Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:48, 21 November 2023

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 an editor 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 a previously alerted editor who engages 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 fewer 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.

The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

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 other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355

SamwiseGSix

Tgeorgescu is hereby warned for disruptive editing in the form of battleground behaviour and incivility in the area of pseudoscience; continued battleground behaviour will result in further sanctions. It is suggested to SamwiseGSix that their editing abilities might be better used elsewhere. Both SamwiseGSix and Tgeorgescu are warned to follow/respect the conduct rules related to the AE venue. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning SamwiseGSix

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPS

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

[1] 13 November 2023—whitewashing contrary to WP:PSCI;
[2] 13 November 2023—whitewashing contrary to WP:PSCI;
[3] 13 November 2023—whitewashing contrary to WP:PSCI.

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 [4] 29 October 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

If Anthroposophy cannot be called pseudoscience and quackery, then nothing can.

@Theleekycauldron: I have posted at WP:FTN and WP:RSN about it, but most people don't seem to care.

Administrator note Un-commented-out as caeciliusinhorto replied to this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the point of my mockery is not mocking them as a person, but showing that their POV is so utterly absurd for those from the reality-based community that it is highly incompatible with Wikipedia (see WP:LUNATICS for details). Yup, Anthroposophists perceive Wikipedia as unjust and me as Mr. Injustice, but there is no way Wikipedia could write articles about Anthroposophy which they would like. I'm simply human, and the failure to get the point time after time wears my patience down. And that's what they did: they politely refused to get the point each and every time. "You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic." Robert A. Heinlein.

They want to insert a wedge between WP:PSCI and WP:NPOV. All their edits are like asking a Catholic church to preach Salafism, or asking a Baptist church to preach Santeria. In the end, Wikipedia has a POV, and that POV is WP:MAINSTREAM.

About [5]: for me it is crystal-clear that they consider the guideline WP:FRINGE as an affront to Anthroposophy. My remark was making them clear that they cannot eat their cake and still have it. E.g., I don't like the article abortion. But since I'm not editing it, I don't create troubles in respect to such topic.

Have you read "Why Does Wikipedia Want to Destroy Deepak Chopra?" If Anthroposophists don't complain that Wikipedia wants to destroy Rudolf Steiner, we are doing a bad job. If anything can be said about the two men is that Chopra is considerably less fringe than Steiner. Chopra never belonged to völkisch Wagner clubs, and has never claimed to be a clairvoyant.

"but not specifically warned against mentioning x-risk yet " ([6])? See [7]. This farce has gone too far.

I'm not mocking a living person, but a guru who died almost a century ago.

Administrator note Un-commented-out as I replied to this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: They have toned down their initial proposal. What I objected is that they wanted Wikipedia to endorse the ontology and the epistemology of Anthroposophy, and I consider their wish totally not done. What others have objected is that their proposed edits fail WP:V. Full context is: And if you are here to deny atomic theory in the name of Goethean science: go away, don't waste ~~out~~ our time with such nonsense. I consider their idea bad enough, but nobody else seems to care. I mean: denying atomic theory in the talk pages should not happen at Wikipedia, but at Uncyclopedia. I got offended by their wish to accept such claims within the pages of Wikipedia. Again, that's stuff for Uncyclopedia and I'm not going to tolerate it inside Wikipedia. There is https://www.freewiki.eu which is more accepting of their views. I know they mean it, since the founder of Anthroposophy was an enemy of the atomic theory. Source: [8]. Diff: [9]: I don't know what they meant, but they seem to imply that anti-atomism is a credible scientific theory.

Bona fide offer: [10]. I talk too much, so restricting the number of words is a good idea.

@Tamzin: There is a lot of vitriol in fringe/pseudoscience topics. I'm by far not the worst offender, many others go unnoticed. Sometimes I do feel offended by what other editors say about what should be included. Of course, that's not an excuse for mocking their POVs, but some POVs really do not belong at Wikipedia. And I don't have a neat solution for telling them that their POV is unwelcome.

@Theleekycauldron: I don't beat around the bush: I know that some POVs are unwelcome. I don't know how to make this clear to those having those POVs. Maybe they simply cannot get this point. I think the very attempt to persuade them they're Wikipedically wrong is fundamentally wrong. Yes, I did employ irony, but it was an attempt at persuasion. Perhaps persuasion is wrong. I think this is the lesson from WP:AE: I should not try to persuade them. That's a sad truth about human rationality. It seems that my whole approach based upon rational persuasion is flat-out wrong.

I was wrong: some people don't want to learn that their POVs are unwelcome, nor what WP:FRINGE means, nor how to WP:CITE WP:RS which do WP:V their claims ([11]). Formerly at WP:CIR used to be a section about biased-based failures to comply with our rules. So, I don't say that SamwiseGSix is irrational, but they simply cannot get the point due to their own bias. I wasn't even trying to persuade them they are wrong in the real-objective world, but simply wrong according to Wikipedia.

My mistake is thinking that every newbie is eager to learn how to edit Wikipedia according to the WP:RULES. But many newbies simply want a quick fix to a PR issue.

@Ealdgyth: I do recognize that my approach was wrong. Although I did not do it out of bad faith.

It was wrong for me to try to convince them they're mistaken.

I should have used dispute resolution instead of trying to convince them they're wrong.

I realize now that asking an antivaxxer or germ theory denialist to understand that their POV is doomed according to WP:NPOV is too much to ask. Their whole worldview prevents them from learning that WP:NPOV does not endorse their POV, instead it dooms it. Failing to notice this was a big mistake on my behalf.

I can get the point that my POV is unwelcome at abortion, other people can't.

racist pseudoscience wasn't my edit, but a result of a talk page discussion wherein several editors have participated. So, yeah, I would like to get the credit for that edit, but it wasn't in fact mine.

I'm not baiting the other party. I was simply explaining that my attempt to convince people of things they are not prepared to understand was wrong. I told them real facts about Wikipedia, but they cannot comprehend those facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12] 13 November 2023.

Discussion concerning SamwiseGSix

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 SamwiseGSix

Hello everyone - simply seeking a rational and reasonably balanced NPOV here leveraging mainstream academic research, as the first intro sentence of the second paragraph is currently classifying the topic of the article flatly and comprehensively as 'racist pseudoscience' despite the founder's many leading anti-racist statements for his time, as both academic critics and proponents acknowledge. A more balanced WP:NPOV with fair recognition of WP:PSCI would arguably concede classifications of pseudoscience in many areas ('much of Anthroposophy is pseudoscientific') as currently written in the first intro paragraph, but avoid a comprehensive classification of 'racist pseudoscience' [period .] as currently written in 2nd which would be ignoring the academic research; much of which highlights the many leading anti-racist statements for the founder's time, often well ahead of his contemporaries/predecessors (President Wilson, K. Marx/Engalls et al on race etc) often still cited academically today. This flat/comprehensive classification results in unfair spin, arguably not adhering with the WP:NPOV standard for the Encyclopedia. I hope this makes sense overall? Not seeking to flout any rules or 'whitewash' (this term generally implies the coverup of a scandal or crime of some kind, right) in any way but rather simply seeking to bring a reasonable, balanced NPOV standard into play including in intro of second paragraph.

In considering the science, a significant amount of peer reviewed academic research has been published empirically measuring the positive affects of applying these insights in fields including education (3000 Waldorf Schools around the world, NYTimes and Independent.co.uk coverage etc), environmental conservation (Rachel Carson 'Silent Spring' impact w/ Marjorie Spock et al), banking (economists co-published with admins at central banks etc) and more. Although some of the related ideas from the movement are classifiable as 'pseudoscientific' by today's standards (as the intro paragraph does) there are many aspects of the body of work here that are scientifically measurable by our academic standards and significant minority opinions today. The comprehensive and wholesale classification of the entire movement and body of knowledge as just flatly 'racist psuedoscience' [.] is then arguably very unfair, and very arguably does not adhere to Wikipedia's very important WP:NPOV community standard. Please do let me know what your thoughts are - I do very much hope to be able to continue contributing constructively to Wikipedia including on this important page, which also deserves the treatment of a fair NPOV standard, thank you for your time and consideration. (I had not denied atomic theory or sought to drive any implications in this area - neither had I requested a sweeping endorsement of all ontology or epistemology. I had however been as a new editor consistently mocked/insulted and quite constantly subjected to highly inappropriate and disruptive battleground conduct etc though by the filing editor - hopefully this would be addressed with logged warning as discussed and actively prevented including with reasonable possible restrictions going forward as well)

I consistently WP:CITE extensive WP:RS for WP:V and WP:NPOV without bias in accordance with the WP:RULES. As quick final supplement this journal article helps highlight the anti-racist statements and also underscores through deep rationality the importance of a fair NPOV for this page in this pivotal time/moment, including helping solve for human 'x-risk' which I thought I'd not been warned against mentioning as a keyword specifically, and which is also very arguably directly relevant/critical still to improving the article: "The Urgency of Social Threefolding in a World Still at War with Itself".. https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069/1723 SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not anti-vax nor am I here to discuss germ theory, abortion, atomic theory, or any of the other unrelated subjects the filing editor continues seeking to bring up, a practice which those reviewing have already raised concerns about - yes this does appear to be a baiting attempt of some kind. I am here to address the misapplication of NPOV standard the filing editor has attempted to enforce on this page in seeking to classify the entire body of knowledge around page topic flatly/comprehensively as 'racist pseudoscience', despite the many academic sources demonstrating the contrary including through a vast body of documented anti-racist statements, generally far ahead of contemporaries/predecessors including US President W. Wilson and K Marx/Engels et al.

Statement by caeciliusinhorto

tgeorgescu says I have posted at WP:FTN and WP:RSN about it, but most people don't seem to care. I will note that I saw a couple of those threads but didn't engage. This one from RSN illustrates the issue nicely, I think. To open that thread, tgeorgescu linked to an ongoing discussion at Talk:Anthroposophy#Epistemology, Ontology etc, which at the time looked like this: 45kb wikitext, nearly 5000 words, 100+ comments almost exclusively of back-and-forth between tgeorgescu and SamwiseGSix. It isn't difficult to see why most editors did not want to engage in this. The point at which a talkpage discussion between two people who do not agree becomes unproductive is way before they've each made fifty comments. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SamwiseGSix

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

I recognize that keeping the pseudoscientists out is probably one of the longest standing aspects of Wikipedia subculture, but boy do I not like the conduct of either party at Talk:Anthroposophy. I'm not going to deny that a large extent of SamwiseGSix's contribs seem to be POV pushing against the scientific consensus (although, as one user noted in the RSN thread, they're doing so with what at a glance look to be rather reputable sources) – but goodness, tgeorgescu, an editor of your experience should know better than to spend that much time and ink mocking a new user's beliefs and throwing every template you can find at them (and apparently the contents of a whole essay). Stuff like this isn't exactly helpful, either. If you think you've found a troublemaker, and you can clearly see that talk page discussion isn't going to turn up positive results, post to a noticeboard or find an admin on your own. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna write out a whole thing, but Tamzin said it better. Tgeorgescu could've easily walked away from this whole situation with strong consensus for his version and maybe even sanctions for SamwiseGSix, depending on how unwilling they were to abide by that consensus. But instead, they bludgeoned their way through talk, RSN, and FTN, with a clear tone of disrespect and sometimes incivility – and then they doubled down on all of it here. A logged warning to the filer would be appropriate, and the polite suggestion seems reasonable given that there's not much of a case for something stronger. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@tgeorgescu: Going forward, I'd recommend leafing through WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and picking the options you think are best. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go along with leeky here - when things start going around in circles in a discussion, the best thing to do is to get outside input. Frankly, I don't care enough to dig further into the details about what Anthroposophy IS to figure out if it is really fringe or not - not an area where I care to invest my time. But the way this dispute has been laid out, it doesn't make it easy for me to see that either editor is "wrong" enough to sanction. Frankly, tgeorgescu, your way to setting out the dispute is unhelpful. Why are you constantly quoting other editors - the use of quotes of other editors just serves to obscfurcate the issue rather than ellucidating it. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a logged warning at the least. I could also go with a topic ban from the whole topic area of pseudoscience, but even if it's just a logged warning, I'd like for tgeorgescu to take on board that they need to stop the battleground approach to this topic area (that of pseudoscience broadly speaking) - we should not be mocking editors or subjects, no matter how wrong they are. If you think that mocking is needed, you've probably gotten into a battleground mindset and should step back until you don't feel the need to mock. 20:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Can I ask that both editors stop fidgeting with their statements, please? It's ... not helpful and it makes it hard to keep track of what's being said when it's constantly under flux. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Samwise - you need to stop making comments such as "If he is indeed whitewashing for such truly fascist and anti-human activity" or "which seems to make the filing editor uncomfortable" which is just as battlegroundy as the editor who filed this. A very good rule for editing conflicts is to NOT comment on the other editor or speculate on their motivations. We're not here to "win" a debate/battle/whatever. Given this - I'm inclined to warn both editors for battleground behavior. Please stop commenting on the other editor and stick to the sources. If you reach an sticking point - the steps/advice at WP:DISPUTE are helpful and good steps to take. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: Your comment that you are "not mocking a living person, but a guru who died almost a century ago" is illustrative of the disconnect here. We're not here to mock anyone. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Sometimes that involves debunking pseudoscience, in mainspace and on talkpages, sometimes in ways that would offend the purveyors of that pseudoscience, but Wikipedia is not a debate club or a skeptics' subreddit. As Ealdgyth says, if you're talking in circles, you should get feedback then, not after 5,000 words of debate. You don't get any points for "winning" the argument. Samwise suggested getting a third opinion on 30 October, and you responded by linking to two blog posts rather than taking them up on that.
My overall take here is that this is a content dispute, and that, if discussion continues, both parties should be encouraged to seriously moderate the amount they write. Keep comments short and to the matter under discussion: "I think source X supports statement Y because Z"; "I think source X is actually unreliable because W". If one wants to debate the philosophical underpinnings of anthroposophy, or the failure of organic agriculture in Sri Lanka or whether arguments at Waldorf schools are the result of gnomes, there are plenty of forums online for that, but a Wikipedia talkpage is not one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: It really seems like you're treating this like a battleground. There's some CTOPs where that perception might be inevitable, but I don't think this is one of them. The community is overwhelmingly anti-pseudoscience, and there is no organized effort to promote this particular fringe viewpoint on-wiki, as far as I can tell. (The related Waldorf education discretionary sanctions were repealed almost 2 years ago, having not been used since 2014.) Rather, this just reads like you brow-beating someone for being Wrong, jumping through tangentially related topics in order to score points, in a way that does not relate to building an encyclopedia. And it continues, in this thread! Where does atomic theory come into this? You're the one who brought that up, on three separate occasions now, which just seems like bait. The fact that you're continuing to argue all of this here, as I and others tell you that such conduct is unhelpful, is concerning. And I'm not saying Samwise's conduct is great, but it's hard to follow the logic for sanctions when it comes draped in layers of superiority. At this point I'm inclined to close this with a logged warning to you for disruptive editing in the form of excessive arguing and battleground conduct, and a polite suggestion to Samwise that their editing abilities may be better-suited elsewhere. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: Re your offer on my talk, I think such a sanction would be only, essentially, treating the symptoms. The issue isn't that you have extraordinarily strong feelings about anthroposophy. We have a broad but shallow issue here, not a deep but narrow one. Broad because it covers all of fringe/pseudoscience topics, shallow because this is something you can fix on your own without a need for any formal sanctions. And I guess I'll add a third, dimension: complex. Word count is only a proxy for the problem, and an imperfect one at that: There can be constructive discussions that run 5k+ words, and disruptive discussions that run only a few comments. The issue is how you are treating your peers, no more, no less. You are an experienced editor and I'm hoping that an AE warning could serve as a wake-up call that fighting pseudoscience is not an exception from our user conduct policies. You are still expected to have civil discussions on article talkpages built around what should or should not be in the article (not built on whether another user's actual or perceived POV is stupid, nor what other things they might believe), and to seek dispute resolution in a timely, civil, and non-bludgeoning fashion if you reach an impasse. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SamwiseGSix: Ealdgyth already asked you to stop editing your comments after they've been replied to, and yet you continue [13] [14] [15]. If you keep doing so, I will block you from editing this page. (In the spirit of even-handedness, I'll put @Tgeorgescu on notice about this too, but I respect that he has not made any such edits since Ealdgyth's request, and appreciate this.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 01:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, @SamwiseGSix and @Tgeorgescu, you're both well past your word count. Enough. Please don't comment again (including in response to this message) unless asked a direct question by an uninvolved admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncomfortable with the amount of hostility in comments like the ones linked above, as well as "go away, don't waste our time with such nonsense" (at Talk:Anthroposophy). If someone is really so bad that they deserve comments like this, they're bad enough to warrant escalating the dispute, so why just sit there on the talk page and insult them? jp×g 🗯️ 06:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

82.45.48.180

82.45.48.180 hard blocked for 3 months. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning 82.45.48.180

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 82.45.48.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

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

19:04, 23 October 2023 States as fact in Patrick Ryan (Irish priest) that he was a "terrorist", he is also a living person
14:39, 30 October 2023 Repeats previous edit
14:40, 30 October 2023 Repeats previous edit
17:22, 13 November 2023 Repeats previous edit

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked on 03:21, March 31, 2023

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

Notifed at 14:44, October 30, 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has been using a variety of IP addresses since February 2023, including 82.46.125.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.141.173.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 109.158.169.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have created a page at User:Kathleen's bike/IPs that shows the editing similarites between the IPs, a sockpuppetry report would achieve little at preseent since people are allowed to use different IPs. However it does demonstrate the long history of disruption from this editor. They have been directed to WP:LABEL/WP:TERRORIST three occasions by three different editors, on 13:05, April 30, 2023, 14:58, May 11, 2023 and 14:44, October 30, 2023. Their user talk page messages of 09:46, April 30, 2023 and 14:58, May 11, 2023 show they receive messages, so there can be no excuse of being unaware of the objections to their edits. The history of the four known IPs show this disruptive editing has been going on for a long time, and in my opinion needs to be curtailed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning 82.45.48.180

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 82.45.48.180

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 82.45.48.180

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

This is a long history of nationalist POV-pushing across several IPs. A particularly troubling detail is that it's the same few kinds of edits each time (viz. terrorism-labeling, nationality-warring, and the fringe view that "British rule" is an inaccurate way to describe pre-Republic Ireland), showing that this editor is not taking the hint from reverts, nor from Ad Orientem's block in March. I am inclined to block the IP for 3 months, with the understanding that that should be treated as an indef against the editor behind the IP—but will hold back at least briefly to give them a chance to explain why such a sanction is not necessary to prevent disruption. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 05:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tamzin here - unless the editor-behind-the-IP weighs in with something super-contrite-and-game-changing, a three month (or more) block seems sound. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree fully with my colleagues above; and I'd add that although I don't currently see a range block that would fix anything, that is an option we should keep in mind if further IPs pop up. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier

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

Request concerning Selfstudier

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: 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

Violated WP:1RR on Al-Shifa Hospital siege.

At 12:07, 15 November 2023 they made their first revert in 24 hours.

Then, between 14:58 and 15:18 they made three separate edits, constituting a single revert; 15:18, 15 November 2023, 15:02, 15 November 2023, and 14:58, 15 November 2023.

These reinstated in wikivoice the use of the description "siege" for the event, reverting an edit I made to attribute that description in line with the sources in the article. They also reinstated two specific aspects that I had removed:

With the 15:02 edit, in the infobox, they changed Al-Shifa Hospital clashes to Al-Shifa Hospital siege. My edit had changed that from siege to clashes.
With the 15:18 edit, they changed the section header Clashes to Preliminary clashes and siege. My edit had changed that from Siege and attacks to Clashes.

I approached them with a request that they self-revert; they eventually self-reverted the change to the infobox, but have implicitly refused to revert further, having neither continued the conversation on their talk page or made the reverts, despite having made dozens of edits since that discussion, including to the article in question - as such I feel I have no other option to resolve this other than to bring it here.

Related to this, though not sufficient to warrant a post here on its own, there has also been a level of incivility with comments directed at editors rather than content:

In response to my addition of a POV-tag to the article, they said Throwing toys out of the pram, pay no attention.
In response to Novem Linguae's removal of a Reuters source they said So now the anti siege editors are going around knocking out siege refs in the article.

When I approached them about this, along with request to be more mindful about avoiding commenting on other editors as over the years I have noticed this to be a bit of a habit for them and it contributes to the toxicity of this topic area, they instead doubled down on the pram comment and refused to adjust either to align with our civility policies.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

23:38, 1 July 2020 Formally warned for 1RR violations in the topic area; cautioned that When in doubt, self-revert.

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

Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

To respond to a few points and clarify my statement:

I removed unattributed claims that this was a siege; Selfstudier restored those claims. This is a revert.
We’re getting into content, but I believe that if the majority of reliable sources attribute a claim then we need to do the same to comply with NPOV. Reasonable editors can disagree with this, but my position isn’t unreasonable.
The POV tag was unrelated to the title and to the status of the RM; I added it because of the restoration of the use of "siege" in wikivoice to the article.

12:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

01:32, 16 November 2023

Discussion concerning Selfstudier

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

Statement by Selfstudier

This all took place in the space of some hours on 15 November. Filers First edit to the article changed "siege" to "clashes" in the infobox along with the reference in Wikivoice to a siege in the first line of the lead and another in the article body, asserting in edit summary that an RM opened by filer 20 minutes earlier proved that siege in Wikivoice was inappropriate.

I did not notice this edit at the time because I was engaged in back and forth on the talk page at the RM unsuccessfully attempting to persuade filer to drop the RM due to the easy availability of reliable sources calling the event a siege. I then set about adding some of these sources into the article and in the process of doing so reverted filer's infobox edit changing "siege" to clashes" above (I added a source for "siege" at the same time). When this was pointed out, I self reverted. My edits were intended as constructive and were not otherwise reverts. Filer then added an undue inline tag to one of the sources that I had added with the same reasoning as in their first edit ie that Wikivoice was inappropriate because filer said so in their RM.

The RM did not proceed to filers liking and a pointy POV tag was added here, again justified by reference to the reasoning given in filers RM. No conversation regarding this tag was opened by filer in talk but another editor eventually opened a talk section querying the basis for the tag and was backed up by a second editor, both understanding that the tag was being placed due to the RM. I confess to being a tad irritated with filers behavior and added a throwaway comment at this point to the effect that filer was merely being pointy in adding the tag. Filer then asserted that the issue was "broader" than that but once again merely repeated their own assertion made in the RM.

Judging by the current status of the RM, filers POV is not at all convincing. Essentially boils down to filer making an assertion by way of RM and then attempting to force through filers opinion on the subject regardless of evidence being presented to the contrary.

Statement by Iskandar323

I find the substance here extremely lacking. BilledMammal has provided a list of diffs of alleged reverts, with little explanation on the substance, and only two clear examples of material that was reverted. Of those two, it is freely admitted that the latter was promptly self-reverted by the accused upon request. That would be the logical end of the content dispute for most editors. My eyebrows are raised slightly higher by BilledMammal's obviously unconstructive altering of the infobox title away from the page title - but in line with their dissatisfaction with the title. This is the sort of quickly reverted action that one normally sees coming from IPs and non-autoconfirmed users, not experienced editors that know the ropes better. BilledMammal's addition of a POV tag to the page, again in relation to the title's terminology, is also WP:POINT-y. I have been generally unimpressed by this editor's behaviour in recent weeks in this CT area, but here they appear to be showcasing combative editing. BilledMammal also raises some issues about civility, but this is a bit pot kettle black given that BM's opening comment on Selfstudier's talk page accused them of "contributing to the toxicity" of the topic area while flagging: "I've also noticed over the years ... - so requesting civility while accusing them of toxicity and highlighting what is hard not to interpret as a statement of some sort of longstanding grudge/chip on the shoulder. Altogether, this is filing comes across as altogether unimpressive in terms of substance and misdirected. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

BilledMammal changed a section title from "Siege and attacks" to "Clashes". Selfstudier then changed it to "Preliminary clashes and siege". Calling this a revert seems a stretch. It looks to me more like an attempt at compromise. Zero^talk 09:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Can't stuff like this be handled on the article talk page?[16] O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Wh15tL3D09N)

I just wanted to come on here and say that I did notice some POV issues on that article. If you notice issues with the article (for example, a lot third party quoted criticisms have been added), and deleting criticisms isn't an option, then you need to go and find facts or quotes from other sources to corroborate your POV to balance the current skewed POV (I think 30% of the article cited Al Jazeera as a source, which is biased) rather than going to arbitration enforcement. That being said, I did notice some saucy comments from Selfstudier and I apologize on his behalf if they have unintentionally offended you.

Result concerning Selfstudier

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

Based guyy

Based guyy blocked by Rosguill for 1 week for ARBPIA violations, notified about ARBEE. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Based guyy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA4

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

21:06, 16 November 2023 They make an edit to an Arab-Isreali conflict page despite not being extended-confirmed, although they aren't aware at this point
17:08, 17 November 2023 They reinstate the edits after my revert
21:17, 17 November 2023 They reinstate the edits again (also violating 1RR)

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 02:41, 17 November 2023‎ (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This may be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. But on the other hand their edit summaries clearly show they are aware of the fact that someone reverted them.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:Based guyy#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Discussion concerning Based guyy

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 Based guyy

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Based guyy

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

Blocked one week for the clear-cut ARBPIA violations. I also notice they've devoted a fair amount of attention to Balkan conflict topics and have issued an ARBEE warning as well, although I have not examined these edits in depth. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaikunda Raja

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 Vaikunda Raja

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation

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

Vaikunda Raja requests Deletion Review of Annamalai Kuppusamy. This is not disruptive at this point: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183108503&oldid=1183086709

A lengthy reply which ends I would like to suggest experienced users here to act responsibly., perhaps implying that declining the request is irresponsible: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183153859&oldid=1183141620

Another call to act responsibly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183155615&oldid=1183153859

A rambling post that says nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183335678&oldid=1183256322

Admits that their lack of command of English may contribute to excessive length of posts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183486377&oldid=1183485221

Another reply, which is by this point in bludgeon territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183782213&oldid=1183656692

A long argument with Daniel, who had said to leave the article deleted rather than restore it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1185845826&oldid=1185776564

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None to the best of my knowledge

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 15 February 2023:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVaikunda_Raja&diff=1139453247&oldid=1134585236

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor is bludgeoning a Deletion Review about an article on an Indian politician, and has been cautioned by multiple editors that their posts are too long, and are not useful. They have replied to the effect that their English is limited, and this requires them to use more words. This raises competence issues, as well as the battleground nature of replying to almost every post.

The DRV is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Annamalai_Kuppusamy.

The AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Annamalai (I.P.S).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVaikunda_Raja&diff=1185934338&oldid=1171460010

Discussion concerning Vaikunda Raja

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 Vaikunda Raja

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Vaikunda Raja

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

Bloodofox

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 Bloodofox

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: HollerithPunchCard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bloodofox (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

A topic ban of indefinite or sufficient duration against Bloodofox pursuant to Arbitration Decision December 2022

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

Since September 27, 2023, @Bloodofox made dozens of radical changes to Falun Gong, a protected topic WP:CTOP, against community feedback and without consensus.

All attempts for civil, rational, content-focused discussions have failed and are met with aspersions and personal attacks. Attempts to salvage deleted content are quickly reverted (sometimes with the help of another editor, @MrOllie), despite reasoned objections on the talk page. Constructive editing on this topic is currently impossible.

Respectfully, this editor has breached numerous WP:PAGs and [WP:TPG] including WP:PA, WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NOTADVOCATE, WP:FORUM, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP: BATTLEGROUND, WP: RECENT, WP: LEDE, WP: SOURCETYPE. AE sanctions are necessary to restore normal order and function to this contentious topic.

Removals of stable, well sourced content without discussion

09/27/2023 - Diff Diff. Deleted almost two full paragraphs, containing 11 academic sources, on the organizational structure of Falun Gong. This material had been stable and largely uncontested for years. Edit summary claims the information is “obviously incorrect” and outdated, but provides no evidence to support this contention.

On the talk page, Link other editors point out that the deleted material was well supported by academic experts on Falun Gong, including by a major 2019 scholarly work. Moreover, even if FLG’s organizational structure had changed over time, the encyclopedia should describe that evolution, rather than erasing historical findings.

Diff Bloodofox offers no evidence on the talk page to support his position, but edit wars to enforce it.

11/08/2023 to 11/15/2023 - Diff Removes three full paragraphs of the Lede, along with more than 10 academic sources, human rights NGO reports and media reports that introduced Falun Gong’s history, basic theological beliefs, and the persecution by the Chinese government. The deleted material had been stable for years, if not a decade.

Other editors argued that deletion of important aspects of this topic, to give greater and exclusive focus to recent media articles and controversies, fails [WP:Lede], [WP:Weight], [WP:Recent], [WP: SOURCETYPES], and [WP: NPOV] Link, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff.

Diff - Bloodofox edit wars to prevent other editors from partially restoring deleted content.

Activism, Personal Attacks and Uncivil Conduct

Diff, Diff Pushed a POV (e.g. by declaring Falun Gong-related pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND); did not assume good faith; refused to engage in reaching consensus or making compromise, tries to canvas other editors to join his cause.

Diff Conducts advocacy and activism against the subject matter, Link, Diff calling of removal of all information and sources uncritical about Falun Gong from Wikipedia.
Diff, Diff, Diff, Diff Cast aspersions and attacks editors who disagree with him as an “adherent” - Continues despite warning and objections - Diff, Diff. Personal attacks on the basis of perceived religious belief.

More explanations and examples are available if the Administrator deems necessary or helpful to determine this request. If so, I would kindly request leave to exceed the word limit to provide these further examples and explanations.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

28 February 2021 Bloodofox was believed to be subject to a 0RR ban in February 2021 for editing on this subject, under [WP:AE] Discretionary Sanctions. Ban appears to be lifted shortly.

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 15 November 2023(see the system log linked to above).
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on 3 March 2021.
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Over the past two weeks, Bloodofox has made approximately 32 edits to this article, radically changing this article from its last version that stood in September 2023, which version has been substantially stable for months, if not years. Virtually all attempts to restore deleted content, or to revert his/her edits, were reverted within hours. I believe that AE sanctions against Bloodofox are warranted. This article should be rolled back to the version that stood prior to Bloodofox’s first recent edit on September 27, 2023, so that any contested edit can be discussed individually based on the usual WP:BRD cycle.

Response to allegations

I strongly disagree with Mr.Ollie's request for boomerang sanctions against me for alleged incivility against Bloodofox. I called Bloodofox out on his activism and WP:PA, and took a strong stance that such behaviour should not be tolerated. Calling out an editor's misconduct and breach of WP:PAGs and WP:TPG, and calling for a cease and desist of such conduct in strong terms, is not incivility. I've also written at length to explain why I think Bloodofox was POV-pushing, retracted some of my claims where I might have gone too far (such as claim of vandalism) which Mr.Ollie does not mention. Worth noting that Mr.Ollie edit wars to support and enforce Bloodofox's non-consensual deletion of stable content mentioned above, and does appear to take a strong partisan interest in this article. Finally, I did not engage in inappropriate canvassing. I notified two and only two users who were most recently the subject of Bloodofox's PAs and aspersions, which forms a key part of this AE request. In my view, they absolutely need and deserve to know about this proceeding, which involves them. I could have notified more, but stopped since Mr.Ollie is making this an issue.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified here

Discussion concerning Bloodofox

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 Bloodofox

Statement by MrOllie

The above is more or less just detailing a content dispute - it's a nothingburger, and I would say that this board shouldn't bother at all, but the OPs own behavior bears a serious look. Here's a collection of talk page quotations from HollerithPunchCard on this topic area:

"the naked animosity and prejudice he declared against the subject of this article and other editors who disagreed with him." [17]
"I think you should take a break from editing this topic." [18]
"half the time you were WP:SOAPBOXing, and the other half, you were launching blatant WP:PA against other editors" [19]
"But it does show how Bloodofox tilts at windmills, in his unconcealed activism on this topic." [20]
"If this pattern of disruption continues, external assistance will be inevitable." [21]
"In my respective view, we are witnessing a vandalization and clear POV-pushing on this page, committed by Bloodofox and Binksternet, and a few others." [22]
"I think you need to stop peddling your personal views and speculations to dictate what source is reliable and what is not. There is clear guidance on WP:RS which you should refer to when trying to exclude a source, than to rely on your own thinly veiled prejudice on this matter." [23]
"Binksternet is blatantly peddling his undisguised personal views to support his reverts." [24]
"Your personal experience on wikipedia simply doesn't matter. " [25]

I submit that this level of repeated incivility and personal attacks is a case where a WP:BOOMERANG, perhaps in the form of a topic ban, would be the best thing for the encyclopedia. - MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I'll also note that the OP is presently engaged in canvassing support for this report: [26], [27]

Statement by Rjjiii

Is this not a content dispute? I mostly see Bloodofox removing content that cites primary sources and adding content from secondary sources.

For example: Diff - calling of removal of all information and sources uncritical about Falun Gong from Wikipedia.

But Bloodofox's actual words are, "It's no secret that the Chinese government persecutes religious groups of all stripes. Yet we don't consider the Falun Gong to be a reliable source for anything around these parts, and any source that takes the group's word uncritically and at face value needs to go from this site and arguably Wikipedia as a whole. That's a clear violation of WP:RS.".

The above comment is from a description of why Bloodofox removed large chunks of content cited to Freedom House.[28] He explained in a lengthy message on the Falun Gong talk page why Freedom House articles citing and quoting Falun Gong, should be considered a primary source and not reliable secondary coverage. HollerithPunchCard commented in that discussion, "I'm beyond uncomfortable with the sweeping extirpation of stable content on this article by Blood".

The thread open thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#NGO Freedom House citing Falun Gong sources (Epoch Times, etc.) seems the more appropriate place to resolve the dispute, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 07:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Warrenmck)

I'm one of the users who was pinged by HollerithPunchCard on my talk page. I'm somewhat in agreement that it feels a little inappropriately editorialized and targeted at people with a certain perspective, but I do think it wouldn't have been as bad if it'd been made clearer I was involved as the target of some of the uncivil behaviour in the diffs above.

I'm inclined to wholly agree with HollerithPunchCard, and I do think it's erroneous to call this a content dispute. I think Bloodofox was incredibly out of line. When I raised FTN mission creep and concerns that we shouldn't treat a religion as a fringe theory, but rather practices which are themselves fringe, I got met with

"I'm sure the Falun Gong and its many misinformation arms like the Epoch Times would be more than happy to hear that you think discussing them should be forbidden. And why not let this poor multi-billion dollar org spread anti-vaccine, anti-evolution, anti-climate change, and so on in peace to millions in the US, Canada, and Europe without troubling them with reporting on it?"

And it never really improved from there. Beyond implying repeatedly that I was an "adherent" for disagreeing with them, I think MrOllie warrants a look here for their behaviour as well.

It is utterly impossible to have a civil discussion on a complex, nuanced topic when users are browbeating any other perspective and both strawmanning and casting aspersions at editors trying to engage in good faith. Diff Diff. Both MrOllie and Bloodofox were essentially refusing to let discussion take place which didn't align with their preferred outcome, and assuming everyone who didn't immediately align with them was out to censor criticism of Falun Gong, rather than methodological or meta concerns.

I expressed concern with trying to monitor an entire religion via FTN as an inappropriate use of it, while at no point saying that addressing fringe topics which may exist within that religion do not belong there. I'm trying to act in good faith, but I was definitely concerned with FTN being used for a religion writ whole, and there was more than a small amount of religious intolerance being thrown around in that thread.

My only request is that any admins looking at this please look at the chain of conversations that took place there and ask how well-meaning editors with contrary perspectives were meant to engage civilly without getting completely misrepresented for having the gall to disagree with the two posters who had decided this topic was theirs to dictate the outcome of. If my own behaviour was out of line in that thread, by all means WP:BOOMERANG me, I want my behaviour to be in line with Wikipedia's expectations as well, but that thread was absurdly hostile and sanctions feel appropriate. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 07:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Bloodofox

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

[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]

@@ Line 474: / Line 474: @@
 The thread open thread at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#NGO Freedom House citing Falun Gong sources (Epoch Times, etc.)]] seems the more appropriate place to resolve the dispute, [[User:Rjjiii|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Rjj<sup>iii</sup></span>]] ([[User talk:Rjjiii#top|talk]]) 07:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
-====Statement by (username)====
+====Statement by (Warrenmck)====
 <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
+I'm one of the users who was pinged by HollerithPunchCard on my talk page. I'm somewhat in agreement that it feels a little inappropriately editorialized and targeted at people with a certain perspective, but I do think it wouldn't have been as bad if it'd been made clearer I was involved as the target of some of the uncivil behaviour in the diffs above.
+I'm inclined to wholly agree with HollerithPunchCard, and I do think it's erroneous to call this a content dispute. I think Bloodofox was incredibly out of line. When I raised FTN mission creep and concerns that we shouldn't treat a religion as a fringe theory, but rather practices which are themselves fringe, I got met with
+:{{tq|"I'm sure the Falun Gong and its many misinformation arms like the Epoch Times would be more than happy to hear that you think discussing them should be forbidden. And why not let this poor multi-billion dollar org spread anti-vaccine, anti-evolution, anti-climate change, and so on in peace to millions in the US, Canada, and Europe without troubling them with reporting on it?"}}
+And it never really improved from there. Beyond implying repeatedly that I was an "adherent" for disagreeing with them, I think  MrOllie warrants a look here for their behaviour as well.
+It is utterly impossible to have a civil discussion on a complex, nuanced topic when users are browbeating any other perspective and both strawmanning and casting aspersions at editors trying to engage in good faith. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFringe_theories%2FNoticeboard&diff=1185324824&oldid=1185324649 Diff] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFringe_theories%2FNoticeboard&diff=1185324012&oldid=1185323230 Diff]. Both MrOllie and Bloodofox were essentially refusing to let discussion take place which didn't align with their preferred outcome, and assuming everyone who didn't immediately align with them was out to censor criticism of Falun Gong, rather than methodological or meta concerns.
+I expressed concern with trying to monitor an entire religion via FTN as an inappropriate use of it, while at no point saying that addressing fringe topics which may exist within that religion do not belong there. I'm trying to act in good faith, but I was definitely concerned with FTN being used for a religion writ whole, and there was more than a small amount of religious intolerance being thrown around in that thread.
+My only request is that any admins looking at this please look at the chain of conversations that took place there and ask how well-meaning editors with contrary perspectives were meant to engage civilly without getting completely misrepresented for having the gall to disagree with the two posters who had decided this topic was theirs to dictate the outcome of. If my own behaviour was out of line in that thread, by all means [[WP:BOOMERANG]] me, I want my behaviour to be in line with Wikipedia's expectations as well, but that thread was absurdly hostile and sanctions feel appropriate. [[User:Warrenmck|Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ]] 07:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 ===Result concerning Bloodofox===

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, 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