request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.
Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.
To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions
All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.
A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.
Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction
An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b]or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
the restriction was an indefinite block.
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
aclear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
aclear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.
Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
On Arbitration Committee review
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
^The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.
Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.
Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.
Important notes:
For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
Information for administrators processing requests
Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.
A couple of reminders:
Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.
Closing a thread:
Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
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 Christsos
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 19:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).[reply]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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 Christsos
Statement by BilledMammal
I see the editor has been inactive as of a few days prior to this report, so I wanted to ask - did anyone try to explain the ECR's to them beyond placing the ARBPIA notification on their talk page? 22:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Result concerning Christsos
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Christsos, if you have anything to say, now would be the time. It looks like all of these happened after you were explicitly left a contentious topics notice informing you of the 30/500 restrictions, so can you please explain why you are clearly violating that? I'll give you a short while to explain, but otherwise I'm very much leaning toward a sanction. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish, I'm not a fan of that, as we'd essentially be tying the hands of future admins as to what to do if the violations continue (if it's a highly technical and probably inadvertent violation, maybe they only want to block for a day, and if it's egregious and obviously intentional, maybe they go right to a month, or even indef if the editor states they intend to keep violating it). I don't think we should predetermine the outcome of future actions. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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
02:22, 21 April 2024 (said that Israel had committed genocide → found that Israel had committed genocide)
07:05, 21 April 2024 (said that Israel had committed genocide → finding reasonable grounds that Israel had committed genocide)
Was requested to self revert at 07:51, 21 April 2024. Did so at 22:58, 21 April 2024, 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.
06:18, 22 April 2024 (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.
Irequested they re-self-revert; they have refused to do so, and are now arguing that 07:05, 21 April 2024 was not a revert.
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
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.
ScottishFinnishRadish,Seraphimblade 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.
Statement by (username)
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)[reply]
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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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
Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
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.
Following attempts for dispute resolution have been tried:
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 ([1]) 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 ([2]) 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 ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) 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 ([8], [9]). 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)[reply]
(@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)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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 to it as "us". Cossde (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia: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:
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.
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)[reply]
@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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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? Bookku (talk) 16:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@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.
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)[reply]
Statement by (username)
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)[reply]
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
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:
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. TheKip02:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 76.53.254.138
Statement by (username)
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.
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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Kip, 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. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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
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)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
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
Statement by (username)
Result concerning Oz346
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
