Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Noteduck

Noteduck receives a logged warning to be careful and to abide to policies while editing in the topic area of American politics--Ymblanter (talk) 14:13, 25 March 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 Noteduck

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Noteduck (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/American_politics_2#Final_decision

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

Edit warring Reverted editors include myself, Conan The Librarian, Shrike, Visite fortuitement prolongée, Mcrt007, Pincrete, Kyohyi. While wp:ONUS puts the burden of making the case for inclusion on the editor trying to include new content, Noteduck feels the burden is on those rejecting the change.

The PragerU (trimmed):
- [[1]]
- [[2]]

At Douglas Murray (trimmed):
- [[3]]
- [[4]]
- [[5]]
- [[6]]
- [[7]]
- [[8]]

Behavioral Standards: Bludgeoning

Long discussion regarding the Bridge Initiative as a SPS here: [[9]]. Editor tediously says consensus is reached because they feel objections have been addressed. [[10]], [[11]], [[12]]

Behavioral standards: Edit summaries disparage editors (trimmed)

[[13]] "Given that (from your talk page) you've engaged in edit wars on this page and given that you called the PragerU page "critical remarks from partisan leftists writing in fashion magazines and on twitter" (20 November 2019) you may be struggling with bias. I see you and [editor] know each other - please don't collude to remove material"
[[14]] "a warning was given for disruptive editing which was ignored. Lvl3 vandalism given on page User:[editor]. Please refrain from deleting material on the page without evidence. Go to talk page for commentary on article and discussion"
[[15]] "I am concerned that your revision was not made in good faith and can be considered tendentious editing. If these edits are removed again a warning for vandalism may be due. You betray your biases with your description of academic sources as "absurd" and "nonsense" on the talk page. Please refrain from unjustly removing evidence thnx"

Behavioral Standards: Casting aspersions/inappropriate talk page comments: (trimmed)

[[16]] If you cannot view this subject neutrally and objectively it may be best not to edit this page
[[17]] In particular, this comes in the form of right-wing editors trying to omit unflattering material from pages on controversial subjects, resulting in a kind of whitewashing by omission or status quo stonewalling
[[18]] "I've noticed that certain editors on this page have a regrettable tendency to revert large blocks of recently-added material wholesale, especially material that might be controversial." - Admin deleted the section [[19]]
[[20]] "have a look at WP:ROWN when considering whether to discard this edit"
[[21]] Created section "Blatant partisan politicking on this page" - "This is the last attempt I'm going to make to put a stop to these tendentious edits. The editors engaged in this process of tendentious editing know who they are and I'm not going to ping them for now.

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): [[22]]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Noteduck account created 19 Dec 2020 (prior account Spungo93 from April 2020). Battleground mentality including include edit warring, uncivil talk page behavior (unrelated comments about editor, tendentious editing, refusal listen to others). Editors have reached out to discuss issues [[23]], Callanecc (uninvolved) commenting[[24]][[25]]. Myself before filing this complaint [[26]]. Noteduck complaint at the Treehouse. An uninvolved editor said Noteduck needs to listen to others[[27]].

Dialog was ignored or treated as examples of the unreasonableness of other editors. Noteduck does not follow concepts like BRD and CONSENSUS, repeatedly reintroducing disputed content absent consensus or sometimes discussion. This resulted in extensive, slow edit warring. Noteduck is quick to use article talk pages/edit summaries to cast aspersions and or inappropriately focus on editors. Affected articles include PragerU, Roger Kimball, Douglas Murray (author) and Andy Ngo.

Edited for length Springee (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

and again Springee (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replies

Noteduck's replies illustrate why they are problematic. Rather than address their own behavioral problems (edit warring, attacking other editors etc) they have bludgeoned the discussion with text, much of totally misrepresenting the facts. As an example, in "Update 5" Noteduck falsely said I removed "Reuters and Fox News(!)[281]". The link in question shows I moved the text, removed nothing. This sort of false accusation yet again illustrates the issue. It is not possible to have a good faith disagreement with this editor. Until they learn the ropes they should be restricted to less contentious areas of Wikipedia. Springee (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, your Update 5 accuses Pudeo of colluding on some of the disputed pages:

It's worth noting that Springee, Shine, Pudeo, and Hipal have all edited together and largely backed each other up on pages like Andy Ngo and PragerU

The editor interaction tool is telling here [[28]]. Pudeo has never edited PragerU or its talk page. They did edit Andy Ngo... over 2 months ago (2 edits total). Their edits to Douglas Murray (3 months back) and Roger Kimball (3/4 years back) are even further back and less than 3 edits each time. Falsely accusing editors of collusion is an example of the disruptive behavior that we are concerned about. Springee (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to jps

jps, It's interesting to note that you also felt Noteduck's behavior has been sufficient that you warned them to be careful[[29]]. Noteduck's comment here [[30]] suggest they still do not understand the difference between commenting on the content vs the editor. Springee (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized reply to Loki and Shadydabs

If you look at the diffs in most cases Noteduck isn't reverting my edit or replying to my comments. Absent diffs claims that I was edit warring, POV pushing etc have no merit. Springee (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Loki, your edit here fails to noted the talk page discussions that went along with the edits. Most of this talk page is about the content in question[[31]]. Note there were more editors in the discussion. Can you say there was a consensus for any of the edits you cited?[[32]] Why have a consensus policy if we don't expect editors to respect it? Springee (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear Noteduck still doesn't get that they should comment on the edits, not the editor. In the last few hours they accused Hipal of ROWN.[[33]] Springee (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shadybabs, it is perfectly reasonable to dispute your edits to long standing article text. Why is that a complaint here? Springee (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Cedar777

Cedar777, your accusations against me misrepresent the facts but also miss the point. For example, when looking at the examples of casting aspersions, Noteduck is attacking a large number of editors, not just myself. Even with this active ARE they decided to accuse Hipal of ROWN just a few hours ago. Springee (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to dlthewave

Dlthewave, I think you are confusing disagreements regarding content with editors casting aspersions etc which is the heart of the issue here. Your last point, saying I refused to review a list of sources, is not entirely accurate. Noteduck dumped a large list of possible sources on the talk page and asked which I would reject which is already borderline failing to AGF. Since there was no text to accompany the source we have no way to know how the sources would be used. I did provide an answer [[34]] but it had to be limited to just the sources which were either not green or not green for this topic. You also neglected to mention that you are an involved editor. Springee (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to El_C

El_C, I've thought about what is the correct remedy here. As I said to Noteduck here [[35]] I want the problem to stop. I think a clear warning that comments about users are not acceptable on talk page. Any comment that is about the editor not the content of the article should not be on the talk page. The one sanction I think would help is a consensus required restriction. This would force Noteduck to slow down and listen to editors who object to changes but aren't willing to engage in the edit wars. Being forced to slow down and trying to address objection or otherwise establish consensus is only going to make Noteduck a better editor overall. Springee (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, you comment is one of my concerns. The real issue here is the volume of inapropriate comments, edit summaries, examples of large changes made without consensus. In filing this complaint one of the hard parts was figuring out which examples to leave out[[36]]. Springee (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, even with this AE open, Noteduck's edit warring and failure to follow BRD continues. Just last night they added new content [[37]]. The material was removed, ND restored it with a demand that the objecting editor make the case for removal [[38]]. {u|Peter Gulutzan}} subsequently agreed and removed the content. Noteduck's failure to discuss disputed edits and expectation that others should have to justify removals is contrary to ONUS and BURDEN and leads to more edit warring. A BRD restriction or similar on ND's edits would be helpful. Springee (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C, Rosguill, and Ymblanter:, this has been open a while with little traffic in March. Is it appropriate to request a close with warning which appears to be the admin consensus? Springee (talk) 11:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[39]]

Discussion concerning Noteduck

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 Noteduck

I believe 1RR allegations are factually incorrect, as LokitheLiar said.

Given block reverts and vandalism I will concede that I got somewhat cranky around the Douglas Murray (author) page. As a newbie I was sometimes ignorant of policy - eg I know now Springee can delete material from talk page even if I'd prefer they didn't - and I apologize. It seems I edit-warred on several occasions and I apologize - happy to learn from any arbitration decision.

A counter-claim - if not the right forum I will happily withdraw it for now: I contend Springee is highly partisan and doesn't edit pages with any objectivity. Springee's talk page history has many claims of partisan bias and misunderstanding of policy (these just from the last 3 years),[40][41][42][43][44] including worrying claims of firearm advocacy,[45] behavioral problems,[46][47] edit-warring,[48] vandalism,[49] and canvassing[50][51] Springee's twin fixations seem to be conservative politics and firearms. Stalking has been raised by another editor.[52][53] Springee has followed me around Wiki, aggressively editing pages they previously had no involvement with right after I edit them.[54][55] I believe Springee sometimes follows my user contributions, looking for material to challenge. Springee's MO seems to be stonewalling any potentially unflattering material from pages on conservative subjects. It's worrying that Wiki pages of powerful conservative groups have become one-sided and whitewashed thanks to Springee. Full disclosure - I have discussed these problems with other editors via email who have concurred.

I appreciate Loki's criticism - it's ironic of Springee to accuse me of ignoring requests for help. On several occasions my posts on Springee's talk page were rapidly deleted without engagement.[56][57]

As Loki mentioned this is a boomerang but I believe Springee in fact has serious behavioral and POV problems that need addressing. Noteduck (talk) 08:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I went back further through Springee's talk page history, and there are a large number of accounts of behavioral problems and failure to meet Wiki standards going back years, including some serious allegations including hounding and harassment. I'm not sure how to deal with it but it needs attention Noteduck (talk) 09:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE 2: I'll get to the other points but first, what is the actual contention of impropriety on the Roger Kimball page? Two primary sources referring to Kimball's endorsement of the conspiracy theory that Joe Biden rigged the 2020 presidential election (which he has done on quite a few occasions, hence the term "repeatedly") were deleted by Springee and I reverted them once. Multiple previous primary sources in the same paragraph that were more flattering to Kimball were not touched. At any rate, after discussion on the talk page and a BLPN discussion initiated by Springee I did not end up restoring the contested source and provided two independent sources for the claim, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Pudeo, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Australian journalism, but Creighton and Newman are VOCAL about lockdowns and climate science respectively, so I don't see how this material is improper in any way. I didn't know the Epoch Times was depreciated at the time and don't see how that's relevant, but I apologise, I should have done more research. I never said Springee hounded me - I said that Springee's pattern of apparently going through my user contributions in order to contest material was concerning given previous accusations of stalking and hounding. Pudeo, given that you made vociferous, detailed, and baseless claims of sockpuppetry against a new editor (myself) on my talk page, and declined to remove them when I asked, your accusations of incivility are something of a pot-kettle-black matter[58] Noteduck (talk) 06:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[To El_C:] what sanctions are potentially enforceable? I've learned more about Wiki's rules over the last two months and I'll aim to be more mindful of Wiki policies. I still think I have a strong counter-claim though, which I'll support with more evidence soon Noteduck (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, I've presented robust claims of partisanship, POV-pushing, stonewalling and behavioral problems from multiple editors on Springee's part in formal and appropriate language, based on dozens of diffs (with more still being added). I've taken two days off my new job to make sure my arguments are as thorough as possible. This is a forum for resolving disputes between editors, and I hardly think presenting my side of the case constitutes "battleground behavior" Noteduck (talk) 03:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I don't quite understand your comments. I am just making my defence that I am not in conflict with a disinterested editor, but rather somebody who is highly partisan and experienced at whitewashing Wikipedia. Is this not the appropriate forum for this? I think my sometimes scrappy behavior needs to be understood within this context, but nonetheless I'll strive to improve and be more relaxed in the future. I believe that my contributions to Wiki, such as creating Soon May the Wellerman Come, Draft:Osman Faruqi(waiting on assessment for this one) and my additions to Douglas Murray (author) and Andy Ngo, as well as innumerable grammar and syntax corrections, are high-quality and demonstrate my commitment to improving this site in good faith Noteduck (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, I wanted to tell you this privately, but it was bound to come out sooner or later at any rate. I'm disabled - I have bipolar disorder and struggle with mania from time to time. I should have been more proactive about looking up Wikipedia disability policies but I see there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility page and a Template:User bipolar2 tag. Over the summer (I'm Australian) I was unemployed and had nothing to do, and nothing to look forward to or be happy about except editing Wikipedia. I think this is trenchant information that demonstrates that I have no ill intent or lack of good faith in editing. I'll cut down the statements in the morning Noteduck (talk) 13:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, no problem with the trim. For full disclosure, I do plan to launch a claim against Springee, which is in my sandbox for now Noteduck (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, please cease repeating the misrepresentation that I "accused" Hipal of anything. I simply mentioned being mindful of WP:ROWN when considering whether to revert material - a reminder of established policy is not an accusation Noteduck (talk) 04:39, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks El_C. I feel like I need to do two things (1) defend my own conduct and the charges Springee is making, and (2) make a counter-claim against Springee's own conduct, which I believe I have a strong case for. Should I being with the first one, or try to combine them both into a single argument? Cheers Noteduck (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, please don't make spurious and misleading allegations. I added a single 14-word sentence to the Dennis Prager page based on a NY Times article that referred to Prager misrepresenting the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic. There weren't any editing restrictions on the page at the time, and nobody has told me that I can't edit while the arb request is ongoing. The edit was reverted on the frankly implausible basis that it was "fake news","misleading, biased and anti-semetic"[sic].[59] I think any reasonable editor would have done the same as I did and restored it Noteduck (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosguill ^talk and Ymblanter, thanks for taking over this matter. Is there a usual timeframe for wrapping up these arb request decisions? Thanks Noteduck (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC) Furthermore, I just want to confirm that it's okay to criticize persistent editorial bias and tendentious editing if the editor feels that it's justified, including on talk pages of contested articles when necessary. I'm not sure how else it can be communicated. Cheers Noteduck (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's heartening to see other uninvolved editors like LokiTheLiar, Shadybabs, Cedar777, Dlthewave, PaleoNeonate, jps (note that I'm a newish editor, don't have social connections on Wiki, and haven't solicited comments from any of them) raising the same serious issues with Springee's conduct. Browsing Springee's last 1000 edits (a very small sample given their 12 years on Wikipedia) over 95% seem to relate to subjects related to right-wing politics (I've discounted contributions to user pages) and follow this same pattern of relentless ideological bent and obstructionism. This WP:AE claim is clearly WP:LAWYERING and WP:BOOMERANG on Springee's part. Springee, can you please strike out the false claim you made on 26 February that I engaged in edit warring and failure to follow BRD?[60]? Obviously, this whole matter belongs in Arb Com. Noteduck (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

As someone who's been involved in some of the disputes above, I would like to say that Springee's above portrayal of themselves as neutral or justified in all the above is not true. So for example, take the PragerU page from January 5th to January 7th. It's my contention that that history pretty clearly describes a two-sided slow moving edit war, with one of the sides being Noteduck and the other being Springee and Shinealittlelight, and that it's eventually ended by the edit-protection of the page by Callanecc and the starting of this RfC a few weeks later. Or in other words, Springee was also edit warring, they just had a partner making their edit warring less obvious.

I also think the characterization of Noteduck as having broken 1RR on PragerU is incorrect. This edit, which Springee characterizes as a revision of this previous edit adding that entire sentence to the page, is not in fact a revert. It's just an edit. A revert, according to WP:3RR is an edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part. Simply changing the wording of a sentence to be less credulous towards Ngo's claim does not undo the previous edit regardless of what Springee feels about the purpose of including that sentence. (And I'd also like to point out that asserting that it does undo the edit to reword it would be evidence of POV-pushing, as it would indicate that the purpose in including that line was to support Andy Ngo and not to document the facts.) Noteduck made only one revert to that page, this one, in accordance with 1RR.

I'm less familiar with the situation on Douglas Murray but a cursory glance at the page history reveals a similar slow motion edit war that Noteduck is only one of many participants in. Several editors, most of whom appear to now be blocked, remove large parts of the page without going to the talk page, and Noteduck and several other users add them back in, including Springee themself at one point. My impression here is that the side mainly at fault is the side with all the socks that repeatedly tries to remove large sections of the article without talk page consensus.

Some of the above behavior from Noteduck is still concerning. Obviously, edit warring is not good even if many other people are also edit warring on the same page, and I'd really rather Noteduck had just gone to ANI with their complaints rather than cast all the WP:ASPERSIONS they've been casting. But TBH I'm tempted to call for a WP:BOOMERANG here because Springee's case against Noteduck is pretty directly parallel to a similar case that could easily be made against themselves. At the very least, this is not a problem with Noteduck, it's a content war across multiple pages that Noteduck is one member of one side of.

E: Quick reply to Shine: I don't believe that anyone here is casting aspersions, nor do I believe that aspersions can even be cast here,as this is one of the appropriate forums for dispute resolution that the guideline mentions. The whole point of the guideline is to get people to raise concerns about editor behavior here and not on article talk pages. Furthermore, I gave evidence that Shine was a party to a slow motion edit war, and Noteduck seems to have given plenty of evidence for their accusations, so I really can't help but see this as attempted WikiLawyering.

E2: Because both Springee and Shinealittlelight again have asked me to provide evidence, I am providing a timeline to substantiate my accusation of a slow motion edit war on PragerU (and fixing the broken link above, sorry, my mistake):

Timeline

03:15 on Jan 5th: Noteduck adds some material to the Critiques of Videos section about a video on Robert E. Lee, and points people to the talk page in the edit summary.
03:49 on Jan 5th: Springee reverts Noteduck's edit, asserting existing consensus on the talk page was against inclusion.
04:04 on Jan 5th: Noteduck reverts Springee's revert, again directing Springee to the talk page and asserting previous removal of the material was based on poor sources.
04:38 on Jan 5th: Noteduck adds more material to the Critiques of Videos section, this time significantly expanding a paragraph about a video narrated by Douglas Murphy.
15:09 on Jan 5th: Shine reverts Noteduck's older addition about Robert E. Lee, and points to talk page consensus as the reason.
02:42 on Jan 6th: Springee significantly cuts down the material Noteduck added about Douglas Murphy, again pointing to discussion on the talk page.
02:53 on Jan 6th: Noteduck reverts Springee's partial manual revert, claiming it is "totally unjustified".
06:28 on Jan 6th: Shine completely reverts Noteduck's addition to the Douglas Murphy paragraph, again pointing to the talk page.
06:43 on Jan 6th: Noteduck reverts the revert and accuses Shine of edit warring and POV-pushing in the edit summary.
08:43-11:45 on Jan 6th: Noteduck adds a bunch of material to the Reception and Critiques of Videos sections.
16:04 on Jan 6th: Springee makes a small edit adding context to Noteduck's new material but does not remove it. They also explicitly say they do not endorse the new material.
17:07 on Jan 6th: Another user named Hipal comes in and manually reverts all Noteduck's edits up to this point.
01:05 on Jan 7th: Noteduck reverts Hipal's manual revert and asks them to be more specific about what exactly they object to.
03:10 on Jan 7th: Hipal reverts Noteduck's revert.
11:41 on Jan 7th: Callanecc full-protects the page.

Also for full context, this RfC about Noteduck's various additions was opened weeks later through processes that apparently did not entirely occur on the PragerU talk page.

In total, over a three day period, that's two reverts each for Springee, Shine, and Hipal (for a total of six reverts by their "side") and four reverts by Noteduck, for a total of ten reverts over 3 days.

@El_C: Could you be a little clearer about what part of Pudeo's comment is causing you to lean towards sanctions? I'm personally not seeing anything interesting/new there.

Statement by Shadybabs

Having come into conflict with Springee in the past I can say pretty confidently that it is Springee, and not Noteduck, who is the primary problem with contentious edits and extremely biased application of wikipedia policy to whitewash factual information with respect to right wing individuals or organizations.

[61] Another diff by Springee undoing edits where I try to move language away from PragerU's self-published claims to those made in RS, as well as re-inserting edits that were still under dispute in the talk page. He provided no specific justification on which edits were sourced poorly. Alarmingly, PragerU's disinformation regarding climate change is removed from the content about their fact-checking spat against youtube, highly biasing the article against youtube in favor of PragerU, against what is reported in third party sources.Shadybabs (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shinealittlelight

Noteduck admits to being sometimes ignorant of policy and states that Noteduck edit-warred on several occasions. Noteduck then quotes editor complaints on Springee's talk page over the last three years, which don't show anything without providing diffs of alleged misbehavior. Noteduck then alleges that Springee was hounding him. But this isn't true: WP:HOUND says Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy. Given that Noteduck was violating policy (as Noteduck admits) it was reasonable for Springee to check on Noteduck's edits to be sure that Noteduck wasn't continuing to violate policy. Noteduck says Springee's twin fixations seem to be conservative politics and firearms. What is the evidence for or relevance of the claim that Springee has "fixations"? He then accuses Springee, without evidence, of whitewashing. To me, without diffs backing these statements, Noteduck is repeatedly casting aspersions here. Per WP:ASPERSIONS, An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence. LokiTheLiar apparently concurs that Noteduck has cast WP:ASPERSIONS elsewhere as well. I agree, per the evidence Springee gave above, and I would add that Noteduck has shown an unwillingness to stop this behavior despite being repeatedly warned (again, per the evidence in the complaint). That and his repeated editing against consensus has been what is most frustrating to me.

@LokiTheLiar: accuses me and Springee of slow-motion edit warring. This is an outrage. I'm extremely careful not to edit war. If evidence cannot be produced, then I'd ask Loki to strike that statement. I thought Noteduck was pushing content about Douglas Murray and Robert E. Lee into the article against consensus, which I politely removed one time each here and here. Because Noteduck kept reintroducing this content against consensus, other editors, including Springee but also notably the most experienced editor on the page, Hipal, removed the material, e.g. here. These additions went to arbitration, which produced a massive RfC which seems to be split at present (no consensus so far). This is how editing contentious pages works: we slowly improve the page. Casting ASPERSIONS and editing stuff into the article against consensus is going to drive good editors away. I'd like to also note that Hipal and I have often disagreed in the past; there's no attempt to "team up" here. I see Springee, Hipal, and I just trying to do our best to deal with a disruptive editor.

@Shadybabs: do you have any diffs showing what you're saying about Springee? Otherwise that's more WP:ASPERSIONS.

Noteduck is new, and I don't want to be too hard on new editors. But Noteduck needs to apologize for casting aspersions, and to be sternly warned that continued editing against consensus and casting of aspersions is unacceptable. Shinealittlelight (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LokiTheLiar: The "evidence" you allegedly provided is that broken link to the history page? That's not evidence. And no, we can't cast aspersions, even here at AE, without evidence. Shinealittlelight (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hipal

Per the evidence offered by Springee, Noteduck needs to be constrained from involvement with AP2 topics, otherwise we're going to be back, after even more disruption from Noteduck. Noteduck's statement above shows what we can expect until it is stopped: bad faith assumptions of others, an inability to respect content and behavioral policy, and the battleground attitude typical in AP2 topics. --Hipal (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck's subsequent comments above show an inability to take responsibility for their own behavior, in addition to what I wrote above. --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck is now arguing above, without any diffs, that editors agreeing with Springee (It's worth noting that Springee, Shine, Pudeo, and Hipal..) are doing so because of similar biases. [62] This is absurd and assumes bad faith. Noteduck provides no diffs because it's nonsense. --Hipal (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On January 27, I provided Noteduck with 13 diffs showing evidence demonstrating you've been working from the perspective that other editors are pov-pushing against your edits [63]. The response from Noteduck was agreement: right-wing editors trying to omit unflattering material from pages on controversial subjects [64]. Almost a month later, Noteduck continues with this battleground mentality in this very discussion. --Hipal (talk) 03:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck has redacted the accusations against me made here.[65] Thanks. --Hipal (talk) 19:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave, we're dealing in this discussion here with an editor, Noteduck, that I think would be best blocked or banned from PragerU completely for the reasons already given. In this context, I believe my very slow and cautious approach to his latest comments at Talk:PragerU are perfectly fine, especially if one were to assume good faith. Even if this discussion wasn't happening and there was no problematic editing going on, slow and cautious is always advisable. --Hipal (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

Noteduck could have been blocked as a "sock of someone" (seen such a block rationale), after Spungo93 was CU-blocked and their explanation for that did not make sense. Noteduck explained: I made User:Spungo93 years ago and forgot about it. This was not correct because Spungo93 had been created on 18 April, 2020 (log entry), meaning Notedeuck misremembered the date by years. Furthermore, the "forgot about it" part did not make sense because they had edited with the account 4 days before registering this one. (After more review, I don't think Noteduck is Perspex03 based on their timecard, though).

Noteduck has used self-published / WP:PRIMARY sources to make contentious claims: 1) Using Dennis Prager's own National Review column to say he rejects scientific consensus on climate change 2) Using Roger Kimball's own columns to say he has "repeatedly" contended that there was voter fraud, then after someone changed "fraud" to "irregularities", they changed that and their own original wording to say he has repeatedly made "false and debunked claims", while claiming white-washing in the edit summary. They once reverted the removal of these primary sources, accusing Springee of hounding. One of Kimball's own columns that Noteduck used as a source was in The Epoch Times which is a deprecated source in Wikipedia. 3) Using Maurice Newman's own column to say he rejects consensus on climate change 4) Using Adam Creighton's own column to make critical claims on his lockdown stance. I think it's unusual that someone would link to The Epoch Times or the person's own columns to make negative claims about the subjects, so it's clear these were WP:OR claims, and editors should err on caution per BLP like Springee has done.

They also initiated a declined RFAR with a focus on four editors on January 7. They seem to be constantly accusing other editors of partisanship: "partisan politicking", "problem with partisan bias", problem with politically partisan editing" "ideologically motivated -- sabotage" etc. Some of their statements had to be hatted in the PragerU DRN thread due to personal comments. While this isn't too unusual in the topic area, it's usually done by ranting IPs, not by regural editors. --Pudeo (talk) 22:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cedar777

My familiarity with this dispute is limited to the Andy Ngo article. Noteduck has made a number of constructive, if imperfect, comments and edits. The article has benefited after Noteduck pointed to WP:ROWN and MOS:LEADCITE. I do not agree that there was a 1RR violation or that Springee is a faultless party here.

Springee has repeatedly removed reliably sourced content from the article that, if retained, might reflect unfavorably on conservatives. The bar set by Springee (with support from Shinealittlelight) for inclusion of content critical of Ngo is impossibly high such that they have disallowed content from the NYT, the WP, along with a number of other sources listed in green at WP:RSP when the content is not flattering to conservatives. In observing these patterns and engaging with editors on the talk page over several months, the phrase "moving the goal posts" comes to mind. Even innocuous statements such as Ngo has been the subject of wide ranging media coverage (when there were already 77 citations) have been sanitized from the article by Springee as in this edit.

Meanwhile, the door has largely been left open to contributors sympathetic to Ngo where the quality of their sourcing receives limited scrutiny, as with this edit sourced to Sky News Australia followed by more disparagement of RS at talk where the NYT & Wapo were referred to as "fourth rate sources". This pattern is also reflected in efforts to enforce 1RR: sympathizers get gentle proactive advice from Springee here, while opponents are warned and/or scolded here and here where a user restored sourced content that happened to mention a political figure. Overtime, these actions add up to a skewed article that does not reflect what the bulk of RS actually say. Sanctioning Noteduck is not going to address this underlying issue.

Noteduck has been direct at times about the reverting of unfavorable content but is otherwise respectful. Springee and Shinealittlelight have had issues with what is known as "talking out of both sides of your mouth". For example, Springee claims this NYT article can be used to support that Ngo must be called a journalist diff. . . but once a summary of what this same NYT article was discussing about Ngo was added, the source was deemed no longer usable or relevant when it came to criticism. Diff A second instance is where user Springee, in a slow motion edit war, reverted content that was added by 3 different editors, sourced to WP, Bellingcat, and Daily Dot:

The original contribution Nov 19 from Snooganssnoogans: Addition 1a + sources in Addition 1b Springee deletes content: Deletion 1

Content restored on Dec 1 by LokiTheLiar: Addition 2 The second deletion by user Springee: Deletion 2

The most recent addition Feb 12: Addition 3 Which was again deleted by user Springee: Deletion 3

Noteduck is a newer editor, with much to learn. While I cannot speak for the disputes at the other pages, in my view their contributions have been a net positive at Andy Ngo. Cedar777 (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

User:Noteduck filed a Request for Arbitration concerning PragerU. I said that I was willing to mediate the content dispute, and the arbitration case was closed, and a DRN case was opened, which was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_201#PragerU The result of the mediation was a six-part RFC, which is at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PragerU#RFC_on_Various_Proposed_Edits The calendar is about to run out on the RFC, so that the bot will remove the tag, and the RFC will be ready for closure. One editor took issue with the RFC, saying that the sources were unreliable. My view was that reliability of the sources could be considered by the community in the RFC discussion. The same editor, User:Hipal, also said that there were behavioral issues that needed to be addressed. The behavioral issues were not addressed at DRN because DRN is a content forum.

I don't have a strong opinion on either the content, because I was maintaining neutrality in order to mediate, or on conduct, because DRN is a content forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Closure If any admin here (or other experienced editor) hasn't become involved in this case, they could help by closing the RFC. On the other hand, I am willing to close the RFC if no one objects, and if the parties agree that I have not become involved and am neutral. Of course, "closing" the RFC doesn't mean performing some housekeeping task such as archiving it. It means assessing consensus, which requires judgment.

Do the other editors want me to assess consensus and close the RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Closure User:ProcrastinatingReader has closed the six-part RFC, evaluating the consensus on each of the questions separately (which is what was needed). I thank ProcrastinatingReader. I would also like to comment that my own opinion is that no action except maybe a caution is needed, but I try to stay neutral if I have taken an actively neutral role. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dlthewave

I have concerns about whitewashing at PragerU, where it appears that several editors are working to block any negative content. The general attitude towards Noteduck comes across as condescending and there seems to be no effort to work collaboratively or help Noteduck develop their editing skills.

Example #1:

00:07 19 February 2021: X-Editor adds "In 2020, a joint analysis conducted by counter-disinformation consulting firm Alethea Group and the nonprofit Global Disinformation Index found that PragerU was one of the five most common sources on the Internet that spread COVID-19 misinformation.^[1]"
12:12 19 February 2021: Springee reverts with the reason "Opinions of a red linked group (Alethea/GDI) are not DUE", an argument that has absolutely no basis in policy. Springee has been around long enough to know that WP:DUE concerns the reliability of the source, which in this case is MSN/Yahoo News, not Alethea/GDI.
Discussions follow on Springee's talk page [66] and the PragerU talk page [67]. Springee repeatedly claims that Alethea and Yahoo News somehow do not meet WP:DUE, and Hipal repeatedly claims that the source is a "warmed-over press release" (read it, it clearly isn't). Both editors provide little to no evidence or correct interpretation of policy, and there is little effort to acknowledge that Noteduck and myself have a valid point of view, yet these spurious arguments are effectively blocking inclusion of this content.

References

^ Dickson, Caitlin (2021-05-01). "Exclusive: Pandemic relief aid went to media that promoted COVID misinformation". Microsoft News. Yahoo! News. Retrieved 2021-02-19.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Example #2:

17:38 24 February 2021: Noteduck proposes a "Criticism" section along with 13 sources.
18:53 24 February 2021: Hipal immediately suggests a bizarre and tedious approval process - "How about picking the best reference out of that bunch and telling us what you believe is encyclopedic and due from it? If we don't agree on it, we can go to the next, until we have some agreed-upon references or we run out of references to consider." This bears no resemblance to our normal consensus building process, and I struggle to see it as anything other than the start of another drawn-out effort to block content that Hipal doesn't like.
20:23 24 February 2021: Springee refuses to look at the sources and instead insists that Noteduck bring a proposal to Talk before editing the article. This appears to be an effort to require Noteduck to bring a publication-ready proposal that will not be approved until it is perfect, and the entire burden will be on Noteduck to satisfy any concerns.

I've seen this abuse of the consensus-building process before and it's a very effective way for a small group of editors to control article content while maintaining superficial civility and complying with 3RR. I'm concerned that a "Consensus Required" restriction would only grant Springee, Hipal and others more power to block content by refusing to reach consensus. –dlthewave ☎ 04:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanted to address Pudeo's BLP concerns. I would generally argue against the use of these primary sources, since they would need secondary coverage to establish WP:WEIGHT and The Epoch Times has been deprecated. However, I fail to see how Noteduck's edits [68][69][70][71] can be construed as contentious or negative. They're literally repeating what the subjects say about themselves which falls under WP:ABOUTSELF from a verifiaility standpoint. Again, this content shouldn't be self-sourced, but it's not the big BLP brouhaha that Pudeo is claiming. –dlthewave ☎ 04:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

My involvement at PragerU has been minimal so far and I'll avoid commenting on specific editors at the moment. I comment to share that I did notice particular resistance and whitewashing in relation to the promotion of climate change denialism by the org, despite reliable sources being clear about it. There's a tendency to present a WP:GEVAL view like if ideology and science were equal or that sources that comment on it are only opinions. —Paleo Neonate – 18:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by jps

I am appalled by User:Springee's approach on the Talk:PragerU page. It looks to me like we have a case of WP:Civil POV-push as a source is being blackballed from a respected university on the flimsiest of bases. When I pointed out that this is the hallmark of an ideological game, Springee decided to come to my user talkpage to wag his finger. Perhaps Springee should take a break. jps (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Username

Result concerning Noteduck

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

Springee, your request greatly exceeds the 500-word limit, so please trim accordingly. Thanks. El_C 06:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll preface by saying that I've only glanced at this still lengthy complaint (with me, Spartans!), but from the several random examples I viewed, I'm not seeing anything too egregious. Just a tendency to call out partisanship, which runs both ways, in a way that certainly exceeds article talk and user talk pages usage. Overall, the less said on any of that the better, except in forums such as this. Not sure what the filer or the respondent to this complaint are really asking for. Are they asking for sanctions? A logged warning (to that, to those interested, see my latest clarification request about logged warnings at ARCA)? An un-logged warning?

Regardless, an evidentiary basis needs to be established with both the recent and the egregious prioritized, if one expects any sort of an outcome from this process. Finally, I plead with several participants to significantly trim and otherwise aim at concision. Us AE admins are not paid staff, we are volunteers like you. I submit that you are asking too much out of available volunteer resources. El_C 15:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, I'll re-emphasize that the evidentiary burden for sanctions (CR or otherwise) doesn't appear to have been met in your complaint. Just from what I've seen so far. El_C 16:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, I'm afraid I don't have any additional advise beyond those general recommendations at this time. Perhaps another uninvolved admin will see it different...? Who know. El_C 17:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per Pudeo's evidence, now starting to lean toward sanctions. Will wait to see what other admins think, though. El_C 02:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, you probably don't realize this, but your various updates (word limit?) are doing you a disservice. "Partisanship" is in the eyes of the beholder. Even if much of everything (everything!) that you've written has a sound basis in fact, I doubt that, in this case, that's something AE admins would wish to address — if anything, that would probably be a Committee matter. You're basically making the complainant's case for them right now. Thought you should be aware. El_C 13:23, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, two things. First, to re-emphasize: word limit? Secondly, in answer to your question: no, with respect to what you allege about Springee (which, hey, may well be true), I contend that this goes outside the purview of admins at AE, but rather, that this would be a Committee matter. I suppose other admins' mileage may vary, though. El_C 13:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, while Wikipedia takes a strong anti-ableist position, as it does against all other forms of prejudice and discrimination (for example, with WP:ACCESSIBILITY and so on), I'm afraid that when it comes to the realm of the psyche, that isn't something for which many allowances can really be made. BTW, sorry for declining your request to correspond privately (I now realize about this), but as a matter of principle, I don't usually do that with users whom I don't already know (well enough). Best wishes, El_C 13:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, thank you for the significant (20K) trim. Much appreciated. El_C 23:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I still seem to be the only one contributing to this section, so maybe a couple of additional notes. Noteduck, you should make your case here. If you are to file a new AE request, it is likely to be viewed negatively. Folks may well end up asking: why didn't they just present their case in the original complaint? I'll stress that the filer of an AE complaint faces no less scrutiny than the its subject. Springee, you still need to trim (hopefully, with no more collapsing). The requirement is an upward of 20 diffs, whereas you are now approaching 40. El_C 17:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noteduck, sorry, I am not familiar enough with the details so as to advise further with any confidence. All I am really able to provide is my general sense. Which, hey, may be off. Who knows. Also, I'm sorry to say (well, not that sorry, to be honest), but I will not be following up further with this or any other open complaint on this noticeboard. Best wishes to all. El_C 00:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guess whose back...? No, not really. But I do note that after being open for over a month, this complaint is probably cursed. Help us, Buffy! El_C 17:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that if Noteduck stops including allegations in their edit summaries and slows down a bit no further intervention will be necessary. Notebook has made some errors regarding the use of primary sources, but given the examples seen so far this seems like it is likely just inexperience and a good faith misunderstanding of WP:OR. I don't think it is necessary to impose a consensus-first sanction at this time, but a formal warning is probably appropriate. Regarding the behavior of the editors listing grievances against Notebook, while they obviously could have been a bit more collaborative, I don't see any breaches of conduct that clearly merit a sanction (Noteduck, note that it is more helpful to post diffs of problematic behavior itself, rather than diffs about other editors accusing someone of problematic behavior). One editor's obstructionism is another editor's quality control, and I concur with El C that ArbCom is the only venue that can successfully handle cases where the allegation is tendentious editing without overt breach of decorum or policy. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Rosguill that a logged warning is needed, but probably not blocks or topic-bans at this stage.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2601:C4:C300:1BD0:4C8F:CA4A:AD98:6994

2601:C4:C300:1BD0::/64 is warned to avoid making personal attacks and reminded to use dispute resolution. 2601:C4:C300:1BD0::/64 has accepted the warning. — Newslinger talk 06:24, 23 March 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 2601:C4:C300:1BD0:4C8F:CA4A:AD98:6994

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Equivamp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 2601:C4:C300:1BD0:4C8F:CA4A:AD98:6994/64 (talk · deleted contribs · logs · edit 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#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

March 9 Edit-warring against strong consensus (one of several times)
March 9 Casting aspersions against editors with whom they disagree
March 9 Stating intent to continue bludgeoning the discussion over the next few weeks
March 9 Confirming awareness of consensus and dismissing it by accusing the editors with whom they disagree as being "transphobic" without evidence
March 15 Personal attacks
March 15 Personal attacks
March 15 Personal attacks
March 15 Personal attacks

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on March 9

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Several IP addresses that I think are quite clearly the same editor, another recent one is User:2601:C4:C300:1BD0:656A:420D:A1FA:7075; check the page stats

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[72], [73]

Discussion concerning 2601:C4:C300:1BD0:4C8F:CA4A:AD98:6994

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 2601:C4:C300:1BD0:4C8F:CA4A:AD98:6994

The users opposing me repeatedly asked for "reliable sources". I repeatedly provided them with numerous sources which they refused to accept. Now, they want to remove the "Background" section from the article seen here at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender&oldid=1012358623#Background

It appears that I can never appease them. I relented to removing the introductory paragraph laying out the criteria for inclusion. I also relented on removing the vast majority of the 2020 transphobic deaths see at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender&oldid=1012401252#Trans_Lives_Matter?

How much are the opposing parties asking for? 100% exclusion of transphobic deaths. They are politicizing the deaths. Zero compromise, deletions of explanatory paragraphs, purposeful obfuscation, and total removal of the people listed in 2021 without presenting the opposing sides of the argument is biased and not neutral. --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:656A:420D:A1FA:7075 (talk) 11:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is about not biting editors like me. You need to think about the implication of de-platforming me. Right now, other editors don't dare to add Diamond Kyree Sanders to this list. Whereas I would add her name and explain that the Cincinnati Police Department was quick to rule out transphobia without any identification of the suspect or meaningful investigation, saying, "This was a crime of greed. This had nothing to do with the victim’s lifestyle."[74] So, there can be no mixed motive? As the article I linked to states, Cincy police was using "insensitive language to describe Sanders’ gender identity." The HRC listing 11th which major news organization like ABC, CBS, and CNN will concur with while a squad of editors demand not only a zero listing, but also brook no discussion. --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:9109:BAFB:F671:DCB4 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[@Newslinger:] Yes. I am willing, and I have removed my statement made in anger.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:7C6B:5717:3201:B979 (talk) 11:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MJL

I was right about to leave the IP user a note about cutting out the personal attacks when I saw this was filed. They really gotta stop with that. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:C4:C300:1BD0:656A:420D:A1FA:7075: This is really not the place to double down.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2601:C4:C300:1BD0:656A:420D:A1FA:7075: I'm literally arguing for a broader consensus at the talk page right now.
Also no one wants to deplatform you, but we do want you to stop being uncivil. That isn't okay. If you agree to stop insulting people and railing against an undefined group of transphobic editors, then this will probably resolve ambically. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

Same as MJL, except I actually did give the NPA warning. jp×g 05:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 2601:C4:C300:1BD0:4C8F:CA4A:AD98:6994

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

2601:C4:C300:1BD0::/64, civility is one of the core principles of Wikipedia, and personal attacks (e.g. labeling other editors as "transphobic" and accusing other editors of making "hormone-addled deletions") are prohibited on Wikipedia. In content disputes, it is important to focus on the content, and not on other editors. Now that you are aware of these policies, are you willing to do the following?
1. Recognize that some of your talk page comments fall below the standard of civility required on Wikipedia
2. Refrain from personally attacking other editors or casting aspersions
3. Follow the recommendations for resolving content disputes in the guide to dispute resolution

— Newslinger talk 02:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, 2601:C4:C300:1BD0::/64, for your response. Based on the response, I support closing this report with no further action, noting that the warning has been accepted. — Newslinger talk 02:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I left the IP a message here. This could be closed with an informal warning to the IP that disruption or personal attacks will result in sanctions. Feel free to contact me (perhaps with a ping from a talk page) if admin attention is wanted. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3Kingdoms

3Kingdoms is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. — Newslinger talk 05:42, 30 March 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 3Kingdoms

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 3Kingdoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

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

02:59, 27 March 2021‎ 1st revert
18:34, 27 March 2021 2nd revert

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)

1RR violation is a general sanction that only requires the edit notice (here) to be enforced, but the user was notified of DS in the topic area.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor asks others to go to the talk page, despite my having already done so and having not joined the discussion. Straightforward 1RR violation, along with a peculiar understanding of what edit-warring is in his or her edit summary claiming that material first added by the user a few days ago may not be removed because only that is edit-warring. The user declined to self-revert when offered the chance, claiming the onus is on people removing material and he or she will just follow the 1RR next time. The user recently had an indefinite block for edit-warring reduced to a page block, it appears that did not have the desired effect. The latest response to asking them to self revert was how about you act like an adult.

Saying it will not happen again and refusing to self-revert dont solve the problem here. nableezy - 18:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem remains a 1RR violation that you apparently refuse to self-revert. nableezy - 18:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the self-revert has been re-reverted, despite 3-1 opposition to the edit through either reverts or the talk page, and despite the prohibition on using sub-standard sources in BLPs after they have been removed and explicitly cited as BLP violations. nableezy - 01:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried. Was unsuccesful. nableezy - 22:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I tried to help you avoid a topic ban, because the admins below havent been, in my opinion, as blunt with you as they should be about what it is you are doing wrong and what you can do to avoid what seems inevitable at this point (a topic ban and when the behavior is repeated in a new topic area an indef block). Thats what I failed on. Ah well. nableezy - 23:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning 3Kingdoms

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 3Kingdoms

Hey I'm sorry that I did not notice the 1rr will not happen again. However, the guy doing this really needs to calm down, I explained why I would not revert it again. My reply about being an adult was about him trying to be a tough guy by saying he was going to report over something not needed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem, you are just blowing this up.

It was a simple mistake, I won't revert because the information stands, especially after what I found to be a childish threat instead of figuring it out like adults. like I said it won't happen again. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree, but if you feel that way I will remove the edit. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my edit.

I did not intend to troll, I just felt that the reaction of the other guy was obnoxious. When I saw what others were saying I thought we could end this. I do not think a topic ban is needed, this won't happen again. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because it had been 24 hours, thus not violating the rule. I stand by the edit, but after hearing, from admins, I removed it to conform with the rules. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what the objection is. I have reverted once the admins made it clear I was in the wrong, I accept that and I apologize for overstepping. It won't happen again and will conform with the 1rr. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding what was posted above, the person is speaking nonsense. Sources were not substandard the user only responded with goal post moving and failing to understand that a sources that is not labeled reliable can still be used. However for another section where I provided 7 different sources from ones offically labeled reliable, he then goal-post moved again and made up a complete abritary rule about the "news cycle". Their entire argument boils down to Wikipedia:I just don't like it which to me is not an argument. Then they decided to file a nonsense report to try and end the discussion as opposed to actual trying to argue. I should have just revert, but when some is going to not bother to have a discussion and then threaten actions, I really just lose respect and have no interest in listening, even when I should. My bad, but I stand by the edits. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't try anything. You didn't like an edit, didn't make a goof point, then reported. Don't try pretend that this was some great act on your part after already filing a report and then constanly arguing and goal-post moving. You made this a bigger deal than it needed to be. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you yourself don't understand the rules very well, I don't think your in much of a position to lecture, coupled with disingenuous arguments that all amount to Wikipedia:I just don't like it 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 3Kingdoms

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

This is a textbook 1RR violation, and judging by their talk page history and block log it's not the first time they've gotten in trouble like this. I would suggest a topic ban is in order. – bradv🍁 19:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "my bad, it won't happen again" defense is fine, but it goes out the window once you acknowledge that you violated a sanction and still refuse to self-revert. That comes across as willful disruptive editing and trolling. I don't really look favorably on the self-revert because it came after this report was filed, and it was only filed because you refused to self-revert in the first place. I would be inclined to block anyways, but I agree with BradV that a topic ban is probably in order given the past issues. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the block log, it appears that the ARBPIA area is not the singular problem, it is one of a low signal to noise ratio everywhere at Wikipedia. I would be more inclined to give a moderately long block but would be ok with a topic ban. I just worry that a topic ban will mean we will see the same problem again, just in a different topic area, perhaps due to immaturity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3Kingdoms, why DID you essentially revert again after this AE discussion started? [75] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with others that a topic ban is likely in order here. While there's cause for concern about editing in other topics, I don't think we're at the point where an indefinite block is in order, and short of that a topic ban seems like a more appropriate way to steer 3Kingdoms towards more constructive editing than a block. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:40, 29 March 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] Dickson, Caitlin (2021-05-01). "Exclusive: Pandemic relief aid went to media that promoted COVID misinformation". Microsoft News. Yahoo! News. Retrieved 2021-02-19.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[a]

[b]

[1]

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