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 Freestyler Scientist
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Dec 10 2nd restoration on same day. Came to my talk page to claim this only counted as one (has been given guidance on 1RR 4 times as of now, hence coming here).[2]
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Dec. 8 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This is a new account and WP:SPA, so I'm already getting a bit of WP:DUCK red flag with this account mentioning policy and the walls of text in a tendentious manner on the talk page, but I don't have additional suggestions for a WP:SPI right now.
The main issue here is the obviously 1RR violation by this account and ignoring the warnings not to restore the large-scale changes they made. One revert today would have still been slow edit warring in violation of 1RR, but two is clearly crossing the line. The article itself is somewhat the GMO equivalent of Andrew Wakefield and vaccines in terms of WP:FRINGE, in this case, claims that GMOs and glyphosate cause cancer despite MEDRS sources saying the opposite. Sometimes we get editors looking to WP:RGW that create timesinks in this topic between edit warring and behavior, so help would be appreciated.
Underlying this, there's a sort of WP:BLUDGEON/combative approach with this new account on the talk page that blows up talk sections in size to the point even I had trouble catching up with the discussion (bludgeon-style comments by Freestyler Scientist vs. succinct responses by others). When issues with their edits came up, they'll claim the comment wasn't legitimate or mistaken followed up by repeated Could I assume that you have withdrawn? Then there's this comment Every point you contested, even I disagreed, had been removed from the edition. I don't see reason everywhere explained.[3] The gist of what I'm getting from the talk page is that this account seemed justified in edit warring because they claim every single point about their massive edits were not addressed on the talk page in detail. There definitely is a tone that they're going to charge ahead anyways without hearing the issues with their edits. There's also a WP:ADVOCACY angle where they're primarily pulling from sources that have a financial conflict of interest in trying to claim glyphosate causes cancer and that it's ok do that because the article supposedly has tons of COI already (it doesnt).[4]
I mentioned socks above because I had been dealing with some following me in topics I edit in the last few days, so if this is a legitimate account, a controversial topic like the GMO/pesticide area doesn't seem like a good place for them to learn the ropes with the combination of edit warring and bludgeon/overbearingness. KoA (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, the formal notification of 1RR listed in the AE template was on Dec. 8, two days before today's edits. They also would have seen the edit notice when you try to edit the article in their very first edit or the talk page. So at least 2-3 times before their edits today. Add in another time during my revert today before AE and the final straw before this AE when they came to my talk page still clearly asserting they didn't violate 1RR.[[5]]. If it had only been the 1RR issue in isolation, I would have tried to work with them a bit more before coming here, but there's enough exasperation with WP:IDHT at this point that I had to ask for help here. KoA (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth I definitely get that based on 1RR in isolation, indef would be overkill. A warning might work, but new editor coming in with an advocacy/WP:FRINGE push like this gives me pause as such editors often become timesinks for regulars in the topic. For something super narrow, maybe a p-block just for Seralini affair? They could easily move to other glyphosate related topics though, so a next step up could be a glyphosate topic ban that would really just be a handful of pages. That's as far as I'd go with any sanctions for realistic options admins might want to consider. I think the key thing with any sanctions (including a warning) though is the message to step back from controversial topics like this and learn the ropes in other areas first. KoA (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
1RR Violation, (I was aware about this policy, so no excuses).
The first of my edit was on Dec. 8. It was reverted by @Bon courage with the reason that I cited unreliable source as secondary, made huge change, and deleted of significant material.
To sum up quickly, those 1) were primary sources citing along secondary sources that discussed them. In this discussion, there was also in discussion 2) an argument of removing significant part of text (it dalse claim, that part was moved), and 3) LeadBombing, and 4)(@KoA) citing (peer reviewed) articles, where authors have COI.
After that discussion send second edit, I (1) removed citation of primary sources, to avoid conflict, (2) restored all phrases I removed, (3) Removed entirely part that was flagged as "LeadBombing" with citations (4).
This edit was reverted again by @Bon courage who wrote: "Pretty much the same issues. Reverted"
@Bon courage several times, after my reply to his objection, he added new, unexplained things, and also made several claims in the Talk page that were obviously wrong and easy to check, such as including some ref that I did not include, or removing "a significant part of the text" that was only moved one paragraph up. (There were more false claim, probably no need to list them here, they are in Talk). I tried to get a consensus by simply asking which of his objections were still valid, but that was ignored. There have been accusations of disruptive, tendentious or TLDR editing, tendencies towards edit war lockdowns, and also borderline personal attacks such as: "That seems like good content, in contrast to yours". When I received unspecified or just false objection, it is not surprising that my responses were longer (like in Brandolini's law).
In summary,
I really tried to find out which passages were objectionable, and got only brief responses, including false claims about the sources I'd used. Where there were objections, such as @KoA pointing out that some articles have COI, I removed the entire section containing them and the entire claim/sentence based on them. After my second edition was reverted with only with "Pretty much the same issues" summary, I've obvert, and it was only single reversion I've made.
If could I ask, when the new edition after revert is considered a revert, and when not? Is "Restoring part of a reverted edit" also a revert?
Before I've made second edition, I to read on "how to avoid edit warring", and I found: "if someone discarded some good stuff when reverting, please don't revert the reversion. [...] Just find some of the good stuff and put it into the current version" Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to defend myself. I accept that I engaged in wrongdoing. I was just trying to understand 'revert', I was previously familiar with the definition from the Polish Wikiproject, where it's defined as restoring "identical or very similar to any of its previous versions".
It's a violation in the face of warnings. There may be some change that would improve the article that draws on the material being proposed, but I don't think these edits are it at all, and edit-warring is not the way to go.
This is a clear 1RR violation, but this is an account with 18 edits: can someone show me evidence that they were aware of 1RR before they were reverted for violating 1RR? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that I examined the history of that article, and I see no immediate basis to check for socks. I am not ruling out sockpuppetry, but absent evidence, they need to be treated as a new user. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the GMO CT notification included a 1RR warning, but per my colleagues below I'm betting they failed to understand it. A warning is appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KoA - would you be okay with a warning, given that this appears to be a new editor (assuming good faith and all that) with low double digits of edits? I do understand the wanting someone else to make it clear to them that their behavior isn't good (and thus IDHT) so I'm not dinging you for bringing this here, but I'm not quite ready to jump to an indefinite block or something just yet...Ealdgyth (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KoA wrote above that the formal notification of 1RR listed in the AE template was on Dec. 8, two days before today's edits, and it was present in this edit on December 9. I am, however, willing to believe that the new account genuinely doesn't understand how we count reverts—I think we should close this with a warning and with a good explanation to the new account regarding how we count reverts. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)19:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freestyler Scientist seems to think that this edit wasn't a revert because it wasn't identical to the previous edit. In fact, a revert is defined as any edit "that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part", and this was certainly a revert in part. I think this confusion is understandable and am fine with a warning for the time being. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Freestyler Scientist, you seem to be trying to parse the wording of policies very finely instead of treat them as guidance. That's often called wikilawyering, and you're not going to find that to work well. The idea of a "revert" is that you are, substantially, in whole or in part, returning an article to an earlier state. It does not have to be exactly the old state; so long as the intent is clearly to put it back to something similar, it is a revert. Basically, if you have to wonder whether it would be considered as a revert, presume it would be. Does that clarify things? SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Entropyandvodka
User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Between Oct 6 and 7th, 2023, this user made over 500 edits changing short descriptions. example,contribs log during the time period A majority of the edits were on Oct 6th, about 325 by my very rough count. They stopped their edit chain a few minutes after getting EC on the 6th, then did a couple hundred more on the 7th. Granted at 16h00, final edit of the day at 16h03 They had never made this kind of edit before, and they've only made a few edits of this type ever since, all on one P-I article this spring. They now have over 1,400 edits. Since then they have focused almost entirely on the PIA space, but have dedicated some time to the invasion of Ukraine. In the Russian invasion space, they've concerned themselves with making sure that a pro-Russian narrative is represented. [7][8] They appear in Billedmammal (talk·contribs)'s ARBPIA statistics broadsheet, which shows their edits as being 100% in PIA for the remainder of 2023 and 75% PIA for 2024. I sought input from SFR before making this report, because I see deeper implications from a gaming run for PIA on Oct 6th 2023.
I have not interacted with this user, beyond notifying them of this report.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 13 Oct 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 8 May 2024 (same incident as the warning).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Re: Liz's comment, I was unsure whether this was stale given that their further edits would put them over EC by now, though likely not without counting the PIA-related edits. This was why I asked SFR on his talk page first, who advised me that there likely wasn't a stale period for permission gaming. I haven't tried to assess recent content or conduct beyond a brief look at the Russia/Ukraine related edits. Safrolic (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning Entropyandvodka
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by Entropyandvodka
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.
Since this editor now has about 1400 edits, if those edits had been gaming, they would be EC by now without them. I'm not sure how we assess possible gaming from over a year ago. Are there recent edits that concern you? I'd like to see what admins who frequent ARE think about this case. LizRead!Talk!21:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Liz said, they'd be well over EC by now anyway. I'm really not inclined to go over stuff dredged up from a year ago unless there's been actual misconduct since then (and then it would be the more recent misconduct that would concern me). It evidently wasn't enough of a concern for anyone to raise in a timely fashion. SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a bright-line rule in this area, but the combination of "over a year ago" and "hundreds of subsequent edits" is enough for me to support closing without action, which I will do momentarily. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
