Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive285

Buidhe
''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 Buidhe

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 21:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: []


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


 * 1) 12:20, 22 April 2021 Manually reverted edits by Gators bayou
 * 2) 00:21, 23 April 2021 Reverted edits by me
 * 3) 06:13, 23 April 2021 Reverted edits by Betoota44


 * 1) 19:05, 24 April 2021 Restored revision 1019665605 by Jeppiz
 * 2) 19:09, 24 April 2021 Undid revision 1019665605 by Jeppiz
 * 3) 20:03, 24 April 2021 Reverted edits by A455bcd9


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


 * Warned twice


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * The article Armenian Genocide has 1RR restriction, and the user repeatedly violates this rule.
 * I want to note that Barkeep49 clearly stated that the conclusion about 1RR sanction being no longer in effect was his assumption and that he was not certain about that: "(...) it is unclear whether the 1RR is still in effect. It appears to me that the 1RR sanction is no longer in effect because that element of the decision was amended away. I have not removed it because it's not clear to me that it isn't because the area still has Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions imposed."--Visnelma (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also Dear, you accuse me of violation WP:V and WP:BRD. I didn't add sources to the statement I made in the article because exchange of the populations is a commonly known fact, and as far as I can remember well-known facts doesn't need to be sourced, apart from the fact that I added about just 6 words. You said I reverted the other edit without discussion, but I put a note about my earlier edit on my edit summary which I thought to be a part of the discussion process. When my edit was reverted by another user, I understood there was a serious opposion to that statement, and discussed the edit with Buidhe in discussion page. She stated 200.000 people emmigrated after the war which she doesn't want to specify since she considers it to be a small number which I think to be a wrong assumption.--Visnelma (talk) 08:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

21:48, 24 April 2021

Discussion concerning Buidhe
''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 Buidhe

 * I was told yesterday at User talk:Barkeep49 that the 1RR restriction of this page is no longer in effect. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:52, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jeppiz
Buidhe does a tremendous amount of good work at Wikipedia and is an asset for the project. Whatever problems there may be, Buidhe's net contribution is overwhelmingly positive. I hope that this positive net contribution is taken into account in any decision. Unfortunately there is a recent problem, coming close to WP:OWN as Buidhe has taken to decide for themself how the article should look. Numerous reverts within 24h on a 1RR article is always a problem. Buidhe overruling governments of countries is downright bizarre. I don't dispute good faith, but still odd. We currently have a situation where the Swedish government emphatically explains that Sweden does not recognise the Armenian genocide (and numerous good reliable sources for that) yet Wikipedia claims the exact opposite because Buidhe (who, I believe, does not speak any Swedish) is so sure of their own interpretation they happily revert me when trying to add the official Swedish position. The situation is problematic. Once again, I very much appreciate Buidhe's net contribution. At the same time, I'm concerned about their recent behaviour in this ArbCom-protected area. We cannot have individual WP users overriding national governments on those governments' positions. In the best case, Buidhe takes this on board and no further action is needed. Anyone can have a bad day and Buidhe is a great editor here. Jeppiz (talk) 22:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by RandomCanadian
So Buidhe was operating under the assumption that this was not under 1RR. Whether that was a misunderstanding or a correct understanding, WP:NOTBURO and WP:WIKILAWYERING would lead me to say that if that was the case, and I see no reason not to AGF here, then we shouldn't punish for a supposed 1RR violation (and OP here is funny, because they inserted their material in the article, got it reverted, and then re-inserted (diff) into that article after it was clear there was opposition to it; and supposedly being well aware of the presumed 1RR requirement they seek to enforce here - in addition to the fact their edit violated WP:V and got correctly reverted by somebody else). I have always understood 3RR to be about edits which are substantially similar or which affect the same material (because 3RR is supposed to prevent edit warring, and edits which affect different parts or which are substantially different are not edit warring). I don't think there's a reason to go with any heavy-handed enforcement here; except maybe clarifying whether the page is under 3RR or 1RR, and warning the OP about WP:BRD - if their edits get reverted, they must follow WP:BRD and start discussing it, not revert again... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There's much reverting, but most if not all of it seems to be regular enforcement of our content policies (WP:UNDUE; WP:V, ...). As to this particular report, there's no violation of 3RR involved (even under a broader interpretation of what constitutes a revert than what i say above), and sanctions for the 1RR which was understandably thought not to be in effect wouldn't be logical. Agree, of course, with clarifying the status of these sanctions as regards the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nsk92
As it happens User:Barkeep49 was incorrect and gave Buidhe really bad advice here. In fact the 1RR restriction for the Armenian Genocide article remains in effect, even though the original arbitration remedy authorizing 1RR has been amended away. The reason is that the amending motions explicitly specified that all earlier imposed DS sanctions for this arbitration case remain in effect. The 1RR restriction was placed on the article by Moreschi on January 27, 2008. That was done under the early version of Discretionary Sanctions, authorized by the January 19, 2008 motion in Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. The next motion amending that remedy was passed on October 27, 2011. The motion placed AA2 articles under the first version of standard Discretionary Sanctions but also said that "Any extant sanctions or warnings made according to the older wording found in those decisions (as applicable) remain unaffected." The next modifying motion was passed on March 8, 2013 It similarly said: "Previous or existing sanctions, warnings, and enforcement actions are not affected by this motion." Thus the original 1RR restriction placed by Moreschi on January 27, 2008 still stands. Having said that, the history of all of these superseding motions is pretty complicated and even a sitting arbitrator was confused and arrived at an incorrect conclusion. I think that Buidhe's actions here should be AGF-ed, and Buidhe should not be sanctioned for following incorrect advice from basically the highest authority. However, the closing statement should indicate that the DS sanctions imposed under the January 19, 2008 motion in the AA2 case remain in effect unless they have been formally withdrawn. Nsk92 (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Buidhe

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


 * If nothing else, there is way too much reverting going on at this article, so I think we need to impose 1RR on this article under DS to make it abundantly clear that it is still in effect. For the rest, I'm still looking over the report and circumstances. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After reviewing this, there is enough legitimate cause for confusion that I would not be comfortable issuing any direct sanctions against editors. Absent anyone objecting very shortly, I would suggest closing this request with a clarification that 1RR is still in effect for this article (and if needed, that would mean I'm reinstating it, if indeed it was ever removed), and a warning to everyone involved to cut down on how much reverting is being done. Whether 1RR or 3RR, that is a limit, not an entitlement or allotment, and disruptive edit warring can and will be addressed even if it doesn't reach those "bright line" limits. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe that the point brought forth should be clarified: Revert limits are cumulative. If you revert one thing, and then revert something totally different and unrelated, you have made two reverts. Were 1RR in effect, this would be a breach of it. WP:3RR is quite clear on this: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. (emphasis added) So to avoid any further confusion, I hope that clears that question up. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:50, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like an honest misunderstanding on buidhe's part, and clearly the article does continue to need to be 1RR. I don't think there's need for any action other than clarifying that 1RR is in effect. signed,Rosguill talk 05:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything other than a misunderstanding here - looks like the article does need to have a big sticker on it to remind about 1RR, but clearly nothing malicious here. Perhaps a quiet reminder that edit warring and ownership aren't things we are looking for on-wiki. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * you were also told that if you wanted clarity to come here and that I was making an explicit decision not to remove the tag. Poor form pushing things rather than getting clarity. Barkeep49 (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach
''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 CutePeach

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 01:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: General sanctions/COVID-19


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
 * WP:MEDRS
 * 1) 18:09, 16 April 2021 - arguing based on "circumstantial evidence" (from a MEDPOP source about a Twitter group of, unsurprisingly, non-experts...) [combined with copious amounts of personal opinion and inferences]
 * 2) 07:09, 9 April 2021 - making a very prominent "Note to closer" (well after the discussion was stalled) based on unreliable and MEDPOP sources.
 * 3) 12:44, 24 April 2021
 * 4) 12:52, 24 April 2021 - proposing two long UNDUE sections to bring FALSEBALANCE about a FRINGE position, despite being told in the immediately preceding that even one sentence might be too much (on what is the main topic article); despite being suggested alternatives, and supposedly ignoring such objections.
 * 5) 15:14, 22 April 2021; - favouring MEDPOP sources (newspapers) over MEDRS (what is cited in WP:NOLABLEAK) - see also the subsequent explanations about this, including the clarification from


 * WP:OR and WP:SYNTH
 * 1) 16:03, 19 April 2021 - attempting WP:SYNTH based on interpretations of twitter posts and MEDPOP sources (the other examples, particularly in the MEDRS section, also show plenty such SYNTH.


 * WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT
 * 1) 10:10, 17 April 2021 - making one long report, based entirely on the popular press, arguing mostly based on WP:SYNTH and even misinterpreting some statements which are in the sources they cite.
 * 2) 15:34, 24 April 2021 - after being warned about MEDRS, they repeat a comment based on substantially the same sources, which again argues pretty much the same things, and is based on WP:OR. Here, in addition, we see a clear attempt at WP:CANVASSING by selectively pinging a few editors sympathetic to their viewpoints.
 * 3) One long section at Talk:COVID-19_misinformation - re-arguing points raised in the previous RfC, despite being told that theirs was a misinterpretation and despite being repeatedly asked for MEDRS and providing none.
 * 4) 15:46, 19 April 2021 - claiming, despite the multiple MEDRS presented, that the WHO report is not scientific consensus ([[User:Novem_Linguae/Essays/There_was_no_lab_leak#Top_quality,_WP:MEDRS_sources|this section of the NOLABLEAK essay clearly shows that it is; and despite me making a long, researched comment quoting from multiple MEDRS just after this...
 * 5) 16:46, 19 April 2021 - ...they repeated a very similar comment just one hour later.
 * 6) 16:32, 22 April 2021 - This (with the two previous diffs) shows that, after being repeatedly warned about their misuse and misinterpretation of a specific statement, sticking to the same point (which they had already expressed a month prior, 02:15, 17 March 2021; here.


 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):
 * 06:50, 18 March 2021

So, CutePeach has been here for about 1 month, supposedly here after they saw a post on Twitter, saying saw: "[a] conversation on Twitter and I am not impressed with your [Wikipedia's] brinkmanship on this topic". 08:19, 18 March 2021. Per their own admission, this kind of thing is still being off-wiki canvassed(16:22, 24 April 2021; It would be better understood in the context of this ANI, which was all over Twitter.). Edits such as one of their very first ones (08:09, 18 March 2021) also already show a knowledge of prior events (along with further accusations of brinkmanship, obfuscation and censorship) very suspicious for a new account, which shows again the extant of the off-wiki canvassing.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Due to the fact the articles are ECP'ed (after previous socking and disruptive editing in the area, and under the GS allowed for COVID), most of their contributions which show evidence of a problem are concentrated on two talk pages: Talk:COVID-19 pandemic; and Talk:COVID-19 misinformation. So far, about a quarter of their total edits have been to these two pages. These have been solely to advocate for the plausibility of the "lab leak" hypothesis; and, apparently, attempts at discrediting the WHO and the whole of the scientific community (because they, unsurprisingly, show the same skepticism about unfounded and unsubstantiated hypotheses, despite their popularity in the popular press...) - going as far as adding a tendentious header about "disregarding the WHO" when the post below it makes exactly the point that we shouldn't disregard it and that even if we did, it would change strictly nothing about the MEDRS consensus. They have, unsurprisingly, been repeatedly appraised of our policies, including WP:UNDUE; WP:NOR; and, most importantly, WP:MEDRS. And yet, despite all of this, they have yet to cite a single such source, preferring the company of the popular press and of twitter posts...

Given the repeated, persistent requests and warnings made to them about our content policies, and their failure to abide by them, their behaviour is nothing short of "perpetuating disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive". I'm heavily involved in this, but at some point editors which keep arguing the same FRINGE points are just disruptive time sinks, and they need to either accept the point and move on to something else (for ex., they've been repeatedly suggesting things which could go into Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 or COVID-19 misinformation by the United States, and yet their involvement in both of those pages is nearly non-existent), or be more formally topic banned from the area. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding MEDRS, you can see the linked GS discussion and User_talk:ToBeFree. Trump's opinions might be included in relevant articles (most notably the misinformation one - where they already are), but he has peddled so many of them, that I don't think highlighting one in particular serves any useful purpose in the main topic article, and it certainly must not be presented as an equivalent to the science (which is what CP has been arguing for since forever, entirely ignoring the MEDRS, to the point it has become disruptive - disruptive editing is not just edit warring in articles, as shown at WP:DE). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your comments go in your section and not mine The discussion on TBF's page wasn't about establishing a new consensus, it was about clarifying an existing one, as you can see, one which is also fully consistent with our other content policies, as explained on that talk page. I'll also quote WP:REDFLAG: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources" and "This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could ask ArbCom about it (they'll tell you it's private information); but the statement which was on my user page is true, I've indeed been here since about 4 1/2 - 5 years. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * 01:54, 25 April 2021 Yes check.svg Done

Discussion concerning CutePeach
''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 PaleoNeonate
Perhaps this should have been at AN considering it's GS vs DS.BTW, CNET is only good to report about consumer electronics. In this case it's a bit related as being related to social media. On the other hand it clearly only echoes dubious claims and even on the misinformation article, it would be suboptimal. It mentions the Drastic group that's also been making noise on WP, but uncritically, as supposed investigators who correct misinformation, rather than itself being part of a misinformation campaign that also produces literature in dubious venues.I might post more but would need more time to look at the editor's edits, I have to leave until tomorrow. — Paleo Neonate  – 06:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement/Question by Jtbobwaysf
Does WP:GS/COVID19 mean that Trump's notable claims (maybe incorrect and with proper attribution) cannot be added since he isn't a scientist? What about the opinions of other scientists/public health officials (CDC, WHO, etc), that also put forth the lab theory, are they to be excluded with the claim that they meet WP:GS/COVID19's defintion of "medical aspects of the disease"? I dont see how the origin claims (something that is probably political, and certainly location-based) has anything related to do with medicine. Certainly, we are not discussing a cause, let's not conflate the issue here. This seems to be the subject of the editor's edits, so let's look at it more generally (take a step back).

General sanctions/COVID-19 says: Sources for any content related to medical aspects of the disease are expected to adhere to the standards laid down at WP:MEDRS. Since this is a rapidly evolving area with instances already documented of poor or fraudulent research, preprints and other non-peer-reviewed sources should not be used.

Generally speaking: Has there been a discussion to determine if/how MEDRS applies to the COVID-19 pandemic article (the subject of these alleged ANI violations)? Is it appropriate to apply this indiscriminately to COVID-19 pandemic (a societal event article) that that describes the impact on society and not really the disease itself? We clearly would apply MEDRS to Polio and poliovirus, but do we also apply it to History of polio and 1916 New York City polio epidemic? Would we have an RFC on such a matter, or is it solely up the DS closing editor who says broadly (often we use this term broadly)? Assuming arguendo we do apply it to the COVID-19 pandemic article, how is it applied, and how are we currently applying it? When I do a quick look at the sources of COVID-19 pandemic I see CBS News, Business Insider, Financial Times, The Guardian, etc. Clearly, these are not MEDRS, is this MEDRS policy being applied selectively? If yes, how and what is the logic? Essay WP:NOLABLEAK is not a policy on how it is applied, merely an opinion of an editor that puts forth the opinion on whether or not the location of the virus origin (lab, city, market, etc) is subject to MEDRS. Note however the essay notably fails to address how the location could be considered a "medical aspect(s) of the disease." Do we use MEDRS to determine the Spanish flu originated in Spain? Clearly not, as it is now widely held that it didnt originate in Spain, rather we use the common name.

Assuming there has been a discussion & consensus that says the NOLABLEAK essay is to be enforced as a policy and requires MEDRS to introduce content on a pandemic article, specifically the location of the possible start of the pandemic (or the party responsible if that is being asserted?), then does that same policy also mean that it is prohibited to discuss the GS policy on the respective talk page? If yes, then I may have unknowingly violated this policy and I apologize for that (if I have in fact violated at policy on it). Other DS/GS I have seen in the past normally prohibit reverts or other abusive activity, but I haven't seen it prohibit a discussion on the talk page (unless the talk page activity is clearly abusive). I would think any such policy that would ban non-abusive discussion on the talk page to fundamentally violate WP:CENSOR. After all isnt DS/GS meant to identify a known issue and move the discussion to the talk page to prevent WP:TE on subjects that have known issues with it. It is not the intent of DS/GS to censor, nor is it the intent to let GS/DS be a weapon to enable censorship.

I ask all these questions here as I think before we can decide if the editor has violated the policy, we need to determine if/what/how the policy applies to the article, and then to his edits. Maybe all my questions are answered by other prior discussions, if that is the case please show me (I am not a regular editor of this article or medical articles in general). Relating to the canvassing claim, I havent looked at that so I dont have a comment. Regarding the bludgeon probably a boomerang to the nominator on that. I viewed the long posts by cutepeach, as on topic and useful, often containing extensive sources and context (exactly what I was requesting when I created the talk page section) but I am only commenting on what I have seen this week in the talk page section I created as I dont follow this article regularly. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * RandomCanadian, the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that you say was reached on 's talk page is insufficient. raised the same WP:BMI question we are raising, if this leaked from a lab theory requires MEDRS. You will note Biomedical_information that both the "history" and "Commercial or business information" are not defined as "biomedical information". Here we are talking about the history (when and if) the virus (was or was not) created by the institute, and the controversy surrounding it. It is obvious we are not talking about the "Attributes of a disease or condition" (aka medical cause). Rather we are talking about the history, specifically when and if an organization invented it and maybe released it on purpose or by accident. The Wuhan Institute of Virology certainly meets the definition of legal entity and it would by very definition have "commercial or business information". You have stated many times that the theory is subject to MEDRS requirements and others have stated it isn't. Maybe it is you who are not listening? WP:CAREFUL states "changes to articles on complex, controversial subjects with long histories or active sanctions... should be done with extra care." In many cases, the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view." It seems to me that this discussion right now is the very definition of "arduous negotiations" :-) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry about editing in your section above, didn't know the rules for this board. Thanks for moving my response. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I yesterday looked at RandomCandian's edit history yesterday also wondering if this was something unusual. You will note this edit where the user creates their user page also claims to have deep experience prior to creating an account and said "Previously edited as IP for around 4 years". The speed and quantity of the replies was what made me look. In both cases when these users get up to speed right away with all wikipedia policy it could be WP:FOWLPLAY. Sure users might know how to edit a bit, but participate in these details discussions, ANI, etc that took me a decade to figure out, and we almost never see IP editors in these ARB/ANI sections, why would they bother? Then the user brought up redflag in their response to me...Quack Quack Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by JzG (CutePeach)
CutePeach has been here for just over a month and has 275 edits, but displays at the same time a familiarity with Wikipedia and a strong preference for a content outcome that has been the subject of assiduous advocacy by consumers of conservative media for a year, and which has been repeatedly rejected. Put bluntly, I smell a rat. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nsk92
As noted by PaleoNeonate, this filing concerns General Sanctions rather than WP:ACDS. Therefore WP:AE is the wrong venue for this request and it needs to be re-filed at WP:AN (unless somebody cares to take some kind of of a quick regular admin action here.) Currently WP:AE has no jurisdiction over imposing sanctions under GS. That's probably unfortunate, especially for an important topic like COVID-19, but that is the current situation. I vaguely recall seeing a discussion somewhere about creating an AE-style venue for considering GS related requests but I don't think anything resulted from it. Short of that, perhaps a more narrow proposal could be made to the community authorizing WP:AE to handle COVID-19 related GS requests. (Arbcom would probably also have to approve such an arrangement since AE is ultimately answerable to them.) Nsk92 (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning CutePeach

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



Plebian-scribe
''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 Plebian-scribe

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 13:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2


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


 * 1) 03:25–03:30, 28 March 2021; 16:52, 3 April 2021
 * Edit warring to add "far-left" to the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club article, without citing a source or providing an edit summary.
 * 1) 10:13, 30 March 2021; 16:48, 3 April 2021; 22:52, 12 April 2021
 * Edit warring to delete "(a neo-fascist hate group founded by McInnes)" or "(a far-right, neo-fascist, chauvinist, white nationalist organization founded by McInnes)", along with cited reliable source, from the Otoya Yamaguchi article against talk page consensus without an edit summary. Deleted text refers to the Proud Boys.
 * 1) 20:33, 7 April 2021; 03:19, 8 April 2021
 * Edit warring to delete "neo-fascist" and "white nationalist" from the Proud Boys article. At the time of editing, these edits contravened the RfC result on the talk page at.
 * 1) 22:56, 7 April 2021; 14:01, 8 April 2021; 20:08, 8 April 2021; 13:47, 10 April 2021; 21:42, 11 April 2021
 * Edit warring to add "Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison drew criticism after posing with the book in a now deleted twitter post in January 2018. Ellison’s post said the book should 'strike fear into the heart' of President Donald Trump." in the Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook article. Only the 13:47, 10 April 2021, edit used an edit summary, and it contained a personal attack: "added Keith Ellisons endorsement of the book which keeps getting taken down by trolls."
 * 1) 03:22, 8 April 2021
 * Deletion of "neo-fascist" and "white nationalist" from the Enrique Tarrio article against talk page consensus in ongoing RfC at . Fixed link —  Newslinger  talk   06:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) 12:45, 18 April 2021
 * Deletion of "far-right", along with 14 cited reliable sources, from the Project Veritas article against talk page consensus without an edit summary.


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


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * Among Plebian-scribe's 36 edits so far, 17 of them (47%) have been reverted as unconstructive.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * 13:46, 18 April 2021

Discussion concerning Plebian-scribe
''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 GorillaWarfare (Plebian-scribe)
It's worth pointing out that all three requests on this page at the moment (Vojtaruzek, Pkeets, and Plebian-scribe) involve disruption at Project Veritas and its talk page. Please consider some kind of page-level restrictions for the talk page, which has been the location of most of it. See my comment above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * EC2 protection for the article might make sense, which I assume is what you mean (rather than EC2 for the talk page). But the real issue, in my view, is the talk page. I'm not certain what the best remedy would be, but it feels like something needs to be done—I am generally very hesitant to semiprotect talk pages personally, but maybe that would help? GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll give that a shot. I've often found NOTFORUM reverting ends in obnoxious edit wars, particularly on these kind of pages where the editors are prone to feeling that they are being "censored by leftists", but it's worth a try I suppose. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:00, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Four requests now, with the addition of the Airpeka request below... Also worth noting here for posterity that El C semiprotected Talk:Project Veritas for two weeks, I think as an unrelated action from any specific request here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by RandomCanadian

 * Totally uninterested in the rest of this, but just to clarify : it was per (my) request at RFPP. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate
There indeed appears to be an ongoing campaign there and I also think temporary talk page protection would be a good idea. As for Plebian-scribe their edit history is not very encouraging but their last post followed by a pause seems to somewhat offset it. It may be a little early for an American Politics topic ban but I predict it'll soon be necessary if they're not careful... — Paleo Neonate  – 02:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Plebian-scribe

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


 * On the face of it an AP2 topic-ban seems necessary. However, this is a new user, who has so far refused to communicate in a reasonable way; so I'm wondering whether a mainspace partial-block, as a normal admin action, may be more useful. I'm seeing disruption from newish accounts, and would consider EC-protection justified; but were you asking for something more? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure protecting the talk page is the way to go. Several posts there are vexatious, certainly, but over the last 100 edits I'm only seeing a handful that would have been addressed by semi-protection. Several of those posts fall afoul of NOTFORUM, and could be be removed with no response beyond stating that fact. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a reasonable concern, but I think a talk page protection could be justified far more easily if that sort of thing happens. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Since Vanamonde's comment, Plebian-scribe asked Newslinger where they could raise concerns and was told to participate here. I was hoping to see a response from Plebian-scribe before commenting here, but it seems unlikely to happen at this point. If nothing changes in the next 24 hours I think this should be closed as an AP2 topic ban. signed,Rosguill talk 05:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick clarifying question on your close: the talk page is currently semiprotected until May 5, as the result of an RfPP request. Do you just mean there's no consensus to change or extend that existing protection? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is indeed what I mean. After May 5, if disruption continues, a new RFPP request can be filed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Terjen
''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 Terjen

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 04:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAP


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


 * 1) 14 April Places a "disputed" tag on the wording far-right in the lede of Boogaloo movement, which wording was expressly included by consensus determined in a formal Request for Comment in July 2020
 * 2) 20 April Again places the tag, after it was removed and the consensus was expressly explained to them
 * 3) 25 April Once again places the tag, ignoring multiple editors explaining to him that the consensus existed
 * 4) 25 April Yet again places the tag, after being explicitly warned that their editing was verging on tendentious


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

None


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


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months here, on 20 April


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

This is a case of delayed one against many - in this case, rejects an overwhelming and formally-expressed community consensus, and refuses to understand that their options are limited to opening a new RfC, or accepting the status quo. Terjen apparently disagrees with the inclusion of far-right in the lede of Boogaloo movement, and expresses the opinion that the wording is "unreasonable." Unfortunately for Terjen, their opinion is expressly rejected by a formally-expressed community consensus as concluded in a formal Request for Comment in July 2020. That they individually "dispute" this formally-concluded consensus is, at this point, irrelevant - it is axiomatic that absent exceptional circumstances, a formally-expressed community consensus may only be overturned by another formally-expressed community consensus. Thus, as has been repeatedly explained to them on the article talk page, unilaterally tagging the section is unavailing. Whatever "dispute" there may have been about the far-right wording was formally resolved with the RfC. Terjen's option, if they disagree with the label, is to open a formal RfC. Attempting to permanently tag the section until they get the outcome they want is tendentious and disruptive editing behavior. As my request on their talk page was ignored, I was left with no other option but to file this request. My hope is that no formal sanctions are necessary - that this filing is enough to get them to stop their behavior and accept that they may not use tags in this manner. Pinging and  as relevant to this request. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Notified. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Terjen
''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 Terjen
Coming soon, please give me time to prepare a response. Terjen (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Bacondrum
Even a cursory glance at sourcing for this claim shows it is very well cited. The far-right descriptor is not only well cited, it is used in the vast majority of sources. This has been discussed before at length on the talk page. Terjen is blatantly POV pushing and tagging well sourced claims in a pointy manner, editing against consensus, edit warring. A firm warning to stop is warranted at this point, IMO. Bacondrum 07:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, looking at the edit history there's a real issue of edit warring against 1RR sanctions:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&type=revision&diff=1017887609&oldid=1015632229
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1017887609
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1017893124
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1018979534
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1019868082
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1019886805
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boogaloo_movement&diff=next&oldid=1019887084

Statement by GorillaWarfare (Terjen)
This should have been resolved the first time Terjen was told that a new formal RfC would be needed to override the previous one. Terjen could have just opened a new RfC, preferably with a good explanation of what has changed since the June/July 2020 RfC to warrant revisiting the topic, and that would have been that. Refusing to do this simple thing, and continuing to edit war the tag into the article despite clear explanations that there was a formal decision to include the wording, is tendentious. Evidently these multiple explanations have not gotten through to them, maybe AE intervention will. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The June/July RfC is not the "be-all-end-all". As has been explained repeatedly to Terjen, if the initial RfC was flawed or if sourcing has changed, a new RfC can be started to revisit the topic. It is not Terjen's opinion that "far-right" should be removed that is the issue here, it is their disruption around warring a tag into the article while also refusing to begin a new RfC like would be needed to overrule the previous one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are correct that I started the June/July RfC. I don't believe the sourcing has substantially changed, which is why I have not begun and will not begin a new RfC. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by NWeil
A previous statement says the claim of "far-right" is very well cited but I would disagree. For example, CSIS, an accepted group of experts on the subject, does not classify the boogaloo movement as far-right. CSIS data was most recently used as the basis for a Washington Post interactive article on extremism. And holding a June/July 2020 RfC as the be-all-end-all for such a fast evolving situation seems unhelpful. It's worrying to me that the desire to keep "far-right" as a tag in the article seems to be overriding common sense. Nweil (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * correct me if I'm wrong but you initialized that June/July 2020 RfC. This is clearly a subject you are interested in and have sunk work into and as we see from this enforcement request, is fairly controversial. Do you believe the situation has remained static since June/July 2020? Why not initialize a new RfC yourself? Nweil (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by JzG (Terjen)
I commend NBSB for a calm and patient exposition, assuming good faith. That assumption is, I venture to suggest, somewhere close to the Mary Poppins end of the scale. Terjen appears to have returned from a years-long absence to "correct" our "bias" against neo-Nazis. No thanks. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
NWeil's statement that because CSIS doesn't label the Boogaloo movement as "far-right", that label isn't "very well-cited" is both absurd and irrelevant. There are many other expert organizations and news sources which do label them as "far-right", and that was sufficient for a consensus of editors at an RfC to accept the label as appropriate. And that is the point here, an RfC-generated consensus exists, so Tergen's option was to start a new RfC, but they have refused to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by InedibleHulk
A lot of the slurs associated with "far-right politics" really don't seem associated individually with this group by RS, even if the "far-right" blanket as a whole is. Absurd and troubling, RfC aside. Not a fight we're likely to win, but I'd like the label removed, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

, I consider a one-year AP topic ban to be excessive, punitive and detrimental to the topic area's prospects of ever steering back toward a neutral point of view (even at "minimum"). Terjen (and others) may seem more right than left from a generally left-leaning perspective, but that doesn't indicate he's not centred. As a right-winger in hockey, I still swear my center took the puck drops to my left, too, it's inevitable. But in the wider picture, he was just doing his job, same as the left-winger across from him. Allegorical, sure, but compelling and appropriate, at least from where I now lay supine in the editorial field. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by starship.paint
- "fairly controversial" content is exactly what RfCs are for. There is no obligation for the nominator to revisit RfCs in less than a year just because content is "fairly controversial". RfCs are community processes and we wouldn't want to waste the time of the community of editors. That said, any editor is free to start a new RfC at this point if they feel strongly about the subject.  starship .paint  (exalt) 10:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Terjen

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

I've waited 24 hours, and this started days ago. We're moving on, as there is plenty of evidence presented. There is a clear disconnect between what he thinks is acceptable and what the greater community expects. Looking at his history, it is clear he is fascinated by American Politics in general, but so far, I've only seen problems in the one article, so a topic ban seems too broad. I've actually dedicated a lot of time debating the "solution", more than Terjen has in explaining it, to be sure. A sanction should accomplish two things: 1. stop disruption and 2. discourage future disruption. With that in mind, I've decided to keep it simple and block Terjen for two weeks as a logged WP:AE action, as they have not been blocked before. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If someone doesn't like the tag, and there is a clear prior consensus, the onus is on them to start a new RFC on the matter. Adding the tag once is forgivable but once you know, and are pointed to an existing consensus, then we have issues with WP:BRD, WP:DE and eventually WP:TE (all still pointing to WP:DE for their authority).  Are they far-right? Is there a valid reason to at least include verbiage indicating otherwise in the article?  Don't know, don't care.  The point is, the dispute should be handled with discussion if you disagree, not edit warring over a tag.  The problem isn't content, it is behavior, and if someone can't edit in an area without exhibiting bad behavior, we should stop them from editing in that area. Or completely.  Looking at unrelated edits by Terjen since they have returned, their overall behavior looks like it is edging on righting great wrongs. There is definitely a pattern here. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm counting 38 edits by Terjen since this WP:AE report was filed, and not a single response from them here. For someone who considers themselves a "policy wonk", two days after this started, this seems pretty foolish. Note they are also at AN3 over a 1RR violation.  At this point, I would be supportive of any strong sanction, including a 1 year (minimum) AP topic ban. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 19:47, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Maudslay II
''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 Maudslay II

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 07:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: []


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


 * 1) 14:46, 22 April 2021 First revert of this
 * 2) 18:15, 22 April 2021 Second revert of this in 24 hours
 * 3) 13:03, 10 April 2021‎ Revert of this  calling other WP:AGF edit a vandalism
 * 4) 20:19, 11 April 2021 2nd revert in 24 hours
 * 5) 21 April 2021 Putting a fake photo of Dier yassin masscare
 * 6) 21 April 2021 WP:CANVASS user that voted to keep the article that he created to WP:RSN discussion
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Date Explanation
 * 2) Date Explanation


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


 * Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 28 March 2021


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The user was asked to self revert,, but refused and calling other user edits as vandalism.

Judging from the user contributions he seems here to WP:RGW and so its not suitable to edit such a topic --Shrike (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Why do you call WP:AGF edits as vandalism? You were already warned about this? --Shrike (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Why after you self revert you continued to edit war ? --Shrike (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to investigate futher?I think its pretty straightforward case edit warring and canvassing violations there of course WP:TE diffs brought by Geshem but I think even without them the case is pretty clear. --Shrike (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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

Statement by Huldra
Re diff 5: A lot of (fake) photos of the Deir Yassin massacre are circulating on the net. Off course, all "oldtimers" (I have been editing the Deir Yassin massacre-article since 2006) knows this. But I think it is unfair to punish a newbie for thinking any of these pictures actually are from the Deir Yassin massacre. (Just an example of how Maudslay II is a newbie: they refer to me as "Him", heh. Maudslay II: I'm female!), Ms. Huldra (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Newslinger I have already asked for these pictures to be deleted on commons (link). And I do not know if it is correct to sanction anyone on en.wp., for what they have done on commons.wp? Anyway, as 	Maudslay II stated themselves: they did not edit-war with me when I removed the wrong picture from the  Deir Yassin massacre-article. And these pictures are (unfortunately) all over the internet, illustrating the Deir Yassin massacre. If anything: this should teach Maudslay II not to trust the internet... Huldra (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Maudslay II
I actually reverted myself, []. I'm not looking for edit wars or anything else. -- Maudslay II (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Now Shrike is basically fishing. I added the Deir Yassin massacre photos, but another editor said that they are not related to the massacre and removed them. I did not revert his her edit. How is this being used against me? -- Maudslay II (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph
More importantly he plays very loose and fast with RS to further an agenda. In one RS that said "Shiite Muslim bombed..." He created the article and wrote it as "Israel bombed...." Sir Joseph (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier
Somewhat enthusiastic editing by a newish editor might be forgiven this once. With a reminder to exercise caution in future in this difficult area.Selfstudier (talk) 14:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Geshem Bracha
This isn't "enthusiastic editing", it is fabrication and prevarication:
 * 1) In Iron Fist policy, he does this,  But the Washington Post used as a source says this is a claim by Shiite leaders, while Israel denies this and cites an internal Shiite rivalry.
 * 2) In Maarakeh massacre, he  responsibility on Israel as a fact. But Washington Post and New York Times do not say this. This also describes this as Category:Zionist terrorism, which is inappropriate and sources do not say. Maudslay makes this out as an attack on a mosque, however a source he cites, Robert Fisk, says: "A bomb exploded on the roof of Jerardi's office on 4 March 1985. It killed almost all the resistance leaders: Jerardi, Sa'ad and ten other guerrillas were blown apart.", which paints a different picture than the article.
 * 3) here he supposedly self-reverts, but he messes up the formatting so a bot reverts his edit 4 minutes later. Despite surely noticing this he does not correct this. He then reverts another editor while this discussion is open.

The talk page discussion with him is full with problems. He pushes unreliable sources. The good sources he presents, do not support what he is trying to say. He keeps on saying it "is obvious" it is Israel, but it isn't obvious enough for the sources he cites.

What is going on in Deir Yassin massacre is much worse. He placed a fake photograph on Wikipedia, and uploaded five other fakes:
 * 1), , and   are from Lebanon in the 1980s.
 * 2)  is from a famous massacre in Korea.
 * 3)  is from Nazi Germany (original, not fake.

Maudslay II actually uploaded a picture of a Nazi concentration camp and said this took place in Israel. This is bad.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 06:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Maudslay II

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


 * Here are the six photo uploads mentioned by :
 * File:Deir Yassin massacre 01.jpg
 * Originally from "الذكرى الـ 72 على مجزرة دير ياسين" [The 72nd anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre] in Felestin
 * Caption: "صورة أرشيفية" [Archival photo]
 * File:Deir Yassin massacre 2.jpg
 * Originally from "واحدٌ وسبعون عامًا على مجزرة دير ياسين" [Seventy-one years after the Deir Yassin massacre] in Arab48
 * Caption: "لم يُفرّق القتلة بين امرأة وشيخ وطفل (نشطاء -تويتر)" [The killers did not differentiate between a woman, an old man and a child (Activists - Twitter)]
 * File:Deir Yassin massacre 3.jpg
 * Originally from "72 عامًا على مجزرة دير ياسين.. تعرف على تفاصيلها " [72 years since the Deir Yassin massacre: know its details] in Sama News
 * No caption
 * File:Deir Yassin massacre 4.png
 * Originally from "شهادات من دير ياسين: القتلة أحرقوا جثامين الشهداء بإحدى ساحات القرية " [Testimonies from Deir Yassin: The killers burned the bodies of the martyrs in one of the village's squares] in The New Arab
 * Caption: "سقطت في المجزة ما لا يقل عن 110 فلسطينيين(Getty)" [At least 110 Palestinians fell in Majzah. (Getty)]
 * File:Deir Yassin massacre 5.jpg
 * Originally from "أم المجازر في ملف كامل من 3 أجزاء: مجزرة الدوايمة المغمورة تضاهي دير ياسين وكفر قاسم" [The mother of the massacres in a complete file of 3 parts: the submerged al-Dawayima massacre comparable to Deir Yassin and Kafr Qasim] in Al Mayadeen
 * Caption: "لمجزرة الدوايمة خصوصية كونها أكثر المجازر التي وُظفت فيها كل الأساليب الوحشية البربرية" [The al-Dawayima massacre is unique for being one of the most brutal massacres in which all barbaric methods were employed.]
 * File:Deir Yassin massacre 6.jpg
 * Originally from "مجزرة دير ياسين هدفت لإرهاب الفلسطينيين ودفعهم للرحيل" [The Deir Yassin massacre aimed at terrorizing the Palestinians and pushing them to leave] in Rai al-Youm
 * No caption


 * I am now examining the disputed edits in Geshem Bracha's comment.
 * Special:Diff/1019298548 in Iron Fist policy
 * The added content was "On 4 March, a bomb planted by the IDF in a Maarakeh mosque exploded...", while the cited Washington Post article did not explicitly attribute the bomb to the Israel Defense Forces. The second cited source, Pity the Nation: The Abduction of Lebanon by Robert Fisk, is more supportive but does not conclusively affirm the added content:
 * Special:Diff/1019292967 in Maarakeh massacre
 * One of the new sentences, "The Maarakeh massacre took place on 4 March 1985, when Israel Defence Forces bombed a local mosque..." is not conclusively supported by Fisk (1990), as mentioned in #1. The cited "Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Lebanon document – Letter from Lebanon" does state that "On 4 March 1985 Israeli forces carried out another massacre in the village of Ma rakah, killing 15 people and wounding 45", but this is a statement by the Permanent Mission of Lebanon to the United Nations and is not sufficient to substantiate the exceptional claim. The second added citation, volumes 6–10 of the Americans for Justice in the Middle East newsletter, is not available for me to review, and I am not certain of its reliability. One of the other sources added to the body of the article, The Struggle Over Lebanon by Tabitha Petran, is more supportive:
 * Special:Diff/1019325681, Special:Diff/1019436758, and Special:Diff/1019511836 on Maarakeh massacre
 * While did undo (Special:Diff/1019437106) the malformed self-revert (Special:Diff/1019436758), I am not going to assign blame for the technical error. However, I do note that the self-revert (09:50, 23 April 2021) occurred after this arbitration enforcement request was filed (07:24, 23 April 2021).
 * Next, I will examine the diffs in Shrike's report:
 * Special:Diff/1019325681 and Special:Diff/1019436758 on Maarakeh massacre
 * Discussed above (#3).
 * Special:Diff/1017040138 and Special:Diff/1017267658 on Zrarieh massacre
 * These two reverts were more than 24 hours apart, but I do see page move warring in Special:Diff/1017034403 and Special:Diff/1017040214, two edits that occurred within 60 minutes of each other.
 * Special:Diff/1019134504 in Deir Yassin massacre
 * Discussed earlier. This particular image (File:Deir Yassin massacre 2.jpg) was used by the original source (Arab48) to illustrate the Deir Yassin massacre, so I am not going to assign blame for the error.
 * After reviewing all of the presented evidence, I see a pattern of Maudslay II not adequately supporting exceptional claims with reliable sources, and not adhering to 1RR page restrictions. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a contentious topic area that requires participating editors to exercise more caution than Maudslay II has done. While some of the reported edits have mitigating factors, there are still enough issues with Maudslay II's editing to justify a topic ban. I am going to implement an indefinite topic ban from the topic area in a day, unless another reviewing administrator expresses a dissenting opinion. —  Newslinger  talk   06:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Discussed earlier. This particular image (File:Deir Yassin massacre 2.jpg) was used by the original source (Arab48) to illustrate the Deir Yassin massacre, so I am not going to assign blame for the error.
 * After reviewing all of the presented evidence, I see a pattern of Maudslay II not adequately supporting exceptional claims with reliable sources, and not adhering to 1RR page restrictions. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a contentious topic area that requires participating editors to exercise more caution than Maudslay II has done. While some of the reported edits have mitigating factors, there are still enough issues with Maudslay II's editing to justify a topic ban. I am going to implement an indefinite topic ban from the topic area in a day, unless another reviewing administrator expresses a dissenting opinion. —  Newslinger  talk   06:20, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Race and Intelligence
''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 Race and Intelligence

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement :

Sockpuppets and single purpose accounts including:
 * Users against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive / Long-term abuse/Mikemikev
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive / Long-term abuse/Mikemikev
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive / Long-term abuse/Mikemikev
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive / Long-term abuse/Mikemikev


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence


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


 * 1) 15:43, 17 March 2021 Personal attacks
 * 2) 11:01, 28 April 2021 Personal attacks / trolling
 * 3) 11:51, 16 April 2021 More attacks and trolling
 * 4) I could go on for quite a while, just look at the talk page history and click on the red linked username or IP of your choice.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence


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


 * Not applicable


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

There has been a long history of sockpuppeting and trolling on Talk:Race and intelligence. It is long since time that a page restriction was applied to deal with this. I am here asking that indefinite extended-confirmed protection be applied to both the article and the talk page. I believe the level of disruption more than warrants this, and I find it highly unlikely that we would ever want a genuine new user to be cutting their teeth on such a contentious article.


 * To reiterate, I am requesting extended confirmed protection for both Race and intelligence and Talk:Race and intelligence.
 * I believe that can be done in this venue because discretionary sanctions are authorized, which may include page restrictions. Page protection is an allowed type of page restriction. MrOllie (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : article talk page notified. Users mentioned by name, ,

Discussion concerning Race and Intelligence
''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 MjolnirPants
I wholeheartedly concur with this request, though I'm not sure this is the right place for it. This is an article that sits at the intersection of politics, pseudoscience, science, extremism and conspiracy theories. There is no legitimate reason for any new editor to even be involved in discussions on the talk page, let along permitted to actually edit the article itself. It takes a nuanced understanding of WP policy and significant experience implementing it to be able to do this article justice, and any new editor that has those is a sock, by definition (though to be fair: I've yet to meet a sock with a nuanced understanding of WP policy, for what should be obvious reasons). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  14:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Permanent Extended Confirmed protection is being requested for this particular article, due to the large number of brand new accounts and IP editors who routinely show up to make damaging edits to the article. It won't solve all the problems (for example, see Stonkament's comments below, which are somewhere between "gross misrepresentation of what happened" and "bald-faced lies about what the sources and other editors said", as you can still read for yourself at talk), but it will cut down on one of the biggest sources of headaches for editors of that article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Generalrelative
I agree that extended-confirmed protection for this article and talk page is long overdue, though like MPants I'm unsure if AE is the right venue. A similar idea was floated recently on FTN by Hemiauchenia and endorsed by several others (including me) before RandomCanadian pointed out that WP:ARCA would be the proper forum for that. In any case, I would be happy to do some of the leg work of compiling diffs if that is helpful. An exhaustive list of disruption, even over the course of the past year, would be long indeed. Generalrelative (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clearly explaining why this may be considered a proper venue for page protection requests. I am certainly no expert on such matters. Generalrelative (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Editors with fewer than 500 edits who are able to helpfully contribute to this topic are an exceedingly rare exception, and it is not at all clear that the one you named should be counted among them –– even if they are acting in good faith. In that particular case it doesn't seem to me that they've created anything at R&I besides a series of time sinks for editors who could otherwise be working to improve the encyclopedia. Generalrelative (talk) 06:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If anyone needs more evidence of this, here is a real-time example of what I'm talking about: Talk:Race and intelligence Generalrelative (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * EP will increase the existing tendency towards repetitive debates among the same participants. If you read through the last few months of talk page activity you will see that this is not the case. The overwhelming majority of activity is spurred by complaints from new accounts and IPs who either don't understand the existing consensus or pretend not to. Without this disruption there would be far fewer repetitive debates, and it would be much more likely that any critique which is legitimately based on new evidence will receive a patient hearing. Generalrelative (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment by JzG
It's long past time to apply ECP to the article and its talk page. The game of whack-a-racist has gone on for way too long. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Stonkaments
I agree that extended-confirmed protection would be warranted due to the frequent disruptive editing on this article. That said, I think it's more complicated than that. It seems to me that a lot of the disruptive editing is coming in response to editors undertaking WP:OWNERSHIP of the article with a POV in the other direction. For example, most editors strongly opposed removing or modifying the following claim: "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups", despite this being a clear misrepresentation of the cited sources, as discussed here. In recent discussions, editors have misrepresented one of the sources as an editorial, falsely equated a partial hereditarian hypothesis to pseudoscience like Bigfoot and creationism, and cast aspersions of racism. The admin who closed the noticeboard discussion failed to address any of the substantive arguments, has been uncivil, and has shown that they have a strong POV on this topic. See more recent criticism here. Thus, it seems to me that a lot of disruptive editing is coming as a backlash against POV-pushing in the article, so that needs to be addressed as well. Stonkaments (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfC does not give carte blanche to make ever-stronger claims that are adjacent to the RfC but unsupported by cited sources (see: motte-and-bailey fallacy). I understand that this is a topic for a separate discussion, but it's relevant in that it seems to be the impetus for much of the recent disruptive editing on the talk page . Stonkaments (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Aquillion
For other socks and sockpuppeters that have plagued the page, see This is long-past needed. The article is infamous even off-wiki for its acerbic discussions and edit-wars; and it has seen an extremely persistent, long-term level of sockpuppetry which has compounded that problem. Many of the recurring issues on the page are recurring precisely because sockpuppets of banned SPA accounts frequently return and raise them again, often wasting huge amounts of time and effort before people realize they're talking to a banned sock. The persistent long-term sockpuppetry, in turn, poisons the atmosphere on talk, because when a new user appears and starts making the same arguments as one of the sockpuppets they are immediately treated with suspicion. --Aquillion (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ECP. Where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. Sockpuppetry, of course, is the issue here - the article is already semi-protected and it has proven ineffective at resolving the issue. --Aquillion (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment by NightHeron
This is in response to Stonkaments' comment above. Per WP:FRINGE, it is false to claim that those of us who work to implement the consensus on the fringe nature of racial hereditarianism are POV-pushing. In addition to the problem of SPAs and socks, another time sink at the R&I talk-page has been civil POV-pushing by editors who have refused to accept the consensus of last year's RfC on Race and Intelligence (see ; the closure was endorsed in the closure review ). The outcome of the RfC was that the belief in genetic superiority in intelligence of one race over another one is a fringe viewpoint. Stonkaments is one of the editors who has tried in various forums to weaken the language that says this. The time sink is caused by SPAs, socks, IPs, and POV-pushing editors who refuse to accept consensus. The proposal to prevent SPAs and IPs from editing the talk-page would help a lot, although it would not eliminate bludgeoning by a few disgruntled editors such as Stonkaments. 23:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)NightHeron (talk)
 * Contrary to what Stonkaments claims, the edits to R&I and related pages by a number of editors in accordance with WP:FRINGE do not go beyond what the RfC on R&I concluded. The closing of that RfC stated: There is consensus that the theory that a genetic link exists between race and intelligence is enough of a minority viewpoint in the scientific consensus that it falls under Wikipedia's definition of a fringe theory above. NightHeron (talk) 12:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Ferahgo the Assassin
I agree it would be useful to do something to reduce the amount of sockpuppetry on this article, but it's an excessively extreme solution to restrict the article and its talk page to users who have 500 edits or more. Over the years there have been a lot of good-faith, non-SPA editors on the article who have fewer than 500 edits, being the most recent example. Any restriction should be specific to addressing the problem of sockpuppetry, and not one that will also exclude good-faith editors.

Something that hasn't been tried yet is semi-protecting the race and intelligence article's talk page. That would have stopped the two most recent sockpuppets, which only edited the talk page (not the article), and were indef blocked before they had been registered for long enough to become able to edit semi-protected pages. Shouldn't semi-protecting the talk page be tried before resorting to EC protection? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (uninvolved) Politrukki
This request should be dismissed. The sanction or remedy to be enforced cited in the request does not specifically authorise imposing page sanctions. The remedy authorises using standard DS only for editors who fail to adhere to principles outlined in remedy 5.2:

AE obviously cannot impose sanctions out of process. Politrukki (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by OID
DGG: "What this topic needs is new editors". You will not get new editors while the topic is under sustained attack from proponents of scientific racism bullshit and their socks/meatpuppets. Why would you as a new editor (even an existing experienced wikipedian) step into that quagmire? ECP will go a long way towards mitigating that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate
Although I couldn't be very active in the RI area, it's something I've been following for years on WP. I agree that a higher protection level would help and agree with NightHeron's observation. While Mike's socks are perennial, there also were efforts by people with a conflict of interest to bias relevant articles and promote their claims, that are disputed by the rest of the scientific community. Not helping is the recent rise of xenophobia, so disparate disruption is also to be expected. — Paleo Neonate  – 19:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Hemiauchenia
DGG has indicated at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard that he is sympathetic to the fringe hereditarian view, and voted as such in the 2020 FTN discussion. I therefore think that DGG should recuse himself from this amendment request. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Dlthewave
I haven't been active in R&I lately, but I agree that it would benefit from EC protection. In my experience new accounts in this area have been overwhelmingly disruptive and seldom helpful. We should be bringing in editors who are new to this topic, not new to Wikipedia. EC is not a high bar to pass and would not be a barrier to good-faith editors who truly want to help improve the encyclopedia. –dlthewave ☎ 14:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Race and Intelligence

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


 * Could someone please explain what exactly protection is being requested? I have difficulties understanding it.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk:Race and intelligence is the target, EC protection is the request. (It was a little confusing until I saw his notes under the request.) After looking through the history, and being mild to moderately familiar with the history over the years, I would agree that EC is a good fit here.  I would expect EC for a talk page to be a very rare thing, but this is a good example of when we should use it.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I support EC on the main article page as well. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are interesting points,, but lets say we don't use ECP on the article or talk, what is the solution for the problems that have plagued the page? Dennis Brown - 2&cent;
 * Ok, now that we have some clarity, perhaps ECP for both the article/talk, but for a limited time to see if this works, or actually hinders drawing new users. I would propose 6 months protection, then if all goes well, it can be extended via another request here.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One snag. First,, you are mistaken in your interpretation.  Second, the RI topic is not listed at ECP as one of the allowable areas where ECP may be used, so I have started a request at ARCA for clarification or modification.  This may take a while.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:38, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More clarity via, and yes, WP:ECP has very muddy instructions but it is an option here. I'm very inclined to support 6 months of ECP unless convinced otherwise in the next 24 hours.  To me, this is a measured solution.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd oppose ECP. What this topic needs is new editors. The existing editors should consider whether they might be overinvolved. EP will increase the existing tendency towards repetitive debates among the same participants. It's a classic example of where we should not use EC, for it if multiple new editors do not accept what WP considers the accepted consensus,  while some might be out to make trouble, this  might equally well indicate that it is time to reconsider what we think the consensus to be. If we don't listen to new people, how will we know?   DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)`
 * I'm leaving aside the question of whether EC is appropriate as an AE especially on a talk p. unless specified by arb com. . And even if it is ever appropriate for a talk page, whether this come anywhere near the extreme level that would justify it.  DGG ( talk ) 09:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I need to clarify: I think I'm neutral on the question of whether ECP is needed. I am most definitely not neutral on the question of the correctness of the current statement about the scientific consensus and which theory is actually Fringe, but that's for another discussion).  DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After reading 's comment, I see that you have made a number of comments expressing a view on this topic in, including Special:Diff/1020775461/1020777363, an excerpt of which is: "The actual situation is fairly straightfoward, and I'm going to say what I think Ferahgo the Assassin is being a little too tactful to say in so many words: Wikipedia has it wrong. Science is not subject to voting. Scientific cnclusions are reached by scientists, and we have to follow current science. The consensus that Wikipedia has adopted is either completely besides the point or absolutely upside down. what we have adopted as the scientific consensus is the consensus from 1950 or 1960. It's what I was taught, it's what everyone was taught. That was 70 years ago. The sciences of anthropology, and especially of genetics have found out a good deal in the last 70 years, and it is that there are significant difference between human groups due to heredity." Are you sure that you are uninvolved enough to decide whether Race and intelligence and Talk:Race and intelligence should be subject to page protection? —  Newslinger   talk   18:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
 * He's not "deciding", he's opining, which I welcome. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Bayramoviç
''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 Bayramoviç

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 08:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2


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


 * 1) 07:38, 4 May 2021 Describes another editor as a Hatred-filled liar Armenian
 * 2) 07:48, 4 May 2021 Amends "civilians" to "soldiers", and removes "ethnic cleansing" despite the many high-quality references at Turkish War of Independence. Edit summary of The lie about the war was corrected since the Turkish War of Independence was never intended to be an "ethnic cleansing" campaign. This kind of propaganda should have never been allowed by Wikipedia anyway. Also, the lie about Greeks and Armenians fought against the Turks were being 'civilians' (?) were corrected since they were both comprised of armies, especially Greeks who were heavily armed by the British military. Source: British Historian that was with the Greek Army at that time: Arnol... suggests they are here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
 * 3) 08:15, 4 May 2021 Same as previous diff. Edit summary of I will complain about you. Don`t worry. Who are you to claim that the first Independence War against the Imperial powers that were an example to the other nations was an "ethnic cleansing" campaign? The Turkish people fought to defend their homeland. I will call Wikipedia by myself today and complain about you, don`t worry
 * 4) 08:19, 4 May 2021 Largely the same, although they left "civilians" in place this time.
 * 5) 08:26, 4 May 2021 Prove that there was a `genocide` or you are just a liar. This is absolute nonsense to claim such big blame against a nation. I muted this user due to his/her insubstantial claims and I´d also recommend it to you. I reached the Wikipedia help via e-mail and I`ll make a complaint

n/a
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Notified
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):

The editor has also emailed me stating the following (if anyone wishes the full email forwarding or posting here, please say so)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Also, I copy-paste the message that I sent to another editor regarding the Turkish War of Independence, which is actually my field of interest:

"Ahmm are you aware that there is a clear misinformation/lie regarding the Turkish War of Independence in Wikipedia?

This appears to be a clear violation of WP:CANVAS, and is likely responsible for the current edit war orchestrated by various editors who edit in Turkey related areas. See also comments at Talk:Turkish War of Independence, appears to be an orchestrated campaign by genocide deniers.


 * See also this, definitely off-Wiki canvassing by Turkish nationalists going on. FDW777 (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * while I agree this can probably be quickly closed since they have been blocked, I think it's unfair to class this as a "discussion fork". I filed this at 08:33. The information about the off-Wiki canvassing was posted at 08:27, but I was unaware of that until after I filed the report as I'd been busy compiling it in the previous six minutes. I then escalated the issue to ANI since it has obviously become an issue involvong far more editors than just Bayramoviç. FDW777 (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Bayramoviç
''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 Bayramoviç
I`ll for sure make a complaint about the user FDW777, who claims that there was a `genocide` without solid proof. He is probably from Armenian lobby that uses the pain of the people (from both sides) for his political purposes. If you would ask him whether ASALA was a terrorist organization, who killed many Turkish ambassadors and their families, he would say no. So, I don`t see a common point to discuss here and I`ll make everything to stop this misinformative user. I have already e-mailed the Wikipedia contact e-mail address and waiting for a response.

Also, the same user FDW777 also pops up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_War_of_Independence#Vandalism_by_Buidhe on the 4th of May discussion of the 12th article with the topic: Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021 and he also attacks other Turkish users there, and also claims that they are deniers of non-existing `genocide`. So, obviously, this is a user who is against the freedom of speech and has political agenda supporting Armenian lobby and ASALA terror organization.

Let`s say that I am wrong and I have bad intentions regarding the Independence War of my own history (?); so, are the users `Jelican9`, `Basak` and all the other users have bad intentions? That is non-sense.

This same user FDW777 also complained about another user TrottieTrue just because he used a source that he didn`t like. I quote from him: "OK, I think User:FDW777 is taking all this a bit far in targeting me for enforcement action. It seems a bit disproportionate to want to sanction me merely because I'm trying to use certain sources as citations for MPs' dates of birth. There seems to be a small band of users who are obsessively concerned with following their interpretation of BLP policy to the letter. The MPs' articles which are being watched in this manner are basically the 2019 intake and the few from 2017 who don't already have DOBs. There are hundreds of previously elected current UK MPs who, as far as I can tell, have no inline citation for their DOB. It doesn't mean that the information isn't common knowledge. No-one is objecting to those DOBs being unreferenced. It's these newer MPs' articles which users like FDW777 and the unregistered IP editor will leap upon as soon as a DOB is added with a source they don't like, I suppose because the long-standing MPs have had those uncited DOBs there for a long time."

As you can see, this is not even about the truth, there is just an obsessed user and he basically doesn`t accept anything besides his own thoughts.

Statement by (Visnelma)
This is probably the user who initiated everything in Ekşi Sözlük as he put my name on the first entry after I reverted his edits. This user must be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. I don't even think it is needed to mention his vandalist and disrupting behaviour.--Visnelma (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PR
DS is not required. Simply indef with any of: personal attacks, harassment, legal threats, POV pushing, or NOTHERE. Just please stop with the discussion forks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Bayramoviç

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



TrottieTrue
''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 TrottieTrue

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 15:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) 01:58, 17 March 2021 At John Finucane, adds a partial date of birth referenced by public records at Companies House in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. This was reverted here by me with a clear edit summary mentioning this. This subsequent edit of theirs means they were clearly aware of this edit being reverted
 * 2) 23:15, 2 May 2021 At the same article, adds a full date of birth again referenced by public records at Companies House in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY.
 * 3) 12:36, 3 May 2021 At the same article, adds back the full date of birth claiming the fact it is public record implied the subject does not object.
 * 4) 23:31, 02 May 2021 At Kemi Badenoch, adds a full date of birth again referenced by public records at Companies House in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY.
 * 5) 12:34, 3 May 2021 At the same article, adds back the full date of birth claiming The CH document is on public record, therefore it can reasonably be assumed the subject does not object. They also claim The reversion also ignored my other edits, this is false. There are the changes they made. There is my "reversion", I was very careful to retain their other edits.
 * 6) 12:04, 27 March 2021 At a discussion they started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, they state I added dates (month and year) for some new MPs from their Companies House profile, but these were swiftly removed and the user left a message on my talk page telling me they were primary sources and therefore unacceptable, clearly demonstrating they are fully aware they cannot use Companies House public records. They also state I personally don’t see the need to have every MP’s DOB sourced with a reference footnote, showing their cavaliar attitude to policy. The whole discussion is designed to override the consensus from the earlier discussions at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 323 and Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive323, a discussion on a Wikiproject's talk page that other editors not even being notified of being a classic example of WP:CONLOCAL
 * 7) 14:41, 28 March 2021 At the same discussion, states I agree. I don’t see what’s wrong with using something like Companies House, which is freely and publicly available
 * 8) 18:11, 29 March 2021 At the same discussion, posts a reply to an email query they have made. This is in response to the two earlier discussion linked above. That they are willing to go so far to attempt to justify the use of this disputed reference shows the editor has an unhealthy fixation on dates of birth.
 * 9) 17:27, 31 March 2021 At the same discussion, refers to the discussions referred to above and states I'm not sure you could call those discussions a "consensus" and Personally, I see no issue with using data published by the UK Parliament as a source
 * 10) 19:02, 8 April 2021 At the same discussion, states The objection to "primary sources" for a DOB is, frankly, ridiculous
 * 11) 00:45, 16 April 2021 At the same discussion, states I don't think being "widely published" is a necessary criteria, despite WP:BLPDOB making it clear it is.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

n/a

Notified
 * If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS):

The reply below is misleading. As points out WP:BLPPRIMARY says Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. This exact wording was provided in an edit summary, which TrottieTrue chose to revert. There is no "the subject doesn't object as it's a public record" get-out clause, per policy public records cannot be used per WP:BLPPRIMARY. FDW777 (talk) 07:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * just a quick clarification on Companies House. Per John Finucane, the citation is not to this page with a date of birth of March 1980, but to Companies House. 8 April 2014. Retrieved 3 May 2021. see PDF document for this date. That can be seen at this page which includes this link to a "Certificate of Incorporation of a Private Limited Company" where a full date of birth is given on page 3. This document is clearly, to me at least, a public record which is not permitted per WP:BLPPRIMARY. FDW777 (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. I wasn't sure if you were saying the Companies House website itself wasn't reliable, or the public records they hosted, or both. FDW777 (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning TrottieTrue
''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 TrottieTrue

 * User:FDW777 is taking this too far in targeting me. It's disproportionate.


 * 1, 2. Regarding WP:BLPPRIMARY, I don't fully agree with it. It’s logical to use CH where no other sources exist. See Ignore all rules, Five pillars. DOBs are unique: "Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." DOBs are key to BLPs.
 * 3, 4. "the fact it is public record implied the subject does not object" refers to the policy which says that the material can be used if published in a manner suggesting that the subject doesn’t object. Perhaps FDW777 could delete the references to CH in over 1,500 BLPs. Deleting DOBs creates the risk of a Barbara Streisand effect though.
 * 5. I assumed that "reverted" meant completely undone. The "revert" tag is misleading; sorry for my false claim.
 * 6. FDW777 is consumed by bureaucracy. I don't see the need for DOBs having a citation right after inclusion, ie. "born 10 March 1980 ", which looks untidy. I don't have a "cavaliar" (sic) attitude to policy: I've only added DOBs with RSs. The first link is not consensus: one editor agrees with FDW777 (who first raised the issue on Christmas Day 2020), another doesn't. At the second link, only one new editor commented, to agree.
 * 7. Already discussed
 * 8. That they are willing to go so far to attempt to justify the use of this disputed reference shows the editor has an unhealthy fixation on dates of birth. The last comment is incredibly insulting and offensive. I'd remind FDW777 of Civility. FDW777 perhaps has an unhealthy fixation on BLP Policy. I emailed the HoC about them publishing DOBs – not to "justify the use of this disputed reference". I’d prefer or  instead. Umpteen list articles are based around DOBs. My aim is to have this data included. DOBs are in lead sections.
 * 9. No "consensus". "Personally, I see no issue with using data published by the UK Parliament as a source" is a generalisation.
 * 10. Am I not allowed an opinion? It's valid to query restrictions on "primary sources". talk feels that primary sources are fine for birth years.
 * 11. The interpretation of "widely published" is broad. The Times Guide to the HoC is "widely published", although at £60, inaccessible to many.
 * Not being allowed to source a freely available fact seems restrictive. That Finucane was born in March 1980 isn't contentious. FDW777 treats BLP policy as if it’s set in stone. They seem keen to police others; I am acting in good faith.

--TrottieTrue (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * FDW777 could have discussed it first. I'm happy to concede to BLP "Policy" on this. FDW777 hasn’t attempted to find better sources, in a collaborative spirit. I unambiguously agree to stop doing things like this going forward, I understand what the issues are and will cease these practices going forward.


 * Companies House is at least honest about not verifying its information. Reliable sources like The Guardian often make mistakes, which are subsequently corrected. No source is completely infallible. I was not aware of the policy that you do not reinstate that edit, period, no exceptions. Perhaps if FDW777 was more diplomatic (ie. not shoving warnings on my Talk page), I wouldn't have felt the need to reinstate my edit. I assume that I can add another comment without it affecting the word count limit.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem is that DOBs are unique amongst the list of "highly sensitive personal details", ie. it is not a traffic citation or vehicle registration. It is a key component of BLPs. I understand that CH is considered a "public record", but it's a restrictive policy. I will "comply", however.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328
"Ignore all rules" is an idealistic notion that can certainly be invoked in highly unusual circumstances, but it is not a license to violate firmly established policies like WP:BLP which have legal implications and which the Wikimedia Foundation and its legal staff insist that Wikipedia editors must follow. And that policy, which cannot be ignored, says: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." So, this is my question for : Are you going to comply with the clear wording of BLP policy, or are you going to continue to defy that policy? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:26, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning TrottieTrue

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


 * , statements should be 500 words or less, and you are approaching four times that. Please do some trimming if you would like that to be read. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I didn't notice that requirement, so after much effort, it is trimmed.--TrottieTrue (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , after reviewing in more depth, I see two primary problems. The first is that the reference you used, "Companies House", explicitly states that it is unreliable. At the top of the page (example used as a reference for one: ), there is a link which states Companies House does not verify the accuracy of the information filed, and that links to a longer disclaimer which explicitly states that they do not verify or fact check their data in any way. The second problem is that, when another editor objects to an edit on BLP grounds, you do not reinstate that edit, period, no exceptions, until and unless the matter has been discussed and an unambiguous consensus has been formed that the material is not a BLP violation. In these cases, you used an unreliable source (which explicitly calls itself unreliable) in a BLP, and then when that was contested on BLP grounds, edit warred over the matter. If you do not unambiguously agree to stop doing things like this going forward, restrictions on your editing will be needed. So in a short comment on your statement, please indicate whether you understand what the issues are and whether you will cease these practices going forward. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes, that is the material to which the disclaimer refers. They are making clear that they have not fact checked or verified any data contained in those records. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the agreement to stop doing things like this going forward, I believe this can be closed with a logged warning. Unless any other uninvolved admins shortly object to that, I will close as such. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)