Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:31, 10 September 2021

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

Arqamkhawaja

Blocked indefinitely as a normal admin action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:10, 4 September 2021 (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 Arqamkhawaja

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Arqamkhawaja (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

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

06:31, 31 August 2021 Moves the disambiguation page Kashmir Premier League (it eventually ended up at Kashmir Premier League Topics
06:38, 31 August 2021 Back at Kashmir Premier League (which was a redirect thanks to the page move) performs a copy and paste move from Kashmir Premier League (Pakistan) (that circle is completed here
08:23, 31 August 2021 Restores the new redriect from Kashmir Premier League (Pakistan)‎ to Kashmir Premier League
08:24, 31 August 2021 Removes my G6 speedy deletion request that's trying to sort out their mess
11:08, 17 August 2021 Several consecutive edits removing Ahmadiyya from Outline of Islam
06:54, 18 August 2021 Amends a section heading to read Ahmadiyya (Ahmadis are not Muslim)
06:57, 18 August 2021 Removes "Islamic" from the Ahmadiyya article
07:06, 18 August 2021 Removes "Islam" and "Muslim" from the Ahmadiyya founder article
07:16, 18 August 2021 Removes "Islam" and "Muslim" from an Ahmadiyya related article
06:17, 31 August 2021‎-10:57, 31 August 2021‎ Entire history of Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation (detailed explanation in comments]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Obviously a simple copy and paste move itself isn't a sanction-worthy problem, but given the disputed status of Kashmir, it is a problem if the Pakistan page is moved to Kashmir Premier League while leaving Kashmir Premier League (India). Although they seem to have stopped their Ahmadiyya related disruption, thought it sensible to bring it up here to show there's been wider issues than just the one page move.

Detailed explanation on the final diff, or article hisotry to be precise. On 12 August they created Draft:Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation, which was declined as a submission on 15 August (which of course they've just resubmitted without any changes at all, sigh). To sidestep this, we have the following.

06:17. Moved page from Keran, Azad Kashmir to Keran, Neelum Valley (I don't have any position on this move, it's what happens next that's the problem
10:53. Moved the subsequent redirect from Keran, Azad Kashmir to Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation
10:56. Removes the redirect and creates a new article about the foundation. This might, and I only say might as I still think it's totally inappropriate, have been acceptable if there was any connection between Keran and the foundation, but they appear to have no connection whatsoever.

I was tempted to take this latest stunt to ANI, but it probably makes sense to keep the discussion in one place. FDW777 (talk) 12:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I realise this seems to be heading in one direction only and this might be redundant, but the more I see from this editor the more I think they don't have the competence to edit Wikipedia. I didn't delve too deeply into their editing history or the history of their talk page, if I had I'd have seen this edit adding an unreferenced date of birth to an entertainment related article, and their reply of "Shivaji Satam was born on April 1950.it was true" to a warning about this edit sets alarm bells ringing. And since this report was filed, they've made another incompetent page move. The disambiguation page at Javed Iqbal lists two judges, so an additional disambiguator than just "judge" is used for both of them. Despite this, they moved one of them to "Jawed Iqbal (Judge)". FDW777 (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Arqamkhawaja

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 Arqamkhawaja

Statement by Kleuske

I came across this user during their exploits in Kashmir Premier League and Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation. I concur with MrsSnoozyTurtle (See AfD nom) that Arqamkhawaja is WP:GAMING the system, and for that reason, I do not think topic bans will suffice, since the users behavior trancends POV editing and out-of-control content disputes, but goes well into disruptive territory. For that reason, I would have preferred an AN/I case, but the problems are well summed up, here. Kleuske (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Arqamkhawaja

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

And never an edit summary. Arqamkhawaja is clearly here mainly for the purpose of furthering their agendas concerning Kashmir, as well as concerning Islam.[1] My first instinct was to block them indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE, but I see they have also sometimes edited harmlessly and/or helpfully on sports and entertainment pages. A T-ban from WP:ARBIPA subjects (India, Pakistan and Afghanistan) would in practice also prevent this editing, since they apparently (and understandably) are only interested in IPA-related sports and entertainment. Thus it would be tantamount to an indefinite site block. So perhaps a time-limited block instead? One month? Or a bespoke T-ban from anything related to Kashmir, broadly contrued, plus anything related to Islam? I'd foresee difficulties with grey areas and with enforcement of such a T-ban, though. We do tend to waste a lot of time tailoring and enforcing these bans. But edits such as the Kashmir-related move warring, or this, are absolutely terrible, and something should be done. PS, Arqamkhawaja, I see you are editing. Do you not want to respond to the charges here? There's a special section with your name on it above, for you to use if you like. Bishonen | tålk 12:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I agree that some action is needed to prevent the disruption here. Perhaps a way to do it might be a topic ban from Kashmir and Islam both broadly construed, except on pages related to sports and entertainment (including related people). Plus a warning that any non-neutral editing in the exemption areas can be dealt with immediately by any uninvoled admin by removing the exemption. While it allows a fairly large hole in the sports and entertainment area I expect that, if there is non-neutral editing in these areas, Arqamkhawaja will be reported to AE (or any admin knowing the background) fairly quickly. It's effectively a last chance before removing the ability to edit completely. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is a serious problem here that needs strong action. Some of their sports edits are good, so a simple ARBIPA-scope tban could be too broad. But as the Kashmir Premier League aspect highlighted by FDW777 demonstrates, even some of their sports edits are part of their ARBIPA-spirit-violating behavior. Therefore, I don't think Callanecc's crafted broadly-construed-with-carveout is sufficient. They've already had multiple warnings (including level 4), with ARBIPA and ethnicity-related details noted. Unless they start communicating (at all) and explicitly agree to comply with our policies in those regards, I think a block is in order. I'm willing to sacrifice some sports data updates (lots of editors update these sorts of things) in order to get rid of yet another Eastern ethnicity POV-warrior who spreads damage to so many different pages. After reading their edits today, I actually had my finger on the "another lame ethnicity zealot, indef" button before I read the user-talk to see this WP:AE thread. DMacks (talk) 14:00, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at gaming noted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation and page-move/topic-change-rewrite in the edit-history of Maulana Tariq Jamil Foundation, they are more widely disruptive and a time-sink of other editors than I'd noticed earlier, so I now support site-indef (though only some areas of that are for ARB-related reasons). DMacks (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm considered "involved" or not...I've been watching this editor's behavior and have issued multiple warnings and undoing various edits for a while. Feel free to move my comment into a "Statement by DMacks" section if that's more proper. DMacks (talk) 11:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Arqamkhawaja has decided not to respond to concerns here but has edited elsewhere I'll block them indefinitely per NOTHERE and general disruption in around 24 hours if there aren't objections from uninvolved admins. I'll probably encourage them to appeal the block and admins to consider unblocking if Arqamkhawaja demonstrates an understanding of the issues and a willingness to engage in discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with an indefinite block in this case, Callanecc. Bishonen | tålk 16:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Huldra

Huldra reminded to be cautious with the one revert rule in this topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 4 September 2021 (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 Huldra

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Huldra (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:A/I/PIA

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

21:17, 31 August 2021 Revert of this material that was added on august 30 [2] on honor killings
21:16, 1 September 2021‎ recent revert of this [3]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [4].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Huldra only recently filed 1RR complaint and here she has broken 1RR and removed recently added text. She is seasoned editor and knows about the rules very well.
There is another 1RR that was broken by fairly new user Shadybabs (talk · contribs) [5],[6] but contrary to Huldra the user have received the alert only after his edits [7](the alert was given by Huldra!).Its up to admins to decide if this user should receive any sanction but I will notify him too. --Shrike (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nableezy She was notified [8] about the infraction and continued to edit after that

@Callanecc: @Huldra: can still restore the material that she removed with her first edit. Huldra are you going to do it? --Shrike (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC) @Vanamonde93: She can still restore her first removal of material --Shrike (talk) 07:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[9]

Discussion concerning Huldra

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 Huldra

Yes, I confess, I reverted stuff on the Tira article:

21:17, 31 August 2021, and then
21:16, 1 September 2021‎; reverted some other stuff,

That was careless of me; I should of course have waited, (especially as I am fully aware that have half a dozen editors watching my every edit with hawk-eyes, and will report me if I get a word wrong)

And yes, I was made aware of this at 23:09, 1 September 2021 But already at 21:24, 1 September 2021‎ the article had been edited again, making a self-revert impossible. (I tried), Huldra (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Did you even ask for a self revert? nableezy - 17:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 11Fox11

Wow. Just WOW.

It doesn't get more blatant than this.

Huldra goes after a newbie with a 1RR violation notice, right after Huldra broke 1RR herself with an undo 23 hours and 59 minutes (did Huldra thing 24 hours were up?) after this removal (with a false edit summary, removal of lots of content not a reword) that removed quite a bit including the complete removal of this recent edit a day before: ("Violence in the name of protecting "honor" is also a problem. In 2003, a Tira couple who took part in a pornographic film were attacker by a lynch mob in the town square, beaten and had to be hospitalized under police guard. Residents were of the opinion that the couple had brought this upon themselves, and were disappointed was that they were not killed by the mob. ^[1]

References

^ Israeli Arab porn sparks outrage

And if the lack of self awareness in warning Shadybabs for the 1RR rule Huldra just broke, Huldra was notified twice of this 1RR violation: on Shadybabs 's talk and on Huldra's talk. All this a week after Huldra filed a 1RR complaint here closed without action

Huldra is behaving as if the 1RR rule applies only to other editors, but not Huldra. 11Fox11 (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL

I'm looking at a diff 1 and diff 2. There is no overlap in content, so this can't really be considered a violation of WP:1RR. Considering that the given diffs are 23 hours and 59 minutes apart from each other (with like 25 intervening edits between them), I think it is safe to say that this report can be considered rather frivolous. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware these two had previous history with one another. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen an editor-interaction report this.. extensive before.

That can complicate matters for how to handle this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Self-trout. It completely escaped me that WP:1RR can still apply to reverts of different material introduced after an initial revert. I'm more used to situations where the A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. part of the policy comes more into play. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde: I believe Shrike is saying that if Huldra self-reversed the removal, then the second revert would not count as a violation of WP:1RR. I guess she theoretically could have done that on her own accord, but that would feel pretty WP:GAME-y to me. Doing so now, at this stage and as part of an administrative enforcement action, would essentially be using the sanctions to effect the outcome of a content dispute unncessarily. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shrike: I think you meant to link this diff regarding Shadybabs. In your statement, you link to the same diff twice. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

Should editors who made a single likely slip be cautioned first on their talk page about it, before running to this board? I don't understand such a "gotcha" approach. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I see it now. The user was notified about the possible breach but could not correct himself because the article has been adjusted since their last edit. Oh boy, what a confusion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hippeus

MJL, 1RR and 3RR applies to edits with no overlap this is spelled out in WP:4RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert."

This is particularly heinous given that Huldra was alerted to their violation, and that Huldra reported a new editor here a week ago for something that wasn't a violation and complained to Shadybabs that Shadybabs broke 1RR right after Huldra broke it.

The same rules apply to Huldra, this should be sanctioned.--Hippeus (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Huldra is meticulous about the rules, but here she slipped up. She would have self-reverted if she had realised soon enough, but by the time she was notified there were already intervening edits. There is no case for treating this as more than an innocent mistake. Zero^talk 04:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Huldra

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

I see it this way, yes this a 1RR breach (by 2 minutes) such as this is at level that a block would be appropriate. A block would not be appropriate if Huldra had self-reverted. It seems like Huldra did try to self-revert but couldn't due to the intervening edit. I'd suggest closing this with a reminder to Huldra to be very careful with 1RR compliance and that a breach in the future, even if self-reverted, may very well result in a block given this experience. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just noting that I've left a message on Shadybabs's talk page to clarify how 1RR works. Hopefully, that'll clear up that issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is indeed a 1RR violation, but since it's demonstrably true that a self-revert was no longer possible when Huldra was reminded of this, I don't think anything more than a reminder is needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shrike, why does she need to revert the first removal? It was not contrary to any restriction. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, I thought it might be something like that, but I wanted Shrike to spell it out in their own words. I agree that that would be quite pointless. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Minor technical violation in which the offending user acknowledges that they screwed up and provides a reasonable explanation as to why they didn't self-revert. A simple reminder to be more cautious about 1RR would seem to be the most appropriate course of action here. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WikiMonitor2021

Indefinitely blocked as a normal admin action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:58, 4 September 2021 (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 WikiMonitor2021

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: WikiMonitor2021 (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#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

21:51, 1 September 2021 With misleading edit summary, restores material previously objected without consensus
12:37, 2 September 2021 Restores material previously objected without consensus
13:05, 2 September 2021 Restores material previously objected without consensus
09:25, 3 September 2021 Restores material previously objected without consensus, also a 1RR breach
11:44, 3 September 2021 The most problematic diff of all is a talk page post. Comments such as I write about the Troubles in a blog and post comments on social media regarding the Troubles, Irish politics, crime and terrorism etc, so obviously a number of politicians and journalists who follow me, will be intrigued by my commentary regarding my Wikipedia experiences this week and If you don't wish to respond, that's fine, but a lack of a suitable response, or a non-response will mean that people will have to reach their own conclusions about this page and your editorial decisions and motivations. By the way, I have a number of screenshots of the Claudy page and I have everything copied onto a Word document are designed to have a chilling effect.
19:23, 3 September 2021 Further talk page post with I have posted a screenshot on social media, to provide some context about your editing on Wikipedia and I think this is a public interest story that should be dealt with externally, on social and news media.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

na

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Additional diff added. FDW777 (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning WikiMonitor2021

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 WikiMonitor2021

Hello everyone, thanks for joining in. I'm currently discussing this matter on social media, so your input will be appreciated. I write / blog about politics, crime, terrorism on the island of Ireland. This includes the Troubles. The type of people who read my work include politicians, journalists, experts on crime / terrorism. I (and other people) are curious as to why the names of the nine people killed in the Claudy bombings have been removed twice by FDW777. Names of victims are on other Troubles related pages (Such as Bloody Friday), so the intentional deletion on the Claudy page is inconsistent with accepted practice on other Wikipedia pages. It also creates the impression of politically motivated editing / deletion. Clearly this does not help the reputation of Wikipedia, as it puts a question mark over the credibility / reliability of content and the motivation of editors. So...would anyone like to comment? Could FDW777 also explain why another Wikipedia user was praising his work on the Provisional IRA? In light of the fact that FDW777 is delating the names of victims of an IRA bomb attack, this seems rather sinister. Thanks in advance. :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMonitor2021 (talk • contribs)

Statement by Thryduulf

The combination of username and behaviour here is giving me very strong feelings that this user might be a sock of someone previously banned from this topic area. I couldn't tell you who, or even precisely why I feel this way, and so can provide no concrete evidence of anything (which is why I'm posting in this section). @HJ Mitchell: does this ring any bells for you? Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning WikiMonitor2021

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

Just a little reply to Thryduulf, not an opinion on the report, as I'm pretty unfamiliar with the area: there's an impression, certainly. I've asked them whose sock they are. Bishonen | tålk 18:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
[10] and [11] is fairly straightforward harassment. Any objections to a quick indef? ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 01:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No objections, and I have now done so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wi Spa controversy

Request Retracted By Author ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:31, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

@El C: previously protected Wi Spa controversy under standard semi-protection. In the past few days, the page talk and editing history has been much more heated. Given the controversial nature of this topic and previous implemention of GENSEX D/s, I am requesting semi-protection be elevated to ECP. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 22:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the editors involved in the dispute on the article itself are well into extended-confirmed it seems? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then, perhaps, we should gold lock it for a week. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why? There was some edit warring but it's now moved to talk page discussion, it seems, and there seems to be no ongoing disruption. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mikele99

Mikele99 partial blocked by Bishonen as a normal admin action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:53, 9 September 2021 (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 Mikele99

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:57, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mikele99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

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

14:24, 8 September 2021 Removes secondary references and replaces them with negative information referenced by a claimed public record hosting by a known Holocaust denier. Site previously discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#infotextmanuscripts.org. This is also mostly a revert to this version
14:44 8 September 2021 Reinstates the edit despite it being reverted with an edit summary of Undid revision 1043133543 by Mikele99 (talk) WP:BLPPRIMARY, see also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 288#infotextmanuscripts.org. The idea that we're using documents hosting by a Holocause denier to do with legal claims about ethnic minorities is a non-starter for a WP:BLP. The page notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Naz Shah is clear the article is under 1RR and challenged edits can't be reinstated without talk page consensus
14:41, 8 September 2021 Amends sentence adding the bolded parts In a secret women-only ballot in February 2015 for selection as the Labour Party candidate for Bradford West, Amina Ali resoundingly won with 142 votes to Naveeda Ikram's 78 votes and Naz Shah's 13 votes. However, Ali resigned shortly afterwards citing personal reasons, which lead to considerable controversy. There were a few murmurings over Ali stepping down in the references, but nothing that amounts to "considerable controversy" and its clear from the addition of things like "resoundingly" this isn't a good-faith attempt to improve the article

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Notified, also DS are explicitly mentioned in the page notice when editing.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Mikele99

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 Mikele99

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mikele99

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

Even though Mikele99's account was registered in 2009, they are by activity an extreme newbie, and can be assumed to know little about Wikipedia's policies and principles. It's unsurprising, then, that they used court documents as sources here, and perhaps even that they may not have been aware that their primary source at www.infotextmanuscripts.org is hosted by a holocaust denier. But that's as far as my AGF goes. There is no excuse for reverting FDW777's very well-explained revert here, with no explanation whatever, and as for changing the photo... well, that certainly suggests that Mikele99 is trying to present the subject in a negative light. They have changed the official photo, from 2020, to another photo from 2020 that they have uploaded to Commons and claim as "own work" (apparently not true, but a copyright violation from Youtube), with the surprising argument that "Previous picture was tremendously dated, more than ten years old! The subject looks significantly different now." Not really.. the pics are from the same year. The one Mikele99 uploaded is merely less flattering. Taken together, this is clearly tendentious editing. I have blocked Mikele99 indefinitely from Naz Shah. That seems to me an appropriately mild sanction for a very inexperienced user. If they should attempt similar disruption of other pages, we can of course bring out a bigger banhammer. Leaving this open for other opinions. Bishonen | tålk 16:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with that thinking and I'll close the request. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boodlesthecat

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 Boodlesthecat

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Gwennie-nyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Remedies (primarily)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Remedies (secondarily)

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

Note: All times provided for diffs are in CDT, not UTC

15:47, September 7, 2021 first disruptive talk comment, claims individuals using the term TERF to describe others as "people who barely have a clue what they are talking about and know nothing about feminist history". Then compares situation to Palestine and Zionism. (Note, reasons for previous blocks in how they relate to Israel-Palestine.)
18:02, September 7, 2021 reply to admin TheresNoTime, beginning escalation in harsh, disruptive tone
19:42, September 7, 2021 accuses other editors of pov-pushing due to reverting their contentious edit
19:51, September 7, 2021 again, comparison of those who use "TERF" to "Iranian government propagandists often attack anyone who criticizes them as 'Zionists'"
21:28, September 7, 2021 calls into question reliable sources because based on initial information, they reported on the possibility that the incident was a hoax, which they refer to as an "apparently false narrative". Goes on the mock radical feminist and right-wing group comparisons despite reliable sourcing discussing the two groups in tandem (both online and in-person). Accuses other editors to trying to perpetuate "the hoax angle, by using the TERF slur", trying to setup opposition to Christianity and cisgender women.
00:11, September 8, 2021 harsh slippery-slope response to good-faith question regarding the usage of the term TERF
09:19, September 8, 2021 continued harsh replies from previous diff
09:33, September 8, 2021 continued harsh strawman arguments not conducive to constructive discussion
09:49, September 8, 2021 personal attack against me after unrelated reply to Crossroads who I was thanking for agreeing with my proposal and noting, as he did, how the talk page could use less WP:SOAPBOX/WP:FORUM, accusing me of trying to own the page and rigidly-control editing to suit my own biases
10:15, September 8, 2021 purveying a strawman argument in response to a reply of mine to another user for why I don't really think we should try to utilize/cite specific subsections of a social media platform which the article's RS state contributed to the spread of the incident itself, again calling our RS fabrications and calling a deprecated source more credible than our current ones
11:35, September 9, 2021 calls this AE request itself "gratuitous", claims current wording based on RS pushes false narratives, ignores RS, tries to pin blame to a specific group ("the Antifa camp") while ignoring we have RS specifically discussing that faction's actions, claiming it's probably related to the groups who stormed the Capitol, specifically calls me (Gwennie-nyan) out and casts aspersions (added 02:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC))

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2008 AE Block Boodles was blocked (at 04:11, December 23, 2008) for 1 year due to "heavily flaming and creating a disruptive, uncivil environment"
16:07, October 13, 2008 they were previously blocked for personal attacks and incivilty
User has other blocks due to edit warring, disruptive editing, and hostility

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

16:53, September 7, 2021 AntiCompositeNumber informed them of WP:GENSEX D/s on user's talk page
13:36, September 7, 2021 At time of first post on Talk:Wi Spa controversy, D/s alerts for both GENSEX and AP2 were clearly visible
17:22, September 7, 2021 admin TheresNoTime commented in-section to make everyone aware of D/s

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Boodles appears to be an editor that used to be primarily active in 2008. After review of considerable complaints logged against them on talk pages, ANI, and eventually AE, of which resulted in multiple blocks and restrictions, I felt in the community's best interest to file this report. Since their return to active status, it appears to me, as much as I try to assume good faith, that the prior behavior patterns have not changed. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

22:51, September 8, 2021 (CDT) - Notified. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 03:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Boodlesthecat

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 Boodlesthecat

Happy to have all my cited edits reviewed in this specious complaint, as well as any review of my actions 13 years ago when I (practically single-handedly, and successfully) battled a cabal of antisemitic editors who had turned multiple articles on Eastern European Jewry into cesspools of Jew hatred. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 20:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Despite poring through my every utterance, where I've never once ever stated or hinted at my gender, Gwennie-nyan managed to misgender me in this jeremiad. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Above, quite clearly. "19:42, September 7, 2021 accuses other editors of pov-pushing due to reverting her contentious edit. I wonder what led you to the conclusion that I was a her. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 15:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Isabelle Belato: Seems you and a few others equate "I disagree with you" with WP:SOAPBOXING. Oh well.

You say most academics don't consider "TERF" a slur. Therefore, some do. As well, many non-academics consider it a slur. Academics aren't the arbiters of what is or isn't considered offensive by a group of people. My argument that some who it's directed at consider it a slur is reason for not using it as a descriptor. If I had to keep repeating that, it's due to the WP:IDHT attitude you accuse me of. And if TERF is considered a slur against a group of people, by definition, it's entirely valid to compare it to other slurs.
I 100% stand by my comment that this entry was "subtly trying to discredit the women who made the complaints."
No one asked me for sources. Feel free to ask.

reply to WanderingWanda: What exactly is "inflammatory rhetoric" about giving an example of "an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be"? How you would phrase her POV? Is she to be treated as a racist for having an aversion to penises while she is naked? Even is she has PTSD from rape? Is she to be considered mentally ill, the way some try to treat trans people? Is the problem saying "biological woman?" What should I call her? Would a different term make her a different person? She's still who she is. Or are we trying to erase her? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 23:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Isabelle Belato Google TERF SLUR. It's a lively debate in the real world. It wouldn't be a debate if there wasn't opposing camps. It's not for academics, WIKI, you, or I to decide for some women what they consider to be a slur when directed at them. That's ugly patriarchal authoritarianism. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 04:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gwennie-nyan

A reply to Johnuniq. Regarding the facts of the incident, as our sources say, the spread both online and developments of ensuing protests of the incident were specifically noted repeatedly as right-wing and trans-exclusive feminist spaces online. The explainer, which you said you felt is gratuitous, was supported by a few other editors in lieu of directly linked trans-exclusive feminists to TERF, which was seen as insulting by Boodles and a couple others, so it was changed. In interests of NPOV, the akas are include specifically to link and explain common synonyms for the ideological group. TERF and gender-critical feminists are the two WP:COMMONNAMEs for the group. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 11:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re Boodlesthecat on misgendering. Where? I default to they/them pronouns. The people in your last AE referred to you as he. However I don't know your gender or pronouns. I did mention "he" in regards to Crossroads, however. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 15:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see that typo. Has been fixed. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 16:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheresNoTime

Responding solely to acknowledge the mentions above - I am probably involved at this point, so I will make no further comment than to remind everyone that civility is required and expected ~TNT (she/they • talk) 20:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Isabelle Belato

Boodlesthecat continuous WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:IDHT attitude have turned the talk page of the article into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Despite most participants agreeing on suggestions to improve the wording (first by removing TERF, then by adding "a.k.a."), Boodlesthecat continued on their WP:SOAPBOXING. The diffs cover mostly the parts of the conversation where I was involved. After the last diff, I decided to bow out.

[12] Despite two users (myself and Firefangledfeathers) agreeing with the removal of TERF while maintaining "trans-excluding feminist", Boodlesthecat decides to keep WP:SOAPBOXING with anecdotes about the usage of TERF.
[13] Boodlesthecat complains about false equivalences to TNT, while doing the same themselves: equating TERF to "nigger" and "tranny" and to any number of slurs against non-straight, non-white, non-male folks;
[14] Boodlesthecat cites the TERF article to affirm that many consider [TERF] derogatory, ignoring that the article also says most academics do not believe the word can be classified as a slur, which I pointed to them (as well as explaining terms like this need to be sourced, which is the case), and they ignored for the remainder of the discussion;
[15] Boodlesthecat proceeds to question the reliability of the sources and begins casting aspersions on the major contributors (mostly Gweenie-nyan) by saying that this article as also subtly trying to discredit the women who made the complaints and subtly perpetrate the hoax angle, by using the TERF slur, by making a point that the main complainant was "Christian" (wink wink, we know how hateful they can be!), pointing out that they are "cis" (to subtly set up an opposition to transwomen), ignoring the fact that those are all supported by sources (and is no different than pointing any other group of a person in the case of a hate crime or similar cases);

At no point do they provide any sources to whatever it is they are trying to argue. Isabelle ^🔔 21:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boodlesthecat: See WP:FRINGE and Wikipedia:Talk dos and don'ts, specifficaly Present evidence. Repeating "many people think this" is not evidence. Isabelle ^🔔 03:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WanderingWanda

Note this inflammatory rhetoric from Boodlesthecat about trans women in the restroom: an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be.[16]

Slate magazine once wrote that scaremongering about trans people in bathrooms echos racist rhetoric about how Black men supposedly pose a sexual danger for white women in bathrooms.

The new Universal Code of Conduct forbids discriminatory language aimed at vilifying, humiliating, inciting hatred against individuals or groups on the basis of who they are. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Boodlesthecat

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

Possibly I need to be re-educated but I find it hard to understand the concerns raised in this request. The lead at Wi Spa controversy currently has a completely gratuitous "(a.k.a. gender-critical feminists or TERFs)" and the argument seems to be about whether "TERF" is an insult or an objective term that can be applied without attribution. My recommendation would be to reword the article to focus more on the facts of the incident and keep third-party's opinions regarding the motivation of the participants for the body of the article. Johnuniq (talk) 09:50, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheGunGuru73

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 TheGunGuru73

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: TheGunGuru73 (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/Gun control

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

08:12, 9 September 2021 Adds claim that the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, this apparently refers to a lower court ruling that was struck down by the Supreme Court
09:00, 9 September 2021 Edit warring to reinstate the prior edit
09:03, 9 September 2021 Edit warring to reinstate the prior edit
08:35, 9 September 2021 Adds selective claim to lead, there are numerous stats cited at AR-15 style rifle#Use in crime and mass shootings regarding their use in mass shooting
08:58, 9 September 2021 Reinstates the edit despite it being a violating of the page restrction at Template:Editnotices/Page/AR-15 style rifle
09:04, 9 September 2021 How about just leave it alone? I know more about gun laws than you do

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/as

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Notified

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor was given two opportunities at User talk:TheGunGuru73 to self-revert, but refused. Their username is obviously problematic.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning TheGunGuru73

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 TheGunGuru73

Statement by (username)

Statement by (slatertsteven)

I agree we should not bite the Newbies, but their edits, their attitude and their user name all scream wp:nothere. So I agree we should wait, I also think they will end up getting sanctioned or leave when they do not get their way.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning TheGunGuru73

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

I'm reluctant to sanction a new editor (account created 9 September 2021) but something will have to happen if similar problems continue. @TheGunGuru73: It should not be a surprise that the topic is controversial. At Wikipedia, that means disagreements must be calmly discussed on the article talk page with arguments based on reliable sources. If there is any continuation of edit warring or original research you will be sanctioned. That might be a topic ban or possibly just an administrator's indefinite block. Johnuniq (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, the editor in question received a two-day edit-warring block earlier today from PhilKnight. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2021 (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.

[3] Israeli Arab porn sparks outrage

[a]

[b]

[1]

@@ Line 358: / Line 358: @@
 reply to {{u|WanderingWanda}}: What exactly is "inflammatory rhetoric" about giving an example of ''"an apolitical biological woman who simply has an abhorrence to be naked and vulnerable in the presence of penises in spaces which she expects not to be"''? How you would phrase her POV? Is she to be treated as a racist for having an aversion to penises while she is naked? Even is she has PTSD from rape? Is she to be considered mentally ill, the way some try to treat trans people?
 Is the problem saying "biological woman?" What should I call her? Would a different term make her a different person? She's still who she is. Or are we trying to erase her? [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> 23:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
+Reply to {{u|Isabelle Belato}} Google TERF SLUR. It's a lively debate in the ''real world.'' It wouldn't be a debate if there wasn't opposing camps. It's not for academics, WIKI, you, or I to decide for some women what they consider to be a slur when directed at them. That's ugly patriarchal authoritarianism. [[User:Boodlesthecat|Boodlesthecat]] <sup>''[[User talk:Boodlesthecat|Meow?]]''</sup> 04:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 ====Statement by Gwennie-nyan====

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