Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 15:53, 15 May 2024

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

Christsos[edit]

Christsos is formally warned to adhere to the 30/500 restrictions in the ARBPIA area, and that further violations will result in sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:41, 8 May 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 Christsos[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Christsos (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:ARBPIA4 extended-confirmed restriction

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

Created Faiq Al-Mabhouh
Created Ibrahim Biari (deleted by me as G4)
Created Draft:Eyal Shuminov

All of these are very obviously related to the conflict

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 19:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:Christsos#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Discussion concerning Christsos[edit]

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 Christsos[edit]

Statement by BilledMammal[edit]

I see the editor has been inactive as of a few days prior to this report, so I wanted to ask - did anyone try to explain the ECR's to them beyond placing the ARBPIA notification on their talk page? 22:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Christsos[edit]

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

Christsos, if you have anything to say, now would be the time. It looks like all of these happened after you were explicitly left a contentious topics notice informing you of the 30/500 restrictions, so can you please explain why you are clearly violating that? I'll give you a short while to explain, but otherwise I'm very much leaning toward a sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the same page. They haven't edited in a couple days so there's no immediate need to step in. We can wait to see if there's a decent response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade. they're still not around. How do you feel about a logged warning that the next violation will result in a one week block, followed by escalating blocks for further violations? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm not a fan of that, as we'd essentially be tying the hands of future admins as to what to do if the violations continue (if it's a highly technical and probably inadvertent violation, maybe they only want to block for a day, and if it's egregious and obviously intentional, maybe they go right to a month, or even indef if the editor states they intend to keep violating it). I don't think we should predetermine the outcome of future actions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll buy that, yeah. So a non-specific logged warning? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entropyandvodka[edit]

Entropyandvodka is given a logged warning to adhere to 1RR, as clarified here, and that further edit warring or 1RR violations will result in sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:14, 8 May 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 Entropyandvodka[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:33, 28 April 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: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

WP:1RR violations and 1RR gaming at Israeli war crimes:

02:22, 21 April 2024 (said that Israel had committed genocide → found that Israel had committed genocide)
07:05, 21 April 2024 (said that Israel had committed genocide → finding reasonable grounds that Israel had committed genocide)
Was requested to self revert at 07:51, 21 April 2024. Did so at 22:58, 21 April 2024, saying Self reverting per request, as that edit can be considered a revert. Will be putting that material back in later tonight for the same reasons.
06:18, 22 April 2024 (said that Israel had committed genocide → found Israel was committing genocide)

I don't know whether 06:18 is a second 1RR violation, but it is gaming of 1RR and seeing 1RR as an allowance, rather than a hard limit - reimplementing a reverted violation 23 hours after initially implementing it and seven hours after reverting it is not aligned with our expectations regarding self-reverting violations.

I requested they re-self-revert; they have refused to do so, and are now arguing that 07:05, 21 April 2024 was not a revert.

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 5:10, 13 October 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There's a few other recent 1RR violations (for example, 02:21, 9 April 2024 and 16:46, 8 April 2024), but no recent gaming as far as I can tell.

The issue with this one, though, is how blatant it is; they didn't wait 24 hours to revert back to their preferred version after self-reverting, they waited just seven - if we don't consider the time the between making the violating revert (07:05) and self-reverting the violation (22:58) it means they reverted back to their preferred version just twelve hours after initially reverting to their preferred version.

If this is permissible, then that means editors who wait 24 hours from their first revert to self revert would be permitted to revert back immediately after self reverting, making the restriction considerably less effective at preventing edit warring and disruption. 22:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

19:31, 28 April 2024

Discussion concerning Entropyandvodka[edit]

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[edit]

This is misleading. While edit 1 was a revert, edits 2 and 3 were not reverts, per the guidelines in WP:Reverting. The paragraph in all versions contains the proposition that Francesca Albanese said (or stated) that Israel had committed or was committing genocide, providing her exact quote. Edits 2 and 3 didn't change this. They added additional propositions (she submitted a report, the findings/conclusion of the report). The term 'found' here refers to the findings/conclusions contained in her submitted report, which was passingly referenced in the initial version before BilledMammal's later-reverted edit. BilledMammal's edit essentially just made the same explicit proposition twice in two consecutive sentences. Edits 2 and 3 fall into the classification of examples provided in WP:Reverting as 'A normal change, not a reversion' as they add additional propositions without removing any. Boiling down the propositions in the differences, we have:

Edit before BilledMammal edit: She found X. She said X

BilledMammal edit (before the reversion) She said X. She said X.

Edits 2 and 3 (not reversions) She submitted report X, which found/concluded X. She said X.

I'd point out briefly here that the initial version, before and after BilledMammal's reverted edit, did warrant revision, as it referred to the findings/conclusion of a report without explicitly mentioning the report. I now think BilledMammal was right to make that initial edit, and I was wrong to simply revert it, as that original form of the sentence with no additional information would go against MOS:SAID. Edit 1, the revert I did make of BilledMammal's edit, failed to address this issue, but the subsequent edits 2 and 3 addressed this, without information/proposition loss. Edit 3 was a slightly clearer version of edit 2.

After edit 2, in which I first added the additional material, BilledMammal accused me of violating 1RR. I self-reverted when requested to, in the spirit of collaboration, though didn't agree that adding that material constituted a revert, and ultimately added it later in edit 3. All the material is RS-backed, and provides informative and relevant context. If I'm correct that edits 2 and 3 don't constitute reversions, then there's no 1RR violation. If I believed edit 2 or edit 3 constituted a revert, I wouldn't have made either edit.

On my talk page, I attempted multiple times to engage with BilledMammal about the substance of the issue, sought feedback, asking how BilledMammal wanted to write it to add the additional material. BilledMammal repeatedly refused to engage much about the topic, showed no interest in seeking consensus, instead accusing me of a 1RR violation and demanding I self-revert to BilledMammal's version. BilledMammal then threatened arbitration if I didn't comply. I made a good faith attempt to show to BilledMammal why I believe edits 2 and 3 don't constitute reverts, and offered two more suggestions to reach an inclusive consensus. BilledMammal did not respond to these suggestions.

ScottishFinnishRadish,Seraphimblade Understood, regarding what constitutes reverting. I'll be mindful of that in the future. Regarding the user talk page thing, it was BilledMammal that came to my talk page, where I responded and attempted to reach a consensus. In the future, I'll redirect such talks to the article talk page. I should have started a talk there anyway before edits 2 and 3.

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Entropyandvodka[edit]

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

The self-revert remedied the 1RR violation, and their revert back to their preferred version after 24 hours wasn't great, but was not a 1RR violation. Is there a pattern of 1RR gaming, or just this single example? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Entropyandvodka, those were reverts. Just because you're not using undo, rollback, or a tool like twinkle doesn't mean that modifying the same piece with a slight rewording isn't reverting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is just a single instance, I would be okay with a logged warning, including a reminder that 1RR is not an entitlement to do another revert at 24 hours and 1 minute from the first. Entropyandvodka, if someone objects to an edit you made, go to the article talk page (not a user talk page), find out why they objected, discuss it with anyone else who participates, and see, by suggesting stuff on talk, if you can address those concerns. If you come to an impasse, dispute resolution is available at that point. But yes, tweaking your edit a little bit and making it again still is reverting, if the edit is still substantially similar to the last one. We have to treat it that way; otherwise there would be no end of gaming with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with a logged warning as well, now that 1RR and what a revert is has been clarified. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petextrodon[edit]

There is consensus among uninvolved administrators to topic ban Cossde indefinitely from Sri Lanka, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 13 May 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 Petextrodon[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Cossde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Petextrodon (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:Contentious topics/Sri Lanka

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

26 April 2024 use of a primary source that has been established as a pro-rebel.
26 April 2024 use of a primary source
28 April 2024 use of single source the has WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS under WP:EXCEPTIONAL circumstances.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This page as seen weeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND and possible WP:NAT editing, with controversial content been added with single sources that are most cases primary sources that have clear conflict of intrests and even been labled "pro-rebal". Some other sources with WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, that makes the content appear WP:OR. Request for more citations per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:CHALLENGE have been refused. Hence I am requesting arbitration to settle this matter by establishing the quality, type and style of citations needed for this artcile.

Following attempts for dispute resolution have been tried:

In response to the comments made here, my stand is that if the admins here feel that a topic band for 30 days or one year to myself or to Petextrodon or both, so be it. However, I request that my band would be limited to Sri Lankan Civil War related topics since my edits on broader Sri Lankan topics have not been hot topics and I have been contributing for over an decade.

In the matter at hand I would request admin intervention to review the content dispute. I have raised this issue in RSN ([1]) and there has been no result. Clearly the article in question does not meet WP standards of WP:NPOV and I request an independent review, mainly regarding the poor sourcing and use of primary sources. In another RSN ([2]) it was mentioned that "As with other advocacy groups… caution is needed. Statements by advocacy groups are WP:PRIMARY sources… certainly reliable for verifying that they take a given stance on an issue, but not necessarily de-facto reliable for the accuracy of the background material used to take that stance." It is vital that this takes place now due to the WP:BATTLE ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) that’s is taking place regarding topics associated with the Sri Lankan Civil War, with a clear group of editors including Pharaoh of the Wizards editing on one side of this battle ([8], [9]). I am not surpised to see his support of Petextrodon, an editor who has no content contribution beyound Sri Lankan Civil War topics. Cossde (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(@ScottishFinnishRadish) RFCs on related topics have seen vote stacking. Cossde (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Moved to correct section. Please comment only in your own section; threaded discussion is not allowed at AE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petextrodon&diff=prev&oldid=1221697850

@ Bookku . WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:VOTESTACKING on SL Civil War topics were conducted by Petextrodon, Oz346 and Okiloma in general. These have been evendent in pages: List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka where request for use of secendary sources to meet WP:EXCEPTIONAL has been meat by WP:BATTLE. WP:VOTESTACKING has taken place in RFCs in Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces, Talk:Sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers#Merge_proposal:UN_child_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Haiti, Talk:1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom#RFC:_Report_on_1977_anti-Tamil_riots. Cossde (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and recently WP:VOTESTACKING in Talk:Tamil_genocide#Potential_redundancy?. Cossde (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And a call for vote stacking [10]. Cossde (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is too much of a coincidence that the same set of users appear in numbers on votes on articles related to the Sri Lankan Civil War. With some new users taking it for granted that there is a camp already formed to it as "us". Cossde (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Petextrodon[edit]

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 Petextrodon[edit]

I don't think the issue is truly about the number of citations which is why user Cossde deleted even the content backed by two RS citations, Human Rights Watch and Routledge scholarly publication. More crucially, Cossde may be guilty of vandalism for repeatedly deleting sourced content [1][2], since no Wikipedia rule states that a content without more than one RS should be removed. Also, the user is well-aware that Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources classified the UTHR as RS long ago and recently classified NESOHR as a "Qualified source" that can be cited with attribution. As for Frontline (magazine), that's a mainstream news magazine that any reasonable editor can see meets the criteria of RS. As for Uthayan newspaper, I had repeatedly explained to this user in the talk page that it was a registered and award-winning Sri Lankan newspaper yet they weren't satisfied by this explanation and refused to explain why they questioned its reliability.

Cossde has a long history of deleting reliably sourced content [1][2][3] that are critical of the Sri Lankan government and its armed forces. To me this looks like WP:nationalist editing, especially given the blatant double standards this user has shown regarding the use of sources on multiple occasions:

Cossde removed content from sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka by contesting citation to the book authored by a prominent Sri Lankan journalist; yet they cited the same book on another article to support their edits.
Cossde significantly expanded the background section of the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom by adding content from a report published by the Sri Lankan government; yet on the currently disputed article they contested the reliability of another report published by the same government.
Cossde has previously cited UTHR in other articles, but now they are not only questioning its reliability but deleting cited content from it.

They did not address their blatant double standards despite my repeated requests to do so in the talk page. It would appear from this to any reasonable observer that Cossde is more bothered by the nature of the content than the reliability of the sources. I hope the admins review the reporter's own behavior so the vandalism issue can be sorted and I wouldn't have to open a separate enforcement request against this user. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, Just to clarify, why should I be punished for contributing to Wikipedia? What rules have I broken? I'm being hounded for my good faith contribution by this user for the past several weeks and not vice versa. But I agree with you on the interaction ban as I have no desire to engage in pointless disputes and edit war with this user. I'm very much capable of reaching amicable compromise with users I disagree with as I indeed have on several occasions with another Sri Lankan user, SinhalaLion. But unfortunately it has not been possible with this user. --- Petextrodon (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Moved to correct section. Please comment only in your own section; threaded discussion is not allowed at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I'm requesting an extension of 105 additional words to respond to Cossde's statement. --- Petextrodon (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cossde didn't specify but listed me alongside others in WP:Votestacking accusation which I believe is unwarranted. In the Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces RFCs, I didn't ask any user to participate. Most responses were from uninvolved RFC community. In the Talk:Sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers, I did tag two users for their inputs as they are prolific contributors to Sri Lanka topic, but only after Cossde tagged two other uninvolved users for their inputs.

As for Talk:1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom RFC, I didn't ask any user to participate. As for Talk:Tamil_genocide#Potential_redundancy?, no one asked me to participate nor did I ask anyone to participate. I volunteered my opinion on my own.---Petextrodon (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards[edit]

See no violation this is at best a content dispute which needs to be resolved elsewhere.Further there no CT alerts.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Petextrodon is dedicated contributor in the Sri Lanka area and see no reason for action.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bookku (Uninvolved)[edit]

Collapsing since Cossde answered the query

I don't have detail background but wondering whether really no scope for WP:DDE protocol? and any difficulties to go through WP:RfCs, or RfCs happened but did not mention in above difs? Bookku (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cossde seem to have complained about WP:VOTESTACKING at RfCs. I suggest usually link the policy page so other user gets to know which policy you are talking about. Cossde's earlier sentence ".. This page as seen weeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND .." is general in nature, WP:VOTESTACKING at RfCs statement, too, seem general in nature. If complaint is about Petextrodon a) Need to be clear if Petextrodon too has any role in alleged BATTLEGROUND and VOTESTACKING with specific proof difs. On the other hand if statements are related but general concerns but not related to Petextrodon be clear about that too.

@Petextrodon need to note that general WP:ARE custom is "it's about you not about others". Also read WP:TLDR#Some quick tips. Bookku (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ ScottishFinnishRadish, I have dotted down some observations and probable solution to my understanding for this issue in my sandbox page. If you find that helpful for this issue then, I will bring that over here. Bookku (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (another Sri Lanka dispute, another forum)[edit]

I am asking the administrators at this noticeboard to do something, because there are too many disputes between User:Cossde and User:Petextrodon. I am ready to provide a list of these disputes again, which I already provided to ArbCom in support of identifying Sri Lanka as a contentious topic, and especially the Sri Lankan Civil War, but I know that the administrators here know how to look up the record as well as I do.

User:Petextrodon alleges that User:Cossde's removal of sourced content is vandalism. It is not vandalism, and an editor who has been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism should also know what is not vandalism, and POV pushing is not vandalism, although it is often reported as vandalism. However, Petextrodon's complaint should be treated as a counter-complaint of disruptive editing and POV pushing by User:Cossde.

Something needs to be done to curb these disputes. The obvious, but probably wrong, answer is to impose an interaction ban, because these editors do not like each other. The problem is that that will provide a first-mover advantage, and so may actually encourage pre-emptive biased editing. So I recommend that the first step be to topic-ban both of these editors from Sri Lanka for thirty days to give one or another of the administrators time to review the record in detail and determine which editor is more at fault, and extend the topic-ban to one year, or determine that both editors are at fault, and topic-ban them both for one year. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Petextrodon[edit]

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

Hence I am requesting arbitration to settle this matter by establishing the quality, type and style of citations needed for this artcile. That isn't what arbitration enforcement is for. Have you opened an RFC on the sourcing disagreement? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes (Petextrodon)[edit]

Petextrodon, you are at your word limit. Please do not respond further unless you've trimmed some words or been granted an extension. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Petextrodon, you can have an additional 105 words. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks to me like a content dispute. I do not see any action for AE to take here, as we can't resolve those. That said, I see that this same editor has now filed another AE request below on what also appears to be a content dispute, so I think we should evaluate there whether that conduct is reaching the point of disruption. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

76.53.254.138[edit]

76.53.254.138 blocked 2 weeks by ScottishFinnishRadish. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:33, 8 May 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 76.53.254.138[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: The Kip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 76.53.254.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA extended-confirmed sanction

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

User initially began editing as an IP in the ARBPIA area some time ago, sometimes disruptively:

After being issued the CTOP warning on May 1 (linked below), and despite being specifically warned of the ECR restriction, they've resumed editing within the ARBPIA topic area, primarily in the current events portal:

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)

Notified of A-I CTOP restrictions on May 1 at 21:03; I added a note to the end disclosing that as an IP editor, they're not allowed to edit in the topic area until they register an account and reach 500 edits.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The IP in question has exhibited other generally disruptive behaviors over the past several months, both within and outside the ARBPIA area:

Added nonsense to Atomic mass (later warned about vandalism)
Made a bunch of disruptive edits on List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies, under the summary of "neutral" or "fine as it was," leading to the page being protected on March 5.
Made another nonsense edit on Don Budge (later warned about vandalism)
Has been engaged in a slow-motion edit war with multiple users at Assassination of Qasem Soleimani.
Euphemized much of the content at Norske jenter omskjæres, where they also engaged in an extremely-slow edit war.
Another slow edit war at Battle of Rafah.

Many of their other edits exhibit a strong POV that they've attempted to push through via some of the aforementioned slow-motion edit wars.

Overall, they've seemingly disregarded the CTOP warning issued to continue editing in an area they're not allowed to, and have a history of disruptive editing otherwise. They've avoided a block up to this point.

I apologize if this should've gone to WP:ANI due to it being an IP, but I figured AE was the correct location given the bulk of the edits being in an arb-restricted area. The Kip 02:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade Sounds good. Please do let me know if IP issues are better-served by ANI - I wasn’t quite sure in making this report, to be honest. The Kip 21:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified at time of report.

Discussion concerning 76.53.254.138[edit]

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 76.53.254.138[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning 76.53.254.138[edit]

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

Blocked two weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the block is really all we can do; it's pretty pointless to apply CT sanctions other than blocks to IPs. Unless anyone shortly objects I'll close this as resolved. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Kip, you didn't do anything wrong here, and if IP editors are behaving disruptively in CT-covered areas, you can certainly report it here. There are other general tools in our toolbox, like revert restrictions and long-term semiprotection or EC, that we can use if there's severe and ongoing disruption from anonymous editors. There's just not much point placing CT restrictions besides blocks on individual IPs, since IPs are subject to change at any time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oz346[edit]

There is consensus among uninvolved administrators to topic ban Cossde indefinitely from Sri Lanka, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 13 May 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 Oz346[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Cossde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Oz346 (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:Contentious topics/Sri Lanka

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

8 May 2024 Disruptive editing by reverting changes by another editor
8 May 2024 Disruptive editing by reverting changes by another editor
6 May 2024 Disruptive editing by POV Pushing
6 May 2024 Disruptive editing by POV Pushing
29 April 2024 Reverting citing reverts disruptive editing and vandalism

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The use has began a enagenging in WP:Disruptive editing and WP:BATTLE in the article Tamil genocide. There is an active dissucssion going on in the talk page, however Oz346 has engaged in reverting edits made by myself and another in the lead over a period of hours today without engagaging in the talk page. However he has made no objection to the changes made by Petextrodon, who has completly changed the lead without disscusing in the talk page nore as Oz346 has personaly made changes without disscussing it in the talk page himself. Cossde (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish & @Seraphimblade, it was not my intention to weaponizing AE, however if you feel my actions are such, feel free to sanction me as you see fit, as I am ready to accept responsibility for my actions.

My intentions were to bring to attention the WP:NAT based WP:POV Pushing and WP:Disruptive editing that has been conducted by these to editors on topics related to the Sri Lankan Civil War supported by a broader cohort of sympathetic supporters, who seem to come to their aid (even in this AE). It is my opinion that these two editors have been attempting to weaponizing WP as part of a broader campaign.

Both Oz346 and Petextrodon edit histories only show editing in Sri Lankan Civil War content and no contributions to broader topics on WP. Although Oz346 has begun contributions on a new topic line in recent weeks.
Both Oz346 and Petextrodon had engaged in what appears to be WP:OR in the following pages using WP:Primary sources such as advocacy groups which was advised against in RSN.

Both Oz346 and Petextrodon, are not open for any compromise as evident in the talk pages of disputed articles refusing to acknolege WP:BURDEN and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, other editors in Talk:Tamil_genocide#Excessive_use_of_Primary_Sources and [11]. Validating my repeated calls for use of proper referencing.
Both Oz346 and Petextrodon had engaged in bitter WP:BATTLE on content issues on pages such as

1977 anti-Tamil pogrom - Content they prevented me from adding saying "reverted disruptive edits ruining the flow of the article with unnecessary details against the advice of other editors; either discuss in the talk page or wait for requested third opinion" [12], which was later cleared by a lengthy DRN
Sri Lanka Armed Forces
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

I agree to third party opinions and rulings (although both these editors don't seem to) i.e.. [13], [14]
Finally I have been subjected to multiple personal attacks ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19]), insults ([20], [21], [22], [23], [24]) and been threaten ([25]) by both Oz346 and Petextrodon, over the last few months that I have not brought up in this AE, however I feel I should at this point to give proper context. Cossde (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Oz346[edit]

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 Oz346[edit]

I made no objections to the changes made by Petextrodon, because they replaced non-peer reviewed sources with several reliable scholarly sources, which any neutral observer can see [26] Does user Cossde dispute this? Does he prefer the previous lede, which he himself has been questioning? [27] I have justified my reverts and have not broken any edit war rules, and do not intend to go anywhere near WP:3RR in respect of the contentious topics designation.

Furthermore, it is evident that Cossde did not even bother to read the JDS article, in his edit which I reverted [28] , where he incorrectly claims that the author Ramanan Veerasingham made genocide accusations. Ramanan was merely reporting on the findings of the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal: http://www.jdslanka.org/index.php/news-features/human-rights/426-sri-lanka-guilty-of-genocide-against-tamils-with-uk-us-complicity-ppt-rules

Regarding point 3 and 4. I reverted to the status quo which had existed for months, and was the result of a long discussion a few years ago (which resulted in the various different death toll estimates being included). One of the sources that the user is questioning, ITJP was regarded as a reliable source on the RSN [29]. How can citing that with explicit attribution be regarded as POV pushing?

In addition, Cossde's point 5, goes against the consensus established at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources#List_of_sources, which explicitly states that these sources can be cited in Wikipedia. Yet he refuses to respect the admin led verdicts made there. This is not in keeping with Wikipedia consensus building policies. And now he accuses me of disruptive editing for following the projects' own guidance!

In addition, I believe that user Cossde has thus far escaped sanctioning because every time he gets reported, he submerges the discussions with reams and reams of text not directly related to the issues at hand. This prevents admins from properly assessing the actual individual issues (Which is understandable, as it would require a large time effort to sift through all the accusations and counter accusations, many of which are baseless [30], and inappropriately cite wikipedia policies). My humble request is to focus on the issues at hand and not get sidetracked. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards[edit]

See no violation this is at best a content dispute which needs to be resolved elsewhere.Oz346 is dedicated contributor in the Sri Lanka area and see no reason for action.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Obi2canibe[edit]

I am glad the admins are seeing this enforcement request and the request against Petextrodon for what they are: an editor involved in a content dispute trying to remove from the picture editors with opposing views so that they can impose their own POV on the articles under dispute.

Cossde has been at war with Oz346 for a year now. Their war has dragged in Petextrodon and number of other editors and impacted on numerous articles and noticeboards. The common denominator in all the disputes is Cossde. The alphabetti spaghetti of accusations that Cossde has made against Oz346 and Petextrodon can also be leveled against Cossde.

If admins are minded to take any action in either of the requests, they need to go through Cossde's contributions over the last year. They also need to look at the enforcement taken against Cossde throughout their time on Wikipedia. Five blocks for edit warring and sock puppetry. There's a 12 year gap between the first and last blocks. This clearly shows that they are incapable of changing their behavior.

As Robert McClenon stated in the first enforcement request, an interaction ban would provide a first-mover advantage, and so may actually encourage pre-emptive biased editing. Cossde has done exactly that with the enforcement requests: minutes before submitting the first request, Cossde removed 8MB on sourced content from an article under dispute where they was ongoing discussion on the talk page. I have no doubt that Cossde would abuse an interaction ban.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Oz346[edit]

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

This and the report above are starting to look to me like weaponizing AE over content disputes. I've reviewed the diffs in this case, and nothing is standing out as disruptive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing those diffs provided by Cossde firms up my initial impressions. There looks to be an NPOV and CIR issue. Seraphimblade, indef topic ban, or time limited? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm not a fan of timed topic bans very often at all, as people just tend to run the clock out on them and go right back to the same thing afterwards. An indefinite sanction certainly need not mean "permanent", but it does require that the editor subject to it come back with an appeal that shows they did productive editing outside the topic area, and have learned some things from that which will hopefully prevent the problems from happening again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like time and edit limited topic bans in some situations, but this doesn't seem like a circumstance that it would work. Looks like we're agreed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with SFR, and I really don't like the practice of dragging people to AE when they disagree over content. With that having happened twice in this span, I'm strongly considering some sanction on Cossde, which would probably be a topic ban from this area, but I'll give some time for them to respond if they want to. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makeandtoss and M.Bitton[edit]

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

Request concerning Makeandtoss and M.Bitton[edit]

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

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

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

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

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

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

There has been a long running dispute at Israel-Hamas war over the contents of the third paragraph of the lede; following multiple reverts and at least two discussions that failed to resolve the issue or prevent further reverts (one, two) I opened an RfC. A few hours later, after three editors, including myself, had !voted in the RfC, Makeandtoss closed it. They had previously been involved in this specific dispute, both in the article (example) and in the discussions linked above. This close also violated WP:TPO, as it involved striking the contributions of other editors without falling under the exceptions permitted by that policy.

I reverted this out of process close, but a few hours later M.Bitton reclosed it. M.Bitton wasn't involved in the immediate dispute, but has been involved with the article, and has expressed strong opinions in past RfC's on related content (example).

This was a topic that was ripe for dispute resolution, with an RfC that had no issues sufficient to justify a premature close. Even if Makeandtoss and M.Bitton weren't involved it would have been a disruptive close, but it is particularly so because they were - by closing it early they have locked in a status quo that Makeandtoss explicitly favors and M.Bitton implicitly favors.

This was discussed previously at ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page, and then further at ARCA, where Barkeep49 said they take a dim view of editors preventing this RfC, and recommended bringing it here.

I also requested that M.Bitton revert their close; they declined to do so.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Makeandtoss:

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

M.Bitton:

No relevant sanctions

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

Makeandtoss:

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

M.Bitton

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Black Kite: In accordance with WP:RFCST, which permits editors to sign RfC statements with only a timestamp, I never sign RfC's I start - even ones like WP:LUGSTUBS2, which almost everyone will already know who opened.

I do this because I believe perceptions of the editor who opened the RfC may influence how editors perceive the RfC, and I don't believe that is beneficial to the process. As for the reverts, I made them because given that editors are explicitly permitted to not add their signature, I didn't believe it was appropriate for another editor to insist that they do, particularly given we generally have very strict prohibitions on editing another editors comments.

This isn't the first time that I've had a signature added, but normally editors accept when I revert them and explain that editors are not required to sign statements - this is the first time someone has tried to edit-war a signature in. BilledMammal (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: To avoid any misunderstanding, I just wanted to say that I don't intend to start putting my username on any RfC's I start, regardless of how controversial - and personally, I would see this as one of the less controversial ones I've started. Editors are is permitted to do this, and there are valid reasons for not wanting to do so - and many experienced editors don't.

Regarding whether it was premature, I note that the two discussions I linked above are just a small fraction of the total number of discussions on this content; other examples include:

In addition, the content had been re-added and removed many times; I believed and still believe that it was time to hold an RfC and settle the debate.

Finally, I think it would be helpful to clarify whether it is appropriate for other editors to add a user name to an RfC they didn't start. My understanding is that it is not; that it is a violation of talk page guidelines, and that it adds heat to a debate. Perhaps if involved editors have concerns about an RfC being unsigned they should be advised to contact the editor who started it to attempt to resolve those concerns, and if that attempt fails contact an uninvolved admin? BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Makeandtoss:

02:13, 10 May 2024

M.Bitton:

02:13, 10 May 2024

Discussion concerning Makeandtoss and M.Bitton[edit]

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

Statement by Makeandtoss[edit]

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

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

That aside, this seems like an attempt to deflect from BilledMammal's own editing behavior, as they created the RFC in non-neutral phrasing without signing it, and then went ahead to vote with a signature, which creates a misleading first impression. Not to mention BilledMammal's edit warring by reverting other editors four times within the course of two hours relating to this incident: [31], [32], [33], [34].

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

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

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

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

Statement by M.Bitton[edit]

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

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Selfstudier[edit]

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

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

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

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

Since the question was put:

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

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

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

Statement by Newimpartial[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Number 57[edit]

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

Statement by Alaexis[edit]

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

Statement by Iskandar323[edit]

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

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

Statement by Kashmiri[edit]

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

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

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Makeandtoss and M.Bitton[edit]

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

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

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

Also, rather than a bunch of involved editors edit warring and violating TPGs over this, why did no one seek to remedy any issues with the RFC on BMs talk page, or ask an uninvolved administrator to do so. User talk:BilledMammal#Talk:Flour massacre#Requested move 28 April 2024, for example, is how this could have played out. To me, this is just more evidence of battleground editing in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, there were a bunch of involved editors, there was edit warring, and there were WP:TPG violations. All of that could have been avoided, except for involved editors, if not for pervasive battleground behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned about the "trying to avoid scrutiny for the RfC" bit highlighted by Zero0000. BilledMammal, why did you do that (twice)? If I'm submitting an RfC, I want my name on it so that people can discuss it with me. It all seems very ... I don't know, underhand? Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial - did someone say "seek justice against one's enemies" or did you use quotes for some other reason? I'm confused as to why that statement is in quotes - if someone (on either side of the dispute) is saying that about the other side that's not good. If it hasn't been said, it's not really helpful to throw that around like it IS a quote from someone, it just confuses uninvolved admins (like me) and, in my view, just ups the heat in the topic area. I'm going back to looking into this as my time permits ... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I was forced to read Plato in university but... I try REALLY hard to forget it. Still reading - I read SFR's plea for help in this area and am trying to formulate something to say that I think might help things (not that I think I'm going to have much luck with this but ... hope springs eternal) Ealdgyth (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of weighing in substantively on this request beyond a few thoughts that I had when this was at ARCA. In a talk page like this one which is active and with a lot of peristent editors, a lower threshold for how much discussion is necessary before starting an RfC can, in my judgement, be appropriate. The reason for this can be that there is a local consensus that is at odds with a project wide consensus and so lots of discussion would lead to a false consensus (and even accusations of bad faith RfCs that "relitigate" things already decided in discussions). It strikes me as incredibly important that we are very cautious before closing a major dispute resolution method to an editor, especially one who has demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and norms. An RfC for information that is in the lead also strikes me as more appropriate than RfC for information in the body of an article precisely because of the visibility/importance of having consensus there for me. Now it can also be true that someone who has repeatedly shown that they are at odds with project consensus about a topic can be disruptive in starting new RfCs. In looking at the last half dozen or so RfCs it did not seem like Billed Mammal fell into this second category but it's entirely possible there is better evidence out there on this front. However, given the evidence as I understand it I continue to take that "dim view" of editors using procedural means to potentially enforce a local consensus and perhaps even to seek sanctions against someone attempting to ascertain what the project consensus is through the written dispute resolution system. As for the signature bit I believe I start all my RfCs with ~~~~~ because who started the RfC should be irrelevant and WP:RFCOPEN explicitly allows it as an equally valid choice to ~~~~ . I have no idea if date/time sig rather than full signature is normal or not for BM and I hope the uninvolved administrators assess that - there are no shortage of RfCs started by BM - before judging the intent. If this was out of practice for BM that clearly signifies trouble but if it's normal for BM to operate that way - as it is for me - that sends a different signal. Now if someone were to change an RfC sig I started from 5 ~ to one that included my name (and I think this has happened once), I wouldn't do anything about that because let's have a sense of perspective about things. But I would be annoyed and I would think it a violation of WP:TPO given that editing of signatures is only allowed If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information and TPO is clear that editors may ...not modify the signature on others' posts for any other reason. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy I wasn't going to respond to your ping because I mean it when I say that I want the uninvolved admin to be making the call here. But your this edit to your comment goes too far for me. WP:RFCOPEN explicitly allows for ~~~~~ and so the comment was appropriately signed, based on Wikipedia norms and practices. As such you were not fixing an unsigned signature, but instead (as I understand it) trying to make a point that the RfC was not neutral and were working to have the statements attributed to BilledMammal in order to help advance that point. I have offered no comment on the neutrality or not of the RfC. But trying to raise problems with a non-neutral RfC is not the same as a neutral fixing/improvement as allowed by the talk page guidelines, in my view. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy: I'm not commenting on BM's comment move because that wasn't part of my analysis at ARCA and I'm not interested in substantively weighing in things at AE beyond what was discussed at the ARCA given that ArbCom is where the rare AE appeal goes; I expect that other uninvolved administrators will weigh that when determining what sanctions, if any, are appropriate to levy for this incident. Frankly I'm a bit flummoxed why you're continuing to debate with me - and attempting to shift the focus of discussion in this last comment. I have explicitly refrained from saying that your adding the unsigned template was wrong. That too goes beyond the analysis I've done. What I am saying that if it is BM's practice, as they've stated and so far no one has contradicted with evidence, to open RfCs with 5 tildes that this is supported by practice and norms. In that case their action is not a behavioral problem and so you cannot justify your actions based on the talk page guidelines. I have offered no opinion about whether your adding the unsigned template could be supported on other grounds. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's plenty not to love here. I am definitely not enamored of "anonymously" starting an RfC—if I'm coming to an RfC, and an editor involved in the discussion is the one who started it, I want to know that. It looks to me like RFCOPEN is more saying that the bot is able to recognize timestamp-only signatures, rather than actually endorsing that as a good practice. In any case, since it's clearly controversial, I would very much prefer not to see that done in the future here, but it's not actually against policy. What is against policy is to start an RfC instead of discussing a matter, rather than after a discussion has been held, and "open discussion on the matter first" should not be considered optional. An RfC is a significant investment of community time and should only be resorted to when absolutely necessary. RfC is often the result of such a discussion reaching an impasse, but if there's a plausible case that the result of the discussion was a "local consensus" that the wider community wouldn't support, it's appropriate to hold an RfC to call in people from the wider community who haven't been involved and I would not criticize that as being "re-litigating" or forum shopping. I think we've all seen cases where a small number of "owners" try to enforce something that the wider community wouldn't approve of, and bringing an RfC is a good way to draw attention to that and put a stop to it. But, whether an RfC is appropriate or inappropriate, involved editors shouldn't be shutting it down. So, I think in this case, trouts all around—the RfC was premature, the "anonymous" nature of it needlessly fanned the controversy, and even with that said, people involved shouldn't have closed it. If lessons can be learned from that without bringing out any bigger sticks, that's of course the optimal solution; if we find the problems reoccurring, then we'd have to evaluate that at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to pretty much agree with all of this. I don't object to an RfC being unsigned if it's inarguably neutrally worded. This is on the edge for me. I don't object to an RfC being opened in contentious topics possibly slightly early if there's been some discussion. Again on the edge. I do object to edit-warring over signing; once it's been objected to, just let it go. I do object to involved editors closing an RfC early. Trouts all around. Valereee (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that Makeandtoss has already been warned for edit warring in the topic area and blocked from this article for battleground conduct. To me, we're past the level of a trout in this instance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no problem with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylanvt[edit]

Dylanvt warned to follow 1RR, and to remedy any infractions as soon as possible. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 13 May 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 Dylanvt[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

WP:1RR and edit warring at Nasser Hospital mass graves:

02:48, 7 May 2024 (reverted 02:48, 7 May 2024)
02:43, 7 May 2024 (reverted 04:56, 6 May 2024)

They have not responded to my request to self-revert, but they have continued editing.

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 07:36, 22 December 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

03:21, 10 May 2024

Discussion concerning Dylanvt[edit]

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 Dylanvt[edit]

I've been offline for several days as I've been finishing my finals and traveling home from school, so just now seeing about this. These edits were made to preserve the status quo on the article, since typically with disputed removal of content we resort to keeping it then discussing, rather than deleting it then discussing. The special restriction on reverts for this specific topic I simply forgot about when I made the edits. Should I go back and revert the second edit now? Dylanvt (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve self-reverted for now.

I didn’t notice the request on my talk page until the same time I saw this one here, as I’d only had access to my phone between May 6 and May 9, due to travel. When I finally got on my laptop last night I saw both notifications, and replied here this morning. Dylanvt (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Threaded discussion is not allowed at AE. Please keep your responses in your section. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath[edit]

I'm concerned by the amount of times recently that BilledMammal has opened up reports here, seemingly as an early line of interaction. I believe this needs addressing. TarnishedPath^talk 14:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I don't make an accusations. However I have noted that this one particular editor has been here over and over. I note that a lot of the cases that they've opened have been closed with no action. I note that this has take up a lot time. TarnishedPath^talk 14:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure your searching ability is as good as anyone else's. Perhaps I've been incorrect about the number of cases closed without action. TarnishedPath^talk 14:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, I've striked my comments. Apologies to all. I should have searched the record prior to making incorrect comments rather than relying on my obviously imperfect memory. TarnishedPath^talk 01:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Dylanvt[edit]

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

Dylanvt anything to say about this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dylanvt, yes, you should revert now. Also, did you not notice the request for the self-revert on your talk page when making other edits after the request was made? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on closing this in the next day or two with a warning to mind 1RR unless there is input from anyone else. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, this was addressed before, resulting in the following warning, Participants are also generally reminded that accusations of gaming the system require evidence and should not be made lightly; they are reminded to not cast aspersions when making such accusations. Making reports of actual violations of sanctions is the way it is supposed to work. The violation was brought up on the editor's talk page and was not remedied despite other edits being made, so it came here. We'll clarify 1RR and the expected behavior around self-reverting and be done here in just a jiffy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, so far this year, from what I just pulled from the archives:
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive328#Makeandtoss January 24, Makeandtoss is warned to avoid (slow-motion) edit warring in the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The user is also warned to adhere to the area's topic-wide one revert restriction.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive328#Irtapil January 23, Irtapil indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine/Israel conflict, broadly construed.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive329#Sameboat March 1, Editors involved generally in this article are warned to use dispute resolution, not the revert button, to settle content disputes. Whether or not xRR rules are breached, repeated reverting may be treated as a disruptive edit war. If there is a return to edit warring on this article, there is a fair chance that multiple editors involved in it will be, at minimum, restricted from further editing the article at all, and wider sanctions may also apply.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive330#Salmoonlight March 12, Salmoonlight (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from making edits anywhere on Wikipedia regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This topic ban is per consensus of uninvolved administrators in this arbitration enforcement thread. Participants are also generally reminded that accusations of gaming the system require evidence and should not be made lightly; they are reminded to not cast aspersions when making such accusations.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331#Kashmiri April 11, Kashmiri topic banned for one week by Callanecc.

One that appears to have been archived without comment, which is a failure on the part of us AE admins.
Is there something I'm missing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, that would be casting aspersions with no evidence. You brought up behavior that believe [this] needs addressing with no evidence of disruptive behavior. You then followed up with I note that a lot of the cases that they've opened have been closed with no action. which doesn't seem to track over the past five months or so. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galamore[edit]

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

Request concerning Galamore[edit]

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

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

General 1RR violations:

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 11:20, 14 April 2024
Warned by another user about 1RR violation on 10:45, 14 April 2024. Did not self-revert.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

11:20, 14 April 2024

Discussion concerning Galamore[edit]

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

Statement by Galamore[edit]

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

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

Statement by BilledMammal[edit]

Regarding the WP:OR concerns:

At Rafah offensive they removed:

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

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

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

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

At Gaza Health Ministry they changed the lede from:

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

To:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

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

Statement by Selfstudier[edit]

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

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

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Galamore[edit]

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

Ecrusized, can you break the 1RR violations down by article, and have they been warned about or asked to revert any 1RR violations? I don't see any engagement about that on their talk page. No comment yet on possible OR issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite and Drmies: just making sure you're aware this thread is here. The reported 1rr violations don't seem to be violations, but I am concerned about the edit warring over content that socks and editors banned and tbanned by Arbcom had been edit warring over. I try not to judge content choices unless there is a clear issue, and the edits to the lead are a summary of parts of the body. I think NPOV is a bit lacking, but it's not flagrant and I'm not sure if that alone is enough for action. Combining that with the history of the content being edit warred over brings me a lot closer to a sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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