Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive332

Entropyandvodka
''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 Entropyandvodka

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 19:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

WP:1RR violations and 1RR gaming at Israeli war crimes:
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) (said that Israel had committed genocide → found that Israel had committed genocide)
 * 2) (said that Israel had committed genocide → finding reasonable grounds that Israel had committed genocide)
 * Was requested to self revert at . Did so at, saying Self reverting per request, as that edit can be considered a revert. Will be putting that material back in later tonight for the same reasons.
 * 1) (said that Israel had committed genocide → found Israel was committing genocide)

I don't know whether 06:18 is a second 1RR violation, but it is gaming of 1RR and seeing 1RR as an allowance, rather than a hard limit - reimplementing a reverted violation 23 hours after initially implementing it and seven hours after reverting it is not aligned with our expectations regarding self-reverting violations.

I requested they re-self-revert; they have refused to do so, and are now arguing that 07:05, 21 April 2024 was not a revert.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP):
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).

There's a few other recent 1RR violations (for example, and ), but no recent gaming as far as I can tell.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The issue with this one, though, is how blatant it is; they didn't wait 24 hours to revert back to their preferred version after self-reverting, they waited just seven - if we don't consider the time the between making the violating revert (07:05) and self-reverting the violation (22:58) it means they reverted back to their preferred version just twelve hours after initially reverting to their preferred version.

If this is permissible, then that means editors who wait 24 hours from their first revert to self revert would be permitted to revert back immediately after self reverting, making the restriction considerably less effective at preventing edit warring and disruption. 22:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Entropyandvodka
''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 Entropyandvodka
This is misleading. While edit 1 was a revert, edits 2 and 3 were not reverts, per the guidelines in WP:Reverting. The paragraph in all versions contains the proposition that Francesca Albanese said (or stated) that Israel had committed or was committing genocide, providing her exact quote. Edits 2 and 3 didn't change this. They added additional propositions (she submitted a report, the findings/conclusion of the report). The term 'found' here refers to the findings/conclusions contained in her submitted report, which was passingly referenced in the initial version before BilledMammal's later-reverted edit. BilledMammal's edit essentially just made the same explicit proposition twice in two consecutive sentences. Edits 2 and 3 fall into the classification of examples provided in WP:Reverting as 'A normal change, not a reversion' as they add additional propositions without removing any. Boiling down the propositions in the differences, we have:

Edit before BilledMammal edit: She found X. She said X

BilledMammal edit (before the reversion) She said X. She said X.

Edits 2 and 3 (not reversions) She submitted report X, which found/concluded X. She said X.

I'd point out briefly here that the initial version, before and after BilledMammal's reverted edit, did warrant revision, as it referred to the findings/conclusion of a report without explicitly mentioning the report. I now think BilledMammal was right to make that initial edit, and I was wrong to simply revert it, as that original form of the sentence with no additional information would go against MOS:SAID. Edit 1, the revert I did make of BilledMammal's edit, failed to address this issue, but the subsequent edits 2 and 3 addressed this, without information/proposition loss. Edit 3 was a slightly clearer version of edit 2.

After edit 2, in which I first added the additional material, BilledMammal accused me of violating 1RR. I self-reverted when requested to, in the spirit of collaboration, though didn't agree that adding that material constituted a revert, and ultimately added it later in edit 3. All the material is RS-backed, and provides informative and relevant context. If I'm correct that edits 2 and 3 don't constitute reversions, then there's no 1RR violation. If I believed edit 2 or edit 3 constituted a revert, I wouldn't have made either edit.

On my talk page, I attempted multiple times to engage with BilledMammal about the substance of the issue, sought feedback, asking how BilledMammal wanted to write it to add the additional material. BilledMammal repeatedly refused to engage much about the topic, showed no interest in seeking consensus, instead accusing me of a 1RR violation and demanding I self-revert to BilledMammal's version. BilledMammal then threatened arbitration if I didn't comply. I made a good faith attempt to show to BilledMammal why I believe edits 2 and 3 don't constitute reverts, and offered two more suggestions to reach an inclusive consensus. BilledMammal did not respond to these suggestions.


 * , Understood, regarding what constitutes reverting. I'll be mindful of that in the future. Regarding the user talk page thing, it was BilledMammal that came to my talk page, where I responded and attempted to reach a consensus. In the future, I'll redirect such talks to the article talk page. I should have started a talk there anyway before edits 2 and 3.

Result concerning Entropyandvodka

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


 * The self-revert remedied the 1RR violation, and their revert back to their preferred version after 24 hours wasn't great, but was not a 1RR violation. Is there a pattern of 1RR gaming, or just this single example? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , those were reverts. Just because you're not using undo, rollback, or a tool like twinkle doesn't mean that modifying the same piece with a slight rewording isn't reverting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If this is just a single instance, I would be okay with a logged warning, including a reminder that 1RR is not an entitlement to do another revert at 24 hours and 1 minute from the first. Entropyandvodka, if someone objects to an edit you made, go to the article talk page (not a user talk page), find out why they objected, discuss it with anyone else who participates, and see, by suggesting stuff on talk, if you can address those concerns. If you come to an impasse, dispute resolution is available at that point. But yes, tweaking your edit a little bit and making it again still is reverting, if the edit is still substantially similar to the last one. We have to treat it that way; otherwise there would be no end of gaming with that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a logged warning as well, now that 1RR and what a revert is has been clarified. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

76.53.254.138
''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 76.53.254.138

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 02:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA extended-confirmed sanction

User initially began editing as an IP in the ARBPIA area some time ago, sometimes disruptively:
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 22:21 January 24
 * 2) 21:15 April 15
 * 3) 21:23 April 30
 * 4) 19:51 May 1

After being issued the CTOP warning on May 1 (linked below), and despite being specifically warned of the ECR restriction, they've resumed editing within the ARBPIA topic area, primarily in the current events portal:
 * 1) 20:35 May 6
 * 2) 20:41 May 6
 * 3) 21:00 May 6
 * 4) 21:02 May 6


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP):
 * Notified of A-I CTOP restrictions on May 1 at 21:03; I added a note to the end disclosing that as an IP editor, they're not allowed to edit in the topic area until they register an account and reach 500 edits.

The IP in question has exhibited other generally disruptive behaviors over the past several months, both within and outside the ARBPIA area:
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * 1) Added nonsense to Atomic mass (later warned about vandalism)
 * 2) Made a bunch of disruptive edits on List of 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies, under the summary of "neutral" or "fine as it was," leading to the page being protected on March 5.
 * 3) Made another nonsense edit on Don Budge (later warned about vandalism)
 * 4) Has been engaged in a slow-motion edit war with multiple users at Assassination of Qasem Soleimani.
 * 5) Euphemized much of the content at Norske jenter omskjæres, where they also engaged in an extremely-slow edit war.
 * 6) Another slow edit war at Battle of Rafah.

Many of their other edits exhibit a strong POV that they've attempted to push through via some of the aforementioned slow-motion edit wars.

Overall, they've seemingly disregarded the CTOP warning issued to continue editing in an area they're not allowed to, and have a history of disruptive editing otherwise. They've avoided a block up to this point.

I apologize if this should've gone to WP:ANI due to it being an IP, but I figured AE was the correct location given the bulk of the edits being in an arb-restricted area. The  Kip  02:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Seraphimblade Sounds good. Please do let me know if IP issues are better-served by ANI - I wasn’t quite sure in making this report, to be honest. The   Kip  21:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
 * Notified at time of report.

Discussion concerning 76.53.254.138
''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.''

Result concerning 76.53.254.138

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


 * Blocked two weeks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the block is really all we can do; it's pretty pointless to apply CT sanctions other than blocks to IPs. Unless anyone shortly objects I'll close this as resolved. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , you didn't do anything wrong here, and if IP editors are behaving disruptively in CT-covered areas, you can certainly report it here. There are other general tools in our toolbox, like revert restrictions and long-term semiprotection or EC, that we can use if there's severe and ongoing disruption from anonymous editors. There's just not much point placing CT restrictions besides blocks on individual IPs, since IPs are subject to change at any time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Dylanvt
''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 Dylanvt

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 03:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

WP:1RR and edit warring at Nasser Hospital mass graves:
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) (reverted )
 * 2) (reverted )

They have not responded to my request to self-revert, but they have continued editing.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP):
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on (see the system log linked to above).


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Dylanvt
''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 Dylanvt

 * I've been offline for several days as I've been finishing my finals and traveling home from school, so just now seeing about this. These edits were made to preserve the status quo on the article, since typically with disputed removal of content we resort to keeping it then discussing, rather than deleting it then discussing. The special restriction on reverts for this specific topic I simply forgot about when I made the edits. Should I go back and revert the second edit now? Dylanvt (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’ve self-reverted for now.
 * I didn’t notice the request on my talk page until the same time I saw this one here, as I’d only had access to my phone between May 6 and May 9, due to travel. When I finally got on my laptop last night I saw both notifications, and replied here this morning. Dylanvt (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Threaded discussion is not allowed at AE. Please keep your responses in your section. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath
I'm concerned by the amount of times recently that BilledMammal has opened up reports here, seemingly as an early line of interaction. I believe this needs addressing. TarnishedPathtalk 14:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @ScottishFinnishRadish, I don't make an accusations. However I have noted that this one particular editor has been here over and over. I note that a lot of the cases that they've opened have been closed with no action. I note that this has take up a lot time. Tarnished<b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 14:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sure your searching ability is as good as anyone else's. Perhaps I've been incorrect about the number of cases closed without action. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 14:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish, I've striked my comments. Apologies to all. I should have searched the record prior to making incorrect comments rather than relying on my obviously imperfect memory. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 01:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Dylanvt

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


 * anything to say about this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , yes, you should revert now. Also, did you not notice the request for the self-revert on your talk page when making other edits after the request was made? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I plan on closing this in the next day or two with a warning to mind 1RR unless there is input from anyone else. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , this was addressed before, resulting in the following warning, Participants are also generally reminded that accusations of gaming the system require evidence and should not be made lightly; they are reminded to not cast aspersions when making such accusations. Making reports of actual violations of sanctions is the way it is supposed to work. The violation was brought up on the editor's talk page and was not remedied despite other edits being made, so it came here. We'll clarify 1RR and the expected behavior around self-reverting and be done here in just a jiffy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , so far this year, from what I just pulled from the archives:
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive328 January 24, Makeandtoss is warned to avoid (slow-motion) edit warring in the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The user is also warned to adhere to the area's topic-wide one revert restriction.
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive328 January 23, Irtapil indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine/Israel conflict, broadly construed.
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive329 March 1, Editors involved generally in this article are warned to use dispute resolution, not the revert button, to settle content disputes. Whether or not xRR rules are breached, repeated reverting may be treated as a disruptive edit war. If there is a return to edit warring on this article, there is a fair chance that multiple editors involved in it will be, at minimum, restricted from further editing the article at all, and wider sanctions may also apply.
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive330 March 12, Salmoonlight (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from making edits anywhere on Wikipedia regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This topic ban is per consensus of uninvolved administrators in this arbitration enforcement thread. Participants are also generally reminded that accusations of gaming the system require evidence and should not be made lightly; they are reminded to not cast aspersions when making such accusations.
 * Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331 April 11, Kashmiri topic banned for one week by Callanecc.
 * One that appears to have been archived without comment, which is a failure on the part of us AE admins.
 * Is there something I'm missing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , that would be casting aspersions with no evidence. You brought up behavior that believe [this] needs addressing with no evidence of disruptive behavior. You then followed up with I note that a lot of the cases that they've opened have been closed with no action. which doesn't seem to track over the past five months or so. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Petextrodon
''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 Petextrodon

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 13:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Contentious topics/Sri Lanka


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


 * 1) 26 April 2024 use of a primary source that has been established as a pro-rebel.
 * 2) 26 April 2024 use of a primary source
 * 3) 28 April 2024 use of single source the has WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS under WP:EXCEPTIONAL circumstances.


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


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

This page as seen weeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND and possible WP:NAT editing, with controversial content been added with single sources that are most cases primary sources that have clear conflict of intrests and even been labled "pro-rebal". Some other sources with WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, that makes the content appear WP:OR. Request for more citations per WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:CHALLENGE have been refused. Hence I am requesting arbitration to settle this matter by establishing the quality, type and style of citations needed for this artcile.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Following attempts for dispute resolution have been tried:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_attacks_on_civilians_attributed_to_Sri_Lankan_government_forces#Request_for_multiple_citations
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_attacks_on_civilians_attributed_to_Sri_Lankan_government_forces#NESOHR
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_attacks_on_civilians_attributed_to_Sri_Lankan_government_forces#Adding_single_sourced_content

In response to the comments made here, my stand is that if the admins here feel that a topic band for 30 days or one year to myself or to Petextrodon or both, so be it. However, I request that my band would be limited to Sri Lankan Civil War related topics since my edits on broader Sri Lankan topics have not been hot topics and I have been contributing for over an decade.

In the matter at hand I would request admin intervention to review the content dispute. I have raised this issue in RSN and there has been no result. Clearly the article in question does not meet WP standards of WP:NPOV and I request an independent review, mainly regarding the poor sourcing and use of primary sources. In another RSN it was mentioned that "As with other advocacy groups… caution is needed. Statements by advocacy groups are WP:PRIMARY sources… certainly reliable for verifying that they take a given stance on an issue, but not necessarily de-facto reliable for the accuracy of the background material used to take that stance." It is vital that this takes place now due to the WP:BATTLE  that’s is taking place regarding topics associated with the Sri Lankan Civil War, with a clear group of editors including Pharaoh of the Wizards editing on one side of this battle. I am not surpised to see his support of Petextrodon, an editor who has no content contribution beyound Sri Lankan Civil War topics. Cossde (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (@ScottishFinnishRadish) RFCs on related topics have seen vote stacking. Cossde (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC) Moved to correct section. Please comment only in your own section; threaded discussion is not allowed at AE. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Petextrodon&diff=prev&oldid=1221697850

@&#32;Bookku. WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:VOTESTACKING on SL Civil War topics were conducted by Petextrodon, Oz346 and Okiloma in general. These have been evendent in pages: List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka where request for use of secendary sources to meet WP:EXCEPTIONAL has been meat by WP:BATTLE. WP:VOTESTACKING has taken place in RFCs in Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces, Talk:Sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers, Talk:1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom. Cossde (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh and recently WP:VOTESTACKING in Talk:Tamil_genocide. Cossde (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And a call for vote stacking . Cossde (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is too much of a coincidence that the same set of users appear in numbers on votes on articles related to the Sri Lankan Civil War. With some new users taking it for granted that there is a camp already formed |referring to it as "us". Cossde (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Petextrodon
''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 Petextrodon
I don't think the issue is truly about the number of citations which is why user Cossde deleted even the content backed by two RS citations, Human Rights Watch and Routledge scholarly publication. More crucially, Cossde may be guilty of vandalism for repeatedly deleting sourced content [1][2], since no Wikipedia rule states that a content without more than one RS should be removed. Also, the user is well-aware that WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources classified the UTHR as RS long ago and recently classified NESOHR as a "Qualified source" that can be cited with attribution. As for Frontline (magazine), that's a mainstream news magazine that any reasonable editor can see meets the criteria of RS. As for Uthayan newspaper, I had repeatedly explained to this user in the talk page that it was a registered and award-winning Sri Lankan newspaper yet they weren't satisfied by this explanation and refused to explain why they questioned its reliability.

Cossde has a long history of deleting reliably sourced content [1][2][3] that are critical of the Sri Lankan government and its armed forces. To me this looks like WP:nationalist editing, especially given the blatant double standards this user has shown regarding the use of sources on multiple occasions: They did not address their blatant double standards despite my repeated requests to do so in the talk page. It would appear from this to any reasonable observer that Cossde is more bothered by the nature of the content than the reliability of the sources. I hope the admins review the reporter's own behavior so the vandalism issue can be sorted and I wouldn't have to open a separate enforcement request against this user. --- Petextrodon (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Cossde removed content from sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka by contesting citation to the book authored by a prominent Sri Lankan journalist; yet they cited the same book on another article to support their edits.
 * Cossde significantly expanded the background section of the 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom by adding content from a report published by the Sri Lankan government; yet on the currently disputed article they contested the reliability of another report published by the same government.
 * Cossde has previously cited UTHR in other articles, but now they are not only questioning its reliability but deleting cited content from it.


 * @Robert McClenon, Just to clarify, why should I be punished for contributing to Wikipedia? What rules have I broken? I'm being hounded for my good faith contribution by this user for the past several weeks and not vice versa. But I agree with you on the interaction ban as I have no desire to engage in pointless disputes and edit war with this user. I'm very much capable of reaching amicable compromise with users I disagree with as I indeed have on several occasions with another Sri Lankan user, SinhalaLion. But unfortunately it has not been possible with this user. --- Petextrodon (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC) Moved to correct section. Please comment only in your own section; threaded discussion is not allowed at AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm requesting an extension of 105 additional words to respond to Cossde's statement. --- Petextrodon (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Cossde didn't specify but listed me alongside others in WP:Votestacking accusation which I believe is unwarranted. In the Talk:Sri Lanka Armed Forces RFCs, I didn't ask any user to participate. Most responses were from uninvolved RFC community. In the Talk:Sexual_abuse_by_UN_peacekeepers, I did tag two users for their inputs as they are prolific contributors to Sri Lanka topic, but only after Cossde tagged two other uninvolved users for their inputs.
 * As for Talk:1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom RFC, I didn't ask any user to participate. As for Talk:Tamil_genocide, no one asked me to participate nor did I ask anyone to participate. I volunteered my opinion on my own.---Petextrodon (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards
See no violation this is at best a content dispute which needs to be resolved elsewhere.Further there no CT alerts.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Petextrodon is dedicated contributor in the Sri Lanka area and see no reason for action.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Bookku (Uninvolved)
I don't have detail background but wondering whether really no scope for WP:DDE protocol? and any difficulties to go through WP:RfCs, or RfCs happened but did not mention in above difs? &#32;Bookku   (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cossde seem to have complained about    WP:VOTESTACKING at RfCs. I suggest usually link the policy page so other user gets to know which policy you are talking about. Cossde's earlier sentence ".. This page as seen weeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND  .." is general in nature, WP:VOTESTACKING at RfCs statement, too, seem general in nature. If complaint is about Petextrodon  a)  Need to be clear if Petextrodon too has any role in alleged BATTLEGROUND and VOTESTACKING with specific proof difs. On the other hand if statements are related but general concerns but not related to Petextrodon be clear about that too.


 * @Petextrodon need to note that general WP:ARE custom is "it's about you not about others". Also read WP:TLDR. &#32;Bookku (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @ ScottishFinnishRadish, I have dotted down some observations and probable solution to my understanding for this issue in my sandbox page. If you find that helpful for this issue then, I will bring that over here.&#32;Bookku   (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon (another Sri Lanka dispute, another forum)
I am asking the administrators at this noticeboard to do something, because there are too many disputes between User:Cossde and User:Petextrodon. I am ready to provide a list of these disputes again, which I already provided to ArbCom in support of identifying Sri Lanka as a contentious topic, and especially the Sri Lankan Civil War, but I know that the administrators here know how to look up the record as well as I do.

User:Petextrodon alleges that User:Cossde's removal of sourced content is vandalism. It is not vandalism, and an editor who has been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism should also know what is not vandalism, and POV pushing is not vandalism, although it is often reported as vandalism. However, Petextrodon's complaint should be treated as a counter-complaint of disruptive editing and POV pushing by User:Cossde.

Something needs to be done to curb these disputes. The obvious, but probably wrong, answer is to impose an interaction ban, because these editors do not like each other. The problem is that that will provide a first-mover advantage, and so may actually encourage pre-emptive biased editing. So I recommend that the first step be to topic-ban both of these editors from Sri Lanka for thirty days to give one or another of the administrators time to review the record in detail and determine which editor is more at fault, and extend the topic-ban to one year, or determine that both editors are at fault, and topic-ban them both for one year. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Petextrodon

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


 * Hence I am requesting arbitration to settle this matter by establishing the quality, type and style of citations needed for this artcile. That isn't what arbitration enforcement is for. Have you opened an RFC on the sourcing disagreement? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Clerk notes (Petextrodon)

 * , you are at your word limit. Please do not respond further unless you've trimmed some words or been granted an extension. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , you can have an additional 105 words. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This looks to me like a content dispute. I do not see any action for AE to take here, as we can't resolve those. That said, I see that this same editor has now filed another AE request below on what also appears to be a content dispute, so I think we should evaluate there whether that conduct is reaching the point of disruption. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Oz346
''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 Oz346

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 12:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Contentious topics/Sri Lanka


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


 * 1) 8 May 2024 Disruptive editing by reverting changes by another editor
 * 2) 8 May 2024 Disruptive editing by reverting changes by another editor
 * 3) 6 May 2024 Disruptive editing by POV Pushing
 * 4) 6 May 2024 Disruptive editing by POV Pushing
 * 5) 29 April 2024 Reverting citing reverts disruptive editing and vandalism


 * If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP):
 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The use has began a enagenging in WP:Disruptive editing and WP:BATTLE in the article Tamil genocide. There is an active dissucssion going on in the talk page, however Oz346 has engaged in reverting edits made by myself and another in the lead over a period of hours today without engagaging in the talk page. However he has made no objection to the changes made by Petextrodon, who has completly changed the lead without disscusing in the talk page nore as Oz346 has personaly made changes without disscussing it in the talk page himself. Cossde (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish & @Seraphimblade, it was not my intention to weaponizing AE, however if you feel my actions are such, feel free to sanction me as you see fit, as I am ready to accept responsibility for my actions.

My intentions were to bring to attention the WP:NAT based WP:POV Pushing and WP:Disruptive editing that has been conducted by these to editors on topics related to the Sri Lankan Civil War supported by a broader cohort of sympathetic supporters, who seem to come to their aid (even in this AE). It is my opinion that these two editors have been attempting to weaponizing WP as part of a broader campaign.


 * Both Oz346 and Petextrodon edit histories only show editing in Sri Lankan Civil War content and no contributions to broader topics on WP. Although Oz346 has begun contributions on a new topic line in recent weeks.
 * Both Oz346 and Petextrodon had engaged in what appears to be WP:OR in the following pages using WP:Primary sources such as advocacy groups which was advised against in RSN.
 * List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces
 * Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka
 * Sri Lankan state-sponsored colonisation schemes


 * Both Oz346 and Petextrodon, are not open for any compromise as evident in the talk pages of disputed articles refusing to acknolege WP:BURDEN and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, other editors in Talk:Tamil_genocide and . Validating my repeated calls for use of proper referencing.
 * Both Oz346 and Petextrodon had engaged in bitter WP:BATTLE on content issues on pages such as
 * 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom - Content they prevented me from adding saying "reverted disruptive edits ruining the flow of the article with unnecessary details against the advice of other editors; either discuss in the talk page or wait for requested third opinion", which was later cleared by a lengthy DRN
 * Sri Lanka Armed Forces
 * Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam


 * I agree to third party opinions and rulings (although both these editors don't seem to) i.e.. ,
 * Finally I have been subjected to multiple personal attacks, insults and been threaten  by both Oz346 and Petextrodon, over the last few months that I have not brought up in this AE, however I feel I should at this point to give proper context. Cossde (talk) 01:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Oz346
''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 Oz346
I made no objections to the changes made by Petextrodon, because they replaced non-peer reviewed sources with several reliable scholarly sources, which any neutral observer can see Does user Cossde dispute this? Does he prefer the previous lede, which he himself has been questioning? I have justified my reverts and have not broken any edit war rules, and do not intend to go anywhere near WP:3RR in respect of the contentious topics designation.

Furthermore, it is evident that Cossde did not even bother to read the JDS article, in his edit which I reverted , where he incorrectly claims that the author Ramanan Veerasingham made genocide accusations. Ramanan was merely reporting on the findings of the Permanent Peoples' Tribunal: http://www.jdslanka.org/index.php/news-features/human-rights/426-sri-lanka-guilty-of-genocide-against-tamils-with-uk-us-complicity-ppt-rules

Regarding point 3 and 4. I reverted to the status quo which had existed for months, and was the result of a long discussion a few years ago (which resulted in the various different death toll estimates being included). One of the sources that the user is questioning, ITJP was regarded as a reliable source on the RSN. How can citing that with explicit attribution be regarded as POV pushing?

In addition, Cossde's point 5, goes against the consensus established at WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/Sources, which explicitly states that these sources can be cited in Wikipedia. Yet he refuses to respect the admin led verdicts made there. This is not in keeping with Wikipedia consensus building policies. And now he accuses me of disruptive editing for following the projects' own guidance!

In addition, I believe that user Cossde has thus far escaped sanctioning because every time he gets reported, he submerges the discussions with reams and reams of text not directly related to the issues at hand. This prevents admins from properly assessing the actual individual issues (Which is understandable, as it would require a large time effort to sift through all the accusations and counter accusations, many of which are baseless, and inappropriately cite wikipedia policies). My humble request is to focus on the issues at hand and not get sidetracked. Thank you. Oz346 (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards
See no violation this is at best a content dispute which needs to be resolved elsewhere.Oz346 is dedicated contributor in the Sri Lanka area and see no reason for action.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Obi2canibe
I am glad the admins are seeing this enforcement request and the request against Petextrodon for what they are: an editor involved in a content dispute trying to remove from the picture editors with opposing views so that they can impose their own POV on the articles under dispute.

Cossde has been at war with Oz346 for a year now. Their war has dragged in Petextrodon and number of other editors and impacted on numerous articles and noticeboards. The common denominator in all the disputes is Cossde. The alphabetti spaghetti of accusations that Cossde has made against Oz346 and Petextrodon can also be leveled against Cossde.

If admins are minded to take any action in either of the requests, they need to go through Cossde's contributions over the last year. They also need to look at the enforcement taken against Cossde throughout their time on Wikipedia. Five blocks for edit warring and sock puppetry. There's a 12 year gap between the first and last blocks. This clearly shows that they are incapable of changing their behavior.

As Robert McClenon stated in the first enforcement request, an interaction ban would provide a first-mover advantage, and so may actually encourage pre-emptive biased editing. Cossde has done exactly that with the enforcement requests: minutes before submitting the first request, Cossde removed 8MB on sourced content from an article under dispute where they was ongoing discussion on the talk page. I have no doubt that Cossde would abuse an interaction ban.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Oz346

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


 * This and the report above are starting to look to me like weaponizing AE over content disputes. I've reviewed the diffs in this case, and nothing is standing out as disruptive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reviewing those diffs provided by firms up my initial impressions. There looks to be an NPOV and CIR issue., indef topic ban, or time limited? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , I'm not a fan of timed topic bans very often at all, as people just tend to run the clock out on them and go right back to the same thing afterwards. An indefinite sanction certainly need not mean "permanent", but it does require that the editor subject to it come back with an appeal that shows they did productive editing outside the topic area, and have learned some things from that which will hopefully prevent the problems from happening again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I like time and edit limited topic bans in some situations, but this doesn't seem like a circumstance that it would work. Looks like we're agreed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with SFR, and I really don't like the practice of dragging people to AE when they disagree over content. With that having happened twice in this span, I'm strongly considering some sanction on, which would probably be a topic ban from this area, but I'll give some time for them to respond if they want to. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Unnamed anon
''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 Unnamed anon

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 21:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality


 * 1) 24 July 2021 After Utada Hikaru has come out, UA changes the pronouns in the article from they/them to she/her without consensus.
 * 2) 25 October 2021 Launches a malformed RFC with an innapropriate comment on Tamzin's identity Tamzin's comments as a she/they NB supporting using Utada's last known pronouns (she/her) help break the POV mold.
 * 3) 26 October 2021 Argues they/them are "gramatically incorrect" as opposed to "real pronouns" in a discussion about Utada
 * 4) 26 October 2021 when Tamzin asks them to stop with their repeated use of gramatically incorrect/real pronouns, they apologize but this is their defense: Historically, I have not had the greatest experiences with transgender people when talking about subjects relating to being transgender, whether it be ones I've taken part in or ones I've simply observed. (Tamzin, you're actually the first one I've had a civil conversation with, or even seen for that matter, and I really do appreciate that).. The comment is edited to expanded to make it more offensive, before being toned down.
 * 5) 27 October 2021 When Tamzin leaves a kind explanatory message, they admit they occasionally resort to stereotyping when not in a good mood and apologize, saying they try and stay out of GENSEX.
 * 6) 11 November 2011 changes came out as non-binary to expressed frustration with traditional gender roles in Utada's article according to their WP:OR.
 * 7) 25 November 2021 Launches a malformed RFC on the lead of J.K. Rowling and begins to edit war with editors trying to fix it.
 * 8) 1 March 2022 Asks for page protection with a generalizing comment about nonbinary people Common target for enbies to force exclusive use of they/them into a she/they enby
 * 9) 22 March 2022 Describes being LGB as a sexual deviancy repeatedly.
 * 10) 4 July 2022 When asked for a source definitively saying a character from Stranger things isn't gay instead of "it's indeterminate", provides one saying "it's indeterminate". A user notes that on the talk page.
 * 11) 28 January 2023 misgenders a transgender character and removes relevant categories.
 * 12) 10 July 2023 launches an AFD for List of LGBT Characters in the Simpsons, having just previously edit-warred at LGBT representation in The Simpsons
 * 13) 3 May 2024 (revision deleted) they commit a BLP violation regarding kiwifarms in the MFD for WP:No queerphobia, which they participate in heavily.
 * 14) 5 May 2024 this is one instance of their repeated claim that LGBT editors can have COI's due to their identity: while it is true that often LGBT editors can escape the Conflict of Interest concerns, this seems to be an attempt at absolving the editor even when there clearly is a conflict of interest, like in this discussion (I have noticed that quite a lot of the "keep" !votes are coming from LGBT editors).
 * 15) 5 May 2024 They remove the example accepting transgender children in a slipper slope saying Anything regarding transgender youth is too controversial to be here. They continue to remove parts they disagree with and slow motion edit war with multiple other editors with many misleading or nonexistent edit summaries.
 * 16) 17 May 2024 I want to stress they argued it's too controversial to say marriage, adoption, or parenting should be restricted to heterosexual couples. is a queerphobic proposition.
 * 17) 17 May 2024 Tells me I should You should really remove the "friendly" part of your username and patronizingly tells me that he understands I feel strongly about not removing trans youth from the essay since I transitioned as a minor, but we can't shut down real debates


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


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 25 October 2021 (see the system log linked to above).


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

The user originally started by edit warring over My Hero Academia and was warned by multiple editors, which accounts for their first ~700 edits across multiple forums, noticeboards, and talk pages. I believe their contribution record, comments from others at the thread at ANI they started to complain about my behavior where they freely admit to having a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and their talk page shows they have problems with edit warring and strong feelings in general.

I believe the evidence above shows their disruption is particularly heightened in the GENSEX topic area, despite claiming to avoid it. This has been an issue for years. Their conduct at WP:No queerphobia and its associated MFD has been particularly disruptive. I made comments I regret and struck or clarified in response to their latest edits to the essay and for the record would like to apologize for my incivility towards him, but I believe he is still disruptive to the topic area (regardless of whether or not his views are queerphobic), he has a problematic tendency to group editors by LGBT status, and a TBAN may be necessary. At the minimum, a page block from WP:No queerphobes.

The other edits to media articles and their edit-warring at Reverse racism and related pages and categories? I leave those to others to interpret. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @JPxG I wanted to show it was a long-term issue and they've been warned. If an admin allows me 100-200 more words and 10 diffs I can highlight specifics of their conduct around WP:No queerphobes.
 * A taste, May 4 2024, they say it definitely shows POV pushing and editing in one's own interest that I'm sick of people saying all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists. Their incivil comments about me and queer people predated mine towards them.
 * If an IB means "UA can redefine anything in the essay they want and I can't comment" - I can't support it. If it means "they can write a counter-essay and I won't try to delete or rewrite it" - I fully support it. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Notified Unnamed anon 18 May 2024 Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Unnamed anon
''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 Unnamed anon
13-17 all relate to the same page. If you made this AE yesterday, I'd gladly be blocked from editing that specific essay if you reported me yesterday, but I had just come to an agreement with Licks-rocks, so it's up to others if they want me to no longer edit that page. I want to stress that I didn't actually agree with 16, but I was following advice from another Non-Endorser, Ficaia. 1-6 plus 8 all refer to the same page as well, and that was because Utada still used "she" pronouns in many then-current sources, before her social media outright listed she/they. I wasn't the only editor arguing this, nor was I the most prominent. That leaves five unique pages. The Simpsons AfD (12) was out of redundancy concerns, as all of the characters either had their own page already or were non-notable gag characters. The Family Guy edit (11) was because I was removing vandalism where the transphobia page was wrongly linked several times. The JK Rowling RfC (7) was because I felt that people put undue weight on recent news. For 9, at the time I didn't know people considered asexuals as LGBT (I still don't understand, but I'm no longer warring over it). I had no excuse for my phrases in 9, 3 and 4, but my views have changed in those three years. I don't group editors over their sexuality anymore unless there's a clear pattern where one side is mostly openly LGBT and the other side isn't. 10 was me seeing what I thought was original research, as I specifically remembered reading that Stranger Things interview.

As for the edit war when I started my account, that was exasperation at constantly reverting to a preferred version, in spite of multiple users agreeing that a lot of the content was wrongly removed, being considered "not warring", as well as an name-calling from the other user in said edit war, who didn't contribute to the discussion after said incivility. Once Serial Number and I directly interacted for the first time in years when he complained about me at ANI, he submitted misrepresented evidence against me; in most of the diffs in his comment where I supposedly can't listen to other users, I had come to agreements with said users soon after(example), which he conveniently left out. As JXpG suggested,

I'd like a two-way interaction ban between me and YFNS; SN54129 as well, because I can't trust that the latter will criticize me in good faith. In both of these cases, it's clear that I don't react well when somebody is being blatantly uncivil towards me, as both users have shown. My reactions are probably inappropriate, but they're not unwarranted since the other party is usually uncivil first, which is why I think my Ibans should be two-way.


 * (@Serial Number 54129): If you think calling me names isn't uncivil, I don't know what to say. While I now know that looking at my IP location prior to account creation isn't doxxing, that also felt wildly inappropriate for that discussion. I also do not appreciate the aspersions from you that every IP reverting your edits was me or that I was "bullshitting innocent admins". During the ANI thread, you told me to "Feel free to cry" and another aspersion that I "accept no responsibility", when I had literally just said "I'm not going to pretend I'm blameless" You saying "of course they're aspersions" in your reply below doubles down on why I don't trust you. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the discussion should be redirected here rather than ANI, as my grievances with one user I initially reported have seceded, while another user conduct dispute was reignited after years of inactivity because of the ANI discussion. I think the ANI discussion should close and discussion redirected here due to the user report switch. I'll also reiterate than I'm volunteering myself for two two-way interaction bans. If YFNS and SN54129 both agree with two-way interaction bans, then this case can be ended fairly easily. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by JPxG
I suppose I am involved here because I commented at the AN/I thread about these same diffs running concurrently to this AE request (Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents). I also commented at the MfD for this essay, where I said it ought to be userfied (which it apparently now has been). This AE request feels like basically the same thing as the AN/I thread, which is "one of the participants in a vicious talk page argument wants the other person gone".

The diffs in the post opening this thread go back three years, which, well -- if you have to go back three whole years to find stuff to make a case, I think the case might not be that strong. They are also presented in the worst context possible: e.g. the thing about recommending that YFNS remove "friendly" from her name was not some random remark, it was made in the context of a several-week-long discussion in which YFNS was saying stuff like "In any case, cry as much as you want" and "If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll".

It may be warranted to note that YFNS (under a previous username) was at one point subject to a WP:GENSEX topic ban at AN (Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1121), where CaptainEek's closing note was:
 * All editors inherently edit topics they find interesting. Just because an editor writes about something does not mean they have WP:ADVOCACY problem. But there is a line between the two. The commenters ultimately agreed that TheTranarchist has passed this line: she goes beyond interest into trying to mold the topic area to fit her worldview. That is incompatible with Wikipedia. She has become a WP:TENDITIOUS editor. Given all the factors discussed, there is rough consensus for an indefinite GENSEX topic ban.

Of course, as with many things related to contentious political topics, this thread was opened by a now-blocked sock, but the consensus was nonetheless pretty consistent that there was a pattern of disruption. It should also be noted in the interest of fairness that this restriction was appealed (first at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive352 and later, successfully, at Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive356, with topic-based 1RR and 0RR restrictions).

Now, while we're on the subject of "reports don't need to be made in good faith for the issues they mention to be serious and worth action" -- this may well be true here, and UA is acting pretty out-of-pocket. I think that something in the general shape of a two-way interaction ban may be appropriate here. I am not an "AE guy" so I cannot say for certain what's the most likely to actually have a meaningful positive impact.
 * Further comment (sorry if this busts me on word limit): in re "doxing" claim against Serial, see this screenshot of the menu I have on every IP talk page; the link he posted was from this; well within the bailiwick and propriety of normal editing.

Statement by Serial Number 54129
Since I have been name checked, can I ask admins to request examples of the incivility I have used against User Anon. Without diffs... well, of course they're aspersions. ——Serial Number 54129 22:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) anon|talk]]) 23:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Unnamed anon

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


 * It looks like there is already an open ANI thread about this matter, and we should generally not have multiple discussions open about the same matter in different places. Unless an uninvolved admin shortly objects, I'll close this with no action, with the option to bring it back here if the ANI thread ends without resolving the matter. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Melvintickle16
''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 Melvintickle16

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 01:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles


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


 * 1) 22:38, May 28 2024 Melvintickle16's first edit to Wikipedia, where they clearly violate ECR, NPOV and V. I reverted using Huggle while fighting vandalism.
 * 2) 22:51, May 28 2024 Mostly a repeat of the previous edit. I reverted again to enforce ECR.
 * 3) 23:02, May 28 2024 I informed them of the ARBPIA sanctions.
 * 4) 23:48, May 28 2024 May 29 2024 An hour later, they made much the same edit in two parts. This clearly violates not only ECR but also 1RR.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

None I'm aware of.


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


 * Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
 * Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by.
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Date (see the system log linked to above).
 * Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
 * Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
 * Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
 * Placed a Contentious topics/aware template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
 * Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * 01:25, May 29 2024 They have added same info to the page again, but with weaker wording. Air on White (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This case can be closed now. The last thing that needs to be done is logging enforcement. Air on White (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

01:15, 29 May 2024 I posted a message to their talkpage. Air on White (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Melvintickle16
''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 The Kip
It appears Bbb23 has already indef'd the user in question for disruptive editing, so I think this case can be archived. The  Kip  (contribs) 02:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Melvintickle16

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



Afv12e
''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 Afv12e

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 20:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 27 May 2024 Multiple issues here. Image copyright status isn't clear; immediate source appears to be this instagram post, though a link isn't specified. The content in the caption isn't sourced, failing WP:V.
 * 2) 21 May 2024 Copyright violation: the modified version of the first sentence is copied word-for-word from this source. It's also an egregious mis-use of the source, which uses that language to describe the Khilafat Movement more broadly, not the Malabar rebellion specifically. The source paints a different, and far more complex, picture of the Malabar rebellion.
 * 3) 25 May 2024 Inappropriate use of a primary source.
 * 4) 22 May 2024 The user's entire participation in this discussion demonstrates a lack of competence. They have clearly not read the article they wish to change; they have not provided sources supporting the content they wish to add; they do not understand our policies on verifiability; and they are unable or unwilling to engage constructively in the discussion.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : No previous sanctions, but a number of warnings for issues similar to the ones I have highlighted.


 * If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP):
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 11 November 2023
 * Alerted again in March 2024.

This user has, IMHO, had too much rope: despite numerous warnings, they seem unable or unwilling to learn our PAGs. I would suggest a TBAN, but a normal indefinite block would not go amiss. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * I don't wish to belabor a point, but I want to note the disingenuousness in the statement below; the image in diff 1 (now deleted) was not the one displayed here as Afv12e claims; we can no longer see it, but the instagram source is evidenced by its mention in the commons deletion log. It would not affect the copyright issue in any case. Furthermore, having spent too much time reading this user's talk page contributions of late, I cannot help but believe they have used an LLM to assist with the post below (see, for instance, how their reply misunderstands the primary source issue). Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


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

Discussion concerning Afv12e
''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 Afv12e
I apologize for the oversight regarding the image source. The image was sourced, and the copyright status is provided. I will ensure that all future images have clear and verifiable sources. The caption content was intended to summarize the image and it was taken from here ; (the caption reference, added here as the editor pointed out that i took image but to specify that i took reference for captions) however, I recognize the need for proper sourcing and will add references to support the information provided.
 * 1. Image Copyright Status (27 May 2024)

I acknowledge that the sentence was unintentionally copied. I have rewritten the sentence to better paraphrase the source. The source used describes the broader Khilafat Movement, and I have now included additional sources that specifically discuss the Malabar rebellion to support the content.
 * 2. Copyright Violation and Misuse of Source (21 May 2024)

The primary source was used to provide a firsthand account of the events. However, I understand that secondary sources are preferred. I will replace the primary source with Secondary Source to ensure better adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * 3. Inappropriate Use of Primary Source (25 May 2024)

I have actively participated in discussions, as seen in. I admit that there were misunderstandings, but I have since reviewed Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. Moving forward, I will ensure all contributions are well-sourced and properly vetted.
 * 4. Lack of Competence in Discussion (22 May 2024)

I have taken past warnings seriously and have made significant efforts to improve my editing practices. Recent contributions such as  demonstrate my commitment to following Wikipedia's guidelines and making valuable contributions.
 * 5. Previous Sanctions and Warnings

I am a relatively new user on Wikipedia, with around 300 edits and 8 months of experience. I am still learning and navigating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I appreciate the feedback and am committed to improving my contributions to the community.
 * New User Status

I am committed to learning and adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. I respectfully request the committee to consider my improvements and my genuine intent to contribute positively to the community. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Afv12e
 * @Bishonen @ScottishFinnishRadish
 * I would request to go through the talk as a whole and before this is posted here I have requested for a more balanced wordings here Afv12e (talk) 15:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Talk which I initiated and actively participated has been resolved and the request has been made finding that my concerns are valid for the article Narendra Modi here.
 * If you look the article lead of Narendra Modi there are only negative things and not even a single positive thing.
 * So i thought of discussing it in the talk page, which might have provoked non-neutral editors.
 * I request you NOT TO GIVE ME A TOPIC BAN, because if you look the talk page of article Narendra Modi, editors like @Grabup are non - neutral in the discussion which is evident from here.
 * He is not ready to check even the non reliable sources mentioned . The request has only validated by neutral editors when they noticed this and made the edit request.
 * So I request you NOT TO GIVE ME A TOPIC BAN, as i'm engaging constructively to edit these articles adhering to wikipedia policies. Afv12e (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no CIR issue here.
 * In the article Narendra Modi, it has been written in a biased way, highlighting all those negatives. I tried to add the positive side of his contribution to make the article balanced.
 * Please don't call it a CIR issue and I agree that i went wrong in the talk adding few words which are considered promotional in wikipedia.
 * i promise that i'll take care of that in future.
 * I'm a new editor with 400+ edits trying to improve a big article like Narendra Modi in wikipedia, so please pardon my faults. Afv12e (talk) 17:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Vanamonde93 I took the caption reference from the article and not the deleted pic, added here as the editor pointed out that i took image but to specify that i took reference for captions which he alleged against me. Afv12e (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by 86.23.109.101
I agree with Vanamonde93 that a topic ban or block is required here. A couple more examples of disruption from the last few days:
 * Using "This is Indian!" type talk page disruption from an IP as justification to make unsourced changes to an article. The section "Protected edit request on 23 January 2024" above on the same talk page is also worth reading.
 * Edit warring to reinsert this edit, which misrepresents the content of the cited source. The source mainly consists of interviews with a number of activists and makes the claim that , which is insufficient to support the sweeping, black and white statement added to the article.

This AN thread from a few days ago may be relevant here. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by BlackOrchidd‬

 * I think sanctions are not required this time. They have admitted their shortfalls on many occasions in their reply.
 * Also, They use talk pages often and are WP:CIVIL [can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narendra_Modi&diff=prev&oldid=1225771528].
 * AE requested for meagre Inappropriate Use of Primary Source AE request seems frivolous by an Admin.

Statement by Abhishek0831996
See Afv12e's edit warring on Malabar rebellion, especially this type of editing and edit summary. He is clearly not serious about what he is editing. This edit particularly confirms that he is editing to impose his agenda. His behavior on a recent WP:AN report was also very bad. I agree Afv12e should be topic banned or blocked. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Grabup
As far as I can see from his edits, I am convinced that he should get a topic ban. Surely, he is promoting an agenda. This Diff confirms he is pomoting an agenda. Grab Up -  Talk  07:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Here is a request made by this editor on the talk page of PM Modi. The request is entirely promotional, indicating their intention to promote Modi.
 * He requested to change from :   to  ; “highlights his humble beginnings and strong work ethic” is totally promotional.  Grab Up  -  Talk  13:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Afv12e

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


 * I'm leaning towards a topic ban for nationalistic NPOV issues. If there are no admin comments in the next day or two I'll implement that sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think such a topic ban is warranted. Not sure about the wording so I'll leave it to someone else to word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * At least a T-ban is required. The request Grabup quotes above is hair-raising. The question is whether somebody who'd post that (and post it as recently as yesterday, despite their claims above to have improved their practices) should be editing Wikipedia at all. So I'd also be fine with an indefinite block per Vanamonde. Bishonen &#124; tålk 14:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC).
 * I'm actually wondering if there is a CIR issue here, because they're still pushing their promotional language on the Modi article even with this report open and multiple people telling them why they can't do this . Black Kite (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As Afv12e points out, their clock was IMO correct at least once today. But I'm not going to object to a tban.
 * , you're editing in an area that requires some experience, which you haven't got, and it really does feel as if you've got a POV that you're not showing the capacity to set aside. If you won't voluntarily go edit other subjects until you learn your way around Wikipedia, and if you can't be objective, a topic ban is how we prevent ongoing disruption while still allowing you to contribute in other topics while you learn. Valereee (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

BlackOrchidd
''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 BlackOrchidd

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 06:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPAK


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


 * 1) 5 April 2024 - posted a frivolous warning on my talkpage for this accurately described edit.
 * 2) 11 April 2024‎ - Falsified sources by treating prosecutors' statements as facts
 * 3) 28 April 2024 - edit warring to replace a proper section title with a misleading section title
 * 4) 20 May 2024 - Removes entire critical edit, which cited 1 English and 1 non-English WP:RS, by falsely claiming that only English sources are preferred.
 * 5) 27 May 2024 - Re-added his already reverted edit by falsifying the talk page discussion that was completely against this edit.
 * 6) 28 May 2024 - Wants people to discuss outright unreliable sources on WP:RSN. See WP:CIR.
 * 7) 28 May 2024 - Disparaging the above report as "frivolous" to the extent that he went ahead to make a specific edit to disparage the report in the edit summary as well. See WP:BATTLE.

His talk page is full of recent warnings for his misconduct. Capitals00 (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


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


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning BlackOrchidd
''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 BlackOrchidd
Dear ArbComs


 * I am writing to bring to your kind attention and a serious concern regarding the Narendra Modi page. It appears that and  are engaged in an apperant coordinated effort to block/censor me and  from contributing to this page.

Context
 * I urge you to review the page's archives, where you will find a "truckload" of different users and IP addresses who have engaged in countless discussions, providing various arguments and reasoning in an attempt to make this page more neutral [Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narendra_Modi/Archive_19#Bias_in_the_introduction].
 * Narendra Modi : Narendra Modi is a highly popular figure and the Prime Minister of India who is predicted to win a third term on June 04th 2024.
 * Wikipedia’s Bias: There is a perception of bias in the wikipedia platform, against the current ruling political party and the current Prime Minister of India Mr. Narendra Modi.
 * Donation appeal by Wikipedia : frequently make appeals for donations in the Indian subcontinent. The Indian population, particularly the Hindu majority, is dissatisfied with this lack of neutrality on Wikipedia and its anti Hindu bias. As a popular X(Formerly Twitter) user, I am aware that there are  calls on the social media for the biasedness of wikipedia and boycott calls [ https://theprint.in/india/biased-anti-hindu-campaign-begins-against-wikipedia-after-it-urges-indians-to-donate/472980/]  of donation appeals of Jimbo Wales. There is a significant risks of  potential financial implication in particularly India if these boycott calls and hashtag trends grow to significant size.


 * and misusing their privileges to maintain a biased perspective.  has a history of preventing the Narendra Modi page from becoming neutral. They actively obstruct efforts to add positive content and suppress alternative viewpoints, creating a skewed representation of the topic. This abuse of power is unacceptable and detrimental to the integrity of Wikipedia and its WP:PURPOSE.
 * First and foremost, esteemed members of the Arbitration Committee, please accept my sincere apologies for bringing this matter to your attention through this channel. However, I earnestly hope you will recognize the gravity of this situation. This ongoing issue has frustrated many users, editors and potential donors, and it is crucial to address the bias that is currently prevalent on the Narendra Modi page. I request your immediate intervention.

Statement by Grabup
I warned him not to add unreliable sources to a BLP, which appeared to be a blog site and not reliable. I also warned him not to add any type of analytics data or earnings from Socialblade. His response was not to acknowledge his mistake; instead, he said to discuss the reliability at RS.

He has been warned many times for his edits. On one occasion, he was questioned by Admin BlackKite. In an edit summary, he said, “To maintain a neutral point of view (NPOV), we're adjusting this article.” Where he like of misbehaved with him.

He removed well-sourced material because it told the truth about Modi, providing a poor edit summary that said Hindi sources should not be used if English sources are available. I reverted that edit and said that English sources should be cited if available, but Hindi sources can also be used. Later, he had to add that portion back.

I think there is a full team behind this account or accounts. Their edits are not about improving Wikipedia at all; rather, they are promoting an agenda of PM Modi. Grab Up -  Talk  08:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite
I'll put myself in this section as I've had a lot of interactions with them. As you can see from the history of Talk:Narendra Modi, especially Archive 21, BlackOrchidd believes that Modi's article does not contain as much positive information about him as it should do, and has repeatedly attempted to insert material that is WP:SYNTH, WP:OR or based on unreliable sources. They do not appear to understand why they cannot insert this information even when it is explained to them in detail, which is an issue of WP:CIR. I am also suspicious (as was mentioned above by Grabup) that this is an account operated by a group to "improve" Modi's article during an election. It would certainly be logical to apply a topic ban here, even if it is a time-limited one until after election - though I suspect a that time they would no longer be interested in it. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde
In addition to the above concerns, I would note the issues with NPOV here, where they user sources discussing what officials said and present those statements as fact in Wikipedia's voice with no attribution. This is an easy error for a new user to make, but the need for attribution has been explained to them multiple times at Talk:Narendra Modi. And speaking of frivolous warnings, there was this bizarre message to me a little while ago. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning BlackOrchidd

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


 * Same as above, I'm leaning towards a topic ban for nationalistic NPOV issues. If there are no admin comments in the next day or two I'll implement that sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * BlackOrchidd's response does not address any of the diffs, and the comments about potential effects on donations are highly inappropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a topic ban from the entire IPA area. I don't think they are capable of constructively editing in the area and it appears that they have a considerable CIR problem. I don't think they will understand what is meant by nationalistic NPOV issues. Doug Weller  talk 16:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 * BlackOrchidd's inappropriate use of Wikipedia's voice to praise Modi, per examples given by Vanamonde, is textbook tendentious editing with CIR issues mixed in. They're unwilling or unable to learn from advice and explanations, so I support a topic ban from the IPA area. Absolutely not a time-limited ban! Instead, let them appeal it after six months of constructive editing in other areas. The comments about donations are... are... well, they're amazing. That they put such comments in this kind of discussion speaks volumes. Bishonen &#124; tålk 11:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC).

AtikaAtikawa
''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 AtikaAtikawa

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, WP:ECR

Background evidence: 18 May 2024 AtikaAtikawa knows how to post an edit request
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :

Various comments on Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war (permalink)
 * 1) 16:29, 22 May 2024 Left prior to being notified about the extended-confirmed restriction at 16:36, 22 May 2024
 * 2) 17:29, 22 May 2024 Continues to comment after being notified saying "sadly I can't talk there", but he can not talk on the concerned page either
 * 3) 23 May 2024 Not an edit request
 * 4) 23 May 2024 Not an edit request

Creation of Israel–Palestine conflict userboxes
 * 1) 23 May 2024 Creates "From the river to the sea!" userbox
 * 2) 23 May 2024 Creates a repugnant userbox equating violent acts against Israel and Israeli population which includes atrocities against the Israeli population to a law of nature (action and reaction), thereby excusing even atrocities as natural, necessary and just
 * 3) 23 May 2024 Creates a polemical text as an apologia for violence including atrocities against civilians to prop up the repugnant userbox

Polemicizing in MfDs for the aforementioned userboxes:
 * 1) 25 May 2024 Polemical comment
 * 2) 25 May 2024 Polemical comment
 * 3) 25 May 2024 Polemical comment with a dose of wikilawyering
 * 4) 25 May 2024 Further comment
 * 5) 25 May 2024 Further comment


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP):
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, at 16:36, 22 May 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
 * Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic: 17:29, 22 May 2024

The editor has eight mainspace edits. All of their mainspace edits have been made between January and September 2020. The editor has 177 total edits, of which 31.1% have been deleted. 69.7% of their live edits have been to userspace. The user is generally inactive as an editor of Wikipedia, but has increased activity probably due to interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict, but instead of resuming normal editorial activity, which would mean making edit requests for a while, the activity has been predominantly polemical. Therefore, seeing all of this user's edits in total, the user is WP:NOTHERE.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


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

Discussion concerning AtikaAtikawa
''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 AtikaAtikawa
As for the comments on Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war. I acknowledge that I failed at understanding ECR limitations when I made them; A rookie mistake that stems from the fact that I just started having interest in editing Wikipedia, and I'm still familiarising myself with the rules. In fact I was warned and I did obey. Briefly, I acknowledge my mistake here.

As for the userboxes. I hope that you take into consideration my arguments in their MfD entries. Basically, I think that Alalch E. is assuming bad faith since he is accusing me of endorsing violence and deeming atrocities as just with no basis, and I think that I actually clarified that through the documentation that the filer deemed as "apologia for violence including atrocities against civilians" when it is just a statement of a viewpoint, that is against violence from both sides.

As for the polemical comments. They were basically just answers to comments that were polemical themselves rather than referring clearly to policies that I did break. I totally understands that two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm really open to advices that concern how could I have handled this better.

As stated above, I'm well aware that I'm unexperienced, and I hope that my niche interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict will not be somehow held against me, rather I hope for whatever answer I'll get to this to contain referrals to the rules I broke in order to be mindful to them from now on.

I acknowledge that my behaviour was suboptimal, and I acknowledge that it did stem from a potential lack of understanding the rules from my part, and I welcome any decision that comes from your part with the hope that it will serve the noble goal of making me a better editor with a better service to the encyclopedia rather than punishment just for the sake of it. — Yours Truly, <span style="font-family:Monospace;border-width:2px;border-style:solid;color:#000;background-color:#fff;padding:2px 5px">⚑ AtikaAtikawa  15:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier
Technical picky point, defendant is non EC and not permitted to make statements here (or anywhere, really). An admin could/should deal with this? Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)


 * By the power invested in me as an editor (or admin, if you insist), IAR :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by The Kip
Seconding Selfstudier here - the defendant is several hundred edits short of XC status anyways, so this should be a fairly textbook warning (or TBAN) for violating the ARBPIA XC restriction rather than a drawn-out AE case. The  Kip  (contribs) 16:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Vice regent
can you remove this inflammatory comment? There are AGF interpretations of AtikaAtikawa's userbox, and these were given by Robert McClenon and Chaotic Enby. themself wrote that the userbox doesn't support political violence, yet you still throw words like "pro-terrorism" around, and that raises the temperature.VR (Please ping on reply) 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning AtikaAtikawa

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


 * Blocked one week for ECR violations. Didn't go with a topic ban because they're already prohibited from editing about the topic except for making constructive edit requests on article talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User has managed to land themselves at AE at 183 edits, ~170 which have no effect on mainspace (and of those remaining 13, most are from 2020). That rings some WP:NOTHERE alarm bells for me... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I just went with my standard block for ECR violations. I have no objection to further sanctions, or just letting it ride and seeing if their behavior improves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

LokiTheLiar
''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 LokiTheLiar

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 08:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality


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

, violating WP:CANVASS. They were aware of this issue, and the RfC that this is a repeat of raised the same issue, but they rejected it and decided to issue the notification anyway.

That this is canvassing can be seen in the evidence below, which analyses three recent RfC's held at the Village Pump and proves that the WikiProject is non-representative on this topic, with a collective opinion that deviates by a significant margin from that of the broader community. These WP:ARBCOM principles are also relevant (emphasis mine):
 * Participation:
 * Canvassing:

Note that this only applies to transgender topics. As far as I know the Wikiproject is not partisan on other topics within its area of interest and thus there are no issues with notifying them on those topics.


 * "Members" are determined by either being listed on the member list or having made five or more edits to the talk page
 * For multi-choice RfC's, editors who voted equally for multiple options were placed in both categories. Editors who voted "No" were placed in "No change".

Other issues related to this RfC including misrepresenting sources; they have that the Telegraph promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school - but none of the articles they provide in support of this claim promotes it, and one of them actually states such claims are a hoax.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP):
 * Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive323.

There was a consensus in that discussion that notifying Wikiprojects is almost never canvassing; given the number of editors who qualified their comments there wasn’t a consensus that it never is.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Further, this is a contentious topic; editors should stay well clear of violating policy, and notifying a fora that is known to be partisan isn’t doing that, regardless of what you believe consensus at an informal and non-specific discussion says. 12:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * APPNOTE is clear that it doesn't create an exception to INAPPNOTE; Do not send inappropriate notices, as defined in the section directly below BilledMammal (talk) 12:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Our article on the hoax is about literal litterboxes, and at no point in your !vote do you suggest - even with the close reading Colin suggests - that you are talking about anything other than literal litterboxes.
 * I haven’t read the DRV, but I haven't seen the consensus upheld even once in the past month; the VPP per above, while the rest the question was only considered by a couple of editors - and as a general note, why would you want to notify a partisan forum? (And FYI, you mischaracterise FFF’s post) BilledMammal (talk) 22:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * What part of In one case, it promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school every day for a week, and even when the hoax was proven false they didn't retract or correct any of it is them not saying that the telegraph was promoting the litter box in school hoax - a hoax that, I shouldn't need to state, involves litter boxes in schools? Even interpreting it more broadly, on the basis of a couple of examples in the article, to include any hoax related to claimed accommodations for otherkin, doesn't make Loki's claim any more truthful - none of the sources they provided claim any accommodations.
 * Since I'm commenting, as a general note - editors at the village pump discussion are now saying that this is the correct place to take concerns, when supported by evidence, that notifying a specific WikiProject is a WP:CANVASS violation. BilledMammal (talk) 08:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning LokiTheLiar
''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 LokiTheLiar
I anticipated that this user would make a tendentious report like this based on comments made on previous discussions, which is why I asked the village pump about this situation before I did it.

In short, there is a strong and recent community consensus that notifying all relevant Wikiprojects is not WP:CANVASSING. And I would like to point out to any admins evaluating here that BilledMammal must know this because they participated in the thread. Loki (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If NYB needs it to be satisfied, my response is per Colin: despite the title, a literal litter box is not really the subject of the litter boxes in schools hoax. The actual claim at issue is students identifying at animals with school support, all of which are met by the articles I linked. We even have examples in the article itself with no literal litter box alleged. Loki (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't deny I'm very sympathetic to YFNS's argument for a WP:BOOMERANG. I think that pursuing this argument at WP:AE days after it was rejected at the village pump is clearly tendentious, and I also think that BM is not going to stop trying to bring people to drama boards for this, some possibly not as well prepared for it. Loki (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

A statement by starship.paint
I'm really not sure about this. Is it a surprise that WP:LGBT would be partisan on LGBT issues? No. But is the topic of the coverage of trans issues by the Telegraph related to WP:LGBT? Definitely yes?  starship .paint  (RUN) 09:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier
Echoing starship.paint. In AI area, we routinely post to 3 projects, one each on either side and the other theoretically neutral. Here there is no other "side" so presumably editors with an interest in the subject matter camp out at the given project and then we are led to believe there is evidence that this forum is "partisan". Not convinced that this is a sufficient reason to invoke canvassing, though, it's not as if it isn't being done in plain sight and projects are seemingly a natural place to advertise a discussion. Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath
This is a particularly frivolous report that has been brought. Per WP:APPNOTE: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: This should be closed with no action. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 12:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion.


 * @BilledMammal, it is clear that the behavioural guideline says one or more WikiProjects. If you contend that the posting was inappropriate per WP:INAPPNOTE then you need to bring specific evidence beyond them posting to only one WikiProjects which is clearly allowed per WP:APPNOTE. The implicit contention of your whole argument is that WikiProject LGBT studies would only have editors of one side and none other. I find your argument extremely lacking. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 13:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Colin
Suggest trout for BilledMammal. Wrt "Other issues related to this RfC including misrepresenting sources; they have claimed that the Telegraph promoted the litter boxes in schools hoax about a British school - but none of the articles they provide in support of this claim makes it, and one of them actually states such claims are a hoax.". But reading the opening paragraph makes it clear to any careful reader that Loki is complaining the Telegraph reported that the school let a child identify as a cat, not that they provided litter trays. Loki goes onto say this is an example of "this general style of dubious claim in right wing media" which is discussed at our article on the litter tray hoax. The specifics of this one UK example doesn't include litter trays, but it contains all the other elements including continued coverage of the story after debunking. I admit that in my comments later in the RFC, I referred to it as "the cat litter story", which was my own carelessness. So what Loki claimed is directly supported by the sources (heading: "School that allowed child to identify as cat faces government investigation", "School engulfed in ‘cat gender’ row turns to parents for views on self-identity", "Schools let children identify as horses, dinosaurs... and a moon", etc) One can debate how closely this tracks the cat litter hoax or not, but I don't think Loki misrepresented the source. Multiple other sources have criticised the Telegraph story as an example of something too good to check and patently false so on. So this isn't something Loki just invented themselves. -- Colin°Talk 13:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful for Loki and BilledMammal to argue about the focus/content of our Litter boxes in schools hoax article. The point is that a close reading of Loki's post at the RFC does not in fact say the Telegraph article was about litter boxes, vs about children identifying (and being allowed to) as cats in schools. Which is patent nonsense. Anyone is allowed to make a mistake, but when claiming someone else is egregiously wrong as part of a sanctions request, being told that in fact this mistake is on you demands retraction and perhaps recognition that one is overcooking things. -- Colin°Talk 07:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Crap. I was referring to this RSN discussion where Loki wrote what I said he did and in which I participated. Seems there's now a second discussion on the very same page about the same thing. WTF Loki, what a mess. Didn't you RTM about not polling unless there was a clear consensus for your proposal? It was already an uphill battle to convince anyone to deprecate the Telegraph on this matter without you opening with careless comments about the cat litter story and then essentially saying that because they don't accept trans women are women, or have been interviewing The Wrong People, the are actually unreliable vs just believe different things to you. BilledMammal apologies about this. I think part of your latest post here is still wrong, but this isn't the forum to discuss that. Overall, though, I think BilledMammal should withdraw this. Being Wrong on the Internet isn't a crime and hasn't helped Loki's RFC. The notification thing clearly isn't something you've persuaded people here about, so likely is an area that needs some work elsewhere, where it isn't focussing on an individual. Since the RFC is a spectacular failure anyway, couldn't you just have got some popcorn? -- Colin°Talk 12:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by -sche
Suggest trout for BilledMammal per Colin and TarnishedPath; notifying relevant wikiprojects (Loki notified the journalism, LGBT and UK projects and the NEWS page) is well- and long-established as fine, and (as pointed out above) was just recently affirmed. That BilledMammal presented his argument so recently in the VPP and consensus was clearly that notifying relevant projects is appropriate makes this filing look...tendentious; I don't know if it's forum-shopping per se, but it comes across as WP:IDHT-y. &#45;sche (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on the additional context YFNS provided, which I was not aware of, BM's filing looks an awful lot like forum-shopping. I admit to not recalling what the differences in implication between a warning and a trout are (they're both basically telling the user 'you shouldn't've done that', yes? but a trout is friendlier?); may someone apply whichever they deem more appropriate. &#45;sche (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist
BM should recieve a warning, not just a trout, for wasting the community's time for a month over this issue and this ridiculous filing based on WP:IDHT. Some context:
 * April 30 - May 1: BM argues that notifying WT:LGBT of a deletion discussion for WP:No queerphobes is canvassing. It is closed as a keep.
 * May 8: An editor takes the discussion to DRV, arguing it was canvassing - nobody endorses this
 * May 8: FFF tells BM this is not canvassing
 * May 26: BM tries to relitigate "notifying WT:LGBT of LGBT discussions is canvassing" at an RSN discussion. I hat the discussion noting the MFD, DRV, and discussions upholding this consensus from a decade ago.
 * May 26: BM asks me to unhat, I politely decline but say others can unhat, reiterating this is attempting to relitigate a decade old consensus and referring to the MFD and DRV
 * May 27: Loki launches the aforementioned VP discussion on the issue, where there's an overwhelming consensus it is not canvassing. BM participates in the thread
 * June 3, here we are....

BM is attempting to sanction an editor for upholding a consensus that BM is not only aware has existed for a decade, but has been re-affirmed 3 times in the last month. WP:TE and WP:IDHT are obvious. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Addressing BM's comment: I haven’t read the DRV but I haven't seen the consensus upheld even once in the past month - WP:IDHT even at AE, with threads and diffs linked (which also link to discussions from a decade ago).
 * Addressing the question bordering on a personal attack: and as a general note, why would you want to notify a partisan forum? - for the love of god will an uninvolved admin warn them about this continued WP:BATTLEGROUND claim and tell them to WP:DROPTHESTICK on it?
 * Btw, BM, as a sociologist - a friendly note your methodology behind the "evidence" of "partisanship" is self-evidently flawed: you never polled the oppose votes to ask if they were notified via WT:LGBT... Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning LokiTheLiar

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


 * I see a good-faith effort to comply with the canvassing policy, and would find no misconduct with respect to that issue. I ask Loki to respond briefly to the "misrepresenting sources" allegation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The community has found time after time that these notifications are fine when made with a neutral statement. If NYB hadn't already responded I would have just closed this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Close with no action against LokiTheLiar. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Similar to, I'm not seeing any misconduct in the notification. I don't think LokiTheLiar's actions warrant sanctions based on the complaint. That said, there's a secondary question of whether WP:LGBT is actually biased in a way that violates Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I remember conduct issues with ARS, roads, and weather WikiProjects, so it's possible. Only Arbcom is really qualified to investigate that, and I'd note that it would take a lot more evidence than what was presented here. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 02:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld
''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 Dustfreeworld

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 19:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBCAM and WP:ARBPS


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


 * 1) 5 June 2024&mdash;WP:PROFRINGE whitewashing
 * 2) 5 June 2024&mdash;tag bombing
 * 3) Almost all their edits at Reiki 4 June 2024&mdash;tag bombing


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


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


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 30 May 2024 (see the system log linked to above).


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * “Unambiguous exposés of quackery will inevitably appear rude to some people and hurt some feelings. This is a fact of adult life.” Quoted from PMID: 15208545. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You cry consensus too many times, like the boy who cried wolf. I don't think you got a consensus, either at NPOVN, or at the article talk page. E.g. two of your edit summaries at Talk:Reiki claim consensus. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ignorant appears twice at the definition at . tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you had consensus around 18:00 UTC, today, since at 17:13 UTC strongly disagreed with you at NPOVN. tgeorgescu (talk)  20:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * pointless tautology does not mean that the claim would be false (being a tautology means it's always true, regardless of circumstances). must be cited to a source that says its practice has been characterized as quackery, not just sources that call it quackery does not mean it should not be called quackery, it just means rejecting the words "characterized as quackery". The lead should be a summary of the body of the article, and there is nothing about such aspects in the article. means what it literally means. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I warned them about contentious topics because they have tag-bombed Detoxification (alternative medicine). tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right: I tried to approach this diplomatically by giving them an awareness notification for controversial topics, followed by hints that what they do is not commendable. But this all was more or less guessiology on my behalf, till they replied here: they are still unaware they are doing something not commendable, and that is a WP:CIR issue in respect to alt-med articles. That is, if their intentions were unclear to us beforehand, now it is perfectly clear where they are coming from. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * About "granting your consensus": it's a mystery to me how you can read all what I wrote here, but still have no WP:CLUE what I've meant. The same applies to WP:RULES: you appear to have read all the applying WP:RULES, but you still have no idea what their purpose is. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The truth is that if you did not double down on your claims at this venue, the end result would have been leaving you largely unscathed (as an editor). But you show a conspicuous lack of awareness that your edits are seen as problematic. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the best strategy in a dispute is admit you were wrong, accept your defeat, and back off from the dispute. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 5 June 2024

Discussion concerning Dustfreeworld
''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 Dustfreeworld
For pt 1, the 1st diff, my paraphrased ES: "Remove poorly sourced material (contentious labels) that may damage the reputation of Reiki practitioners / participants, per WP:PROVEIT: “”" All contentious labels I removed were supported by non-MEDRS sources (>10 years or opinion pieces / blog posts of maybe COI authors (e.g., David of SBM).

For pt 2, the 2nd diff, my ES (tag subpar sources per policies, consensus, & potential derogatory claims from maybe COI of SBM): "*" FYI, it’s made before the one above, i.e. I tagged before I removed (not needed per WP:PROVEIT, a section of WP:V; I tagged first just for transparency).

For pt 3, all edits on 4/6 were reverted, & my response (another ES, prior to the above 2) to “overtag” (“overtag” because many dated sources, & switched to section tag from inline tag): "*"

My edits’re *not* “pro fringe whitewash” as the OP claimed, (& I've never tried Reiki, not a proponent, & don’t have any RL association with it). Edits are based on consensus on NPOVN: And our WP:V policy (WP:PROVEIT), WP:V, WP:V & WP:BESTSOURCES (in WP:NPOV; as opposed to poor sources). (Article’s talk page: . Further, this is the main reason for my edits. Reiki is a relatively safe practice of which the practitioners haven't claimed their practice as "scientific". We shouldn’t state potentially false claims from advocates, against them in Wikivoice). The OP's claim is untrue. Thx. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Special:Diff/1227423119


 * @Tgeorgescu, there’re words like fraud, fraudulent (twice), pretender & pretends in "quackery". Further, what I’m talking about is, the views, feelings, & their definition of "quackery", of a Reiki practitioner (who is alleged as a pseudoscience/quackery practitioner by us) & his/her children, & the classmates ; & also those who receive Reiki . Thx -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu, if you think that 5 editors at NPOVN together with at least 2-4 more on article’s talk with similar opinion don’t constitute consensus, I don’t know what to say. Thx again. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * But I’m glad that you agree with me that there’s at NPOVN before 17:13 UTC 5 June. -- Dustfreeworld  (talk) 02:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Most reliable source described Reiki as “complementary”, e.g., &,
 * Vic.gov.au
 * ”.. ” ... “Reiki is a complementary therapy. In Australia, .. to support the relief of side effects, reduce pain and promote wellness.”
 * I can't find any high-quality source that describes Reiki as “quackery”.
 * I don’t think tagging elderly sources, contentious label (Per our MOS, Words to watch: cult, racist, pseudo- ...),etc. is “tag bombing” as the OP said. -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu; I know practitioners may be quackery, & we can include that info with high-quality sources. What we shouldn’t do is, claiming that all of them, the whole thing, are quackery, in wikivoice. Thx. -- Dustfreeworld  (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Full version -- Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by MrOllie
Dustfreeworld's own statements in response to this report are plenty to demonstrate the problem here. The ideas expressed above include: that Wikipedia cannot acknowledge that Reiki is pseudoscience and quackery for fear of damaging the reputation of Reiki practitioners, and that a surgical oncologist has a conflict of interest on the subject by virtue of their profession. This shows a lack of competence to edit in this topic area. I would suggest a topic ban from altmed, broadly construed. - MrOllie (talk) 21:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Statement by AndyTheGrump
Given the attempt by Dustfreeworld at WP:NPOVN to argue in favour of parity between knowledge and ignorance on the basis that doing otherwise might upset someone's feelings, I'd have to suggest that the scope of the obviously necessary topic ban needs to be broad. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Dustfreeworld

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


 * Looking at the discussion at NPOVN, the edits made by Dustfreeworld do not match any consensus I see there. It's so far off from the thrust of that discussion that is either deliberate misrepresentation or a CIR issue. I'm leaning towards a topic ban, although I'd have to see how widespread the issues are before deciding on scope. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * We may argue about the need to use the word "quackery" here. But Dustfreeworld has been removed the word "pseudoscience/pseudoscientific" as well, about which there is absolutely no debate amongst reality-based sources.  Whitewashing useless "medical remedies" is simply doing a dis-service to readers; indeed I'd go as far as to say that it's bordering on vandalism.  I would look at a full, and indefinite, topic ban on all medical topics, whether they are scientific or not. Black Kite (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)