Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section: Request a new arbitration case Request clarification or amendment of an existing case This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case Arbitrator motions Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles

Initiated by Shrike at 17:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABishonen&type=revision&diff=1077308493&oldid=1077292824

Statement by Shrike

This regarding following from WP:PIA

Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the methods noted in paragraph b). This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc

Recently IP added a statement in ARBPIA thread at WP:AE [1] I have removed as it not article talk page but as its one of the "internal project discussions" the post was restored by Bishonen[2] with edit summary "IPs don't get to *file* requests, but are welcome to comment. Please see the big pink template at the top of the page" I ask to clarify does IP comments are allowed in ARBPIA WP:AE/WP:ANI/WP:AN threads if yes wording should be changing accordingly if no then it should be clarified at WP:AE page Note:I have discussed the matter with the Admin but we didn't came to agreement User_talk:Bishonen#You_restore_at_WP:AE

@Worm That Turned: The rule was made to block socking, IPs and new users have nothing to do there, except if case is filed against them, so such users that want to comment there are probably returning users the shouldn't comment for example the IP first edits is some internal wiki proposal that is a low chance that not experienced user will come there [3],[4] anyhow, in the end, I want some consistency right now comment by non-ECP user was removed[5] while comment by IP was restored [6] --Shrike (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I must say I totally agree with Wugapodes also I doesn't put any additional strain on AE admins as with articles the removing of such comments is usually done by regular users Shrike (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Bishonen But that what happens in article space almost every time non-ecp user make edit, user from other camp are removing it citing WP:ARBPIA. That the usual practice. Shrike (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 What about ANI/AN,for example at RSN in various RFCs the users are doing the clerking and removing non-ECP comments and I think personally its the best way per WP:NOTBURO if there are some dispute that can be always brought to uninvolved admin or at WP:AE Shrike (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

Please see [7]. Bishonen | tålk 17:49, 15 March 2022 (UTC).

• Adding: Arbcom "owns" AE but traditionally takes little interest in it. Not sure if anybody is interested in a trip down memory lane, but it was in fact me that agitated for disallowing non-autoconfirmed users from posting requests at AE, back in 2015, and me that added the wording about it to the pink template.[8] You can see me pushing for it and nearly giving up in the face of lack of Arbcom interest, here, but in the end, they allowed it. Before 2015, it had been quite a problem, with disruptive requests repeatedly opened by socks and dynamic IPs, which wasted some admin time and also — a much bigger problem — forced the unfortunate targets of these usually bad-faith reports to repeatedly defend themselves. That was my focus at the time, and it seemed easier to get Arbcom to allow the smaller restriction, only against opening reports, while still welcoming everybody to post. If the current committee (which seems more interested! good!) wants to enlarge the restriction, I've no objection. But for myself, I agree with Worm's and Zero's comments that AE admins should have discretion here, since they run AE anyway.

• As for Shrike's removal, it seems a bad idea to me that an editor who has already posted an opposite viewpoint,[9][10][11][12] and has skin in the game, should remove an IP post (twice, yet). Even if it's the right action, it's the wrong user. If this ends with IPs and noobs being generally disallowed, perhaps something about involved users leaving them alone should still be part of it. Bishonen | tålk 08:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC).

• @Shrike: That's the usual practice in PIA? That's a bad thing. Bishonen | tålk 09:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC).

Statement by Zero

I think that the ARBPIA restrictions clearly say that an IP should not post at AE, and the apparent contradiction at the head of that page is only because it wasn't updated when the ARBPIA restriction was brought in.

However, unlike most noticeboards, AE is tightly controlled by the admins who adjudicate cases and it makes sense to allow them some discretion. So it would go like this: IP posts, someone complains, admins choose to delete the IP's post or allow it to stay. Zero^talk 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: You make good points. Maybe it can be written that admins can allow non-ecs to contribute at their discretion, but that explicit permission is needed. Zero^talk 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Isn't the entire purpose of the Edit Confirmed thing to not have to deal with socks and new users in the topic area? If you have an opinion on an AE situation, you should really already be EC, otherwise how are you involved in the topic area? The situations where someone who is not EC will have a reason to take someone to AE over IP stuff is vanishingly small, and if someone's behavior towards an IP non-disruptively making suggestions at an article talk page is disruptive enough to need AE, then I'm pretty sure that someone will bring the case here.

Here are the edits that were removed, and restored recently: [13] Sectarian blame game bullshit, great. And then [14] Oh good, a bunch of sophistry.

This is exactly the reason that EC exists, to stop this kind of non-constructive commentary from editors with essentially no on-wiki identity. There are plenty of established editors in the topic area that can take part and argue about it without allowing anonymous people who can't even edit the articles target other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

While I don't edit in this topic area, I am familiar with other aspects including IP editors who are emboldened by anonymity. I appreciate what Bishonen made happen relative to IPs, but it doesn't completely eliminate an IP from having a voice...and a very powerful one if they can get an admin to file a case for them as we've experienced in the recent past. I doubt an IP could acquire such help if their position didn't align with WP's systemic biases or pose a threat to an ally; therefore, without closer scrutiny and the right kind of restrictions, we are leaving the door open to WP:POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise, and that's not much of a remedy. We typically welcome IP editing, especially wikignoming and other drive-by edits that improve articles, but we cannot ignore the vast majority of problems associated with IP SPAs, socks and/or meatpuppets. AGF looks great on paper but in practice maybe not so much. In the past, I have suggested some form of admin rotation in controversial topic areas so the same few admins aren't forced to carry all the weight in controversial topic areas, especially those areas subject to DS/AE, but what benefits do we derive by giving random IPs the same access and level of trust to comment in important venues that could negatively affect veteran editors? While we can do our best to AGF, in reality, trust is earned, not deserved. Atsme 💬 📧 15:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by AE regular, Dennis Brown

I've become quite the regular at AE, although more of a sense of duty, rather than desire, and I've always operated under the assumption that IPs can not file. In fact, I've seen people file on behalf of an IP, which is ok in my book, as they take responsibility for it not being trivial. But at the same time, I've always thought IPs could comment along with the other editors, and over the years, I've found that IPs are more or less as on topic as registered users. Probably less problems, actually, as only the most experienced IPs can find the place. If I'm wrong, I will adapt, but honestly, I don't have any problem with IPs commenting in the "other" section, as long as they are not initiating cases. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier

For the rest of the places where "formal discussions" may be said to take place, I agree that non-ecps should not participate. At AE, where there is less of a free form discussion and a stricter process, then the admins there should be able to decide that. Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I don't claim to be an expert on PIA remedies. However, my reading of the extended confirmed restriction which includes PIA says IPs cannot comment at AE. However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. (emphasis added) AE is by my reading a noticeboard and regardless feels like an internal project discussion. So while IPs can normally participate at AE, I think ECP prevents that in the case of remedies, including PIA, which have ECR. But I look forward to seeing what other arbs say. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with barkeep49's interpretation. But if this causes problems for AE I'm open to some kind of change. The status quo is that AE is an internal project discussion for ECR proposes. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Concur with Barkeep49 and L235. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• We've got a problem here though - because Bishonen is also right that the big template at the top of the AE page is pretty clear that ALL users can comment. It's even juxtaposed with a statement that IP editors cannot file. In other words, we've got two conflicting guidelines. It's tempting to accept ECR, because that was more recently put in place, but I fall on the other side, that we should focus on AE. I don't want to make the process even more onerous for the admins who take the time to actually work in that area - they already have enough rules to remember, but saying they should monitor the topic that IPs are commenting on for a minor note about whether they can comment seems over the top. Secondly AE is an enforcement board, and therefore one of the areas that we sometimes historically except restrictions, per WP:BANEX, I'd like to push that way as a general principle. Finally, there is the wiki philosophy of doing the right thing, thinking about the outcomes, thinking about levels of disruption, thinking about net benefit - I trust our admins to monitor the board and will back them up on what they do, I'd rather they weren't hampered by the rules, when trying to do the right thing. Worm^TT(talk) 09:52, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Zero0000's workflow makes sense to me. @Shrike I understand the purpose behind it, but blanket bans and removal without consideration doesn't sit well with me. Worm^TT(talk) 13:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I agree the wording at AE should be correct, no matter what we decide here. That said, extended confirmed areas, including this one, have often been plagued with new editors who are disruptive at AE, including filing retaliatory/battleground reports. ArbComs of days gone past did not land on the noticeboard wording by accident. I'm pretty reluctant to backtrack on that in topic areas admins have repeatedly told us are the hardest to patrol and which many will not work in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  If that's what the AE admins want, I'm all for it. I'd like to defer to their discretion as a whole. Worm^TT(talk) 14:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I appreciate the comments on this topic. I believe I now sit at the same point as Wugapodes' final paragraph - that we should update the text as he suggests and that admins should have the discretion to allow IP and non-EC comments where helpful. So, in a similar situation to this - Shrike could remove the comment, Bishonen could review and restore if she felt it was helpful. And we can all go back to getting on with other things. Worm^TT(talk) 08:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm going to take a slightly tangential stance and say that AE should not be open to all users; AE should be limited to those with an account. In addition, I think the EC restrictions should apply to AE reports in that area. My thinking is that AE is an internal project discussion where we want a high signal-to-noise ratio and robust record keeping.
  IPs will fall into two camps: newbies and drifters. Newbies should not be commenting at AE for the same reason we don't let them comment in EC areas. Not only are they often socks, the policy knowledge required to participate helpfully is usually beyond them; they wind up being more noise than signal and can quickly cross the line into disruptive. The other type of IP that would comment at AE are what I'm going to call "drifters"; long term editors who, for whatever reason, do not want to create an account and periodically "drift" from IP to IP without an obvious meatball:SerialIdentity. There's nothing wrong with this, and many of these editors are helpful in various parts of the encyclopedia, but the benefit of inviting them to comment at AE is low. It opens us up to all the problems of newbies and socks (noise) for the occasional helpful comment (signal). The nature of IP-based editors is that they lack a robust meatball:AuditTrail, and that makes it hard to monitor who is using AE and for what ends. There is also the community aspect: drifters choose not to register an account and join our community, and while that's fine, community administration should be left to the community (see meatball:RewardReputation). So while there is some benefit to allowing IP drifters to comment, the highly administrative, procedural, and controversial nature of AE makes IP editing in general a net negative.
  Now, with all that said, I think it makes it easier to understand why I think EC restrictions should apply at AE: there are only newbies with none of the benefits of IP drifters. The reason we would not want newbie IPs commenting at AE is the same reason we don't want newbie accounts editing PIA articles or discussions. They lower the signal-to-noise ratio when genuinely new and are usually socks when they are policy-adept. For the few clean starts or IPs-turned-account, they will be able to participate when they have a sufficient reputation (i.e. 30/500) which I think is a feature not a bug.
  So, all together, I would suggest the following text: All registered users are welcome to comment on requests not covered by extended confirmation requirements. I'll also not that despite the above, I think admin should have discretion to allow IP and non-EC comments where helpful. In the (presumably rare) instances where an IP is being reported, then obviously their response would be sought. If an IP drifter is party to a dispute then an admin could ask them for a comment. In general though, I think the bulk of AE commentary should be parties and sysops, and (non-party) IPs and non-EC editors to me seems to strike the right signal-to-noise balance. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:37, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Bish that Shrike was the wrong person to clerk this at AE. Uninvolved administrators are already authorized to clerk that noticeboard and assuming current consensus holds, would continue to be authorized to do so around IP moving forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Shrike AE is not, by design, like any other noticeboard. The rules are different and so what it means to not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles (to quote actual NOTBURO language) is different also. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some agreement among the arbs commenting that was should update the AE language but I'm seeing some disagreement about whether we should update it to reflect that IPs will be unable to comment in some situations or whether we should update it to note that uninvolved administrators have discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm in favor of leaving it to the discretion of uninvolved admins. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the issues we've had with socks, including some that have been used to harrass other editors, in the topic areas under ECR and that AE has been one place that has been a source of conflict, I'm in favor of saying ECR applies to AE also. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• There is a practical point that hasn't been publicly discussed where there are certain specific editors we do not want participating in the area (including AE), and ECR helps to remove incentive for those editors. I am inclined the same way as Barkeep, and to change the AE text accordingly to account for ECR topic areas. All users are welcome to comment on requests. to All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate ECR. or some such is closer to what I would recommend. Explicitly, I think this should not be at the discretion of uninvolved administrators. --Izno (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Palestine-Israel articles

Extended-confirmed restrictions apply to internal project discussions, and non-extended confirmed editors may not participate at Arbitration Enforcement when the discussion involves topics covered by an extended-confirmed restriction. To clarify this, the text of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header is modified by replacing All users are welcome to comment on requests. with All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction).

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	8
1–2	7
3–4	6

Support

1. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Arbitrator comments

• While I support the ideas involved here, I don't like setting a precedent that it takes an ArbCom motion to change the AE header. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • @Barkeep49: I am not too worried about that. AE admins: feel free to keep updating that header like normal. This motion is just making a one-time change in accordance with the clarification in the first sentence of the motion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm fine just updating the AE header if that's where we're all at. That hadn't happened yet so I assumed we were waiting on some kind of motion before doing so. Another option which doesn't require outright passing a motion to modify the AE header is to clarify the section of WP:ECR by modifying the text of A1 to read Internal project discussions include[...]noticeboard discussions (including arbitration enforcement). — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• I would change the inserted part to except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). Listing one restriction like ECR seems to imply that no other restrictions are in effect, whereas in fact if you are e.g. topic banned you can't comment unless an exemption applies. Have also copyedited the motion slightly. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:42, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Amended to include your suggestions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Extended-confirmed restriction (draft)

Draft 1

The "Extended confirmed restriction" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Extended confirmed restriction) are amended by appending at the end the following list item:

• E. Uninvolved administrators may in specific cases grant an exception to allow a non-extended-confirmed editor to participate in a specific internal project discussion.
• OR: E. Uninvolved administrators are permitted to allow a non-extended-confirmed editor to participate in a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE), notwithstanding this restriction.

Draft 2

The following subsection is added to the "Enforcement" section of the Arbitration Committee's procedures:

Arbitration enforcement noticeboard

Uninvolved administrators are permitted to allow an editor to participate in a discussion at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (WP:AE) notwithstanding any restrictions that would have otherwise prevented the editor from participating (such as the extended confirmed restriction).

Arbitrator comments

• I know some arbitrators were planning on going the other way so I wanted to provide draft language for this. This would be a change from the status quo but I suppose I could be convinced. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
• If we go this route, I'd prefer the method in Draft 1 and limiting its scope to AE rather than internal discussions generally. I think Draft 2 could be a good idea if we had more to add to it, but at the moment creating a section on AE just to note an exception seems more confusing than clarifying. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:18, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement

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

Shirshore

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 Shirshore

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kzl55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Shirshore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn_of_Africa#Final_decision

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

1. 14:26, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sanaag.
2. 14:38, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sanaag.
3. 15:35, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sanaag.
4. 15:06, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
5. 15:36, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
6. 19:05, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
7. 20:34, 19 March 2022 Edit-warring on Sool.
8. 15:19, 24 March 2022 POV edit in which Shirshore removed almost 20% of the article by blanking a sourced section wholly with the summary: Removed derogatory content which belittles group concerned. This demeaning content should not be allowed on Wikipedia.
9. 20:05, 24 March 2022 Shirshore removed an entire sourced section of the article with the edit summary: Removed derogatory and degrading text not suitable for Wikipedia. This is abhorrent and can’t be allowed on Wikipedia". This appears to have been an edit they've made from a mobile device.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 15:42, 16 April 2021 Shirshore was reported for engaging in the same kind of disruptive POV edit warring behaviour on some of the same articles included in this report (e.g. [15]), as a result of the report they were blocked.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions on 20:12, 15 April 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor has been engaging in disruptive editing for sometime within the Horn of Africa space, particularly within Somaliland/Somalia articles. Their edit summaries indicate they are only interested in pushing a specific viewpoint and are more than willing to erase sourced content they dont like using "derogatory" as justification (e.g. from 2019: Removed derogatory and inflammatory material on the Derivsh period. This material, although sourced cannot be allowed on Wikipedia. [16], vs 2022: Removed derogatory content which belittles group concerned. This demeaning content should not be allowed on Wikipedia [17]. Please see User_talk:Kzl55#Dhulbahante_-_Dervish_Period. for a discussion in which this behaviour was discussed and Wikipedia guidelines were explained to them. They've been sanctioned last year for the the same disruptive edit warring behaviour [18]#User:Shirshore_reported_by_User:Dabaqabad_(Result:_Blocked).

They do not seem to care all that much for edit-warring warnings as they have gone back to edit warring within minutes of the notice [[19]], [20].They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. As such I request a WP:NOTHERE ban, failing that I think a permanent topic ban from Horn-related articles is the minimum necessary sanction. Kind regards -- Kzl55 (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[[21]]

Discussion concerning Shirshore

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 Shirshore

The content removed is derogatory and inflammatory towards the group concerned. I don’t believe such content should be on Wikipedia, it can be deemed abusive should be removed off the platform. However, if other editors believe it to be constructive I will cease editing. Regards

• I don’t think there is need for a topic ban or a block. Since my editing has been received as disruptive I can simply cease editing controversial issues to avoid conflict before consensus is reached with other editors. I think my contribution to the project overall has been constructive and I have helped improve the quality of articles concerning the Horn of Africa in general. I have a lot of knowledge on the region and ultimately I seek to dispense that in a neutral and balanced manner for readers. Unfortunately, I see that many articles have evolved to form a bias towards one entity over another, and my endeavours to correct that has been misconstrued by editors who consent to that bias, hence this engagement here. Nevertheless, I’m more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and I intend to observe them in all my edits in the future. I’m not here to be disruptive, I’m here to contribute to the platform in a meaningful way. Kind regards!

Statement by Freetrashbox

I don't disagree with TBAN because I have several problems with Shirshore's edits, especially this one. However, the same goes for Kzl55 and Jacob300 for joining in the editing battle. It is clear from the BBC and VOA articles that these areas are disputed areas. Kzl55 and Jacob300 are clearly violating WP:POV and there is no doubt that their edits are frustrating their opponents. I have had several dialogues with Jacob300, but they simply repeat their arguments with the latest version fixed to their preferred edit (and their logic is that "as long as no consensus has been formed, the current version should be adopted,") and I rarely feel that a consensus can be formed in a dialogue with them. It would induce hasty and emotional editing. If their editorial attitude is not changed, it seems likely that similar examples will follow. I have been a long-time participant in the Japanese Wikipedia, but the situation in this topic on the English Wikipedia is extraordinary.--Freetrashbox (talk) 21:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Additional comment @El C: I re-read my post above, and I apologize for the content that could be taken to suggest that the English Wikipedia is inferior to the Japanese version. I mainly translate English Wikipedia articles into Japanese version, and I browse in a wide range of fields, including science, culture, geography, and history. Compared to those, there are many editorial battles in this field to rewrite A into B (and B into A), and the articles are not being enriched in spite of this. Editorial battles are generally caused by both sides. I think it is good idea that both be mentioned jointly, but it seems to me that this is being rejected by both sides participating in this field in the Somaliland/Somalia(Puntland) capacity.--Freetrashbox (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Result concerning Shirshore

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

• Recommend an indef WP:BROADLY WP:TBAN. Even though editing WP:HORN pages is all Shirshore appears to do on the project, so I'm not sure how open they'd be to that, still, at a minimum, I believe this is what's required to curb the disruption. If they are able to edit productively elsewhere for, say, 6 months, appealing this sanction would have a fair chance of success. El_C 11:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• There was also a June AN3 report (warned) and I think their talk page speaks for itself. They have made 7 edits between Aug 2021 and Jan 2022. Anyway, there needs to be strong assurances, at this point, I think (I've yet to see any at any point), which a TBAN is the ultimate test of. I still think it's due. El_C 14:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Freetrashbox, excuse me if I take long-time participant in the Japanese Wikipedia with an extra grain of salT, knowing what I know about the alarming extent of historical revisionism on that language project. Anyway, the general convention on the English Wikipedia is to refer to de facto independent (self-declared) states by their own names rather than the countries from which they had separated from.

Somalia vs Somaliland naming conventions disruption had been a perennial problem on Wikipedia for as long as I can remember. Now, wrt the Puntland–Somaliland dispute, maybe Somalia and Somaliland could both be mentioned jointly in the Sanaag and Sool infoboxes, as a compromise. It doesn't necessarily need to be either or, all or nothing, etc. But that discussion needs to, well, exist. It needs to have the foundation to exist. A foundation which WP:BATTLEGROUND editing work very much against. El_C 01:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• This is two cases of edit warring on two article in a couple of days. Not sure I would jump to a topic ban just yet, although I understand if that is how it goes. Their last (and only) block was by EdJohnston in August of last year for 72 hours for similar. Being that this is in such a short period of time, and I think their intentions are good (although their execution is horrible), I would be more inclined to issue a strong block, one week, standard admin action, then go to a topic ban if this continues (3rd strike). I don't think this is a matter of someone who is inclined to be disruptive, but rather, someone who gets something in their mind and won't let it go; a habit they need to break. They also need to read WP:BRD, ie: if you are the one trying to introduce new material, YOU are the one that needs to go to the talk page after you are reverted, then build consensus. Or accept you don't have consensus. In other words, take your own advice.[22] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Those are two very valid points, I had missed the prior warning. I have to admit, I'm a bit warmer to the idea of a topic ban now, particularly give the limited scope. The warning was appropriate in that episode was not the most egregious violation of edit warring, but the same problem was going on, a fundamental misunderstanding (or flat out ignoring) of WP:BRD. Again, I'm not against the topic ban so much I like trying to be less aggressive, but you do make a strong case for a tban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• I hate to admit it, but I'm coming down on the side of a TBAN. The chronic edit warring is pretty clearly disruptive, and it's gone on for long enough. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Reasoned Inquiry

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 Reasoned Inquiry

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Reasoned Inquiry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION

WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM

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

1. [23] 3 April 2022 Does not heed WP:DROPTHESTICK
2. [24] 3 April 2022 Does not heed hint of WP:AE
3. [25] 3 April 2022 Does not heed hint of WP:AE

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27] tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Reasoned Inquiry

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 Reasoned Inquiry

I'll try to keep this statement as lean as possible. I see a big misunderstanding of my conduct in the electromagnetic hypersensitivity talk page surrounding this AE action.

My intention was certainly not to indulge in argumentation. I used the talk page solely for the purpose of engaging discussion about the substance of my position. My position was entirely misrepresented over the course of the discussion and my activity in the talk page represents my failed attempts to correct this view with my interlocutors. I use reason/logic to clarify misunderstandings generally because it seems to be the ideal way of making that happen. I intend no antagonism with this; I simply have a style that relies on it, hence my handle name.

Blatant misrepresentations are demonstrated with invocations of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. This standard is unclear outside the implication that "EHS has a scientific basis" is a part of my claim. It is not a part of my claim and I further rule it out specifically here:

[28]

Here are the responses from @tgeorgescu and @Alexbrn that appeared after this comment, implying my claim meets criteria as an exceptional claim in some way:

[29] [30] [31] [32]

My position is that science has not cast a judgment against EHS[33] [34] and that's the only basis for my proposed edit. So I do not understand why my position was not considered as such.

This brings me to the subject of consensus, which I felt was far from clear cut due to these circumstances. This was the spirit of the message I intended to convey to @Meters, (albeit I did not express it well). I did not mean to dismiss @Meters' point, although I see how I might have accidentally allowed that to happen. Generally, I agree with the points they made.

I hope this message helps. Reasoned Inquiry (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Result concerning Reasoned Inquiry

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

• Reasoned Inquiry has not edited the article Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. (They are autoconfirmed, so not prevented from editing it.) They're certainly argumentative on the talkpage, and the sheer mass of their posts is more of a problem than Tgeorgescu's three diffs above, in my opinion. Being unimpressed by hints of AE is no wikicrime. (Just brushing off Meters's very reasonable point[35] is not a good look, though). But I don't see any of it as rising to a discretionary sanction. Why doesn't one of you guys just close the thread with a note about the (obvious) consensus? If RI then starts another long argument about a similar wording change, WP:BLUDGEON may come into play. Bishonen | tålk 21:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC).
• I agree with Bishonen's analysis. The talkpage discussion has been closed, so hopefully the matter is now resolved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

BritishToff

Indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing as a standard admin action. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning BritishToff User who is submitting this request for enforcement Pokelova (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested BritishToff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 16:44, 3 April 2022 Deliberate deadnaming 16:46, 3 April 2022 Deliberate misgendering 17:04, 3 April 2022 Disruptive edits on transgender topics 17:16, 3 April 2022 Disruptive edits on transgender topics Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 23:46, 21 March 2022 Previously alerted to Gender and sexuality sanctions 02:03, 24 March 2022 Previously blocked for disruptive editing Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABritishToff&type=revision&diff=1080881862&oldid=1080869102 Discussion concerning BritishToff 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 BritishToff Statement by (username) Result concerning BritishToff This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

David Gerard

Not a violation. Everyone seems to be on the same page now, so closing without action. I do recommend discussing the source's suitability (reliability) at the proper venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning David Gerard User who is submitting this request for enforcement Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested David Gerard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 17:45, 4 April 2022‎ previously removed this source here and reverted here making this the first revert 19:18, 4 April 2022 Second reflexive revert within 2 hours of the first Refused to self-revert Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any N/A If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, here Additional comments by editor filing complaint I know David is a popular person around these parts, I know his crusade against sources he finds subpar to have varying levels of support. But Benny Morris is very obviously among the five best sources for Palestinian right of return and calling him "extremist" or "fringe" is either over the line or nudging up against the line of a BLP violation. Im sure he will say things like "white nationalist blog", but Morris was responding to somebody else in the same forum his views were attacked, and if Morris were to write his views on a soiled piece of toilet paper and sign his name to it that would still be a usable source here. Regardless, that is a question for the talk page or RSN, neither of which Mr Gerard has seen fit to consult. Instead, as per the usual MO, edit warring to WP:RGW without paying even the tiniest bit of attention to what it is he is removing. This is a clear 1RR violation, one in which the editor has refused to self-revert, and it should be met with a block or topic ban Dennis, I call it a revert because it was David who previously removed it and had it restored. I dont know how one can claim they can repeat an edit they've previously made and had reverted anything other than a revert. nableezy - 14:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Also, for the record, and for why the removal of the is improper, there is now in our article a direct quote to Morris, "who had just attacked the Jewish community", which is not in what is now the only source cited (this interview in Haaretz). The quote is from the now expunged source, making David's edit an issue of source falsification in which we claim a quote is available in a source which does not contain it. Making this just the latest example of this editor recklessly and carelessly removing things they have not even pretended to look at. nableezy - 15:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC) I dont intend to engage in the silliness about arguing whether or not Benny Morris is a reliable source, since that is an abjectly absurd argument to have, but this is a simple issue of counting. Can David remove something, be reverted, and then come back some months later to remove it again and that not be a revert? Or is an editor periodically returning to make the same edit that has previously been contested a revert? I think it obvious given his removal in October that the first removal yesterday was a revert and his second removal yesterday his second revert. nableezy - 15:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Newyorkbrad could you please explain how this repetition of this previous removal is not a revert? Genuinely curious as to how that is possible, because there are a number of edits Ive made 6 months ago I could repeat if they are no longer reverts. nableezy - 16:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Newyorkbrad normally I would agree with you 6 months is plenty long to ignore, except for the fact that it is David repeating his own edit. If this had been removed by some other person back in October then sure calling it a revert would be a stretch. But when David repeats his own edit, an edit that was reverted, I dont see how one can claim that is not a revert. You are essentially, if this is to be carried out with any consistency, allowing users to periodically return with a new first-movers advantage to push their view through edit-warring. As far as a "better source", there is no better source for Morris' own views than Morris himself, even if he is writing in a less than reputable publication. I agree it should be discussed on the talk page, a place David has never found himself. nableezy - 16:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Um the two reverts I am listing here are two hours apart, not 6 months apart. I feel like I am in crazy town here. nableezy - 16:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Jayron32 if that is the definition decided here then fine, but then expect any repeated edit I make 6 months after the last time it was attempted to be claimed to be an "edit" and not a "revert". You are opening things up to all sorts of gaming here by restoring a first-movers advantage to somebody who just waits some period of time to return their contested edits. As far as the claim of "hunting through someone's editing history, trying to play "gotcha" over edits half a year apart", a the edit in question from October is in the last fifteen edits of that page, and b. I saw it at the time and raised it here then, with David at the time seeming to acknowledge his error in removing it here and here. I didnt have to hunt through anything, I just had to remember the last time he pulled this crap. nableezy - 17:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC) So let me get this straight, "After a 6 month difference, I think we can consider this a normal edit." only applies in this specific instance with this specific editor? That isnt a definition of anything, it is just how the interpretation this one specific instance, never to be referenced again as though it applies in any other situation with the exact same sequence? nableezy - 17:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC) No Jayron, I am not twisting anything at all by quoting you. By saying I will accept the precedent established that an edit repeated after six months is not a revert I am not announcing an intent to game the system. Odd for somebody to write WP:AGF as often as it appears in your comments to then repeatedly assume my bad faith. If an edit six months apart is not a revert by an admin then I will expect that same determination for edits six months apart by anybody else. Unless you really would like to more formally declare that admins are indeed covered by a "rules for thee but not for me" policy. nableezy - 17:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC) It is not this one admin said this one time, it would be if a consensus here finds that an edit repeated after 6 months is not a revert, then I would expect that consensus to stand for future such edits. Here we have David making an edit, being reverted, then re-doing his edit 6 months later. With multiple admins claiming that the intervening six months makes it so that this restoring of his preferred version is not a revert. If that is the case for David it should be the case for everybody else. This game of we dont establish precedents and I wont be held accountable for my positions in the future very obviously leads to an unfair and unjust system in which different users are treated in different ways for objectively the same actions. Do you really feel that is acceptable? I do not. So yes, if the consensus of this discussion is that 6 months time wipes away the status of revert for repeating ones edit then I will expect that same treatment. Obviously since I am not one of the anointed ones with the bit I may not get that treatment, but I sure as hell will be referencing the hypocrisy of such a decision if it does not hold. You cant just say for David returning after six months negates any status of a revert but for me it would be gaming. That is unfair and unjust and it is not sealioning to say so. We are all supposed to follow the same rules of the road here. You cant say well David didnt blow a red light for six months so this first rolling stop is not going to be counted against him, but for others (me) no such deference will be given. nableezy - 18:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Thanks Dennis, I appreciate your kind tone (and Floqs and NYB for that matter), and I am fine with that honestly, I just find it to be opening things up to game-playing, but so long as there is consistency in that definition of a revert for all of us then Im cool with it. nableezy - 19:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning David Gerard 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 David Gerard This appears from the diffs provided to be a second revert within six months, not within 24 hours. Literally the ARBPIA ruling that Nableezy links says: Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours. There is no case to answer here. The source removed was from the white nationalist blog American Thinker. Although it hasn't been formally deprecated, I think it's jawdroppingly obvious that it's the sort of source that absolutely shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. Here's an RSN discussion from 2018 setting out its issues, for example. This shouldn't even be a difficult call. Even if Morris is a great source, that doesn't mean every instance of him saying things is a suitable source for Wikipedia use. I note also that Nableezy is already constructing a conspiracy theory as to why his action here will fail, in the course of raising the action. In any case, we have the RS. If the quote isn't in that, remove the quote, don't put back the obviously terrible source - David Gerard (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by Kyohyi Completely uninvolved in terms of this dispute. I'm just seeing some rather confounding comments by admins. What is a revert is defined in policy, policy says to revert is to undo another editor's actions. It does not give a time frame in which this has to happen. If enforcing admins wish to include a time frame then they should be modifying the existing sanction, or seek to change policy language. But to characterize the first revert on April 4th as a non-revert has no standing in policy. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC) The policy language is clear, to revert is to undo another editor's actions. Period. That's policy, as documented in WP: EW. Do these removals undo someone else's actions? Obviously they do, since wikipedia articles and content are non-existant until someone creates them. So someone added this, and David Gerard removed it. That's a revert. It doesn't get much more explicit than this. (Using the undo button is obviously more explicit than this)--Kyohyi (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC) The point I am making is that the look back time is irrelevant to how policy defines a revert. That content exists on Wikipedia indicative of someone having added it. Removing that content is always going to be a revert regardless of when the content was added. That is because any removal is always an undoing of what someone else added. And a revert is an undo of another editor's actions. Policy is clear on this. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Whether or not you choose to block the editor, or issue a warning, or do something else is your prerogative. Whether or not something is a revert is documented in policy. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Nobody is playing word games. What is a revert, as well as it's exceptions are spelled out in our edit warring policy. Whether or not a violation is worthy of a sanction is different from whether or not something was a violation in the first place. Something that is a minor violation, but doesn't warrant a sanction, can come to warrant a sanction if continued over a prolonged period of time. Something that isn't a violation at all should not.--Kyohyi (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning David Gerard This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Not sure I would call the first diff a "revert", since it was added Oct of 2021 [36]. David first removed the source just before that latest addition, also in October [37]. David does seem to have an obvious problem with https://www.americanthinker.com, although I'm not sure if that is withing the remit of WP:AE. I think it all boils down to whether you call that first edit a "revert" or not, and (again) since the edit was removing material that was inserted many months ago, I'm not sure. At the very least, it does seem against the spirit of 1RR. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC) I understand your frustration nableezy, hence why I said it felt like it was against the spirit of the policy, but it is within policy. Floquenbeam sums it up better than I did, below. The first "reinstatement" (if we call it that) really wasn't a revert. There isn't a specific time that must pass before reinstating a prior edit isn't really a revert, but I'm pretty sure 6 months qualifies. That means, from a technical perspective, we have one edit and 2 hours later, one revert, even if he does gain first mover advantage via 1RR. But in the end, there is no violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Not a comment on David's actions but it is important to remember that RSOPINION exists and thus regardless of the quality of the source, as long as it is not on a BLP, there is a potential to use that otherwise nonRS, but editors should discuss the expertness of the writer and whether the view merits DUE inclusion. Which is all stuff to debate on talk pages. --Masem (t) 15:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC) No violation. In lieu of further reverts, please discuss use of this source on the talkpage. If this person's point of view is notable enough to include, shouldn't there be a better source for what his view is? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC) @Nableezy:Thank you for your question. It may not be entirely clear how far back in an article-history one needs to look in evaluating whether an edit constitutes a "revert" in wiki-speak, but a look-back period of six months seems excessive to me. Even if others disagree and consider that there was a technical violation here, its borderline nature would still militate against enforcement action on this report. As I mentioned above, the substantive issue here should be resolved by finding one or more additional sources of better quality, if available. This should be discussed on the talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC) I'm with NYB here. No violation. The text of the arbitration sanction says "Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict." While I would think that reverts that were close to, but slightly outside of 24 hours, might be "gaming the system", and could warrant something, reverts made 6 months apart in no way represents a violation here. I'm much more concerned that someone is hunting through someone's editing history, trying to play "gotcha" over edits half a year apart... --Jayron32 16:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC) @Nableezy: What I am saying is that your characterization of two edits separated by 6 months do not constitute a revert. The 17:45 edit is not a revert under any normal understanding of the term. After a 6 month difference, I think we can consider this a normal edit. The only revert is then the 19:18 edit. That is the first edit I would consider a revert for the purposes of XRR. --Jayron32 16:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC) I'm not "defining" anything for any other purpose, nor establishing any rules here. Rules get decided only by community consensus, and if you want to start a discussion elsewhere to establish consensus to establish parameters (up to and including no time limit), then feel free to have that discussion elsewhere. We have no guidance on the matter, so we're left with assessing the situation on our own, and deciding what is the best way forward, with only WP:AGF and other similar rules as our guidance. With the lens of "we have no rules on this" and "I don't see evidence of bad-faith acting here", I'm considering his first edit on the day in question a normal edit. This is not a rule, and if you came in here tomorrow with another person in a different situation, the evidence may point in a different direction. That would include statements that the person intended ahead of time to test the limits of admins patience by deliberately making two such edits 6 months apart, knowing ahead of time that this conversation had occurred. Every situation is unique, and needs to be assessed on its own merits. If you want a rule, do the work of establishing a new rule. Don't make claims that "one time this one decision was made, so it's now a rule". That's not how rules get made. --Jayron32 17:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC) No, and I must say Nableezy, this is becoming a sealion level of WP:BLUDGEON, but I will try one last time to avert your deliberate twisting of my words. A facile description of a situation, absence of context, is not a good way of solving problems. Context matters, and simply saying there are two hypothetical situations where edits were made 6 months apart does not make the rest of the context around those situations the same. It rarely is. If faced with another case of such a situation, maybe the decision would go differently. For example, if the person in question announced ahead of time they had intended to " make 6 months after the last time it was attempted to be claimed to be an "edit" and not a "revert"." that is context for making a decision that would make that case different from this case. See, in this case, we have no such intent to game the system. We merely have these edits, and have to make sense of what to do about them. In this case, we have nothing more than these edits, and your characterization of them. With all due respect, I tend to ignore anyone's characterization. I look at the diffs. The dates and times of the diffs lead me to the conclusion that this is not a violation. If you have other diffs that act as evidence to change my opinion on the matter, please provide them, if you just have more assertions and your own characterizations, I've seen enough of those, TYVM, and I consider this my final analysis of the situation. --Jayron32 17:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC) This is not a court of law, we don't establish precedent. We apply the principles of behavior at Wikipedia the best we can to allow smooth operation of the encyclopedia. Don't try to read rules from these discussions. I'm not a king. I am not more important than you, or David, or anyone else. I am providing my opinion on this matter. My opinion, insofar as any decision is made on this matter based on it, only counts for this discussion here. If you want to make a rule, there are ways to do that at Wikipedia, but "This one admin said this one time..." is not rulemaking. --Jayron32 17:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC) @Kyohyi Let me reiterate what NYB said, "It may not be entirely clear how far back in an article-history one needs to look in evaluating whether an edit constitutes a "revert" in wiki-speak, but a look-back period of six months seems excessive to me. Even if others disagree and consider that there was a technical violation here, its borderline nature would still militate against enforcement action on this report." If other admins clearly disagree with us, I'm perfectly willing to abide by consensus here, and if there is consensus that NYB and I are out of order, I will abide by that consensus. What we have is, in my perspective, a lack of guidance from the rules, which is to say that the rules are silent on the matter. What you interpret as "the rules don't say there's a limit, so the limit must go back forever", I interpret as "the rules don't say there's a limit, so we have no guidance and are working blind here". When I don't have such clear rules, I fall back on more core principles, including WP:AGF. When I see a borderline or ambiguous case, as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, I lean towards AGF. That's my statement on the matter. --Jayron32 17:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Context is always relevant, the notion that a "revert" in the spirit of "enabling a good editing environment" needs to be assessed, in context. Under your limitless revert, an edit could have been made in 2006, undone in 2014, reinstated in 2019, and undone again in 2022, and now we're supposed to block that editor? I'm going to be honest with you, and this is just me, I can't remember anything I was doing 6 months ago; much less any specific edits I may have made to one Wikipedia article. Is this a revert? I don't know. So I need to go with WP:AGF here. --Jayron32 17:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC) This isn't a place to play games with language. This is a place to decide whether or not to block someone for something they did. If the language I used gets in your way of understanding that, simply rewrite everything I already said, but replace any time I made you think I said "this isn't a revert" instead with the language "this revert is not worth counting for 1RR in this case". The end result is exactly the same, and if that doesn't get you hung up on the language here, Kyohyi, it's all the same to me. --Jayron32 18:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC) While I don't think I'd actually actively do anything different than Dennis, Brad, or Jayron here, because it's a little fuzzy, I do understand Nableezy's frustration. I've noticed for a while - with no suggested resolution - that there is a tension between BRD and 1RR. If we assume David's first removal of the link was bold, then he violated BRD when he reverted Nableezy's revert. But there's currently no sanction for doing that. 1RR in fact incentivizes breaking BRD. So no matter how we define David's first edit to the page today - bold or revert - the second edit broke either 1RR or BRD, but Nableezy is trapped and has to accept the edit as the new status quo while discussion goes on. And if the discussion results in no consensus, David's edit somehow becomes the de facto new default. 1RR definitely creates a first-mover advantage, which in most other areas of WP we tend to try to avoid. This is reason #46 I seldom get involved in AE, because so often it relies on gamesmanship, and rewarding the person who plays the game better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)