Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Requests for enforcement

AmirahBreen 2

AmirahBreen blocked for a week and banned from the article Gaza flotilla raid for a month. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:25, 6 December 2021 (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 AmirahBreen User who is submitting this request for enforcement Shrike (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs⧼dot-separator⧽deleted contribs⧼dot-separator⧽logs⧼dot-separator⧽filter log⧼dot-separator⧽block user⧼dot-separator⧽block log) 20:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested AmirahBreen (talk⧼dot-separator⧽contribs⧼dot-separator⧽deleted contribs⧼dot-separator⧽logs⧼dot-separator⧽filter log⧼dot-separator⧽block user⧼dot-separator⧽block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced [[1]] Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 22:58, 1 December 2021 First Revert 11:53, 2 December 2021 Second Revert Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 26 November 2021 Block for 72 hours for edit warring If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Right after returning from the user have edit warred again This content was previously removed by him as part of big revert "Five of the activists who were killed had previously declared their desire to become shaheeds (martyrs)" [2] The original diff are linked above. The user started edit warring right after returning from his last block. What more could be done and he was engaged in the talk page [3] by other user and seeing his response here he doesn't underhand what WP:1RR means --Shrike (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [4] Discussion concerning AmirahBreen 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 AmirahBreen I made one reversion today and one yesterday. I am not clear is a 24 hour period counted from midnight to midnight or from one reversion to the next? I have made no further edits to the page today. I have opened discussions about it on the article talk page and am participating in those discussions to reach consensus. Please also consider that the information which I removed was defamatory and original research. The sources were clear that their primary motive was to bring aid to Gaza and to cherry pick from the sources what they said may happen as an alternative if they failed and to place that in the text with the implication that it was their primary motive is defamatory. Although this is not a BLP and those people are not still alive, there are still people alive who were part of this aid mission who it can effect 'by association'. GizzyCatBella wouldn't it be clearer if the warning said 'editors who revert this article should seek consensus before further reverts, and must refrain from from reverting the article again for at least 24 hours'? IMO there should also be warning there that if Wikipedia policies are not followed it could also lead to a block due to discretionary sanctions. I am not one to go straight for arbitration, but reverting my edit in a rollback with no explanation in the edit summary as to why, as was done here [5] and then reverting it again for no other reason than that the editor considered it a 1RR violation as was done here [6] despite the fact that I had still not been given any explanation either in edit summary or on talk pages as to why it had been reverted in the first place, is that really in line with Wikipedia policy? If there was more emphasis on adhering to Wikipedia policies in the warnings then this shouldn't have happened in the first place. Editors should give clear edit summaries and particularly when making reverts on an article which is under discretionary sanctions. You are enforcing 1RR yet you are not enforcing Wikipedia policies. What is more Daveout actually contravened the 1RR in one fowl swoop with a rollback of two completely separate edits with an edit summary which explained only one of them, but did you see me running straight to AE? He's also made a 3rd revert which is only just outside the 24hr mark and he's had talk page warnings for similar behaviour. Daveout also broke the 1RR by doing this [7] and this [8] which resulted in me getting blocked after being reported by a sock-puppet of a banned editor. I warned him about edit warring on his talk page. [9] and yesterday morning he went straight back and started another edit war, by reverting my edit with no explanation or edit summary, immediately followed by reverting another editors edit, for which he gave an edit summary but it turned out to be invalid. I've certainly learned a thing or two in all of this myself, but has Daveout learned anything at all? Has his username even been mentioned in this or the previous discussion in which I was not allowed to take part? When he reverted my edit yesterday with no explanation in the edit summary I actually thought he'd probably made two reverts, one immediately following the next, by mistake, being that his edit summary only covered his second revert. I reverted back asking him to provide an edit summary (or discuss on the talk page), not with the intention of starting an edit war, but because I thought he had mistakenly rolled two reverts into one, and the edit he'd provided an edit summary for had absolutely nothing to do with my edit as far as I could see. I hadn't even questioned the reliability of the source, I had questioned the way in which the source had been cherry picked. WP:WAR Referring to 3RR - 'Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring.' Is this any different for 1RR? According to WP:1RR it isn't. WP:1RR also says that 24 hours may be replaced by 'a week', 'a month' etc. If it's talking about the time between one revert and the next then why not arbitrary figures such as 6 hours, 18 hours etc. If a revert was made this month then it implies that a revert made next month would not be within the month, even if it were made on an earlier day of the month. A month is not a set number of days, so how can you count from revert to revert if a month could be 31, 30 or even 29 or 28 days. How do you know which length of month to choose? The length of this month or next month? I'm not saying that I don't understand now what has already been explained to me, what I am saying is I still feel that the policy pages don't explain clearly enough and that I should be believed when I say I did not fully understand if it meant 24 hours from the time the first revert was made or if it meant 'on the same day'. WP:3RRNO Point 7. also says under exemptions 'Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.' Due to the comma after 'unsourced' but no comma after 'poorly sourced', I would read this to say that libelous, biased, and unsourced, may also refer to articles other than BLPs. I still maintain that the text I removed was libelous and biased in the context it was placed and in the way it was picked from the source which distorted it's meaning, it also turned out to be poorly sourced. If I am not reading this correctly, then a comma should be placed after 'poorly sourced' in point 7 to make it clearer. Cullen328 I don't even understand your comment, at the start of this discussion I was not asking if 24 meant 24, I was asking 'is it counted from midnight to midnight or from edit to edit'. Anyway, I have exceeded my wordcount now. Perhaps you will take into account that I was not allowed to make a statement in the last discussion, if you are counting the results of the last discussion against me too. Amirah talk 02:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by GizzyCatBella Extended content @Shrike, these don’t work: (?) Date Explanation Date Explanation Date Explanation - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Not clear what do you mean? Shrike (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Links are dead - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC) I have deleted the dummy links Shrike (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC) (Okay, so that was nothing) - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC) @User:力 --> I'm not sure how several of the regulars don't understand the dummy links - One regular didn't understand the dummy links who thought the filing person wished to explain something - not several regulars (I'm sorry, I don't appreciate your remark) - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC) I would say that a 1RR violation is obvious but I agree with Nableezy that the filing party could (and most likely should) ask for self-revert first. This resembles an "I got you now!" approach. (sorry Shrike, that's my humble opinion) (this [10] changed my mind.) One also should keep in mind that the initial report, that resulted in 72 hours block above, was produced by a sock-puppet of a banned user. I definitely would not agree with a topic ban proposed, not yet. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC) @AmirahBreen The warning was posted and visible here --> [11] WARNING In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks. Please comment only in your own section and do not start threaded discussions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC) 1 revert per 24h - it's clear. There is nothing there about "day". - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC) It does not say when the 24 hours starts and finishes. In my understanding a 24 hour time span means a day. Amirah talk 22:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC) But you know now, correct? So please keep this in mind going forward. (As I said before, I don't agree with the topic ban at this point, but I’ll not argue if the administrative team concludes a short block is required as a reminder that one needs to be very careful around that topic area) - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Yes, I know that now, and there is no reason to suspect that if I know the rules I won't abide by them. It's been explained to me, not in a simply clear and understanding way as it could have been, but it's been explained to me. <-- unsigned User:AmirahBreen comment moved down Statement by Nableezy Whats the first a revert of? Did anybody ask the user to self-revert? Did you try to engage on the talk page? With the user on the user talk page? Curious. nableezy - 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Interesting a user who goes around telling others to review ONUS and start an RFC for challenged material reverts on the basis of a supposed 1RR without identifying the original revert too. This numbers game thing leaves a bad taste in ones mouth. The whole escalating the reporting without engaging the user at all on their talk page, when they have at the very least already stopped reverting, was unable to self-revert because they had already been reverted, and was never even asked to self-revert makes that bad taste more intense. nableezy - 21:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Here Shrike, I tried to help you out with the whole not using AE as a weapon thing. Maybe see for example User_talk:Bob_drobbs#1rr for how a user might try to engage another and ask that they correct their actions prior to escalating things here even if they oppose their edits. nableezy - 21:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC) I think it is inappropriate to report a user for a 1RR violation without ever asking for a self-revert. We always ask for a self-revert. I dont think its appropriate that the initial report was made by a sock of a banned user and now an admin is escalating this report without any attempt to engage the user for a topic-ban. I think the users who lecture others on ONUS while violating it left and right themselves should be looked at as well. nableezy - 21:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC) HJ, nobody has tried to engage this person with anything besides threats at all. This was the sequence of the first block. Notice. AE report (by a since blocked sock). Sanction. Those are consecutive edits to their talk page, and not one person stopped in between to give her (I think from username?) even one chance at learning how to correct the issues. And here, again, no request to self-revert. You have one user reverting their edit so they could not self-revert, and another reporting them, and nobody offering a chance at a self-revert. And all the while, users are violating WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:ONUS. That is, um, sub-par. nableezy - 22:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by User:力 Nobody is covering themselves with glory here. I'm not sure how several of the regulars don't understand the dummy links ("difflink3") in the reporting template. I'm not sure I believe that AmirahBreen doesn't understand the 1RR rule after being blocked over it a week ago. I'm not sure why Nableezy thinks this filing is inappropriate after that block and after this talk page disucssion that suggests AmirahBreen thinks they did nothing wrong. As far as what should be done, a week-long page ban from Gaza flotilla raid (but not the talk page) seems to me to be both gentle and justified. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Because when I was blocked it was for edits which were done on the same day. This arbitration request is for two edits which I made on two separate days. In my understanding a day is another word for a '24 hour period', or is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirahBreen (talk • contribs) @AmirahBreen: Multiple editors are telling you that you are wrong about the policy, and that 24 hours means 24 hours, not a calendar day wherever you are. If you refuse to acknowledge this, you are certainly looking at a longer block to prevent you from continuing to violate that policy. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by Bob Drobbs 1. A polite notice of 1RR violation was put on AmirahBreen's talk page.[12]. There was no request to self-revert because someone else did it for them. AmirahBreen didn't accept this, but instead doubled-down with seeming annoyance and frustration. And this was immediately after a 72 hour ban for the same violation. It would appear that for whatever reason, AmirahBreen is unable or unwilling to follow the rules. 2. Digging a deeper hole. In the latest edit[13] AmirahBreen tries to argue that we should excuse this additional violation of 1RR, because it was their opinion that this text was problematic. That's not how 1RR works. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC) 3. While I appreciate the wide variety of human experience, the simple fact is that we all have to work together abiding by the same set of rules. AmirahBreen hasn't just slightly exceeded the 500 word limit in here, they've more than doubled that. It's another example, that at this point in time, this user isn't following the rules. They pointed out their own rule violation, yet they did not correct it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning AmirahBreen This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This is a clear 1RR violation, and, since it is coming immediately after the user has been to this noticeboard last week, I am afraid we need a PIA topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC) It is a clear 1RR violation (the first revert was restoring content that was subject to the edit war they were blocked for previously), and some form of sanction is inevitable. I think a broad topic ban is overkill at this point. I'm more inclined toward a short-term sitewide block (of around a week) for the 1RR violation, and a longer-term ban from the article Gaza flotilla raid (but not its talk page). Obviously if their editing continues to cause problems, a topic ban from all of ARBPIA is the next step. I can see why Nableezy has a bad taste in his mouth wrt weaponisation of AE, but the easiest way to avoid having AE used against you is to avoid violating bright-line rules. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC) The user has been around long enough that the "I don't understand what 24 hours refers to" doesn't hold water. However, I agree with H J Mitchell that an escalating block (1 week) may be more appropriate than a topic ban. Enough time for that down the road if it becomes necessary. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Agreeing with HJ Mitchell, a week block, and I would say a short-ish page block/ban of 30 days for the article, but not the talk page. That should be seen as the last chance before full blown topic bans come to play. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC) AmirahBreen, firstly, please write any comments in your own section. Threaded discussion is not permitted at AE, nor are comments anywhere but in your section. That aside, if coming off an edit warring block to immediately start edit warring again doesn't merit a topic ban, I'm not sure what does. But if the consensus is for a "last chance" type block, one hopes this time will be more effective. I would remind AmirahBreen that the 24 hour cycle is a limit, not an entitlement—edit warring is not good in general, and if you get the idea that you should just wait a little longer between repeated reverts next time, you're rather missing the point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC) I am unconvinced by any claim of failing to understand that 24 hours means the period of time right between 23 hours and 59 minutes and 24 hours and one minute. I endorse Seraphimblade's request to take on board the spririt rather than just the letter of the policy against edit warring. I am not prepared to support a PIA topic ban at this time but will advise the editor that they are on the brink of such a ban. Support a one week block and a pageblock from the article in question though not its talkpage, with an instruction to be productive not argumentative on that talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)