Anti-Israel Activist in Syria". Commentary. Retrieved October 2, 2019. [Khalek] is in Syria to attend a conference in Damascus on 'The Ramifications of War in Syria.' It's no mystery why the organizers of the conference invited Khalek–who thinks the 'Western media narrative' is tilted against Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad–to speak on the effects of sanctions on Syria.

Another Commentary blog post, by Seth Mandel, executive editor of the Washington Examiner. [1]

Bellingcat, which is green at RSP, but has the notation "There is consensus that Bellingcat is generally reliable for news and should preferably be used with attribution." The piece is labeled news, and identifies Khalek as "a Russian state media personality who in 2018 was found to be surreptitiously on the Kremlin payroll" and mentions the trip to Syria sponsored by the Assad regime. Doesn't say pro-Kremlin (taking a payment is not being pro- the person bribing you) or pro-Assad (visiting a person is not being pro- that person). [2]

Foreign Policy opinion, labeled "Argument: An expert's point of view on a current event." By Jasmin Mujanović, "a political scientist specializing in the politics of southeastern Europe." It says "Most recently, so-called independent journalists such as Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek—both of whom have received funds from Assad regime lobby groups—have even toured government-controlled regions of Syria to whitewash the scale of the atrocities." That's not pro-Assad. [3]

From The Daily Beast, which is yellow at WP:RSP, and it doesn't say she is pro-Assad or pro-Kremlin, just that she worked at Sputnik and RT: [4]

What's most surprising about this is the number of editors (and administrators) describing this as "well sourced".

— User:Levivich 05:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of validity for content discussion above, that post where they claimed Dennis, you owe me an hour in the edit summary (as if Levi is owed for something they should have done in the first place) shows why the block was good. Before, they were mostly just piling on edit warring and going after VM, and after the block, they were at least focusing a bit more on content above. Blocks are there for when even good editors get myopic on winning a dispute and lose sight of the larger disruption they add doing so. KoA (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am always a bit dubious when I see "X's views have been described as Y..." as opposed to "X has expressed Y views" because the former almost always means that the sources are at least somewhat flaky and can't support it being stated in Wikipedia's voice. And when it's massively over-cited that's a second alarm bell - if you have one or two good reliable sources, why on earth are you padding it out with a load of op-eds? (Incidentally, the "left-wing" part is well sourced, it's the pro-Putin and pro-Assad bits that are dubious). Perhaps the RfC that's just been started should have been the first port of call rather than the last. Black Kite (talk) 09:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the above, it seems that only two out of the twelve sources actually use the terminology that was sourced to them, making it a clear case of "contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced" (WP:3RRBLP). Once this claim was made by an editor in good standing, it would've been preferable if they were heard before being blocked. Other than that, I agree with Black Kite that this should've been resolved through discussion or an RfC, rather than by two editors repeatedly re-inserting the exact same content over the objections of five others. François Robere (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was an edit war. Something needed doing. The block was within policy, and is highly defensible as proportionate. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of you seem to be confusing "I don't think it should be in the article" with "clear BLP violation". Admin do not decide content, we can not use our judgement if the article is better or worse for the addition, that would make us involved. If the reverted content is not a clear BLP violation, then it is edit warring. Unless there is some obvious URGENCY to remove the edit, the editor must go to BLPN or other board. There is no justification for breaking 1RR twice in one day, even if you don't like the content he removed. The exemption is only for clear violations, not for content preferences or for debating the quality of sources that are generally considered reliable. Otherwise, 1RR/3RR are meaningless and impossible to sanction by any admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While all the other edit war exceptions have "clear" in them, the BLP one does not. You can revert for any BLP violation, not just a "clear" one. There is no requirement in there that an editor "must" go to BLPN, only that they should "consider" going to BLPN.

Yes, this does very much weaken 1RR/3RR on BLP pages in favor of removal of content, and that's by design. The whole point is that you should fight to remove possibly libelous content without worrying about an admin sanctioning you for it. Loki (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are misunderstanding the policy at a level that would take up too much room. In short: the default position is that 1RR violations lead to a block, and the exemptions for them are very, very narrow. This wasn't even close. You trying to use the letter of the policy to justify an action post-action, by intentionally missing the intention of the policy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Loki here; even non-clear BLP violations can do genuine damage, and should not remain on an article for a month while we hold an RfC to agree they are BLP violations. In contrast, if the reasonable belief that a specific piece of content was a BLP violation was incorrect, then no damage has been done by excluding the content for a month waiting for a consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Non clear BLP violations are subject to sanction, which is why they should go to BLPN instead of edit warring. Tony explained it best: if you have to go into detail to explain how something is a BLP violation, then it isn't exempt from 1RR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The content may be UNDUE or the text may be poorly worded, but it's not a BLP violation to reflect widely published views from credible sources. The ensuing fuss over this minimal, clearly explained, sanction seems to confirm that there was battleground behavior that needed a time out. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Was the content of the edits Levivich reverted of poor quality? Yes, certainly. Was it a BLP violation? Not necessarily, as reliable sources do cover these allegations. Considering the 2 other editors he was reverting are experienced editors, Levivich should have continued to engage (preferably positively) on the talk page, started an RfC, or taken it to DRN. Levivich had options on hand, and instead chose to edit war. Curbon7 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Levivich's talk page by his request: @Dennis Brown: Why is "pro-Assadist" and "pro-Kremlin", in your words, too broad to be considered a BLP violation? Where is the basis in WP:BLP or anywhere else for the notion that a statement is capable of being "too broad" to be a BLPvio, and even if it's there, why are these statements "too broad" as opposed to, you know, specific? Regarding your statement, emphasis in the original, If the reverted content is not a clear BLP violation, then it is edit warring ... The exemption is only for clear violations ... Where is "clear" in WP:BLP, WP:3RRNO, or anywhere else? WP:BLPRESTORE says "good faith", for example. WP:3RRNO#7 doesn't have the word "clear" in it. Where are you getting "clear" from? Regarding debating the quality of sources that are generally considered reliable, some of these sources are yellow at RSP, so not generally considered reliable. Others are blogs, not generally considered reliable. Others are op-eds, same. In fact, this leads me to my next question: You blocked me on the grounds that this is well-sourced. I'm going to WP:AGF that before you blocked me for this, you looked at the diffs, and clicked through to all 12 sources. So, which of these sources supports the statement Her views have been described ... pro-Kremlin ...? Which source describes her views as pro-Kremlin? I see zero. Same question for pro-Assad: #1 and #7 say "pro-Assad", none of the others do. These two sources are op-eds from biased (pro-Israeli, anti-Assad) sources. Do you contend that, based on two op-eds from biased authors, it's BLP-compliant to state "Her views have been described as pro-Assadist"? If someone has a good-faith BLP objection, is that not enough to claim 3RRNO #7? Do you content that my objection was not in good faith? Thanks in advance for your responses, Levivich (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Most of this is answered throughout this page. Let me just address one example: Calling someone pro-Kremlin, etc isn't a BLP violation if you are providing sources. As admin, it isn't my job to decide if the sourcing is "good enough" or not, that is a content decision. I can look and see that there are sources talking about the subject matter, and if the inclusion was in good faith, and is not obviously a violation. That's all. Same for these false claims that "clear violation" isn't policy because it doesn't use the word "clear". This is absurd. It obviously implies that any exemption must be clear. Otherwise you make it so ANY edit to a BLP can be edit warred just because you claim it is a violation, even if it isn't clear. On sources, to say "well sourced" only means there were plenty of sources that appear to be reliable. I can not, and will not, read each and every source to verify that (in my opinion) the prose best matches the source. Again, unless there is a "clear" violation or deviation from the sources (even if they are wrong), it isn't an exemption. And again, again, if you allow such vague claims of BLP violations to be had, there would be no way for admin to enforce edit warring. It's very simple. There was NOTHING in that edit that required you edit war to keep the material out. You could have gone to BLPN. It was NOT an emergency or "clear" violion. And yes, CLEAR, whether you want to believe that is the standard or not, it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: I strongly dislike penalizing editors based on implied rules; it comes across as very Kafkaesque and what is implied can be subject to reasonable disagreement. Instead, I believe that an RFC should be opened proposing that "clear" is added to WP:3RRNO #7.

Personally, I would oppose it, based on the fact that even non-clear violations can be damaging, but it would allow us to determine whether the consensus of the community aligns with your belief, and if consensus does it will make it clear to future editors what the actual expectations are. BilledMammal (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an implied rule. 1RR is an explicit rule, and in a Arb DS area, it is strictly enforced. The rule is to block/sanction. The exception is only when the edit is clearly to remove vandalism or other policy violations that are clear to anyone viewing them, ie: they don't need explaining. The default isn't to allow, it is to sanction. The current situation simply did not warrant exemption, and they should have known it. It wasn't about BLP, it was about preferred version. They could have taken it to BLPN or any other board, but they didn't, knowing that sanction was possible. Some might not like it, but that is how it is enforced, per Arb rulings and authority. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis Brown: The rule isn't implied but the limitations to the exemption, limitations that this block is based on, are. This is why I disagree with the block; a straight reading of the text supports the claim that Levivich's actions were permitted. BilledMammal (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, and every admin on this page disagrees with you on this point, which should say something. Exemptions aren't automatic, they must be clear and obvious, otherwise violations will be common, wikilawyered to death. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis' argument has been the universal interpretation of that clause for well over a decade and the entire point of discretionary sanctions is to avoid arguments like the ones you're making. When an article is under AE, there's a clear awareness of AE, and an action is done in contradiction of sanctions, the burden is on the person who looks to be violating policy to show that an exemption clearly applies. It is not on Dennis to show that his presumed good block that follows policy and practice to the letter is correct.
On the policy point, if you want to change the policy to read like you think it should read, the burden is on you to start the RfC to remove the section that tells people not to claim the BLP exemption unless they are sure it applies, and encourages them not to revert but to discuss instead. You're the person suggesting the policy change here, so it would be on you to start an RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the section that tells people not to claim the BLP exemption unless they are sure it applies - can you quote this section? As far as I can tell, WP:3RRNO #7 does not say that, and I cannot find a section elsewhere that does. BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond that, just removing the JPost source by itself is outside of any valid BLP claim. All parts of the removal must be a BLP violation to claim that exemption, and here at least some clearly reliable sources were edit-warred out. There were three reverts of a presumptively reliable source in a 1RR article. nableezy - 15:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why exactly are we spending this time here. Levivich hasnt even requested an unblock. If he feels the block was improper we have an established process for challenging it. It starts with placing an {{unblock}} template on his user talk page. nableezy - 15:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. WP:3RRNO is pretty clear: What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. By invoking the 3RR exception to edit-war, rather than addressing concerns by other means, one is implicitly accepting the possibility of being blocked. The policy makes clear that the exemption is very narrow, and that one had best be sure their BLP case is ironclad before invoking the exemption.
The disputed edit stated that Khalek's "views have been described as pro-Assadist and pro-Kremlin". It then cited a half-dozen sources in which her views were, well, described as pro-Assadist and pro-Kremlin. Yes, the sources were largely opinion pieces, but their content was clearly presented as opinion rather than in wiki-voice, as fact—an approach consistent with site guidelines. I'm not sure that this material belongs in the lead of the article, but that's a matter for discussion, not for edit-warring.
As an admin who has been on the frontlines of BLP enforcement for more than a decade, this isn't a BLP violation and it's certainly not a clear-cut BLP violation warranting edit-warring and invocation of 3RR exceptions. In that context, Dennis's block was—maybe not what I would have done, but certainly within the realm of appropriate administrative discretion. MastCell ^Talk 15:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable with two things here. The block being full wasn't necessary; even if some level of block were fully justified, a partial on the article would have been sufficient. I'm also very sympathetic to repeated removal (and unsympathetic to repeated restoration) when there's discussion of whether possibly-non-neutral information should be included at a BLP, and even more so when, as in this case, there is discussion of whether the sources are good enough. I think we should lean very hard in the direction of protecting BLPs until we have consensus. I do not endorse. valereee (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question why is this a site block and not a pblock, which is the standard for blocking good faith users in otherwise good standing (at least in practice lately)? Was there disruption somewhere else? PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The real question is why isnt this an ARBPIA block and why is it only 24 hours. nableezy - 17:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not the real question. The real question is exactly what I asked. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well we have different questions. This is the second time Levivich has violated the 1RR in an ARBPIA article, the first time he got off on a technicality that wasnt even valid. This being his second violation of an arbitration decision would typically merit a week block or a longer topic ban. This bending over backwards for an unrepentant edit-warrior is mind-boggling. nableezy - 17:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you're free to ask your own question, which has no bearing whatsoever on mine. PRAXIDICAE🌈 17:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question. I almost never issue partial/article blocks unless they are indef. I can't think of an instance where I would ever give a 24 hour partial block, in fact. Part of a block is to stop disruption, the other part is to discourage future transgressions. This is within admin discretion, and from my extensive experience, quite common. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the WP:3RRNO exemption is that it relates specifically to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Restoring deleted content, When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Something re-added without consensus after it's been removed on good-faith BLP objections is BLPvio, per the letter of the policy. There were good faith objections made by multiple users on the talk page of the article, starting on July 10th. At that point, any restoration of the material until there is consensus is violating BLP policy. There is no harm in leaving it out, and there is potential real-world harm to a BLP subject when labeling them pro-Kremlin and pro-Assad.
I've been involved in multiple 3RRNO uses, and have come down both for and against the usage. Normally it's pretty obvious when the objections are good-faith, which is all that is required. The bare minimum before blocking should be demonstrating that there is a reasonable consensus that the material in question isn't a violation, and warning the user that further invocations of 3RRNO will not be allowed, which is what I've seen done in these situations in the past. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a misreading of the policies, that covers the restoration of the material (and yes that should not have happened either, but WP:NOTTHEM). WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE could be cited for an argument that the two editors that restored the content should likewise be sanctioned, but for the removals thats covered by WP:BLPREMOVE. That would allow for the removal of material that is "is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources; relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP; relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards." If any part of the removal is not in one of those categories the exemption is not valid. nableezy - 17:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where you're coming up with the "any part" stuff. The person reverting doesn't have to make a partial revert, and leaving out the contested material when re-adding would be the significant change necessary to nullify the 3RRNO exemption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they do, you cannot excuse edit-warring of non-BLP violating material on the basis that other material removed is a BLP violation. You are responsible for all parts of your edit. And if you remove perfectly valid material then that is not exempt from any revert rules. And how I know that is because I was blocked for it. nableezy - 17:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were adding new text, not reverting. Some of these reverts do fall under the BLP exception, including [143] (for the reason given in the edit summary). But in most, such as [144], the change that is being edit warred over consists in removing an unreliable source (which is fine), adding a presumably reliable source (which is also fine) and adding new text (which is not). Instead, the reverts should only have removed the problematic material. To the extent these reverts also add new text, they constitute disruptive edit warring about a content disagreement. That disagreement is not covered by the BLP exception. Was Levivich adding new prose, or just reverting? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point of that was that only the removal of BLP violations is covered, not anything else. If something removed was not a BLP violation then it is not covered by the exemption. Do you think the JPost source was a BLP violation? If not then it can not be edit-warred over and then be claimed to be exempt from the edit-warring rules. See where it says "the reverts should only have removed the problematic material". nableezy - 17:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird, to me the point was To the extent these reverts also add new text, they constitute disruptive edit warring about a content disagreement. A single admin's judgement 12 years ago, however, isn't exactly how policy should be read and interpreted today, so this is a bit in the weeds. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and note that this should have been handled through the ordinary talk page appeal procedures since it was only 24 hours and so clearly within admin discretion and was not an AE block — it likely would have lead to an unblock happening already since the standard for basically every first-time edit warring block is to unblock on appeal once assurance are given that the edit war will stop.
On the merits: The fact that Levivich has to post a detailed sourcing analysis of why opinion pieces in widely respected publications constitute BLP violations is evidence 3RRNO was not met - they are not unambigiously such and require detailed analysis and discussion on the talk page. He may well be right that they should not be included, but the solution here is discussion and consensus, not edit warring and then wikilawyering to insist that your point of view be the default one in the article until a discussion was complete. This could have been handled as a longer AE block or other AE sanction, as a partial block, or as a 24 hour sitewide block. All are reasonable outcomes. Dennis chose one of them, and has justified his actions. There's nothing more to do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. seems to preclude but the solution here is discussion and consensus, not edit warring and then wikilawyering to insist that your point of view be the default one in the article until a discussion was complete. There was already active discussion on the talk page when the material was re-added, and the lack of material under discussion in a BLP is the default, per policy. The bar isn't "is it BLPvio," the bar is "was the material removed due to a good-faith objection." WP:3RRNO covers material that is biased, and that is one of the things that was being discussed on the talk page when the material was re-added. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is this: Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.
The only potential one here that applies is biased. Since you're dealing with a sourcing analysis of pieces published by highly respected journalistic institutions with editorial oversight (even if opinion pieces), the other 3 aren't going to apply. It's also extremely unlikely to be uncontroversial. If there's a discussion ongoing and someone is editing against policy, you take them to a noticeboard, you don't violate policy yourself when you know it will be controversial to do so. The entire point of AE is that everyone who edits in these areas is extremely skilled at explaining why their actions aren't actually policy violations, so it imposes brighter lines and exemptions to those are also typically held to higher standards because people editing in the area should know how to behave when dealing with controversy. In short: if this requires the type of analysis Levivich provided to explain why 3RRNO applies, then 3RRNO does not apply. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. You're saying that if an editor were to remove severely libelous material they could be blocked for edit warring if the admin saw there was a list of ambiguously good sources which the admin did not review? If the editor considered reporting to BLPN, but chose not to because they felt the violation was severe, and they chose to remove it immediately and repeatedly they would be blocked? Wouldn't the appropriate action be to keep the material out, lock the article, and evaluate the 3RRNO exception afterwards? If the editor were found to have improperly cited 3RRNO, I would think they could be warned or otherwise sanctioned after the article was protected. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that if there's a list of unambiguously good sources with editorial oversight arguably supporting the claim, we can safely assume it is not libelous for the purposes of the BLP and oversight policies. If you have to make a detailed argument for why your summary of the source is different than the reasonable summary by another person, it is not an unambiguous BLP violation and is certainly not libel. That means 3RRNO does not apply. Basically I'm in agreement with MastCell. Crying BLP to engage in an edit war is wikilawyering, and is the thing that AE page restrictions are designed to avoid since the editors already know they need to be careful and shouldn't do stuff like this. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What if there's a list of good sources which clearly do not support the claim? It sounds like Dennis didn't know what was in the sources, just that two editors adding the material claimed it was well sourced. They could have been mistaken. I would think if there's a disagreement over whether material is well sourced, admins should assume it is not and assume the 3RRNO exception applies. Levivich's detailed analysis was made after the block. It sounds like this may be a case of block first, ask questions later. Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to extensively pour through 10+ sources to verify the authenticity and applicability of a simple claim, then you are making a content judgement and the violation isn't obvious. Being obvious is required to be exempt. Being a "bad edit" isn't enough to quality for an exemption, that is what the talk page and BLPN are for. Trust me, you don't want admin making calls on content, only on behavior. Being "pro-Kremlin" isn't so urgent a claim that it requires edit warring as it could have been handled at BLPN in 2-3 hours. Being accused of a crime, gender related, vandalism and similar, would easily be enough to warrant breaking 1RR. The onus is on the one breaking 1RR, not anyone else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I add text saying John Doe is a convicted rapist with ten sources which just say he was charged with rape, that is still an obvious violation isn't it? It sounds like the overciting is disruptively preventing verification. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a rapist is not the same as being "pro-Kremlin", so it is pretty obvious it would be handled differently. Rape is a crime. Being pro-Kremlin is not. Your argument is a strawman. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block. There are many valid ways to deal with the concerns. Edit warring is not one of them. Cullen328 (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I can comment here But Meh. It's only 24 hours, at the end of the day. But I think it should be clear from all of the above there there are people who believe the content to be a BLP vio. With that in mind, I have a hard time saying the block was a good one. I've certainly seen such violations in the past get way more leeway on the same arguments. A/E is pretty much riddled with them. Arkon (talk) 20:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. Dennis Brown is taking 1RR super serious here, saying there are only very narrow exceptions that apply. But a few weeks ago at an unambiguous 1RR violation report at AE he says it is “a minor infraction worthy of an informal warning only.” At least in this case there are good faith BLP claims. It’s a great mystery to me why such cases would be treated so differently, and why the experienced editors who edit warred to reinsert the content despite the clear policies preventing it have freely skated off. Maybe some admins could come out of the wagon circle to comment on that. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt we can expect others to comment on your unwarranted assumptions and unevidenced assertions. SPECIFICO talk 01:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh don’t worry about that. You were there too, of course. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per ToniBallioni - The discussion on whether that sourcing is good enough to keep that sentence in the article is interesting and nuanced. The discussion on whether the sourcing is so atrocious that it overrides our edit warring policy to keep it out is not. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How come this wasn't one of those nifty new page-specific blocks instead of an old-fashioned go-sit-in-the-corner-facing-the-wall block? E Eng 02:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was already answered above. The real question is why didn't I block him a week under WP:ARBPIA/WP:ARBBLP and log it in the discretionary sanctions log? That would have been the normal thing to do. Partial blocks that are 24 hours long are virtually unheard of, and admin are not ever required to use them. That's also answered above and on his talk page, if you had bothered to read. And it started with an WP:AE case, but I'm sure you read that before commenting, right? Sorry/not sorry for the snark, but drive-by comments aren't helpful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse regretfully. As long as the "[w]hat counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial" part is there, you break RR restrictions at your own risk. And you leave it entirely up to the reviewing administrator to judge whether the content justified the edit-warring. Regarding WP:BLPUNDEL, my opinion is, and I hope it is the case, that ignoring BLPUNDEL after being reminded should be immediately sanctionable since it is policy and says "must". That would save people from having to choose between edit-warring and not removing content that one believes is BLPVIO in mainspace. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The content is neither libelous, unsourced, or poorly sourced. That would leave biased as a valid concern, and although the content is biased in the way that all political positions are biased I can't believe that is what is meant by the exception. Otherwise anything but the mildest pleasantries could be excluded from all BLPs. There's certainly a DUE argument for the content, but that is not an exception to 3RR. Also the behaviour of others, and who is right or wrong is not an exception. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 208: / Line 208: @@
 *:::::::If you have to extensively pour through 10+ sources to verify the authenticity and applicability of a simple claim, then you are making a content judgement and the violation isn't obvious.  Being obvious is required to be exempt.  Being a "bad edit" isn't enough to quality for an exemption, that is what the talk page and BLPN are for.  Trust me, you don't want admin making calls on content, only on behavior.  Being "pro-Kremlin" isn't so urgent a claim that it requires edit warring as it could have been handled at BLPN in 2-3 hours.  Being accused of a crime, gender related, vandalism and similar, would easily be enough to warrant breaking 1RR.  The onus is on the one breaking 1RR, not anyone else.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 11:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 *::::::::If I add text saying John Doe is a convicted rapist with ten sources which just say he was charged with rape, that is still an obvious violation isn't it? It sounds like the overciting is disruptively preventing verification. [[User:Kolya Butternut|Kolya Butternut]] ([[User talk:Kolya Butternut|talk]]) 14:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
+*:::::::::Being a rapist is not the same as being "pro-Kremlin", so it is pretty obvious it would be handled differently. Rape is a crime.  Being pro-Kremlin is not.  Your argument is a strawman.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 14:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse block'''. There are many valid ways to deal with the concerns. Edit warring is not one of them. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 18:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 *'''I don't know if I can comment here''' But '''Meh'''.  It's only 24 hours, at the end of the day.  But I think it should be clear from all of the above there there '''are''' people who believe the content to be a BLP vio.  With that in mind, I have a hard time saying the block was a good one.  I've certainly seen such violations in the past get way more leeway on the same arguments.  A/E is pretty much riddled with them.  [[User:Arkon|Arkon]] ([[User talk:Arkon|talk]]) 20:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Formal review processes
Deletion review Move review Administrative action review
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews:
Administrators' noticeboard
In bot-related matters:
Bots noticeboard
Discussion about closes prior to closing:
Discussions for discussion
v t e