Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Bloodofox
All editors in the Falun Gong topic area, and Bloodofox in particular, are warned to not speculate about other editors' religious views, nor to attempt to disqualify others' comments based on actual or perceived religious views. Filer HollerithPunchCard is indefinitely topic-banned from Falun Gong, broadly construed. Commenter Sennalen was indefinitely blocked by Galobtter in a related action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 02:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning Bloodofox
A topic ban of indefinite or sufficient duration against Bloodofox pursuant to Arbitration Decision December 2022
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
Activism, Personal Attacks and Uncivil Conduct
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.
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
"Reality check: Thomas Meng is an adherent who haunts these articles and pushes the group's preferred narrative." diff “But maybe you should contact all the major media outlets in the US and tell them to stop bullying the Falun Gong with all their nasty coverage that doesn't parrot Li Hongzhi's talking points as well. “ diff “You are wasting your time attempting to whitewash this page. Dig up all the old books that paint a flattering portrait of Li Hongzhi all you want, that ship has sailed.“ diff “If you think those sources are too tough on the Falun Gong's misinformation efforts, then perhaps you should write them.” diff "I believe you gave your angle away" "lol. This ist typical of the Falun Gong-aligned embedded accounts over at Falun Gong." diff "Trust me, if I suspected you of being an adherent, I'd have no bones about telling you. I've called them out plenty of times before. And I was right." "there's no denying that you're actively and aggressively lobbying here to attempt to censor and forbid any mention of Falun Gong on this page." diff “Your frequent attempts at framing these extensions as independent of Falun Gong are disruptive.” diff “you're barking up the wrong tree.” diff “Your regular attempts at downplaying anything that isn't a persecution narrative on this page have not gone unnoticed here” diff "Gee, what a coincidence that you decided to again edit Wikipedia again on that day.” diff “I suggest you message the academic directly with your theories or go ahead and message Cambridge University Press” diff “we need an immediate crack down on accounts pushing Falun Gong talking points.” “It's time to block the Falun Gong PR accounts” diff “This particular editor parrots these talking points has been pushing hard to scrub the article“ diff "What you've done is simply parrot Falun Gong positions and talking points, as usual, as is evident to anyone watching this page." diff
Discussion concerning BloodofoxStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BloodofoxFirst, it's worth highlighting that if there's a WP:RS on the article from the past several years, chances are I added it. This also includes building articles like Falun Gong headquarters and compound Dragon Springs, which the Falun Gong article somehow didn't mention at all, and adding lots of material to Epoch Times, the very visible and now quite notorious media branch (or as NBC News puts it "propaganda newsletter") of the Li Hongzhi-centered new religious movement, and others. I first encountered all this when tracing bogus claims of folk traditions around Falun Gong's Shen Yun a few years ago. Note that the crux of this editor's desire here is that "this article should be rolled back to the version that stood prior to Bloodofox’s first recent edit on September 27, 2023". In other words, they want all the many sources I've introduced from the past several years removed and the editor's preferred, much more 'positive' sources restored, many of them from decades old. In short, this is a content dispute with the openly expressed goal of getting all that less-than-flattering mainstream media coverage, like this very recent NBC News piece, removed from the article in one fell swoop. And they also want me gone so I can't add anymore ("a topic ban of indefinite or sufficient duration"). @HollerithPunchCard: (and most of those echoing his point here) have made lots of edits like this one, where they outright attempt to remove the NBC News piece and media reporting like it, reacting with outrage when we've dared to report on these matters. Revealingly, in an attempt to remove the NBC News reports and those like it, you'll often find some of the accounts below referring to the NBC News and similar entities as "competing media" with the Epoch Times. That is not normal editing. As you can probably picture from that read, our Falun Gong and related articles are rough corners of Wikipedia. But this is not because we lack RS. This is solely because Falun Gong and related articles are actively lobbied and edited by groups of adherents. Some of whom have identified themselves on the relevant talk page over the years and some of them have not. We know this because (1) what would otherwise be totally normal edits and even praised additions of new and quality WP:RS instead typically provoke intense backlash, taunts, and insults, and (2) because scholars have outright written about the Falun Gong's and its leader's Li Hongzhi's attempts to control Wikipedia coverage (see for example discussion about this in Lewis 2018: 80). This is exactly the behavior described by scholars like Lewis and it's a reality anyone who attempts to edit any Falun Gong-related article faces. While I usually ignore personal attacks, I've been on Wikipedia a long time and I have never experienced anything like what comes my way from editing these articles. The sheer venom aimed at me for even the most pedestrian and rote article change is remarkable. I can't tell you how many names I've been called there from any number of accounts. Any proposed addition or change from an RS is met with total hostility. This includes the one who brings this request to your table, @HollerithPunchCard:, who has referred to me as everything from a "vandal" to an "activist" (see this very page) while other editors casually toss around "bigot" (see @Zujine: and others below), to whatever else is on hand to throw my way. It's frankly abusive. And this account is not alone. One CLEANSTART account, @Sennalen:, that followed me around responding to every Falun Gong-related post I made with insults and taunts finally got a 30-some hour block earlier today for it. Back from their block, I see this user is right back at it. Although this account has not disclosed it, it is highly likely this account has edited various Falun Gong-related articles extensively in the past. I also note that it also looks like the initial poster is engaging in naked Wikipedia:Canvassing, including canvasing Sennalen while that account was blocked for lobbing endless personal attacks at me. I highly recommend WP:BOOMERANG here. Like many embedded accounts at Falun Gong articles, this account has done little more than attempt to remove information, like the NBC News report and numerous others from the past several years, and attempted to stop other accounts from adding more while lobbing a huge amount of personal attacks every step of the way. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:35, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by MrOllieThe 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:
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) PS: I'll also note that the OP is presently engaged in canvassing support for this report: [10], [11]
Statement by RjjiiiIs this not a content dispute? I mostly see Bloodofox removing content that cites primary sources and adding content from secondary sources. For example:
Diff - But Bloodofox's actual words are, " The above comment is from a description of why Bloodofox removed large chunks of content cited to Freedom House.[12] 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, " The 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) Update: I made the post above before I saw that the filer has canvassed support from others who had disagreed with Bloodofox.Rjjiii (talk) 03:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by WarrenmckI'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 considered an ANI myself but was frankly too exhausted from the whole thing. 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
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) Statement by Robert McClenonThis was bound to end up either at WP:ANI or here, and it can be better managed by the admins here. User:Zujine filed a request for dispute resolution at DRN on 15 November. User:Bloodofox opened a thread at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard several hours earlier on 15 November. I declined the DRN request because it was pending in another forum. The discussion, if it can be called discussion, at FTN is now more than 9200 words. See Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Disputes_at_Falun_Gong. I haven't tried counting how many words have been provided by each participant. (If the DRN filing had preceded the FTN filing, I would hope that I would have collapsed most of the 9200 words. I am sort of glad that the FTN filing came first, so that I didn't have to moderate and clerk that interchange.) I think that either somebody needs to be topic-banned, or an interaction ban is needed, or both, but I haven't studied the FTN verbal dumps. Too much is too much. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by BinksternetBoomerang is appropriate here, as described by MrOllie. Generally, at the Falun Gong–related articles, we have three types of editors: Falun Gong adherents, Falun Gong haters, and neutral folk trying to build and protect the encyclopedia. HollerithPunchCard is type 1, as established by the first few registered edits.[13][14] Bloodofox is solidly in the third category, with 18 years of editing in widely ranging topics. The adherents spend a lot of energy questioning the validity of sources and contributors, trying to prove that the neutrals are haters and thereby diminish them. The neutral Wikipedians spend energy trying to show the adherents have been spinning the topic in their favor. This latest round is more empty air from HollerithPunchCard—another attempt to prove bias against someone who is neutral. Binksternet (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by ZujineBloodofox’s edits and this this conversation are more than a content dispute, and the Freedom House reporting is a side issue. First, Freedom House is only one of the many sources Bloodofox removed from the lede. On 11/15/2023, Bloodofox reverted another editor’s restoration of the 3 paragraphs removed from the lede. In this version that Bloodofox reverted Diff, every reference of the Freedom House report was accompanied by additional academic sources. Second, Freedom House is a widely respected NGO, and the attempts to discredit them by editors in this dispute is quite telling. This aspect is a minor dispute and can be handled in other fora. This arbitration is about an editor deciding the truth of a contentious topic for him/her/theirself and then forcing that view onto the page and attacking editors who disagree.
Bloodofox made his intention of removing the content from the lede clear on the talk page here [diff]:Diff - I'm not trying to produce a Falun Gong-approved version. And as far as I can tell HollerithPunchCard and others have not sought to remove critical content of Falun Gong, the arguments on content seem to be about [WP:Lede] and [WP:Weight]. Those are legitimate arguments that have taken place on the talk page. Bloodofox ignored all those comments, did not engage constructively, and escalated this into a battleground. I find the language used by a number of editors in discussing this religious minority group to be unsettling and bigoted, but those views don't violate the policies of the encyclopedia and I do not wish to regulate the tone and vocabulary of others. The aggressive editing and smearing of other editors does however violate a number of policies, which I think are outlined fairly well in this action. This is the kind of thing that has made me walk away from Wikipedia in the past. I've created a lot of pages on the encyclopedia and dedicated years of my life to working on topics that I think are valuable. Dealing with this open aggression towards a vulnerable group that suffers well documented persecution just takes the wind out of my sails.—Zujine|talk 17:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by SennalenAs always there are disagreements about content, but this is primarily about Bloodofox's unwillingness to acknowledge that good-faith objections to their edits are even possible in principle.
Statement by Thomas MengI objected to Bloodofox's massive changes to the FG lead. It fails WP:LEAD, as the lead should "summarize the most important points covered in an article", not just one section of it. It fails WP:WEIGHT, as most academic research on Falun Gong is centered around its main body of adherents—those in China (7-20 million, according to Freedom House [30]), the persecution they experience there, or overseas adherents' activism to end the persecution in China. It fails WP:RECENT, as the current lead has no mention of the history of the movement and focuses only on recent controversies. It fails WP:SOURCETYPES, as scholarly work should outweigh a few passages from media articles, which are not even mainly about FG's teachings and beliefs per se. I understand politics may affect an editor's personal views on FG. But the main body of FG adherents are in China. They have nothing to do with U.S. politics, and are still experiencing systematic persecution, forced labour, torture, and killing. Despite raising WP:SOURCETYPES citing several academic sources' description of FG [31], all I received from Bloodofox are personal attacks and taunts. Bloodofox has yet to provide any evidence that FG's core teachings and beliefs changed, or that major academic books published in 2008 (Falun Gong and the Future of China, Oxford Univ. Press) and 2012 (The Religion of Falun Gong, Univ of Chicago Press) have been outdated. In fact, old or new has never been the true issue. As I brought up scholarly works published in 2018 and 2020, he dismissed them by saying that they I haven't seen the lead of any other religion that doesn't talk about its history and main beliefs, or the lead of any persecuted minority (religious or ethnic) that doesn't talk about the human rights abuses that they experienced (Update: Bloodofox added a short paragraph about the persecution, trivializing it into mere "discrimination in employment, housing, and business opportunities". See my response here). The current lead not only misrepresents Falun Gong, it reflects poorly on the encyclopedia itself. Thomas Meng (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Statement by fivebyIn response to some of the above, bloodofox is clearly wrong on the content side of things, but so what. There's now a few noticeboard discussions with long unproductive comment threads, a worsening atmosphere, all fighting of a few lines of introductory text. The solutions seems simple, take away everyone's toys by deleting the lead section. fiveby(zero) 17:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC) Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish
Statement by JoelleJayThe edit being reverted had substantial changes beyond the lead. It deleted According to the Falun Gongfrom the start of a paragraph in the "Beliefs and practices" section describing the principles of FG, effectively putting its definition of itself into wikivoice. Note that the source used for this description itself employs "According to Falun Gong..." rather than stating the principles authoritatively, so removing that framing also misrepresents the source. The edit also deleted the entire preceding paragraph describing its origin, including an (attributed and sourced) unfavorable characterization of its teachings. It removed a rewrite template from this section as well. While I don't think it was bad faith to add so much positive/neutral content to the lead, supported by many apparently unnecessary refs to Freedom House, when combined with the other, rather disguised, changes in this diff, it's not unreasonable to interpret it as yet another tendentious edit from a rotating cast of advocates. And from this perspective I'm a bit more sympathetic Bloodofox's jaded, accusatory edit summary in their revert (in this instance and in others). JoelleJay (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by Bon courageThis is a difficult case as the following things can all be true:
That said, Bloodofox's 'Reds under the bed' approach is ultimately not going to resolve matters. I suggest future edits focus tightly on content and source quality and any repeated POV-pushing be reported to AE on the understanding the WP:CTOP expectations will be in full force. Bon courage (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Result concerning Bloodofox
|
KhndzorUtogh
Closed with no formal action. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning KhndzorUtogh
I've been interacting with KhndzorUtogh while editing several articles and find his behavior problematic. He received warnings from various users about Armenia-Azerbaijan area, but still edits recklessly (e.g. when reverting some articles while related talkpage discussions have been in progress).
KhndzorUtogh also appears to have a puzzling edit rate, sometimes with 4-3 reverts per minute across different articles: [33], [34], [35]. Here he makes a hefty +8,048 addition just 2 minutes after the previous edit. Or adds a +802 formatted paragraph in the same minute of previous edit.
Discussion concerning KhndzorUtoghStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by KhndzorUtogh
It's interesting that Aredoros is so familiar with Armenia-Azerbaijan 3, considering the user hadn't edited in those contentious topics until a month ago, immediately after reaching 500 edits and the account being a little over a month old at the time (WP:XCON). And Aredoros is even aware of the warning User:Abrvagl, a user that Aredoros has a great deal on common with, put on my talk page over a year ago. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC) Firefangledfeathers I affirm that I will. I have used the talk page while implementing bold pages on many occasions in the past.[37][38][39] Is there an instance in this report where I had added something to a lead section that may or may not have been sourced? Because in the second listed diff I wasn't really adding something new, I was reverting an IP of a block user that removed something in the lead, which was sourced below. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by MarioGomNote that this request was opened shortly after I closed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abrvagl (IMHO suspicious but inconclusive), so it has the appearance of a retaliatory request by Aredoros87. MarioGom (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2023 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning KhndzorUtogh
|
DMH43
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 DMH43
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Dovidroth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- DMH43 (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:30/500 in WP:ARBPIA4
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 6 December 2023 - This non EC user created a new ARAPIA page as well as edited it several times.
- 6 December 2023 - Another similar edit on an ARBPIA page
- 2 December 2023 - Several sequential revisions on a similar ARBPIA page
- 1-2 December 2023 - Several sequential revisions on a similar ARBPIA page
- 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)
- Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Date (see the system log linked to above).
- Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
- Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
- Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
- Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
- Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
After warning this user and a mere 20 minutes after a separate warning from an admin, he continues to edit in ARBPIA (the first two edits above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
After warning this user and a mere 20 minutes after a separate warning from an admin, he continues to edit in ARBPIA (the first two edits above). He does not seem to be interested in participating according to the rules. Dovidroth (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- The users claim that he "only made changes to pages that are not about the Israel-Palestine conflict" is simply not true. Look at the top two edits above, both are clearly within ARBPIA. This article which he created says in the lead that it is a book about "the relationship between international law and the politics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" (emphasis mine) - quite clearly ARBPIA and about the conflict itself. And this edit was a reference to the same book in another article. Dovidroth (talk) 08:50, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Just one more point: If this is going to be closed, can we at least require 100+ additional edits so that he doesn't become an EC based on his 100+ ARBPIA edits? Dovidroth (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
User_talk:DMH43#Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion
Discussion concerning DMH43
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 DMH43
Neither of the edits on Dec 6 are on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I was notified of the restriction on Dec 6 and only made changes to pages that are not about the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Maybe this is out of scope for this discussion, but looking at their talk page, the user Dovidroth seems to be acting aggressively towards other users recently and writing inappropriate comments in edit summaries.
- Thanks for giving me the chance to explain further. My reasoning was that I wouldnt expect either of those pages to be tagged with the category "Israel-Palestine" conflict or a related category. And also the edits I made are about a book, not about the conflict itself. Specifically, the only factual information presented in those edits is about the *book*, not about the conflict itself. In any case, I wasn't trying to "sneak" anything, I think it should be clear from my edit history that I quickly stopped making changes related with the conflict itself after the warning. DMH43 (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- Another user has commented that i edited the page for the book Pity the Nation. This book is about Lebanon, which to be clear, is not Palestine. DMH43 (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- In response to @Nableezy: ok I can understand that. I'll just edit pages which are not in any way be related to middle eastern countries or their people. DMH43 (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Ostalgia
@DMH43:, you may think that those two pages do not fall under the scope of ARBPIA, but the ruling itself, for the purpose of sanctions, defines the area of conflict as the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")
I am afraid your edits do fall within this broad interpretation of the conflict area. I recommend you step away from topics even vaguely related to ARBPIA at the very least until you have achieved EC status (which isn't too complicated, anyway). Considering you are a new user, it is not unlikely that whoever rules on your case will be open to cutting you some slack and let you off with a warning, but you should try not to get yourself into further trouble. I also recommend you avoid engaging in a back-and-forth with other users. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
- Also, @Dovidroth, from your userpage I see this is an issue that is dear to you (and in which DMH and your opinion seem to diverge). I can understand that. However, while the rules are on your side here, I feel like you're coming down like a ton of bricks on a new user who is not familiar with all our rules and regulations and has actually been quite receptive on his talk page when his mistakes have been pointed out to him. This could've been solved amicably and without need for administrative action, I believe. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Selfstudier
WP:ARBECR permits non EC editor article creation subject to admin oversight, as was requested by filer here. That is kind of confusing, because as soon as a non EC editor has created an article, they cannot then edit it without falling foul of the rest of WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Shrike
Right after his explanation he edited [40] a book about the conflict it clearly shows that user cannot edit such fragile area Shrike (talk) 09:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy
DMH43 the restriction is on the Arab-Israeli conflict. As somebody who sees great value in the work you have done and would like to see it continue for many years, please heed this advice. Work on another topic entirely that interests you. Write about Native Americans, or Japanese history, or video games, or literally any other topic completely removed from the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. Then, when you have gained the necessary experience and knowledge about how this place works and can contribute productively, edit about this topic if that still interests you. But please, gain the experience necessary first, otherwise you will be banned from the topic and potentially blocked. And there are definitely people rooting for that outcome because they do not want what you have written to be covered on Wikipedia. I am legit begging you, do not fall for it, do not walk in to a ban. Work on another topic for a month and 500 edits, learn how to summarize sources the way we want to, learn how to engage productively on talk pages, learn how NPOV and OR work. But you need to learn in another topic area entirely removed from Israel and its conflict with basically anybody. nableezy - 16:03, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
- Great, and if the admins are in the advice taking mood, a formal warning that further editing in the topic area is prohibited until they reach 500 additional edits (meaning 646 total) so that the prior violations dont get included would be fair imo. nableezy - 16:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Result concerning DMH43
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Selfstudier, non-EC editors should not be creating articles at all related to ARBPIA. It is up to administrator discretion if they should be deleted, but that is different than being allowed to create the articles.DMH43, I'm wondering how you think that an edit you made after the warning that added the text
Israeli–Palestinian conflict
, or an edit about a person whoseprimary focus being the Israeli–Palestinian conflict
would not be about the Israel/Palestine conflict? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2023 (UTC) - This looks like it can be closed as no action given DMH43's statement above at 16:20, 8 December 2023 including "I'll just edit pages which are not in any way be related to middle eastern countries or their people." @DMH43:: You must not edit articles like Noura Erakat given that the lead has "her primary focus being the Israeli–Palestinian conflict". Take a couple of months to slowly become used to standard procedures and demonstrate self-restraint. You can ask for advice somewhere such as an admin's talk page (try mine if you like) but bear in mind that if you have to ask whether a particular edit would be ok, it would be better to think no and don't ask. I might have missed something but while the diffs given above show a problem, I don't see a crystal-clear explanation at DMH43's talk and the transgressions look like the normal bewilderment of a new editor. Johnuniq (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Assuming a modicum of good faith: close with notice to avoid ARBPIA topic area, broadly construed, until extended-confirmed. Agree with Johnuniq this is potentially a fairly new editor not grasping the rules. If so the issue is simply addressed by having them steer clear for a while.-- Euryalus (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Duvasee
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 Duvasee
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- Duvasee (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
- 23:28, 11 December 2023 1st revert
- 00:38, 12 December 2023 2nd revert
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Duvase has only 847 edits, and has not been sanctioned before.
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted 17 November 2023
- Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
- Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
- Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Date (see the system log linked to above).
- Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
- Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
- Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
- Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
- Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Duvasee was pinged by User:Makeandtossand made aware of their edit-warring here (at 13:52, 12 December 2023), but Duvasee ignored it, and continued editing. A simple self-revert would have solved this: they choose not to.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Duvasee
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 Duvasee
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Duvasee
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.