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 KronosAlight
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
-
Dylanvt (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) 13:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
- User against whom enforcement is requested
-
KronosAlight (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log)
Search CT alerts
:
in user talk history •
in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
-
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles
-
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Well isn't this ironic.
Violated
1RR at:
2024 Nuseirat rescue operation
-
08:02, 11 June 2024 Partial revert of
this and
this.
-
20:55, 10 June 2024 Revert of
this.
-
20:26, 10 June 2024 Combined revert of
this and
this.
-
14:03, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of
this.
-
13:49, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of
this.
-
13:46, 10 June 2024 Revert of
this and partial revert of
this and
this and
this and
this and
this.
Al-Sardi school attack
-
07:39, 11 June 2024 Revert of
this and
this.
-
14:52, 10 June 2024 Combined partial revert of
this and
this and
this and
this and
this.
Nuseirat refugee camp massacre
-
08:14, 10 June 2024 Partial revert of
this.
-
08:01, 10 June 2024 Combined partial and complete reverts of
this and
this and
this and
this and
this and
this and
this.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
-
20:35, 28 March 2024 Indefinitely topic banned from "flood myths".
- If
contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see
WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on
00:06, 11 June 2024 (see the system log linked to above). When I explained that they were constrained by 1RR and must self-revert their response was "No." They didn't dispute that they had violated 1RR or indicate that they did not understand it in any way. They simply flat-out refused.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
KronosAlight also has a history of making incendiary, belligerent, aspersive, and off-topic comments on talk pages.
-
here
-
here
-
here
-
here
-
here
-
here
-
here
-
here
-
here
- lol. Some of the revisions, like
20:55, 10 June 2024, aren't even manual reverts. They're literal "I clicked the undo button to revert someone else's edit" reverts. I don't have time to deal with this further. The reverts and belligerent talk page behavior, and previous arbitration decision, all speak for themselves. Kronos can keep grandstanding for all I care, it doesn't change the facts.
Dylanvt (
talk) 13:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
here.
Discussion concerning KronosAlight
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 KronosAlight
None of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising and filled out citation data in existing citations, and added new ones.
Editing an existing page, clarifying what the sources cited actually say, is not a revert and there is therefore nothing to answer for here.
You can avoid this problem in future by better complying with NPOV and related Wikipedia rules on editorialisation, bias, and editing wars.
By way of example, in the
Al-Sardi school attack article, the complainant initially used the
infobox: civilian attack, has repeatedly sought to editorialise it and similar articles, nor did their version include even one mention of the IDF's official statements in which they claimed to have identified at least 9 terrorists killed in the strike. One needn't take them at their word - their claims should be couched as just that, a claim, that cannot be independently verified. But to omit any mention of this? And to seek to revert edits clarifying that the Gaza Health Ministry are Hamas-run (without removing any of their claims) and make requests that articles about strikes be renamed as "massacres", suggests that this is simply a vexatious complaint by a user engaged in a political campaign with Wikipedia's neutrality the victim.
Wikipedia is not a place for you to wage political wars, it's a neutral space for information.
To be honest I wasn’t familiar with the 1RR before this complaint, I don’t usually edit articles about recent events. The policy seems a bit odd to me, just seems to let trolls off the hook, but yeah, I obviously didn’t comply with that rule. I’m happy to own that and ensure going forwards that my edits respect it.
KronosAlight (
talk) 14:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
- If I may also add, a number of editors whom I (implicitly) referenced in some of those Talk comments have since been given indefinite bans on editing articles related to Israel-Palestine.
- I accept that I shouldn’t have spoken in that way, but in my defence, a number of administrators clearly ended up independently agreeing with me, substantively, that these users had in fact been editing in violation of NPOV and related rules.
- I don't accept that I was doing so, by the way. I was unaware that there had been any sort of high-level Admin/Editorial discussion relating to the Gazan Health Ministry claims, and am obviously willing to go along with that decision now that I'm aware of it.
- But I think if you look at the edits I actually made, they were absolutely neutral, they contextualised various claims made by each side, and they were actually designed to address the existing NPOV violations which subsequently got those users banned from further edits.
- Again, I accept it’s still not on to just accuse someone of that, but I wasn’t seeing anything being done about it (didn’t even know about some of these rules tbh), which felt frustrating and partly explains what happened there.
KronosAlight (
talk) 16:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
- I’d also of course accept @
Newyorkbrad’s request that I refrain from avoiding unnecessary commentary on Talk pages etc. It was counterproductive for me to do that and I certainly was not as polite as I should have been.
KronosAlight (
talk) 16:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
Statement by BilledMammal
Kronos, going to the talk page. If an editor is routinely engaged in POV pushing and source distortion then that becomes a behavioral issue that can be addressed here, but it doesn't justify violating 1RR - and violating 1RR to address such issues can simply mean that you are sanctioned, rather than the editor engaging in POV pushing and source distortion.
I strongly encourage you to self-revert your violations now.
BilledMammal (
talk) 14:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Do you mean simply reverting to the version of the article prior to any 'reverts'?
KronosAlight (
talk) 14:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
- You need to reverse any of your edits that can still be reversed, but leave any changes made by other editors in place. On a very active page this can be difficult, but as long as you make a good faith effort to undo your violations I don't think the admins will hold it against you.
BilledMammal (
talk) 14:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Okay, I've returned the School attack article to how it was before, i.e. the reference to Hamas removed.
- I’ll see what I can do about the rescue operation article. That’s obviously more complicated because a lot of edits have been made since that.
KronosAlight (
talk) 14:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Thank you.
BilledMammal (
talk) 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Okay, I'm pretty sure both articles are more or less as they were before this whole 'reverting' thing.
- That means there's claims on these articles which some other editor is going to have to inspect re NPOV etc., and some of which already have Talk threads about, but I'm going to keep away from it.
KronosAlight (
talk) 14:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
Statement by Selfstudier
The 1R here is a slamdunk so no comment on that, the little BM/Kronos tete a tete above looks like a resolution. However I will just note that we are once again dealing with this GHM nonsense just as in the other complaint. I am convinced these edits are simply intended to provoke and kudos to complainant for refusing to be provoked this time.
Selfstudier (
talk) 14:58, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
Statement by (username)
Result concerning KronosAlight
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I have to say I assumed this report was going to be a tit-for-tat one given the fact that the OP is mentioned in a previous section; however, even a brief reading of the evidence strongly suggests that KronosAlight is not a very good fit for such a contentious topic area.
This,
this followed by
this spectacular lack of self-awareness are not good. The refusal to revert after violating 1RR, and the response above which suggests they don't actually think 1RR applies to them at all (
"None of these are 'reverts'. I removed your editorialising"
- which is effectively saying "I reverted your edit, but it doesn't count as a revert because I was reverting something which I think is wrong") are merely supporting evidence of this.
Black Kite (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
reply
- Since KronosAlight says he was previously unfamiliar with the 1RR restriction on these articles and from now on will comply with it, I would be content to resolve that aspect of the complaint with a warning. I am more troubled by the POV issue, and would also like KronosAlight also to promise to avoid unnecessary commentary and to edit neutrally if he is going to remain active in this topic-area.
Newyorkbrad (
talk) 15:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
reply