Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:34, 22 August 2024

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

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

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

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;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

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:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear 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.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

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

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

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.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

KlayCax

KlayCax (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from post-1992 United States politics, broadly construed. KlayCax is also warned that their conduct in the area of infoboxes has fallen short of community expectations. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 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 KlayCax

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Prcc27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: KlayCax (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: WP:CTOP

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

August 9th, 2024 Added RFKJR to infobox without consensus.
July 21st, 2024 Discussion attempt to add RFKJR to infobox.
June 18th, 2024 Added Cornell West to infobox without consensus.
May 16th, 2024 Discussion attempt to add RFKJR to infobox.
May 13th, 2024 Added RFKJR to infobox without consensus.
March 6th, 2024 Added RFKJR to infobox without consensus.
February 27th, 2024 Discussion attempt to add RFKJR to the infobox.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

December 15th, 2023 Block for edit-warring on Joe Biden article/arbitration decision enforced.
October 7th, 2023 Partial block for edit-warring.
November 4th, 2023 Blocked for edit-warring.

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 July 27th, 2022 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KlayCax has started several different discussions and made actual edits pushing for third-party candidates (especially RFKJR) to be added to the infobox. The July 21st discussion was started while discussions on the matter were already ongoing ([1][2]). They’ve continuously been trying to add Kennedy to the infobox, even though the matter has already been resolved [3][4]. The addition of Cornell West went against the ballot access and polling criteria spelled out in the consensus for state infoboxes. We shouldn’t have to have a discussion with KlayCax every month explaining that there’s no consensus for adding Kennedy at this stage. Prcc27 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response @KlayCax: This isn’t an RfC (you claimed it was). We came up with a consensus for state infoboxes at the main article’s talk page: 5%+ polling average and ballot access. Cornell West has never had a polling average of 5%+ in Michigan. The main issue regarding you adding West to the infobox is you added someone that isn’t even on the ballot in Michigan and is polling poorly. This has nothing to do with polling consistency; West has consistently polled below 5%. Prcc27 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Response @KlayCax: Wrong again. Your May 13th edit was made after this RfC was closed on May 12th. Nevertheless, it was clear even before that RfC that consensus was against inclusion. Prcc27 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Response @Red-tailed hawk: I believe David O. Johnson was the user that was initially planning on reporting KlayCax. But since that user appears to be busy, I offered to take over and make the report in their place. (Please see: [5][6]). Prcc27 (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Comment: Regarding sanctions, I think KlayCax should either be topic banned, or given KlayCax’s disruptive actions are not isolated to only one topic, a ban that is more broad may be in order. Prcc27 (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Note to admins (@ScottishFinnishRadish: @Red-tailed hawk:): I just wanted to let you both know that I added yet another diff of @KlayCax:’s disruptive behavior pushing third party candidates into the infoboxes. A few minutes ago, KlayCax added RFKJR. to the Texas infobox, even though RFKJR. has not appeared in any Harris v. Trump v. Kennedy state polls. Clearly Kennedy fails the polling criterion per consensus. KlayCax is still ignoring WP:CAREFUL, even after I already explained to them that WP:BOLD has limits. Prcc27 (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Response @Super Goku V: The context of my statement was to use the same criteria: polling and ballot access. Nationwide polling for the national infobox; statewide polling for state infoboxes. Never said qualifying for national infobox = qualifying for every single state infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Response @KlayCax: Why would we use polls that have the wrong Democratic nominee, especially when we know RFKJR does worse in polls with the correct nominee..? You may not have broken policy (this time) per se, but it is best to err on the side of caution on articles with discretionary sanctions. And I’m disappointed you decided to ignore my advice. Prcc27 (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Response @XavierGreen: Before a few days ago, it was quite clear RFKJR failed the RfC criteria. Kennedy possibly now meeting the criteria is irrelevant to KlayCax’s past disruptions. Prcc27 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

Discussion concerning KlayCax

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 KlayCax

Response to Prcc27's initial AE:

To summarize:

Prcc27 is wrong to claim that my opinions violate the principle of WP: POV or that I'm pushing candidates into the infobox. On article after article, including most recently in the 2024 United Kingdom general election (I supported Sinn Féin, Reform UK, Democratic Unionist Party, and other parties being added) I have consistently have been an advocate of broadly displaying the candidates within election articles within the infobox. Differences of opinions among editors is normal. Particularly when it involves controversial subject matter such as the 2024 United States presidential election. Talk page discussion in these instances is a good thing. A look at the edits in question shows it was a good faith attempt to reach consensus. Not an attempt to overturn the RFC.

Furthermore, I was not "attempting" to overturn an "already... resolved [manner]". At no point did I ever even attempt to overturn the RFC. It should be clear by the context that I was polling editors on whether the requirements of the RFC has been made. (As the criteria laid out has been noted by multiple editors as being heavily ambiguous and reliant on contradicting sources.) Because of this, I was clearly pinging involved editors to state that it appears that Kennedy Jr. has either met or was about to immediately meet the requirements of the RFC: being certified in a total amount of states that exceed 270 electoral votes and polling above 5%. The goal of the discussion was to see whether there was now a consensus to add.

The March 6th and May 13th edits were before this RFC or its meaning was concluded. (Added later: The RFC concluded on the 12th. Ballot petitions were seen by many as counting.)

Both Jill Stein and Cornell West are/were polling above 5% and had either reported by WP: RS or confirmed certified ballot access at the time the June 18th edit was made, it was a self-proclaimed WP: BOLD edit, and it was on the 2024 United States presidential election in Michigan article, not the 2024 United States presidential election article. Prcc27 favored a "three poll criteria + 5%" but there was nothing in the linked source to say that this was a consensus of editors. (Even under WP: ONUS) He then removed it, it was not reverted, and I don't feel particularly strong either way or another about West or Stein being in the infobox.

The Lukt64 and Sendpls user edits had nothing to do with discussions on whether the RFC was resolved. Rather, they were just requests to add RFK into the article, so this was not simply "spamming the same thing three times" as argued.

Finally, many editors in mid-July stated that the issue needed to be revisited. The other aspects are clearly taken out of context and not rules violations. KlayCax (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Prcc27's reply:

The RFC was this.

1.) I explained my reasoning at the time. Both Jill Stein and Cornell West have polled at or above 5% in Michigan. There was never a consensus on whether 5% should be an average or individual polls (since RFK has been the only one to get both it's not been approached at all outside of our conversations) and the matter was left to editor's discretion.

2.) At the time, local newspapers wrongly reported West's ballot access statement as a fact in their own voice, as West had stated that he had been certified w/ ballot access at the time. (The newspapers in question were of course considered WP: RS and I was working off of that.) In terms of Jill Stein, she has ballot access in Michigan as a member of the Green Party.

3.) Per WP: ONUS it was not reinstated. KlayCax (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third Prcc27:

Not true. On May 13th, "ballot access" was seen by many editors as having "had enough petitions" (as clearly visible), it was reverted, a talk page discussion ensured, and it was not reinstated by me per WP: ONUS. KlayCax (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Muboshgu:

Muboshgu's claims that I was violating WP: NPOV in the J.D. Vance and Kamala Harris articles. In response to this:

I was not pushing any kind or sort of "left-wing" point of view in the J.D. Vance article — you seem to be arguing that I'm both violating WP: NPOV by promoting a disproportionate left (on Vance article) AND right-wing perspective (on Kamala article), and with all due respect: that doesn't make sense — by noting that he has been influenced by the Dark Enlightenment movement, a fact and description that he has also claimed and has been widely reported. It certainly does look like vandalism when it's not trimmed but removed from the article entirely. The entire notion that it is POV-pushing seems to be based on the claim that "his opinions on X or Y are unpopular so they shouldn't be in the article". That is of course not what WP: NPOV means. WP: NPOV is about reflecting the opinion of reliable sources. Not "doesn't improve or diminish their standing in the eyes of the median voter". Reliable sources have mentioned J.D. Vance's ties to the "dissent/edgy online right." It certainly does deserve mention on Wikipedia and reactionary thought is by no means too "obscure" a concept or too difficult to understand for readers.

At the time, there was already a Wikilinks for readers who want more detail. I reached out on talk - as you noted - and a majority wanted it kept.

Many American conservatives do use Marxism as an insult against those who hold left-wing economic positions. This is however clearly not what my edits were. Donald J. Harris is considered an economist in the post-Keynesian and Marxian schools of thought. His primary influences are Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx, is labeled a post-Keynesian and Marxian economist by multiple sources, and it's not POV-pushing to mention it, nor "fail verification". It's also typical to list the ideology of economists in the first sentence of the article. (See Richard D. Wolff for instance.) Explanations for both edits were also given on their respective talk pages before the start of the WP: AE.

You left out that I also added at the same time a statement that, which undercuts the idea that Donald J. Harris influenced Kamala to any significant extent. (Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris are notoriously not close and differ widely on politics.) The difference of the edit can be seen here showing that it was added in at the same time the diffs cited by him were. Are Marxists fans of the Democratic Party? No, of course not. All of this, again, is just differing editorial perspectives that led to discussion. KlayCax (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SashiRolls:

Edits in question.

The June 12, 2024 edit was in regards to political parties rather than coalitions. Listing New Popular Front or its constituent parties would have been WP: CRYSTAL at the time due to the notorious fragmentation of the French left. The Deccan Herald source in question states: In France, currently there are two major parties in the running, among others. The first is the ruling party, Renaissance(RE), or En Marche! as it was earlier known. The hold the majority in the National Assembly, France's lower house and the Senate... In opposition is Marine Le Pen and her party, National Rally, a.k.a. Rassemblement National(RN). RN is a right wing populist party that recently gained a large number of seats in the 2024 EU elections.

The February 26, 2024 edit was in reference to this article, which starts off by saying: In the often contentious and acrimonious debates over... (in regards to historians/political scientists over the matter.) What was being cited there wasn't the author's opinion on the matter. What was being referred was his meta-analysis of the the state of the literature as of 2023.

The October 1, 2023 edit is sourced to an online survey. That is true. However, telephone surveys have become increasingly inaccurate in recent years due to low-response rates/other factors, with the differences between online/telephone survey accuracy sharply decreasing. Partisan polling is fine as long as it comes from a WP: RS. (See WP:LDS/RS for Deseret News) I also later replaced it with this higher-quality source seen here.

Sourcing in question.

The April 21, 2024 edit sourced The Spectator (WP:SPECTATOR), a WP:MREL, and followed the guidelines for a WP:RSOPINION right-wing view, attributing the view exclusively to Jeff Fynn-Paul.

The September 20, 2023 edit doesn't make the claim. It states that the claim has been widely believed among sociologists. Those are two different claims with two very different meanings.

Final concluding notes:

I'm requesting that the closing admin go through every edit cited before coming to a AE decision. I'm happy to explain any edit that is seem as problematic if need be through private (email) or public response (here).

I do not believe that there was a violation of Wikipedia rules within the differences cited. Many of the individuals commenting have made personal attacks, false WP:SOCKPUPPET accusations, and similar things against me over the past year, but per WP: CIVILITY/WP: AGF guidelines I've been hesitant about mentioning this until now, as not sure what I can write on this outside of vague references.

I've reached the max word limit (~at 1500 albeit going slightly over) to respond to every claim but it should be clear by the above that the claims are baseless and throwing the kitchen sink. KlayCax (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final concluding notes: Part II

Expected the above to be my final message but the updated August 9, 2024 "incident" is once again highly deceptive, @Red-tailed sock:.

Prcc27 unilaterally changed the infobox box inclusion criteria and then retroactively punished me for the supposed "violation". If you notice: the original "consensus" that he linked was one poll with 5% ballot access.

He then wanted to modify it so it was a "consistent polling criteria" of 3 polls above 5% with a 5%+ average. I found that permissible and even logical. (Despite it not being the original agreed upon criteria.)

Now, he reports me retroactively for violating a "criteria" that was not specified or outlined or notified, saying that only those with Harris as a candidate are valid, saying No Harris/Trump/Kennedy polling in Texas; fails polling criterion. That is absolutely astonishing as this "change in criteria" was not notified to neither me or the editors on the 2024 United States presidential election talk page and appears to be entirely retroactively applied decision. (At the very least: I was never notified of it.) I'm definitely not going to touch this topic now as I have absolutely no interest on editing the 2024 United States presidential election-related articles anymore. Zilch. Zero. Nada. I simply don't have the time or effort to respond to frivolous claims, evershifting goal posts, and intentionally boobytrapped edits.

Willing to respond to any seemingly problematic edits if a closer has a question. For now: I feel like I explained all of the cited edits and I'm completely burnt out of this conversation. KlayCax (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Qutlook

:It may also be noted that KlayCax has been warned in the past on other articles for deceptive editing and has been given a “Final Warning” by ScottishFinnishRadish. Just FYI and my two cents for the time being. Qutlooker (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been stated in the head, please disregard. Qutlooker (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Left guide's first statement) Yes, I did do that complaint. HOWEVER, I did not have the diffs of which people were talking about. So I did not open a case. Qutlooker (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Super Goku V’s second statement) Maybe it would be best to clarify that I was told if I wanted disciplinary action against KlayCax I would need to open an AE. Though, as stated, I did not have the diffs that would be needed to properly open an AE request. Qutlooker (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean has everyone said what they have wanted to say. Qutlooker (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to KlayCax's bulletpoint No. 5) An outlier poll does not, and WOULD NOT argue enough for an inclusion into the infobox, nor does a party "claiming" to have ballot access mean anything until it is fact-checked and proven by factual sources. Qutlooker (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Prcc27’s comment) May it be considered that an indefinite block be done considering you have said that it is not only one topic they interact with. Qutlooker (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to KlayCax) The max word limit you were told to be under was 1000 words. Not 1500. Qutlooker (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reckon everyone here has made up their minds on KlayCax have we? Qutlooker (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David A

I personally think that this editor seems well-intended and mostly harmless, so I hope that his punishment (if any) will not be unnecessarily harsh. Perhaps he can simply be ordered by a Wikipedia administrator to stop attempting to add West, Kennedy, and other minor candidates to the infobox? David A (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Left guide

It's worth noting that less than a week ago, an apparently similar complaint was lodged at an admin's talk page by a user different from the filer of this request. Left guide (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I ran KlayCax's section into the word count tool and the result was 1241 words, more than double the 500 limit. Left guide (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Muboshgu

KlayCax has made disruptive POV edits at the 2024 US presidential election page as discussed. They have also been disruptive on other articles related to the election, including JD Vance, edit warring over some obscure political views. See Talk:JD Vance#Should there be a summary of Vance's ideology in the lead? for discussion they started after they were reverted. Also they made accusations of vandalism when a user removed information that should have been removed, and "apparent accident deletion/vandalism from WP: SPA. (?)". They also tried to add to Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris that Donald Harris was involved in Marxism, which fails verification and is a significant POV term used by the right wing in today's US political situation.[8][9] See Talk:Kamala Harris#Removal of Shyamala Gopalan and Donald J. Harris from the lead for more of that discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the editor who was editing against the consensus of that RfC.[10] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GreatCaesarsGhost

~~I agree with David A that KlayCax is mostly harmless but deserves some sanction~~. My concern is they are not adhering to WP:RECKLESS. KlayCax is being too bold in making major edits that they know will be subject to revert or controversy. As I noted here[11] they will sometimes act against established consensus due to evolving events that they deem have negated that consensus (when most others disagree). I do wish that they would acknowledge and reflect that criticism of their edits is coming from many editors. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my prior advocacy for leniency. I have limited engagement with KC, and am thus not in a position to comment on their overall behavior. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Super Goku V

There seems to be some confusion about the RfC that was mentioned due to how it was linked to, so to clear that up it is my understanding that the referenced RfC is "RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)" --Super Goku V (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add, the below mentioned archived talk page discussion is relevant to this as it involved discussion on the 22nd and 23rd about KlayCax's talk page edits. There were comments that the appropriate venue was either ANI or AE. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Left guide: Yes, that seems to be from this archived talk page discussion. Qutlook said at the time, After speaking to an admin who has warned KlayCax before for disruptive editing I have been told to do this... One Problem, I don't have those diffs so I don't currently have an open AE request. Not sure why he said he was told to do so, but it is related in my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Qutlook: Gotcha. I will note above that the archived talk page discussion is still relevant to this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. If you are referring to your earlier indefinite block comment, then I don't agree on that. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. For myself, I think that it should be noted that there was a single false SOCKPUPPET accusation, not multiple. Other than that, I think that either ScottishFinnishRadish's or Prcc27's suggested remedies would work. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to KlayCax: Just to check, do you understand the word limits as noted at the top of this page? Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. My understanding is that you get 500 words total for your statements, not 500 words per statement. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking given the extension request. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Prcc27: I understand the criteria at 2024 United States presidential election having Kennedy listed in the infobox, but I guess not for the other states. This is the discussion you are referring to, correct? If so, can you clarify what you meant by but I think it seems more practical to just follow the lead of the national infobox criteria then? From my reading, it seems to support adding Kennedy to the other articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SashiRolls

I agree that the problem is not related to the topic area. I'm not sure I would agree that KlayCax is entirely harmless after having had to spend a lot of time cleaning up after them.

KCx is known for edit summaries which hide the nature of their edits:

12 June 2024 -- While the edit summary is WP:MOS, in fact it introduces POV content not supported by the source supplied. Questioned about this, KCx later provided a link to the Deccan Herald on the TP, which also did not support the sweeping statement, though he wisely refrained from adding it to the entry after two people pointed out the claim he wanted to add to the first line of the lede was nonsense.
26 February 2024 -- @Drmies: writes, "your edit summary makes no sense in relation to the actual edit, and your response is to repeat the same irrelevant citation, this time with a quote which also totally doesn't make your point." and four days later adds "It's just one deflection after another" further suggesting bringing the problem up at ANI for disussion of a topic ban. 2 March 2024

KCx also seems to have trouble identifying reliable sources, beyond the Deccan Herald example cited above.

21 April 2024: Adds back an opinion piece from The Spectator (Cf. its entry at RSN) as the second link in the lede of an entry, after it had been removed.
1 October 2023 adds the results of an online survey conducted on behalf of Skylight, "an initiative of the Radiance foundation". The source states: "Skylight’s mission is to use technology to help young people embrace God-centered spiritual habits.
1 October 2023 adds the same online survey to another top-level page, buried in an avalanche of text.
20 Sept 2023: inserts the claim that ~~the~~ religion in the US is the final "death nail" of the secularization hypothesis based on an article that argues that this claim is empirically false (without using the term "death nail" of course). When questioned on it, he says that it's a poor source (not for the claim, but in general).

Finally, KCx has a habit of creating RfC & RM that are snow-closed against the position they were promoting: Cf. here and here and insists on long discussions about RfCs past they disagree with (see the context of the 26 February 2024 diff above).

I grant some of these diffs are a bit dated, but a pattern is clearly visible over the past year...-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12 June: The source KCx added didn't support their claim that the RN was one of two major political parties in France in any way. The Deccan Herald article found later is talking about one election. For context, the RN has three out of 348 senators (<1%).

21 April: the second line of the lede says "Remini... states" something. KCx's "marginally reliable" source does not mention Remini even once. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

% of KCx's edits to mainspace reverted: 12% -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XavierGreen

The RFC stated that any candidate who "generally has 5% in poll aggregators" and ballot access to 270 electoral college votes should be included. Myself and other editors have shown proof that he has met the RFC consensus. There are a number of editors who are vociferously commenting on the talk page making arguments that are directly contrary to the RFC.XavierGreen (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note to the admins reviewing this that those stating that KlayCax was editing against consensus should note that a massive dispute has now erupted in on the 2024 United States presidential election talk page and edit warring against the same RFC consensus that KlayCax was accused here of editing against.XavierGreen (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dan Murphy

I don't think the xaviergreen account should be making contributions in the uninvolved administrators area.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Scorpions1325

I do not have much experience with this editor. I only just now found out that they were referred to this venue. My only substantial interactions with this editor came in the history of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization last year. I don't quite remember everything that happened, but I noticed that they insisted on adding WP:OR and unsourced content to the lede of the article. They also had no respect for WP:MEDRS. From what I have observed, this editor is disruptive in many of the areas they edit in, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Scorpions1325 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning KlayCax

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

Please keep the word limits in mind and only comment in your own sections. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not terribly impressed with the response to frequent warnings and blocks for edit warring being badgering and bludgeoning. This seems to be their general behavior whenever there is disagreement rather than isolated to one article or topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KlayCax, I suggest you condense down what you have already. I can tell you I don't find Marxian/Marxist economists see capitalism as being inherently tied to class conflict (albeit this can be repressed in their views through false consciousness) and subsequent exploitation. Many American conservatives do use it as an insult against those who hold left-wing economic positions. This is however clearly not what my edits were. It is an uncontroversial and demonstrable fact that Donald J. Harris is considered an economist in the post-Keynesian and Marxian schools of thought. His primary influences are Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx, he's been described as a post-Keynesian and Marxian economist by multiple sources, and it's not POV-pushing to mention it in the article. It certainly does not "fail verification" and I can provide over a dozen sources on the matter. Furthermore, you left out that I also added at the same time a statement that, which undercuts the idea that Donald J. Harris influenced Kamala to any significant extent. (Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris are notoriously not close and differ widely on politics.) The diff of the edit can be seen here. Are you under the assumption that Marxists are fans of the Democratic Party? No, of course not.^{194 words, or 2/5 of the word limit} particularly useful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No other admins have any input? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
1. @Prcc27: Can you explain why this was filed one week after the most recent edit that you've placed in the diff list?
2. @KlayCax: If you would like an extension, please request one at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. But otherwise, please condense down the comment a bit.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They asked for an extension on my talk page, and I told them to try and keep it under 1000 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed that. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KlayCax: You're still over the word limit extension by ~500 words. Please condense it, or hat intricate details. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 10:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk, have you had a chance to look this over yet? With their history of edit warring, and moving on to this IDHT/bludgeoning I'm thinking six month topic ban from the 2024 American presidential election might be the ticket. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken my chance to fully read through all the diffs yet, no. I don't think I will in the next 24 hours, either, so please do not wait on me if you have already found some narrowly tailored approach here that you believe will work. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 13:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still up in the air between a narrow topic ban here, or something broader. Considering the issues with edit warring that have led to multiple blocks and a final warning before an indef leading in to this recent behavior I'm not certain that a tightly tailored topic ban is sufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very concerned that the WP:IDHT attitude seems to have carried over from previous cases where sanctions were levied. I feel an AP2 TBAN is needed, and - given that they seem to be raising issues of candidates in infoboxes that nobody else cares about on other pages as well - possibly an infobox TBAN as well, but at the moment I'm not able to find evidence that they are aware of the infobox DS/CT regime. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an infobox notice, so AP2 topic ban and a logged warning on infobox editing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O.maximov

O.maximov (talk · contribs) is warned against inserting content without appropriate sources in support in contravention of policies on no original research and verifiability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 16 August 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 O.maximov

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: O.maximov (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: WP:ARBPIA

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

On Aug 3, O.maximov reinstated one of ABHammad's edits. (ABHammad received a 0RR restriction at Jul 31 20:52, see #ABHammad.)

O.maximov Aug 3 edit 1 at Israel
- O.maximov changed were expelled by Jewish and then Israeli forces or fled to were expelled or fled due to various causes with the edit summary last consensual version of this before weight changes
- However, this is not the "last consensual version." In this edit, O.maximov reinstated an edit by ABHammad June 23 that introduced the various causes language, changing were expelled or made to flee, by paramilitaries and later its military, an expulsion known as the Nakba to were expelled or made to flee due to various causes. This edit was changed by Nableezy on Jul 31 15:34 to were expelled by Jewish and then Israeli forces or fled from the territory Israel would come to control.
- There has been discussion about this line since May at Talk:Israel/Archive 105#Nakba in the lede, and a pending RFC at Talk:Israel#RFC: How should the Nakba described?
- The "due to various causes" language is whitewashing via WP:WEASEL words, an example of Nakba denial. "Various causes" is a dogwhistle for debunked theories like "they left voluntarily" or "their leaders told them to leave," intended to distract from the actual cause, which is violence by the Yishuv.

Other similar issues:

O.maximov Aug 3 edit 2 at Israel
- Changes Israel has established and continues to expand settlements... to Israel has established settlements, removing and continues to expand, with edit summary This can be trimmed without changing the meaning
- Of course, it significantly changes the meaning, again whitewashing that settlement expansion continues to this day (e.g. AP News July 3, 2024: "Israel turbocharges West Bank settlement expansion with largest land grab in decades")
Jul 24 (combined diff) at Israel
- Jul 24 11:39, edit summary More on media
  - removed that Israel is behind Qatar
  - added positive content about Israel (Israeli media is diverse, reflecting the spectrum of Israeli audiences.)
  - added that Al Jazeera is Qatari
- Jul 24 11:41, edit summary One time event, wp:bold
  - removed negative content about Israel seizing journalists' equipment
- Jul 24 11:50, edit summary reasoning
  - added that Israeli officials accuse Qatari Al Jazeera of promoting antisemitism and terrorism
Tag-team edit warring at Israeli–Palestinian conflict: ABHammad Jun 24, O.maximov Jun 24, ABHammad Jun 28 - note these are such "blind reverts," that they even change "https" to "http", a sure sign that people are pressing the undo button without paying attention to what they're undoing
At Zionism in June-July (same "colonization" edit-war I've posted before that was the catalyst for #ABHammad filing; these are just the O.maximov/ABHammad edits): ABHammad June 10 (another), O.maximov June 11, ABHammad July 2, O.maximov July 3, ABHammad July 21
At Genocide of indigenous peoples: ABHammad May 24, O.maximov May 27 (ABHammad June 23, and again)
At 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses May 19-20
- "Some" to "Numerous"
  - O.maximov May 19 - changing Some prominent pro-Israel figures have described the protests as antisemitic, ... to Numerous antisemitic incidents, characterized by hate speech, violence, and discriminatory behavior targeting Jewish students, were documented during the protests.
  - ABHammad May 20 - Allegations of antisemitic incidents were documented during the protests, ... back to Numerous ...
- Removing see also link to Anti-apartheid movement in the United States: O.maximov May 19, ABHammad May 20
- O.maximov May 31 removed content about violence by pro-Israeli protesters with edit summary One case is undue. However, they added (or expanded) content about single instances of violence by pro-Palestinian protesters on May 19 here (literally begins the line with In one instance...), here, here, and here.
- O.maximov also May 19 - changes allegations to incidents
- Another, same day - changes ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to displacement of Palestinians

My first complaint was at ABHammad's talk page (O.maximov was pinged): User talk:ABHammad#Enough already. My second complaint was at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive336#Nishidani in July, which I notified O.maximov about on their user talk page. My third complaint was at #ABHammad (O.maximov was pinged).

Aside from the tag-team edit warring, the edit summaries are not accurate, and the edits push a pro-Israeli POV. Levivich (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions AFAIK, but multiple user talk page threads: User talk:O.maximov#March 2024, User talk:O.maximov#May 2024, User talk:O.maximov#WP:1RR at 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses, User talk:O.maximov#June 2024, User talk:O.maximov#prior accounts, User talk:O.maximov#Editing against a clear consensus

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

alert, response

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re Vanamonde93's question about talk page edits:

Israel and the Nakba/"various causes" edit: 2021 discussion predates the account; no participation by O.max in the March or May discussions. O.max did vote in the RFC back in June, but otherwise no talk page comments about this issue (though there are talk page comments about other issues).
Israel and the settlement expansion edit, or the Jul 24 media-related edits, I don't see any relevant discussion on the talk page by O.max or anyone else
Israeli–Palestinian conflict: no talk page edits
Zionism: three talk page edits in July:
1. Jul 3 10:42 - arguing for "re-" establishment, and "I will be adding this factual information shortly", which was followed by the Jul 3 edit diff'd above, which is just repeating the same edit that O.max previously made on June 11 (and ABHammad on June 10, July 2, and July 21, plus other editors on other dates)
2. Jul 3 11:16 - Agreeing with 916crdshn that there is no consensus for "colonization" and arguing WP:ONUS
3. Jul 3 11:46 - calling for WP:AGF w/r/t 916crdshn (now CU blocked as compromised account)
Genocide of indigenous peoples: O.max voted in the RFC the day after making the revert Special:Diff/1226134653; no other talk page posts
2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses: no talk page edits

Something else I noticed today. I initially skipped over these diffs because of the innocuous edit summaries, but on further look, at Israel lobby in the United Kingdom on Aug 1, O.max basically rewrote it to turn it into a conspiracy theory -- as in, the existence of an Israel lobby in the UK is a conspiracy theory: 1, 2, 3; there are more edits, but those three are indicative. Search the article (any revision) for "conspiracy" and note that the sources do not even come close to supporting this notion. It's a complete misrepresentation of sources and some of the most blatant POV-pushing I've seen, even in the context of the blatant POV-pushing I've been complaining about lately. Levivich (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeleYoetz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (CTOP alert Jun 21) has repeated the "O.maximov Aug 3 edit 1" diff'd at the beginning of this report. This is their first edit to the article, no edits to the talk page. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BK49: That book does not say that the Israeli lobby in the UK is a conspiracy theory, it gives examples of conspiracy theories involving the Israeli lobby in the UK, which doesn't mean that the lobby itself is a conspiracy theory, i.e., that the lobby doesn't actually exist. By analogy, there are lots of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry, that doesn't mean the Freemasonry is a conspiracy theory, or that they don't actually exist.

We would not tolerate someone changing the short description for the Freemasonry article to Alternatively a conspiracy theory or group of fraternal organizations, but that is what O.max did at the Israeli lobby article in this edit.

The Freemasonry article mentions conspiracy theories in the last lead paragraph, it does not mention conspiracy theories as the first thing in the lead sentence. But O.max changed the lead of the Israeli lobby article from this:

The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom are individuals and groups seeking to influence the foreign policy of the United Kingdom in favour of bilateral ties with Israel, Zionism, Israel, or the policies of the Israeli government.

to this:

The idea of an Israel lobby in the United Kingdom has been used to raise conspire theories regarding a "Jewish plot" to influence Britain are individuals and groups and alternativly refers to those seeking to influence the foreign policy of the United Kingdom in favour of bilateral ties with Israel, Zionism, Israel, or the policies of the Israeli government.

These edits are, if not POV-pushing, at least a serious misapplication of WP:DUE. Levivich (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BK: I agree that "The idea of an Israel lobby in the United Kingdom has been used to raise conspire theories" is not, in and of itself, a conduct problem. And if that was all there was, I wouldn't have brought it up. But when you put that change -- putting the "been used to raise conspiracy theories" right up front -- together with the short description edit ("Alternatively a conspiracy theory or [a lobby]"), and then the comment here in this AE ("Many sources use the word conspiracy also ... Others say Israel has a big and powerful lobby ... I wanted to show both sides ... The body had both ideas. I think there is an Israel lobby ... Sources also say that this can be exagerated into a conspiracy theory. Therefore, both need to be in lead."), this shows, I think quite clearly, that he thinks there are two views of the Israel lobby: (1) it's a conspiracy theory, it doesn't exist, and (2) it's a real thing that exists. That is not a content dispute, that is -- take your pick -- POV pushing to suggest that there isn't such a thing as an Israel lobby (that would be a moon-is-made-of-cheese level falsehood), a reading comprehension problem (because no source questions whether the Israel lobby exists, and no source says that its existence is, itself, a conspiracy theory), or a total lack of understanding of WP:DUE (because the fact that the lobby has been used to raise conspiracy theories is, by no means, the very first thing that should be said in the article, under any reasonable application of WP:DUE, even an incorrect, but reasonable, application would not arrive here).

So this isn't a good-faith content dispute, it's either POV pushing or CIR, both are conduct problems. The end result is that they changed the article to question whether the Israel lobby actually exists -- that's a major problem, in my view. It's disinformation, not just misinformation. It's an attempt to cover up the very existence of the Israel lobby, to cast doubt on it. If it comes from a genuine belief that maybe the lobby isn't real, it's CIR; otherwise, it's POV-pushing.

Combine that with the other edits, and I think it's pretty clear. Look at my examples, from the top, they are:

Aug 3: changing the text from the Nakba was caused by Israel to the Nakba was caused by "various causes"
Aug 3: removing content about Israel and media that makes Israel look bad or second to an Arab country, while adding content that makes the Arab media look bad instead
Jul 24: eliminating content that says Israel continues to expand settlements
Jun 24: a bunch of changes, but including changing "expelled or fled" to "fled or expelled," removing a line about Palestinian right to resist; adding attribution of Palestinian justifications to Norman Finkelstein (a particularly controversial figure, but by far not the only person who has said what is attributed to him), while expanding Israeli justifications in wikivoice
Jun 11 and Jul 3: removing "colonization" from the lead of Zionism
removing mention of Israel of the indigenous genocides article
on the campus protest article, changing "some" to "numerous," and removing violence by pro-Israelis but adding violence by pro-Palestinians
Recasting the Israeli lobby in the UK article to say it's maybe a conspiracy theory, and doubling down on that interpretation at AE

Anybody got an example of O.max making a pro-Palestinian edit? I suppose YMMV but it's pretty clear to me. Levivich (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/1238598820

Discussion concerning O.maximov

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 O.maximov

Levivich, I respect different thinking. You must respect that I think differently. If your purpose is for me to say that Palestinians fled or were expelled then there is no problem. I have no problem saying this and other stuff. It is a problem that you post on my page just a link and expect me to press the link. It is a problem that first thing I get from Nableezy is that he asked me if I have prior accounts. The answer is no. I don't know why you behave like this. You have a problem with a person, you speak to the person. I invite you to my talk page to discuss things. I saw Levivich posted stuff on 1RR. Bro, you are a senior editor. You know it's not 1RR. I also did my best to kindly explain to Unbandito who posted it why it's not a 1RR violation. All the warnings you posted are really unrelated. Nableezy asks me if I have another account. I told him - no. Here someone says I edited against consensus, I say - look at the page! You see many people are saying different things! You posted a message I got because I was not writing encyclopedically on Economics, I understood and improved my writing. But Levivich, why don't you post on my talk page and explain? Nableezy can you explain which edit I did is against consensus and which consensus (You posted discussions)? I have no problem talking, look at all my talking in Israel and in other articles. I have no problem to talk. If you wish to collaborate as I do, you should treat others with respect, and this does not help to improve the temperature. O.maximov (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: the Israel lobby is viewed by some as a conspiracy to say there is a Jewish plot to control the UK, the British media… Many sources use the word conspiracy also:

Others say Israel has a big and powerful lobby that influences UK politics like other countries which other sources indicate. The body had a big problem of synth and no sources to back stuff. I fixed it (it is back to the same because of the rv). The body said many things and the lead didn’t. I wanted to show both sides. It’s also what I edited in the short description. If the page is only supposed to show the real lobby I am sorry, I thought it was neutral to show both sides. O.maximov (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, ScottishFinnishRadish, Barkeep49

The article talks also about British Politics, MPs and their remarks in the body. [12] [13], [14], [15] , [16] , [17], [18] , [19], [20] The article also talks about Jewish community being scared of what some say is a conspiracy theory. [21]. Here sources talk about Israel/Zionist lobby as exaggerated as a conspiracy theory. [22],

[23] the “The Power of the Zionist Lobby” subsection under the “United Kingdom” section as well as the sentence on “engaging in conspiracies about Israel’s power that draw on anti-Semitic tropes”.,

[24] , page 1,7,8

[25] talks directly about Israel lobby being used as a conspiracy and explains why,

[26] “Conspiracist antisemitism is found across the political spectrum. For every left-winger who believes there is a well-funded Zionist lobby inventing fake smears of antisemitism to prevent a socialist government, you will find a comparable right-winger who holds George Soros responsible for immigration”. ,

[27] , page 110 - 112, all relevant, specific sentence also relevant “The conspiracist element of ‘new antisemitism’ is most obvious in discussions about the existence and the machinations of what has become known as the Israel/Zionist/Jewish lobby. A common assumption of left-wing anti-Zionist critique is that Israel commits its fiendish acts with the unwavering political, military and financial support from America and to a lesser extent Britain, whose governments are in the grip of the menacing and all powerful pro-Israel lobby”. , [28] “A more recent example of how such ideas can appear in mainstream media coverage of Jews, Zionism and Israel was found in the 2009 dispatches documentary by the British journalist Peter Oborne, entitled “Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby” … This misses the point that using such a framework to explain Jewish or Zionist political activism relies, however unwittingly, on ideas and common understandings drawn from preexisting antisemitic conspiracy theories in order to make sense to its audience. At the very least, it was inevitable that antisemites would, and did, interpret it as an endorsement of their own conspiracy theories about Jews”. , [29], [30] pg 60, 65,66, [31] page 31 to 32 from “Within Labour” to “modern Labour politics” [32] “Labour MPs were found to have used “anti-Semitic tropes and suggesting that the complaints of anti-Semitism were fakes or smears.” A case cited in the report involved former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who said “the Israel Lobby,” which aimed “to undermine Corbyn’s leadership,” was responsible for allegations of anti-Semitism against fellow Labour MP Naz Shah. Livingstone later resigned from the party. The EHRC found a further 18 “borderline cases” involving local councillors, election candidates, and branch officials. It also noted several incidents of political interference by the Leader of the Opposition’s Office in addressing complaints of anti-Semitism. ”. My mistake was not to attribute to Haaretz in the lead. I am sorry about it. I know about WP:NOR and WP:V but I thought that it was established enough without written attribution in the lead. O.maximov (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Vanamonde93, my opinion is irrelevant. Like fiveby said, the body existed before. The body had both ideas. I think there is an Israel lobby, just like every country has a lobby. Sources also say that this can be exagerated into a conspiracy theory. Therefore, both need to be in lead. That is why the body and the page before me, speaks of both Groups and individuals who seek to influence policy and alternatively a conspiracy theory. That is what sources say and that is what I wrote. O.maximov (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49

There exists groups and individuals who want to advance Israeli interests in the UK, they are called by some the Israel Lobby.

My description is: The Israel lobby is a term used to refer to groups or individuals who advance Israeli interests in the UK or alternatively to a conspiracy theory that exagerates Israeli/Zionist influence in the UK.

I am open to other ideas. O.maximov (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 Yes I am taking this seriously. Thank you for the understanding. O.maximov (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

We had a previous consensus on this material and edit warring without a new one should result in sanctions for disruptive editing. Full stop. nableezy - 19:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish Talk:Israel/Archive 80#new paragraph on conflict for lead nableezy - 12:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Israel/Archive 102#Clarify details about explusion in lead. nableezy - 13:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I wouldn't call the bit on violence in protests some fairly straightforward partisan editing, that is blatantly tendentious. Either you think a single instance does not belong or you think it does, but O.maximov apparently changes what they think based on whose violence is being discussed. Violence by pro-Israeli protestors, oh dear not we cant have that, violence by pro-Palestinian protestors must be included and expanded. That is, to my mind, textbook tendentious editing. The bit on the seizure of the AP equipment, an event that resulted in the US demanding its return and was covered extremely widely, is likewise textbook tendentious editing. Same for this diff with its easter egg wikilinks and the fact that the source it cites for supposed reasoning leads with "The government will not make public the details of position papers submitted by the security services saying that Al Jazeera has harmed Israeli security, following a cabinet decision on Monday to temporarily shut down the Qatari news network." They are not simply politely pushing a POV, which itself is banned. There are users that are not engaging in attempting to productively discuss content disputes with the aim of coming to some agreement or consensus on what to include, they are simply acting as roadblocks. This is one of them. nableezy - 14:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Checkusers should be run on O.maximov and ABHammad.

Regarding "It is a problem that first thing I get from Nableezy is that he asked me if I have prior accounts. The answer is no." From a purely technical perspective the question seems reasonable to me. When I look at the proximity of the O.maximov account to other accounts using a variety of different techniques, I would like to understand why the closest matches are to blocked accounts with a single master, here and here, for example. Perhaps these are false positives, but if they are not, this AE report is a waste of time and sanctions will have no impact. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "I find the calls for CU as unconvincing...". A reason to conduct a CU is that the amount of work required to process the AE report, and the effectiveness of potential sanctions are dependent on the result of a CU. It's about efficiency and the optimal ordering of actions. If an account is found to be a disposable sockpuppet account, there is no need to spend time evaluating their editing or imposing sanctions. Assuming good faith is not the optimal approach in all cases. Other approaches can have more utility. I would argue, like FortunateSons, that it should be standard practice for AE reports once the report has been accepted as worth spending time on. The potential costs associated certain actions, like edit warring, are different for socks and non-socks. So, the likelihoods of the behavior are different. Willingness to edit war is itself an indictor that an account may be a sock because the cost of sanctions to them are zero. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ABHammad

This is the second time this month I have seen Levivich doing what seems like a weaponization of this noticeboard against editors who do not share their point of view based on their politics (and they are unsuprisingly joined by others). Previously, they accused me and other editors of tag teaming—a very serious allegation—without providing substantial evidence. While I received a 0RR sanction (rightfully), their tag teaming allegations were dismissed. Going over the new allegations, I don't see anything close to a sanctionable violation of anything. It's all content disputes that can and should be solved through discussions. But, I don't see any attempt by Levivich to do so, nor did they even try to discuss the issues with O.maximov personally. And the above claims about 'previous consensus on this material' are clearly false (if anything is happening on ARBPIA right now is forced controversial changes that take place without any attempt to achieve consensus). I think it might be time to consider sanctions of the WP:Boomerang sort. ABHammad (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FortunateSons

I think the suggestion of a CU is reasonable, and really should be standard practice in any topic area as a contentious as this one once there is reasonable suspicion.

Having said that, I’m not seeing conduct that goes beyond the ‘standard’ biased editing, with decent talk page engagement and no “horrible” conduct. While I’m not inherently opposed to banning for such conduct, a ban for that might catch some of our more experienced editors too, and despite some people’s well-reasoned objections, I don’t think banning most frequent contributors and starting fresh is likely to do us any good. As such, biased editors (and this seems to be closer to bias than ‘true’ partisanship) are the unavoidable norm.

Regarding the filer, while I wouldn’t say that we are at a boomerang yet, they should be mindful about weaponising AE; considering the past talk page discussion, a sockpuppet investigation would have been the more productive avenue for this. FortunateSons (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by fiveby

Levivich, take a look at the "Politics" section for the version prior. It has Tam Dalyell's "cabal of Jewish advisers", Jenny Tonge's "financial grips", and Chris Davies' "enjoyed wallowing in her own filth" to start. I don't think you can claim that the article is merely concerned with the existence of an Israel lobby. O.max did not write that section, "the existence of an Israel lobby in the UK is a conspiracy theory" is your framing and near as i can tell not his, and if not limited to 'existence' or UK there are a number of sources which will use the words "conspiracy theory".

Vanamonde93, ScottishFinnishRadish what exactly is so extremely concerning about this diff, or the other two—no doubt bad edits to a bad article—which call for a TBAN for those alone? fiveby(zero) 07:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC) fiveby(zero) 07:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 The best source here is probably Walter Russell Mead's The Arc of a Covenant, but it's really mostly discussed in relation to U.S. and Walt and Mearsheimer work. In my opinion those are bad edits, that politics section should probably be dialed back on the conspiracy POV, it's just the hyperbole here is unwarranted. Thanks for looking. fiveby(zero) 21:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by xDanielx

The accusations of whitewashing, dogwhistles, or Nakba denial based on various causes are a stretch. Similar language remains on the current Israel page: various reasons and numerous factors. We also have a whole page examining the various causes of the exodus: causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. There's a consensus among scholars (today) that expulsions occurred, but not about the significance of other causes. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning O.maximov

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

Nableezy, which material are you talking about? The Nakba in the lead of Israel?
I'm seeing some fairly straightforward partisan editing, but not anything severely out of the norm in the topic. Although that is a bit concerning, I'm more interested in where their editing has violated established consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vanamonde93 about those most recent diffs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fiveby, unilaterally changing the topic of an article from lobbying efforts by a country in another country to a conspiracy theory or groups and individuals seeking to influence UK foreign policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still parsing some of this; to me the distinction between tendentiousness partisanship is at least partly determined by whether the user is justifying edits on the talk page and/or otherwise engaging in discussion; I'm less happy with reverts or substantive changes in the absence of consensus without accompanying substantive talk page engagement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still struggling to wade through the morass of talk page discussions. But Levivich's recent diffs are extremely concerning, these two in particular: [33], [34]. I would consider a TBAN for those edits alone. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A unilateral POV change would be concerning, per SFR, but to me it's more than that; it's a unilateral change to the lead and framing, without supporting sources and without an equally substantive change to the body. The statement justifying it here at AE is bordering on a competence issue. This source (the 9th O.maximov provided, the first I clicked on) speaks of a single British MP, who claimed Tony Blair was being influenced by a coterie of Jewish advisors, and who was roundly criticized for saying so. It has no bearing at all on the claim that the Israeli lobby is a conspiracy theory, or otherwise; because there is no substantive analysis of the phenomenon in the source at all. I have no opinion on the existence or otherwise of an Israeli lobby; but if someone writes that it is a conspiracy theory, I expect that claim to be backed up by multiple heavyweight sources explicitly supporting that. O.maximov needs to show they can comply with WP:NOR and WP:V before they are allowed to mess around in a contentious topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your errors go a lot further than that, O. maximov. There is a profound difference between "Criticisms of UK policy toward Israel have veered into anti-semitic conspiracy theories" (which your sources support) and "The claim that an Israeli lobby exists in the UK is a conspiracy theory", which is effectively what you wrote. You appear to be unable to separate that nuance, which to me shows you have gotten too close to the material you're trying to edit. Further argument here isn't going to fix that; you need to show that you can edit within the bounds of policy, outside the CTOP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't investigated this, but presuming what Vanamonde writes is true (and I do) conflating anti-semetic conspiracy theories and Israeli lobby is a conspiracy theory is more than just a failed nuance. It is, in my mind, POVPUSHING. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I have now examined many (but not all) of the sources presented. I do find there to be support to the idea of the Israel Lobby being called a conspiracy in the UK. I think this is most clearly seen on p.10 of Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Not all the sources I looked at make the grade, but enough of them do that I feel more comfortable saying that we're in content, rather than conduct, territory with that particular piece. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Levivich (cc fiveby): I agree with That book does not say that the Israeli lobby in the UK is a conspiracy theory, it gives examples of conspiracy theories involving the Israeli lobby in the UK, which doesn't mean that the lobby itself is a conspiracy theory and your subsequent freemason comparison is a good one. But in the diff you then cite it says The idea of an Israel lobby in the United Kingdom has been used to raise conspire theories (emphasis added). I think you're focused on the italics part where as I think the bolded part is drawing that distinction - though the italics part would need to be reworded to avoid the problem you're seeing. I'm not sure this line should be in there at all, but all of this strikes me as with-in the bounds of a content discussion. Someone can be wrong/out of consensus on content in a contentious topic, even with regularity, and not, for me, cross the line into a conduct problem. To return to the first comment I made in this thread (below as it so happens), I AGF that a non-native English speaker can imperfectly walk the line of "There are conspiracies about the Israel Lobby in the UK" versus "The idea that there is an Israel Lobby is a conspiracy theory". I would expect, however, O.maximov to be a lot more careful about this distinction going forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: My concern with this isn't with the content in sources dug up post-facto: whether or not an alternative description of the Israeli lobby exists in one or more of those sources is, I agree, a content matter outside our jurisdiction. My problem is that O. maximov introduced that framing into the article without any supporting source material, and then when confronted with this, produced a lot of sources that do not support his thesis either. It doesn't matter to me that one or more of the sources partially verify the thesis; the fact remains he claimed a lot of others did, when they did not. If the matter was solely a failure of attribution he should have been able to produce substantive sourcing; instead what he's produced looks very much like a list of sources talking about broader Jewish concern about people in government mentioning anti-semitic conspiracy theories. I am willing to allow that perhaps there wasn't a problem of intent here, but if that's the case then there was a problem of competence. Either way, to me a sanction is indicated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure when/if I will have time to look into the merits of the complaint here as it seems like a lot of background reading is required. However, I know enough to say that I find the calls for CU as unconvincing as I do the call for a boomerang on BM. Assume good faith matters just as much, if not more, in contentious topics. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@O.maximov does the Israel Lobby exist? Whether or not it does what would your description of it be? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish and Barkeep49: It does not look to me as though we are getting more input here, and discussion has died down somewhat. If I am reading correctly, SFR and I are in support of a TBAN (by default, an ARBIPA TBAN); BK49 is hesitant. BK49, if my final argument above does not persuade you, is there a lesser option we can come to agreement on? Or are you opposed to a sanction altogether? I hesitate to impose something on a 2:1 margin. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to assume a touch of good faith that they were making a good faith attempt to summarize some of the conspiracy theory material in the article, so I'm also comfortable with a lesser sanction or just a warning. Most of the diffs I view in the same way I'm discussing down in #האופה. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would you propose? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh geez, who knows? There's really nothing between warning and topic ban for battleground/sourcing issues, so a severe finger wagging not to do that again and be careful in the future is about all we can do if not topic banning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be much more amenable to a logged warning if O.maximov is willing to acknowledge that those edits were not compliant with WP:V and WP:NOR. At the moment I'm seeing no acknowledgement that they've done anything wrong. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did rethink things after yours and Levivich's comments, which is why I asked the question above . I find O.maximov's answer good enough, though not excellent, and so I think I'd be opposed to anything harsher than a logged warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of putting this to bed I will support a logged warning, but I will note for the record that without a sharper sanction I believe issues will recur. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@O.maximov I hope you take this warning seriously; it would not take much for me to support a topic ban should you repeat some of the mistakes that led to the filing of this thread. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Astropulse

Astropulse (talk · contribs)'s appeal of the seven-day partial block from Hamas that was imposed by ScottishFinnishRadish is declined. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Astropulse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Astropulse (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 7 day block on article Hammas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Astropulse

Administrator imposing the sanction: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#appealing

Statement by Astropulse

a) this was my first possible violation of 1RR - instead of a 24hrs block, a 7 day block was placed - which i think is undue.

b) there were never a disruption to Wikipedia. After a possible minor violation of 1RR, Most of my changes still stand on the page. Some of it were improved upon.

c) i believe the offending edit i reverted itself is violation of 1RR. This is because another editor reverted several of my edits in one edit. According to WP:3RR "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." In this case, there were intervening edits by another user. The edit i reverted also violated WP:DRNC , WP:DOREVERT and WP:PRESERVE, also WP:ONUS

d) I was asked to revert my changes, but I refused because doing so would have introduced NPOV issues into the article. Several days have passed, and no one else has reverted my changes, as they are beneficial and have gained growing consensus on the talk page.

e) editor who accused me of 1RR violation - is not a involved editor. I have settled the differences with involved editor and everything is resolved. And hence a block at this point is undue. it is a punishment, rather than a genuine attempt to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. This violates wiki blocking policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy

f) I'm not convinced i violated 1RR -> I removed a tag on the page [[35]] -> this was being counted as a revert. But i think it is just a edit because that tag was not needed anymore. No one re-added the tag - after i removed it. I dont know what is the problem. The only revert was this [[36]] because another editor reverted two people edits here [[37]] which itself i believe is a violation of 1RR Astropulse (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk first and third edit you quoted aren't reverts. these are changes to long standing lead. if you are calling it as revert, most change's on wiki will be a revert. As per WP:ONUS im entitled to make than change. second is questionable. i have good reasons to do it. No one added it back after i removed it. So there is no conflict or disagreement on that one. Astropulse (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk @Newyorkbrad @Vanamonde93

WP:3RR recommends a 24hr block for first time offenders. You also have to look at if there was disruption to wiki. I dont think there was. Like i said many times. Most of my changes still stand to this day. No one has reverted it fully. You are all punishing me for attempting to edit on good faith. I think this is against admins role and expectations

I still think this block is punitive instead of preventative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals

If there was disruption, a block might be okay for Deterrence.

It also article says "For eg. Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved."

I think, Refusal to revert is not indication of likelihood of repetition in this case.

I already said many times - issue were resolved by the time i was asked to revert and there were growing consensus on the article talk page. Editor who i reverted said, they are fine to remove the NPOV tag after the recent changes. I also think you have to balance your actions with other policies. Wikipedia:Mistakes are allowed Wikipedia:Assume good faith Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

WP:AMENDLOG says "Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating." Astropulse (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cc @Barkeep49 Astropulse (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk two admins have indicated they wouldn't have put a p block - but warning instead. Why is it that you still wish to decline the appeal ? Astropulse (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish You said "but I don't like what it said before I changed it" - This was never my defense. Its something you are making it up. You decided to place a 7 day block - after i owned up to my mistake and explaining all the context. (Everyone can read my last reply in original enforcement request.)

You are now claiming that the some text i removed as per Wikipedia:ONUS which was written weeks or months ago is a revert. I didn't even know this is the case. Astropulse (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Their appeal demonstrates that they still don't understand what a revert is, and that they believe their own view of NPOV exempts them from 1RR. Everyone believes their edit is the neutral one, which is why it is not an exemption as listed in WP:3RRNO. This lack of understanding leads me to believe we're going to be back here fairly soon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk, first revert, second, and third.

Newyorkbrad, a warning is fine if they remedy their violation, which is how I normally handle this. When there is a refusal to remedy a blatant violation and the behavior is confined to a single areticle I generally start with a one week pblock, which you can see in the report immediately before theirs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I am sensitive to the position of someone who would otherwise be willing to self-revert an isolated 1RR violation, but does not want to be associated with an edit in their name that they feel would reintroduce bias or misinformation into the contentious article. That is what almost every edit war in the topic area is about. One side thinks NPOV is violated, and the other feels it is violated if the prose is changed. That is why "but I don't like what it said before I changed it" isn't an acceptable edit warring defense. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AstroPulse

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 The Kip

Just my 2 cents as a frequent AE observer - the most recent response is, at least to me, beginning to give off the impression that the user is simply WP:NOTGETTINGIT at this point. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Astropulse

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

@ScottishFinnishRadish: For posterity's sake, can you link to the diffs that violated the 1RR? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Red-tailed hawk: The offending diff and the context are given in the original enforcement thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I do see a clear violation of WP:1RR there. The user was aware that this is a contentious topics area. This looks like an extremely ordinary case, where a warning or reminder would have been sufficient had the appellant self-reverted after being asked, but the appellant refused to do so.

Restrictions like WP:1RR require editors to limit their own editing behavior, as there is no technical mechanism to enforce them directly. As such, they require an editor to acknowledge them and choose to abide by them, even if this does not generate a content outcome that they desire. If they do not choose to abide by these restrictions, such as by blowing through 1RR and also refusing to self-revert, then that justifies the use of more restrictive measures (such as partial blocks). A partial block of one week is reasonable in this circumstance (though one of 72 hours probably would have been equally so).

As such, I think that the sanction is reasonable in light of the appellant's refusal to abide by 1RR, and I would decline this appeal. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sensitive to the position of someone who would otherwise be willing to self-revert an isolated 1RR violation, but does not want to be associated with an edit in their name that they feel would reintroduce bias or misinformation into the contentious article. If this is indeed a "first offense," I would probably have warned rather than p-blocked, and certainly would not have p-blocked for a full week. A block (of any reasonable length) from just a single article is not a severe sanction in and of itself, but it can have a stigmatizing effect and will also be invoked if this user's comes to be scrutinized again. In short, I am somewhat troubled, but I am not sure my disagreement rises to the level of !voting to overturn the sanction. Looking forward to other admins' thoughts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think I'd have p blocked in this instance. However, I think it was with-in the range of admin discretion given the facts in play here - if at the very upper end. As such I don't think the standard to repeal has been met and so I also am in favor of declining this appeal. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a shorter p-block could have done the job, but before p-blocks were rolled out a site-wide block would have been considered quite normal for a 1RR violation. This is far from the most severe block we could have handed out. And loath as I am to disagree with Newyorkbrad, I agree with SFR's assessment above; every single edit-war in this topic has participants who believe they are the ones correcting an egregious NPOV violation. That is not, in my view, reasonable grounds for leniency. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was not that an editor's strong belief in the correctness of their edit is ground for an extra revert. It is that such a belief can sometimes explain what might otherwise seem to be a pig-headed refusal to self-revert an identified violation, which would put their own name on the content they strongly disagree with. Here, the editor's declining to self-revert seems to have made the sole difference between a warning and a weeklong p-block. I understand the value of offering an opportunity to self-revert as an alternative to blocking immediately, but especially given that the offense seem isolated and has not been repeated, I remain somewhat troubled by this scenario. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  "I recognize what I did was wrong, will fix it, and make promises to not do it again" does suggest to me that the preventive need is less than for someone who refuses to make amends. In this case the editor refuses to even acknowledge that they violated 1RR and so I don't really get to weighing the legitimacy of the reasons they give for not wanting to revert. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absent any substantial change among responses by admins here, I will be closing this in ~18 hours as declined. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Astropulse: Merely on a bean count, we have multiple admins that have affirmatively said that they would not overturn this, including me and Barkeep49 (I also am in favor of declining this appeal). For the other two: there's one who appears to be somewhat sympathetic to the appeal but expressed they were on the fence on whether or not to accept or deny the appeal (Newyorkbrad), and one who hasn't explicitly stated that they would accept or decline but seems to argue that they don't think that NYB's arguments are in any way mitigating and that they agree with the sanctioning admin in that regard (Vanamonde93). For sake of argument, even assuming that none of the arguments here are so strongly out-of-policy that the would be downgraded when looking at their strength when viewed in light of policy, I do not know how one would close this any other way; the relevant guidance for overturning an appeal is a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE to accept an appeal and overturn a sanction, but we appear to have a rough consensus of administrators that lean towards affirming the partial block.

Since there were comments from uninvolved admins today, I'll wait another 18 hours before closing this with the appeal not being accepted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Astropulse: I think the partial block is/was preventative because you don't acknowledge you violated 1RR. The 3RR guidance was written before partial blocks became possible and so likely needs ot be revised to reflect modern practice. Short blocks was referring to very short blocks - like minutes or hours - which were once a thing some admin did. While I wouldn't have chosen this particular sanction myself, I think it is one with-in admin discrestion for contentious topics. WP:CTOP advises that When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and here we are. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3E1I5S8B9RF7

3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs) is warned against violating WP:NOTFORUM in their talk page comments. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 16 August 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 3E1I5S8B9RF7

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (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: WP:ARBPIA

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

WP:NOTFORUM/WP:BLP/WP:NOR, Round 1, at Talk:Gaza genocide: "If dead, would Mohammed Deif be a victim of genocide?" I collapsed and archived that thread.

Round 2: "Should Hamas fighters be included in the genocide death count?" I also collapsed and archived that thread, posted a template warning and alert on the user talk page, and started a new thread about the same general topic (what is the genocide death toll according to RS), with sources, without the FORUM/BLP/NOR violations.

Round 3, in the thread I started: 1, 2; the second one is after the CTOP awareness alert.

Across all 3 rounds, they brought exactly one source (in Round 2), and that source does not contain the words "Deif" or "genocide". Otherwise, no sources. 11 out of 12 of their most-recent (Aug 3-7) contribs are the above FORUM/BLP/NOR violations.

In sum, 3E1 is persistently using this article talk page to discuss whether certain individuals/groups are innocent enough to be considered victims of genocide, without any real engagement with RS. This violates our FORUM/BLP/NOR policies.

Note that there has recently been an increase in press coverage of this article (see the press template at the top of the article talk page for links), and with it an increase in disruption, and the talk page is currently ECP'd as a result. Levivich (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: No blocks or CTLOG entries, some warnings on the UTP

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): Special:Diff/1239002016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@SFR/Van: Yes, it's the only one after the ARBPIA alert. There were previous alerts in other topic areas (see their UTP); I don't know if that counts as awareness under the new rules or not. I don't see this as "the first after a CTOP alert" so much as "the 11th in a row this week." The CTOP awareness alert is the reason this is at AE instead of ANI, but otherwise it's not terribly relevant in my view. CTOP awareness is a prerequisite for CTOP sanctions, but I don't think any CTOP sanctions are necessarily merited here. This doesn't rise to the level of a TBAN or anything that serious in my view; though disruptive, it's limited to one article, and I think this is the first complaint against an established editor. While they're not listening to me, they'll probably listen to admins. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find 3E1's comment here Levivich's argument is that I need to provide sources that only civilians are victims of genocide; my argument is that sources currently only mention a total death toll of the Israel-Hamas War, but not a death toll of Gaza genocide in itself and xDanielx's comment here Levivich's view is that the casualty figure is properly sourced, but this isn't entirely clear ... the available sources don't explicitly give a casualty figure for Gaza genocide to be very puzzling, considering Talk:Gaza genocide#Death toll, the thread I started, begins with The sources used for the death toll in the article aren't all specifically about the Gaza genocide ... and ends with Here are some sources ... followed by quotes from 5 sources that give a death toll of the Gaza genocide itself. They're both raising the same talking point, but the entire purpose of the thread I started is to address that exact point. I don't understand how two editors both missed this? Levivich (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just got this ping, which speaks for itself. Levivich (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re SFR: not sure why you picked those two particular quotes to compare and not others (you should be comparing the entirety of what both editors have written), but in any case, the first quote is about opinion and the second is about RS, which is why the first quote is a FORUM violation and the second isn't. Levivich (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR: sure if it was a one time thing. I'm looking at their contribs and I see 16 out of the last 17 are this foruming. In three separate threads on the article talk page and in this AE and then back on the talk page even while this AE is going. Are we supposed to just let them continue like this forever, or at some point do they have to make reference to RS? Levivich (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "Levivich and Selfstudier exposed their utter bias and inability to remain neutral, objective and rational regarding this issue.", which is in the 16th edition, is not kosher? Levivich (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/1239171553

Discussion concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7

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 3E1I5S8B9RF7

My comments weren't a forum, they were relevant questions to the controversial decision in the article to include all Hamas militants, regarded as a terrorist organization by several countries, as victims of genocide, regardless if they fell as armed fighters in a battle. I can understand if this was narrowed down to only civilian fatalities, but the current article warrants a detailed explanation. I just wanted to hear a rational explanation if this can be accepted and hear other users' thoughts. My "inconvenient" question still stands unanswered; can terrorists be considered victims of genocide?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you do agree that my original question is reasonable here? How would you anwser this question then?

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss contentious issues of an article. If users cannot pose questions revealing contradictions of some articles, then Wikipedia should abolish talk pages. Levivich's argument is that I need to provide sources that only civilians are victims of genocide; my argument is that sources currently only mention a total death toll of the Israel-Hamas War, but not a death toll of Gaza genocide in itself, a term which is not universally accepted yet.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logged warning for what, exactly? This can and should be used to improve the article by pointing out the glaring contradiction (and fallacy) in it. Are Hamas militants who perpetrated the Re'im music festival massacre, and who were later killed for it, victims of genocide? Are terrorists victims of a genocide? My crime is that I pose this question. And I think it should be posed for clarification. Feel free to answer it, or if this question is forbidden, then just say it.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

I get that the reported editor has a beef with the article, having also initiated MR on it. That's not a license to forum the talk page, repeatedly refusing to take the hint. Think this editor should maybe stay away from the page for a while. Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XDanielx: I'm glad that you mentioned BM intervention in the middle of this contretemps, two days before the diff you have posted, here, any idea what on earth was the purpose of adding {{npov|Is Mohammed Deif a victim of genocide?}} other than to encourage the reported party in their talk page bludgeoning? How on earth is that a "content dispute"? Deif was not even mentioned in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.@3E1I5S8B9RF7: See here. The simplest answer to your (and BM) pointy question. If the killings are because of who they are, rather than because of what they did, then they may be victims. That question will be answered in due course by the court. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: The difference being that both Buidhe and myself are providing sources aimed at improving the article. Your attempting to hat them is as well rather tedious, I must say. Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Since you neglected to notify Buidhe, I did it for you.Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a lost cause.Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I am at a bit of a loss to understand the thinking here, this is just straight up soapboxing, including while we are still at the boards, I don't really understand why other editors are even bothering to reply to it.Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by xDanielx

This isn't WP:NOTFORUM territory at all, since 3E1I5S8B9RF7 was raising concerns about content in an effort to improve it. Levivich closing the discussions as such seems inappropriate. It's also not WP:OR to question whether sources are being interpreted or summarized correctly. One doesn't need new sources to question the application of the current ones. While WP:BLP applies to all namespaces, in practice its sourcing requirements are not enforced to the letter outside of article space.

Levivich's view is that the casualty figure is properly sourced (edit: or rather that proper sources exist and can be added), but this isn't entirely clear. BilledMammal argued that it itself involves OR, since the available sources don't explicitly give a casualty figure for Gaza genocide. Giving a casualty figure for the war, and then a separate statement that a genocide is occurring, is not the same thing; one can believe that a genocide is occurring without sharing the view that combatant deaths are part of that genocide.

This seems like a normal content dispute, with no legitimate policy-based reason for closing the discussions or bringing it to AE. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: you provided five sources, but none of them actually provide a count of genocide victims, as BilledMammal pointed out on the talk page. A statement that X people were killed in a war, and a separate statement that a genocide is occurring, does not amount to a statement that X people were victims of a genocide. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland: your argument seems to be that WP:NOR was violated, not WP:NOTFORUM. "Patently false" is not an argument, and it's hard to see how flagging a perceived issue in an article could be NOTFORUM territory.

Regarding NOR, the policy does not apply to talk pages. At worst one could say that 3E1I5S8B9RF7 was suggesting a change which would have been OR had it been enacted. A NOR violation would require actually enacting the change.

It also seem impossible to keep any count of genocide victims without bending NOR, since we don't have any reliable sources providing an explicit count of genocide victims. If we're going to enforce NOR to the letter here, we'll have to remove the victim count. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

"This isn't WP:NOTFORUM territory at all"...patently false and not helpful at all in my view. Rewarding easily avoided WP:TALKNO violations is counterproductive in PIA and has a cost. Editors who try to convince people that they have figured out how Wikipedia should count victims of an alleged genocide based on a personal decision procedure that makes sense to them should not be taken seriously. It's bordering on a competence issue. Buried inside 3E1I5S8B9RF7's unhelpful musings and irrelevant personal opinions there is a simple and reasonable point about statistics that could easily have been expressed by "pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies", the key word there being policies. No need to start fires to get attention. I fully support Levivich's entirely sensible actions. I'm sure 3E1I5S8B9RF7 is a perfectly decent editor, but no one needs to hear about how they think victim counting should work. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XDanielx,

I think it's possible to understand quite a lot of the things that happen in PIA, the rule breaking, the defense of rule breaking etc., if you assume that people sometimes use an approach that can be characterized as 'the ends justify the means', an after the fact rationalization of non-compliance. But the ends don't justify the means. There's just a set of policies and guidelines that everyone has to follow.
In this case, it seems crystal clear (to me at least) that the editor made statements that are inconsistent with talk page guidelines. There are numerous examples in that discussion where they try to get editors to discuss who can be counted as a victim and who can't etc. In general, in Wikipedia, I don't think this really matters much, but in PIA, I think it matters because there are very few knobs we can turn to try to improve the dynamics of the topic area. Strictly enforcing compliance in discussions is one of them.
Let's assume everyone in that discussion agreed with the editor's proposed counting method. If you ask, 'Is that consensus consistent with policy?', the answer is no. So, that already tells me that, aside from being a misuse of talk pages, it is a pointless waste of everyone's time.
To be honest, I don't really understand why so many editors behave this way, treat themselves as RS, when the alternative, just following sources and the rules, liberates editors from having to answer, or even think about, questions like 'is this a massacre?', 'is this a genocide?', 'why doesn't genocide law distinguish between combatants and non-combatants?' etc. My wife and I often argue over whether a thing is color A or color B. This happens, in part, because the mappings from wavelengths to tokens are interestingly inconsistent across languages. This is fun and all, but these kinds of discussions/disagreements shouldn't happen in PIA because we are supposed to just reflect reliable sources rather than elevate ourselves to RS-level and argue our theory of the case. We all know this. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

It feels a little unfair to focus on 3E1I5S8B9RF7 when this is a problem on both sides.

The editors advocating that we count every casualty as a victim of genocide are doing the same thing that 3E1I5S8B9RF7 is, by trying to convince people that they have figured out how Wikipedia should count victims of an alleged genocide based on a personal decision procedure that makes sense to them - the sources presented in support of that claim don't say that X many people are victims, only that X many people have died in the war. BilledMammal (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier:, when used that way the template links to the talk page section, which at the time was titled "Is Mohammed Deif a victim of genocide?". That section was soon after closed and archived by an involved editor, which is why the link stopped working. BilledMammal (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how that discussion has now proceeded, it would be manifestly unfair to warn 3E1I5S8B9RF7 but not other editors involved in that discussion.

For example, Selfstudier and Buidhe are now engaging in discussions about who is a protected person, arguing that Hamas members are protected. This is no different to 3E1I5S8B9RF7 arguing that they are not - neither argument is relevant, as they aren’t based on direct statements from reliable sources about how many victims there are. BilledMammal (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: And if the discussion was not about the death toll they might be appropriate. However, it is, and so divergences into who a protected person is are no more appropriate when the argument is that Hamas members are protected than it is when the argument is that they are not. BilledMammal (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buidhe

I posted evidence that the assumption that genocide victims are innocent and targeted for no reason apart from ethnic hatred is a misconception not found in international law. Also, that the attempted elimination of Hamas is described as part of the genocide by reliable sources. I agree with selfstudier that this is different from arguing the opposite based not on any reliable sources but only from personal opinions / misconceptions. (t · c) buidhe 19:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7

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

Levivich, so this is the sole diff from after they were given a CTOP alert? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have difficulty saying that if this Should every Hamas fighter and militant be included as a victim of genocide? In my opinion, only civilians should be included, meaning a figure of around 16,000 civilians according to Israel[38] or more according to some other sources. is NOTAFORUM, that this The sources used for the death toll in the article aren't all specifically about the Gaza genocide; some are about the war and don't even contain the word "genocide." I think we should base casualty counts on sources that are about the Gaza genocide specifically. Or in other words: in the WP:RSes that say it's a genocide, what do they say is the death toll of the genocide? is not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, I would say that your position is obviously the correct one (how about we look at RS and see what they say?) but their edits are still reasonably about improvement of the article. They could have been better spoken, but "We're including every death in a war, I think we should only include non-combatant deaths" isn't out of the norm for talk page discussions and it points out the very reasonable issue that RS don't support what was in the article at the time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same question from me: is there evidence of CTOP awareness earlier? The single edit SFR notes is a bit of a NOTFORUM violation, but not at a level where I would consider any action for it alone. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with a logged warning. 3E1I5S8B9RF7, if you have concerns about the text, please raise them without any number of straw men and rhetorical questions. This cannot reasonably be construed as an attempt to improve the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please keep your comments to your own section.) A logged warning for violating WP:NOTFORUM, and for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given Levivich's comment I would be in favor of a logged warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluethricecreamman

Everyone should stop edit warring, long term and otherwise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:09, 19 August 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 Bluethricecreamman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bluethricecreamman (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/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

Violating WP:1RR and edit warring at Genocide of indigenous peoples by repeatedly reinstating the same disputed content:

17:49, 24 June 2024
20:28, 5 August 2024
13:21, 6 August 2024 (self-reverted 13:51, 6 August 2024 following talk page request)
12:44, 7 August 2024

They refused to self-revert, saying that because they self-reverted 13:21, 6 August 2024 they were free to re-implement the edit. However, my understanding is that self-reverting, particularly when done only after the self-revert is requested, doesn't permit editors to ignore the most recent revert when re-implementing the edit and doing so comes across as WP:GAMING.

It is relevant that an RfC was held on including this content, which closed as "no consensus". As the content was only in the article for six weeks, insufficient to establish it as the status quo, this means it should be excluded until a consensus is found to include it and editors should not be reinstating it even when done without edit warring or 1RR violations.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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 16:29, 19 January 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

23:42, 8 August 2024

Discussion concerning Bluethricecreamman

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 Bluethricecreamman

a) I've explained revert then self revert doesn't count towards the counter, but BilledMammal has been harrassing me and others in talkpage to self revert. Also like... wouldn't the applicable place for this report be the edit war noticeboard? WP:AN/EW. Bluethricecreamman (talk)
Seen some folks argue that no consensus means removal. WP:NOCONSENSUS states specifically "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Obviously, after that May RFC fails, we should probably keep the version of the article that had been in place since March with the included paragraph. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response to result: Glad to have been informed, will read the AC/CT more carefully next time. Will update my behavior accordingly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a self-revert on last edit. Bluethricecreamman (talk)

Statement by ABHammad

I also noticed these problematic diffs, which seem to be part of a broader recent trend where disputed content is repeatedly inserted through edit warring in ARBPIA, despite being reverted multiple times. When asked to stop and wait for consensus, there are editors who reintroduce the disputed content anyway and insist that discussions should focus on whether the new content should be removed, rather than if it should be added in the first place. In some cases, they claim consensus exists, even when reverts indicate otherwise. Here are a few examples for these re-adds,leading to controversial content now appearing in the article:

Genocide of indigenous peoples: beside Bluethericecreamman, the disputed content was also restored by others following the RFC closure as no consensus: [39], [40].
Palestinians, where a new description as native/indigenous was introduced through edit warring: [41] [42] [43]
Israeli allegations against UNRWA, where a scope change in all but name was introduced through edit warring, [44], [45], while a RM to move to "UNRWA and Israel" is now ongoing.
Similar dynamics can be found also at Zionism. This is how its primary description as a "movement that ... aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside of Europe." was introduced, despite many reverts and substantial talk disagreement.

This seems why this may be part of the reason why Wikipedia is not pereceived as trustworthy anymore by some outside media when it comes to ARBPIA. ABHammad (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Left guide

@Bluethricecreamman: No, that noticeboard is only for normal edit-warring subject to 3RR in non-contentious topics. For edit-warring in designated contentious topics with stricter revert rules, this is the appropriate venue. Left guide (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All else being equal, WP:ONUS policy clause stipulates that disputed material stays out of an article unless and until there is a consensus for its inclusion:

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Left guide (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

@BilledMammal: 6 weeks? Where's that from? (also see Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#WP:NOCONSENSUS where myself and others aren't in agreement with your rather simplistic take on this matter). As for who started it, that would have been yourself on 5 August, a month and a half (!) after the RFc closure on 25 June? Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Bluethricecreamman

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

A self revert does not reset the revert counter, in my opinion. Beyond that @Bluethricecreamman: I suggest you re-read the introduction to to contentious topics given your comments as from what I read here you to need edit carefully and constructively (emphasis in the original). In contentious topics Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and so this self-evert resets your ability to do other reverts. In general your response here - including the suggestion it's the wrong forum which it's not - indicates you don't understand what it means to be a contentious topic and don't understand that norms and policies being more strictly enforced are exactly about this sort of thing. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given Blue's response I am ok closing this without further action. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a reminder that long term edit warring is still edit warring wouldn't go amiss, although that goes for most editors in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bajaria

Blocked by Theleekycauldron for two days for violating ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 12 August 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 Bajaria

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: The Kip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bajaria (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: ARBPIA ECR

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

User in question initially made two edits to Portal:Current events/2024 August 4 concerning the Israel-Hamas war and related:

They were subsequently given the standard CTOP alert on their talk page, although the edits were not reverted.

I later noticed them while editing the current events portal - after receiving the CTOP notice, they've been on a rush of additions to prior (often months-back) CE portal entries, almost entirely concerning the Israel-Hezbollah conflict and related:

I subsequently placed the ARBPIA welcome template on their talk page at 07:55 on 10 August, with an additional warning that they are not extended confirmed and therefore not allowed to edit in the area. They failed to respond, and later went right back to their additions:

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Initial CTOP notice given 07:47 on 4 August.
Template:Welcome-arbpia given 07:55 on 10 August.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The unfortunate thing is that their edits don't seem to be disruptive in the way that a lot of WP:NOTHERE non-extended confirmed editors often are within the ARBPIA area - looking through their CE contribs, I don't really detect an attempt at POV-pushing. The problem is that they've thus far been unresponsive to the notion that they're simply not allowed to be editing in the area at the moment, and they're also far further from XC than their contribution count makes it appear, given that a fairly large portion of their 430ish edits are ECR violations. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The unfortunate thing is that their edits don't seem to be disruptive..." you mean I am not being disruptive enough? Do tell me, how can I be more of a disruptive entity to your service? Bajaria (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bajaria I meant that as more of a compliment to you actually, as in you’re not the NOTHERE disruptive type that usually gets slapped with ARBPIA ECR-related sanctions - your edits, for the most part, seem constructive. The problem is that you’re simply not allowed to be making them until you’re extended-confirmed. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bajaria To make it clear as possible:

I am not encouraging disruption.
I was complimenting you; I meant that it's unfortunate that this case had to be filed, because your edits seem far more constructive than those of many others who've violated ECR in this topic.
It had to be filed, however, because you did not respond to, if not outright disregarded, the warnings that you're simply not allowed to edit in the topic as you are not extended confirmed.

The Kip ^(contribs) 07:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified at time of report.

Discussion concerning Bajaria

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 Bajaria

"The unfortunate thing is that their edits don't seem to be disruptive..." you mean I am not being disruptive enough? Do tell me, how can I be more of a disruptive entity to your service? Bajaria (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

The fact that the editor chose to respond with "Do tell me, how can I be more of a disruptive entity to your service?" rather than something like "Oh no! I didn't realize I wasn't following the rules. Apologies. I'll follow them from now on." is worth highlighting. Editors shouldn't get to pick which policies and guidelines apply to them. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm an independent free spirited adventurous out-of-the-box-thinking soul with a biting sense of sarcastic humor, rather than just immediately being a sheeple but then again is; "I meant that as more of a compliment to you actually..." by The Kip meaning they is encouraging any kind of disruptive behavior? But then again it might be a cultural difference. Bajaria (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bajaria

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

Blocked for 48 hours, since they're literally making ARBPIA edits as the case goes on. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeleYoetz

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 PeleYoetz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: PeleYoetz (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: WP:ARBPIA

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

New three-month old account, same old edit wars.

Zionism
- Removals of "colonization" and similar (partial list: editors who have been sanctioned recently or have pending reports at AE): Kentucky Rain24 (KR) June 6, האופה June 7, KR June 8, ABHammad June 10 (another), O.maximov June 11, האופה June 12, ABHammad July 2, O.maximov July 3, האופה July 4, Icebear244 July 4, [fully-protected July 11-14], ABHammad July 21 (predicate edit for #ABHammad report), PeleYoetz Aug 11 - first and only edit to the article with edit summary Reverted to the last stable version ...
- first and only talk page comment - There's clearly no consensus here ... I see 9-10 voices against the change.
  - Icebear244 Jul 4, filing the complaint against Nishidani: There is significant opposition to the proposed changes (at least 7 editors) evident on both the talk page and through repeated restorations of the last stable version.
  - Icebear244 later on Jul 4 clarifies it's 9, not 7: You seem to have overlooked @האופה, who also opposed using the term in the discussion, and it appears @Vegan416 did too.
  - האופה July 4: ... At least 7 editors clearly oppose this framing
  - Of the 9-10 editors, 3 have been blocked, 1 TBANed, 1 0RR, and 3 currently have pending AE reports
Israel - "various causes" / "various reasons": ABHammad Jun 23, האופה Jun 23, O.maximov Aug 3 (predicate edit for #O.maximov report), האופה Aug 6, PeleYoetz Aug 8 - first and only edit to the article, with edit summary there is no consensus for this new change. No talk page posts.
Israeli allegations against UNRWA
- האופה Aug 7 - removes it entirely in their first edit to the article with edit summary this article is about UNRWA involvement in October 7, not the history of Israeli-UNRWA relations, removing recently added material that totally changed the scope
  - They had not participated in the talk page discussion prior to reverting
  - One talk page message immediately prior to the revert: 1; more after: 2, 3, 4
- PeleYoetz Aug 7 - removes it entirely in their first and only edit to the article with edit summary the scope was changed without real discussion on the proposed change
  - They had not participated in the discussion on the talk page prior to reverting
  - Two talk page messages immediately prior to the revert: 1, 2

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): July 21

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Outside of the editors I've reported to AE, in this topic area, right now, I don't believe you will find other examples of what this report shows: two editors, "Editor A" and "Editor B", where Editor B:

Repeats Editor A's edits, votes the same way as Editor A, or otherwise "backs up" Editor A
Three times at three different articles
At articles they've never edited before
Where they've also never before participated on the talk page
Where they contribute nothing to the article except backing up Editor A
Within the first few months of editing

We can even drop #6, I still don't think there's another example outside of what I've posted at AE lately. @Vanamonde93: Would it change your mind if, instead of three times, it was six times? Here are three more examples: A, B; A, B; A, B. As a bonus, here's a seventh example, this time the order is reversed: B, A. This is not normal editing; this isn't something other editors do. But if we allow this to happen, if we say this is an OK thing to do, then others will start doing it, too. Levivich (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though PeleYoetz continued editing after I filed this report, they haven't edited since Van asked for their comment four days ago. FWIW I'm fine for this to be closed as moot if admins want to; if there is future disruption, I or someone else can ask for admin intervention if needed. Levivich (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/1239832259

Discussion concerning PeleYoetz

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 PeleYoetz

Hello everyone,

I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure what's going on here. Most of my Wikipedia activity is focused on tourism and food-related topics. I've only made a few edits regarding the conflict, and since then, I've felt increasingly targeted. It began with Selfstudier questioning on my talk page how I found the UNRWA page, a topic that made headlines in my home country of Israel the same day (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APeleYoetz&diff=1239101772&oldid=1236281410). Then came this report by Levivich, which I still don't fully understand, and now I've received a strange question from Nableezy on my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APeleYoetz&diff=1240399865&oldid=1239832259). I’m getting the impression that my contributions on the conflict are simply unwelcome.

If I've made any mistakes or violated Wikipedia policies, I'd appreciate it if someone could let me know. I've read through many pages before editing, and I hope I haven't done anything wrong.

Thank you. PeleYoetz (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Until recently I had no real involvement with this editor other than giving an awareness notice in July. Just to add to Levivich diffs:

At Majdal Shams, First of two edits (inconsequential second edit a minute after that) to the article, nothing on talk page, arrives 2 minutes after האופה (aka HaOfa) edit and changes the SD from Town in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights -> Druze town in the northern Golan Heights, an obvious POV edit.

At Masada myth, shows up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masada myth same day as nominated by HaOfa, no prior article edits or at talk page. Agrees with HaOfa.

Same pattern at Israeli allegations against UNRWA, no prior involvement and then consecutive reverts, HaOfa then PeleYoetz.

It is doubtful that this pattern is coincidental. PeleYoetz role appears to be as back up for HaOfa, to support their actions.

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I wish PeleYoetz had decided to say nothing rather than write about being targeted, having strange questions and being unwelcome. Now I need to ask whether it matters that an editor with ~1050 edits spread over ~380 different pages has 175 pages in common with topic banned and blocked editor User:Gilabrand?

Page intersections

	rev_page	page_namespace	page_title
0	4300359	0	Allenby_Street
1	1598709	0	American_Colony,_Jerusalem
2	6491819	0	American_Colony_Hotel
3	1341791	0	Anu_–_Museum_of_the_Jewish_People
4	12936136	4	Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
5	62151548	0	Armenian_ceramics_in_Jerusalem
6	73034037	1	Ascalon
7	4774426	0	Avraham_Avinu_Synagogue
8	2297050	0	Battir
9	24363269	0	Bauhaus_Center_Tel_Aviv
10	4902423	0	Bayit_VeGan
11	5071420	0	Beit_HaKerem,_Jerusalem
12	323286	0	Beit_She'an
13	323292	0	Beit_Shemesh
14	15838716	0	Ben-Zion_Dinur
15	11699867	0	Ben_Yehuda_Street_(Jerusalem)
16	42944781	0	Ben_Yehuda_Street_(Tel_Aviv)
17	11452014	0	Bible_Lands_Museum
18	39473923	0	Bloomfield_Science_Museum
19	4480911	0	Bloomfield_Stadium
20	19116999	0	Bukharan_Quarter
21	20622253	0	Burnt_House
22	20130904	0	Café_Hillel
23	7724495	0	Cameri_Theatre
24	13638115	0	Carciofi_alla_giudia
25	423242	0	Cardo
26	20144893	0	Carmel_Market
27	1082018	0	Challah
28	28697369	0	Charles_Clore_Park
29	7810	0	Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre
30	37474066	0	Dan_Hotel,_Tel_Aviv
31	18578655	0	David_Citadel_Hotel
32	38669929	0	Deir_es-Sultan
33	20133218	0	Dizengoff_Center
34	10979131	0	Dizengoff_Street
35	25810107	0	Dov_Karmi
36	18590790	0	Dubnow_Garden
37	45712	0	Eggplant
38	66162	0	Eilat
39	19862903	0	Ein_Bokek
40	12113382	0	Ein_Gedi_(kibbutz)
41	2412627	0	Ein_Karem
42	4746756	0	Emek_Refaim
43	1340927	0	Eretz_Israel_Museum
44	7128738	0	Expo_Tel_Aviv
45	164311	0	Falafel
46	1002934	1	Falafel
47	15446958	0	Florentin,_Tel_Aviv
48	62101020	0	Fritas_de_prasa
49	31234487	0	Garden_of_the_Missing_in_Action
50	50008601	0	Gerard_Behar_Center
51	11691280	0	Givat_Mordechai
52	10869168	0	Great_Synagogue_(Jerusalem)
53	31773044	0	Habima_Square
54	346243	0	Habima_Theatre
55	8770610	0	Hadar_HaCarmel
56	10348322	0	Haim_Farhi
57	43848263	0	Hansen_House_(Jerusalem)
58	6188016	0	Har_HaMenuchot
59	3315667	0	Har_Nof
60	43663759	0	Hecht_Synagogue
61	16435987	0	Heichal_Shlomo
62	411025	0	Hurva_Synagogue
63	46329054	0	Ilana_Goor_Museum
64	26295078	0	Inbal_Jerusalem_Hotel
65	69259009	0	Independence_Park_(Tel_Aviv)
66	11260048	0	International_Convention_Center_(Jerusalem)
67	1694940	0	Iranian_Jews
68	19623898	0	Islamic_Museum,_Jerusalem
69	9282173	0	Israel
70	12069165	0	Israel_Festival
71	9769562	1	Israel_Museum
72	1340538	0	Israel_Museum
73	907669	0	Israel_Philharmonic_Orchestra
74	16179698	0	Isrotel_Tower
75	5570367	0	Jachnun
76	30060020	0	Jaffa
77	21325633	0	Jaffa_Clock_Tower
78	2662416	0	Jaffa_Gate
79	11698859	0	Jaffa_Road
80	6495545	0	Jerusalem_Biblical_Zoo
81	20307897	0	Jerusalem_Bird_Observatory
82	1871939	0	Jerusalem_Botanical_Gardens
83	33517212	0	Jerusalem_Cinematheque
84	36102593	0	Jerusalem_Festival_of_Light
85	4627669	0	Jerusalem_Film_Festival
86	26064135	0	Jerusalem_Gate_Hotel
87	20608966	0	Jerusalem_Theatre
88	64638100	0	Jerusalem_bagel
89	23116893	0	Jerusalem_mixed_grill
90	144128	0	Jerusalem_syndrome
91	22059439	0	Jewish_religious_clothing
92	267521	0	Kafr_'Inan
93	4324887	0	Kerem_HaTeimanim
94	14716683	1	Ketef_Hinnom
95	105921	0	King_David_Hotel
96	5164947	0	Kiryat_HaYovel
97	10486638	0	Kiryat_Moshe
98	16940729	0	Kiryat_Shmuel,_Jerusalem
99	23653923	0	Leonardo_Plaza_Hotel_Jerusalem
100	12870798	0	Mahane_Yehuda_Market
101	3526058	0	Majdal_Shams
102	4192468	0	Malha
103	7299234	0	Malha_Mall
104	4773938	0	Malkiel_Ashkenazi
105	27712855	0	Mamilla_Mall
106	54139575	0	Maskit
107	17472202	0	Meir_Park,_Tel_Aviv
108	29695978	0	Menachem_Begin_Heritage_Center
109	22792304	0	Mizrahi_Jewish_cuisine
110	22393696	0	Mofletta
111	20147085	0	Montefiore_Windmill
112	22870208	0	Moroccan_Jews
113	4641220	0	Motza
114	18769451	0	Motza_Illit
115	316428	0	Mount_Hermon
116	861906	0	Mount_Herzl
117	1341697	0	Museum_for_Islamic_Art,_Jerusalem
118	8638866	0	Museum_of_Tolerance_Jerusalem
119	14813963	0	Museum_of_Underground_Prisoners
120	41463695	0	Museum_on_the_Seam
121	7160586	0	National_Library_of_Israel
122	16931759	0	Nayot
123	5711595	0	Neve_Tzedek
124	17607537	0	Old_Yishuv
125	74015590	0	Palace_Hotel_(Jerusalem)
126	1341046	0	Palmach_Museum
127	23059	0	Passover
128	33901038	0	Peace_Forest
129	6010607	0	Peki'in
130	12085159	0	Peki'in_Synagogue
131	74549	0	Pomegranate
132	30942492	0	Proto-Zionism
133	37054344	0	Rabbi_Dr._I._Goldstein_Synagogue
134	2789285	0	Rabin_Square
135	14372335	0	Rehavia
136	1340584	0	Rockefeller_Archeological_Museum
137	9770425	0	Romema
138	7334150	0	Rothschild_Boulevard
139	6047034	0	Russian_Compound
140	32516905	0	Sacher_Park
141	37273064	0	Sanhedria_Cemetery
142	2804824	0	Sarona_(colony)
143	9419058	0	Sephardic_Jewish_cuisine
144	9252013	0	Seven_Arches_Hotel
145	346166	0	Shalom_Meir_Tower
146	228264	0	Shavuot
147	37478920	0	Sheikh_Badr_Cemetery
148	1340550	0	Shrine_of_the_Book
149	47993516	0	Sofrito_(stew)
150	27999127	0	Street_of_the_Prophets
151	30779029	0	Suzanne_Dellal_Centre_for_Dance_and_Theatre
152	7971437	0	Talbiya
153	4480900	0	Teddy_Stadium
154	1340712	0	Tel_Aviv_Museum_of_Art
155	15874080	0	Tel_Aviv_Performing_Arts_Center
156	31735944	0	Tel_Aviv_Port
157	23160082	0	Temple_Mount_Sifting_Project
158	45354210	0	The_Friends_of_Zion_Museum
159	26659317	0	The_Heritage_House
160	1370977	0	Ticho_House
161	1340786	0	Tikotin_Museum_of_Japanese_Art
162	4284638	0	Tourism_in_Israel
163	1341873	0	Tower_of_David
164	1599800	0	Via_Dolorosa
165	5492440	0	White_City,_Tel_Aviv
166	7128411	5	WikiProject_Israel
167	47137877	0	Yad_Levi_Eshkol
168	4598034	0	Yarkon_Park
169	22752590	0	Yehud_Medinata
170	10799265	0	Yemin_Moshe
171	620241	0	Yitzhak_Ben-Zvi
172	2330411	3	Ynhockey
173	5334377	0	Zhug
174	34484	0	Zionism

Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning PeleYoetz

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

I don't see what action I could reasonably take here. The ideal approach to a content dispute is for all parties to engage substantively on the talk page until it's sorted, via RfC and outside input if needed. Across the ARBPIA conflict, editors don't do this; instead are slow-moving multi-party edit-wars, and considerable stonewalling on talk pages. When this behavior becomes egregious I'm open to sanctioning anyone and everyone involved, but I don't see anything here rising to that level. A lot of users could stand to engage better on the talk page(s). Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to hear from PeleYoetz in light of the most recent diffs. As I've said elsewhere, agreement between parties heavily invested in the topic is to be expected; a similar pattern from editors not substantively engaged implies off-wiki coordination. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally addressing this at #האופה since it's basically the same report, but these types of patterns are wildly easy to find looking at anyone who is involved in the topic area. In less than ten minutes I found more damning "evidence" for two other editors active in the topic. As I said there, if we're going to sanction based on these patterns it would have to be evenly enforced and boy howdy it would be a mess. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think tag-team edit-warring is disruptive. If regulars aren't willing to not be disruptive, then yeah, they've kind of forced our hand. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close with no action, hopefully addressed at Arbcom? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting no action is the appropriate outcome or are you suggesting that refer to arbcom is the right outcome but since we're already there nothing more needs to be done? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The latter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

האופה

There is a consensus among uninvolved administrators to refer this whole thread to the whole Arbitration Committee. I will file the request for amendment shortly. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:32, 17 August 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 האופה

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: האופה (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: WP:ARBPIA

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

Original report and prior replies

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We continue with the same edit wars:

Zionism - removals of "colonization" and similar (partial list: editors who have been sanctioned recently or have pending reports at AE), this time with edit summaries:
- Kentucky Rain24 (KR) June 6 per מתיאל's edit summary
- האופה June 7 reverting politicized and inflammatory recent addition to lgf
- KR June 8 there's an active discussion about this, don;t change a long standing version until it is revolved
- ABHammad June 10 Restoring last good version before recent POV edit. This is under discussion, no consensus has been reached, and anyway this source definitely cannot be used with wiki voice; another Removing this recent addition from the lead due to its editorialized and synthesized nature, which relies on problematic sources: Morris, who does not mention settler-colonialism; Jabotinsky, a primary source from a century ago used anachronistically; and Finkelstein, known for fringe views.
- O.maximov June 11 in this edit you have reinserted extremely controversial content (the use of "colonization" and statements by fringe scholars) that has been reverted before. Please don't edit war, and instead refer to WP:ONUS
- האופה June 12 yes, this content is sourced, but WP:ONUS says that While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included, it requires consensus, and the responibility for achieving it is on those seeking to include disputed content.
- ABHammad July 2 it's in the 4th prgrph
- O.maximov July 3 clearly no consensus for colonization at this stage (per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS), and re-establishement is a fact (see History of ancient Israel and Judah)
- האופה July 4 Restoring previous lead, undoing changes there were FORCIBLY introduced, with no consensus ever reached on the matter and in violation of WP:ONUS. At least 7 editors clearly oppose this framing
- Icebear244 July 4 The next to restore this disputed version, against consensus and every possible wiki policy, will be reported for edit warring and disruptive editing.
- [fully-protected July 11-14]
- ABHammad July 21 as we all know this framing never achieved consensus for inclusion (predicate edit for #ABHammad report)
- PeleYoetz Aug 11 Reverted to the last stable version of the first paragraph before disputed changes sparked a two-month-long edit war. Consensus was never reached despite extensive discussions, so any further changes will likely require an RFC (predicate edit for #PeleYoetz report)
- האופה Aug 11 undoing disruptive restoration of disputed content. Please start an RfC
- 25 talk page edits: [46]
Israel
- Replacing "Nakba" with "various causes" or "various reasons"
  - Removing "Nakba" from lead: האופה May 12, האופה Jun 2 ("Nakba") edit summary haven't seen any clear consensus for this recent addition
  - June 8 RFC launched: Talk:Israel#RFC: How should the Nakba described?
  - Replacing "Nakba" with "various causes"
    - ABHammad Jun 23 replacing oversimplified, narrative-style framing that still haven't gained consensus with what can be said in WP:VOICE
    - האופה Jun 23 disagree, there is an ongoing RFC on this, there is no consensus
  - Adding "various causes" or "various reasons"
    - O.maximov Aug 3 last consensual version of this before weight changes (predicate edit for #O.maximov report)
    - האופה Aug 6 this phrasing has been stable for a while now
    - PeleYoetz Aug 8 there is no consensus for this new change
    - האופה Aug 10 restoring last stable version before inclusion of disputed content without clear consensus. Changes should follow discussions and RFCs, not precede it
      - This was not the last stable version; rather, "various causes" was added during the ongoing RFC
      - Note this edit: האופה Jun 2 ("apartheid") the rfc has just started, wait for it to conclude
      - We had a discussion about this edit at User talk:האופה#Israel, and while their last comment there was reasonable, immediately prior to making that comment, they made the Zionism revert diff'd above, so I came here instead of continuing discussion
- Removing "continues to expand" settlements
  - האופה Jul 29 ("continues to expand") this one paragraph, also trimming repetitive
  - O.maximov Aug 3 This can be trimmed without changing the meaning
- Removing "illegally occupied"
  - האופה Jul 29 ("illegally occupied") there is no consensus for this change
  - האופה Aug 10 (same Aug 10 diff as above)
- Tel Aviv is not the largest city
  - האופה Jun 22
  - ABHammad Jun 22
  - האופה Aug 10 (same Aug 10 diff as above
  - ... because Jerusalem is the largest city, because East Jerusalem is part of Israel (it's not): see comments at Talk:Israel#Tel Aviv
- 14 talk page edits: [47]

More of this editor's edits have been diffed at #ABHammad, #O.maximov, #PeleYoetz, and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive336#Statement by Levivich (Nishidani). Note the similarity in edit summaries across these edits. Levivich (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re SFR: I wasn't counting warnings as sanctions and I'm not aware of Blue being involved in the Zionism edit war. When you say "there is no consensus," are you counting the views of the 3 blocked compromised accounts, the editor with a TBAN, and the editor with 0rr? If you remove these sleeper/new accounts that are tag-team edit warring, there are only like 2 editors who actually object to including "colonization". There is consensus to include it in the lead. That's what separates one side of the edit war from the other. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of all possible admin responses, including totally ignoring this, the most dangerous one is saying there is no consensus because a group of new/sleeper accounts has suddenly appeared to question mainstream views. "No consensus to include" is the goal of the bad faith actors. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More @SFR: I think you're looking at this superficially. The complaint isn't "someone reinstated a prior edit!" If that were true, if all we did was count reverts and award a point for each one, then yeah, there's plenty of points to go around. As an example, look at the "various causes" edit war. Jeppiz 1 and Alaexis 2 also reinstated that content in the middle of an RFC, just like PeleYoetz and האופה. But I didn't include Jeppiz and Alaexis in this report or file any AE against them. Why? Because Jeppiz and Alaexis aren't going around reinstating each other's edits across multiple articles. They didn't start editing at the same time and jump into the same discussions and edit wars on the same side on articles they never edited before. Yes, all four editors made the same edit; but only two of them show a long-term pattern of this style of editing (actually short-term since the two haven't been editing in this topic area very long). PeleYoetz and האופה are significantly disruptive; Jeppiz and Alaexis (and the editors you mentioned) are not. I don't believe anyone can put together a "diff train" for Jeppiz or Alaexis or Selfstudier or anyone else like these diff trains that I've been posting at AE; this pattern is unique, and rather obvious to me. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SFR: those are 4 examples over 2 years. Can you find 7 examples within the 3 months? Or within the first 3 months of either account starting editing? This isn't just about one person reinstating another person's edits; I beg of you to make your analysis deeper. Consider more variables, make comparisons more specific. Levivich (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of those variables is the content. If I filed a report showing new editors tag teaming to say that Obama wasn't born in the US, I doubt anyone would respond with "but other editors edit war, too." If other people are tag teaming right now, let a report be filed, and let's examine the edits. Levivich (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Test your theory. Set the start date on the EIA to 4/1/24 (or any three month period) and see if you can find 7 examples of tag teaming on 7 different articles between Isk and Self. And if you do, see if what they're edit warring over is true or not. And even if you want to ignore the content, look at the other variables. Like can you find 7 examples where they've never edited the article before or since, where the only contribution is to back each other up? Because what I'm showing you goes far beyond people reinstating each others' edits. Levivich (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR's 8 example edits provide a wonderful opportunity to show what the difference is between one side in an edit war and another:

Israeli allegations against UNRWA - Selfstudier added, Iskander323, Selfstudier
- Selfstudier is the #1 contributor to this article; Iskander is a top-10 contributor to the talk page, having made their first edit there back in January - neither are new to this article
- The edit made here was the result of consensus following months of discussion, in which both editors participated
- Both Self and Isk's reverts were reverting the edits of Pele and HaOfa (diff'd in their respective reports), neither of whom had edited the article before or since, nor participated in the prior talk page discussions, but who showed up "out of the blue" to revert a change that had consensus, and to re-instate that revert when it had been reverted
- Self and Isk are upholding policy/consensus; Pele and HaOfa are violating it
A B (1948 Palestine war)
- A user says "The expulsion of Palestinians started only in April 1948 – six months into the civil war – and was a direct consequence of the conflict. According to Morris, the majority of the Palestinians fled out of fear of being caught up in hostilities, rather than being directly expelled." -- this is flat untrue, easily disproven by looking at sources on the subject, including Morris (for examples, see Nakba#Nov 1947 – May 1948, which has many sources quoted, including Morris -- I wrote that section specifically to counter this common "it didn't start until after" Nakba denial talking point).
- Both Self and Isk point out it's not true
- This is in no way "tag teaming"; one of the "sides" here is misrepresenting sources (violating policy), and the other two are disputing that; not sure why this edit is listed here
B A (Golan Heights)
- Self has been editing this page since 2019; Isk since 2022; both have participated in talk page discussions; neither are new to this page
- First, let's look at the content: changing effective annexation to extended Israeli jurisdiction to the area. !!! That is one hell of a POV edit! Can you imagine writing that Russia "extended its jurisdiction" over Ukraine? ! (That's without even getting into the US recognition part of the edit.)
- Next, let's look at the edit war chain in full: (I'm not going to diff it, it's easy to see in the article history): GreekParadise (who made a few edits to the article earlier that week, and no talk page edits yet up to that point, and is a sleeper account that was inactive between 2013 and June 2024, and has edited nothing but ARBPIA since June) changes "effective annexation" to "extended Israeli jurisdiction to the area". Supreme Deliciousness takes it out. HaOfa (who had edited the article and talk page prior) puts it back in. Self takes it out. GreekP puts it back in. Nableezy takes it out. GreekP puts it back in. Self takes it out. GreekP puts it back in. Isk takes it out.
- That's basically one editor adding some crazy whitewashing and trying to edit war it in, with an assist from a second editor. Those two are violating policy (and whitewashing history). The other four editors who took it out are upholding policy (and truth).
- GreekP was sanctioned for this at #GreekParadise
A B (Zionism)
- This is the long Zionism edit war we're all familiar with, which I've diff'd in this report and elsewhere. There are too many editors involved for me to go through each one of them here, but if anyone wants to, they can look at that chain and ask the same questions: which side has blocked/banned/never-edited-the-article-or-talk-page-before editors, and which side has longstanding contributors to the article; which side is editing to implement talk page consensus, and which side is contravening talk page consensus; which side is following the sources and which side isn't; etc. (Also, PS: it's a dispute about the word "colonization," not about "settler colonialism" specifically.)
A B (History of Israel)
- Both Self and Isk are top-10 contributors to the article or talk page, having edited/participated since 2021 and 2022
- The content: this map, which is user-generated and WP:OR. It is sourced to Jewish Virtual Library, which is red at WP:RSP. That's a reason to remove it on its own. But compare the map with the source and you can plainly see that this map differs from the source; the OR map expands the size of ancient Israel. (I'll let you take a guess how that overlaps with the claimed borders of modern Israel.) This map is a lie, it's OR and fails verification, and is anyway sourced to an unreliable source.
- Isk takes it out; HaOfa (who had never edited the article before or since, and never posted on the talk page) puts it back in; Self takes it out; Uppagus (6 mos, 600 edits, one and only edit to the page, never posted on the talk page) puts it back in
- Again: two editors who "swooped in" out of nowehere only to make these reverts, which clearly violate policy; the other two editors are longstanding contributors to the article who are upholding policy
- After this edit, I am going to take this map out of the article even though I've never edited that page before, because it so clearly fails verification and is OR; let's see who reverts me...
A B (Bar Kokhba revolt)
- Self edited the article since 2023; Isk is a top-10 contributor
- Isk removes some unsourced material; Owenglyndur (5 mos, 1900 edits, never edited the article before, never posted on the talk page, later blocked for copyvio) puts it back in; Self takes it out
- Same pattern: new editor swooping in to violate policy (restoring unsourced material) vs. two long-term contributors upholding policy
A B - these are the same as #5 - SFR, I'm guessing you meant to put different diffs here; whatever they are, check them against this pattern and see: is it articles that Isk/Self have contributed to before vs. editors whose only contribution is to join the edit war? Is it one side upholding policy v. the other side violating policy? Without even knowing what the diffs are, I bet the answer is yes...
A B (History of ancient Israel and Judah)
- Self has been participating at this article since 2022; Isk is a top-10 contibutor, also since 2022
- This is about the same map as #5
- Isk removes it; HaOfa (never edited article before or since, no talk page posts) restores it; Self removes it; ABHammad (never edited the article before or since, no talk page posts) restores it; Isk removes it again
- Same pattern: one side is new editors swooping in violating policy, the other side is longstanding contributors upholding policy
BONUS: Nableezy's edit to Israel that SFR mentions. Since the Israel edit war is well-documented elsewhere on this page, I won't go through it step by step, but note that Nableezy is putting back the version that was there before an ongoing RFC opened, whereas the "other side" of this edit war are the same group of editors making a bold change during the RFC and edit warring to reinstate it, plus the change is the "various causes" whitewashing nonsense (very similar to the "extended its jurisdiction" whitewashing nonsense).

Clearly, there is a big difference between what Self and Isk are doing in these edits, and what the "other side" of the edit war is doing in these edits. We should not treat these two sides as the same. One side is regular contributors trying to building an encyclopedia (upholding policy), the other side is new/sleeper accounts who never edited the articles before or since trying to whitewash it (violating policy). SFR, I hope you see the difference? Levivich (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SFR: sure but I need to give AE an opportunity to address this before it's taken up at any other noticeboards (I'd probably go to ANI before arbcom; SPI is also an option; we may also at some point have an appeal at AN).

I see you understand the difference but don't seem to care about them. I'd appreciate it if you explicitly addressed the differences though: why does "never edited the article before" and "policy compliant vs policy violations" not matter to you?

Btw: I count 28 diffs in my original report, 12 of which are just repeating the Zionism diffs for convenience so folks don't have to go clicking around, so I think I'm ok there; your diffs don't count toward my diff limit. Also, it's a lot of edit warring to demonstrate, that can't be helped. I am over the word limit but there's no way to have this discussion in under 500 words. Levivich (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe presenting the diffs in a different way will make a difference. This and the other recent reports show HaOfa not just edit warring (my definition: repeating edits without consensus) but edit warring to remove from Wikipedia statements saying that:

Palestinians are native or indigenous to Palestine
the expulsion/flight was caused by Israel and not by "various causes"
Israel annexed the Golan Heights, not "extended Israeli jurisdiction"
Israel's occupation is illegal
Israel is continuing to expand its settlements,
Israel engaged in apartheid
Zionists engaged in colonization
Zionism as settler colonialism is not a fringe theory

At some articles, they edit war claiming (edit summaries diff'd/quoted in hatted section above) "ONUS", "FORCIBLY introduced", "start an RFC", "the rfc has just started, wait for it to conclude"; at the same time at another article, they repeatedly reinstate a bold change during an RFC. They incorrectly claimed "last stable version" while reinstating recent bold changes. They made changes with the edit summary "no consensus" while reinstating changes that had no consensus. Sometimes they did this at articles where they never edited or discussed before or since, like at multiple articles to reinstate a user-generated map with an unreliable source that failed verification.

In short: months of repeating their own and others' edits across multiple articles, violating WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:EW, with incorrect and contradictory edit summaries.

We don't need a panel of a dozen arbs for this. Reviewing admins can look at these diffs and say (1) yes/no do they violate V, NPOV, NOR, EW, or other policies, and (2) if so, what should be done if anything to prevent future violations. It's hard to answer the second question without hearing from the person being reported. The person being reported doesn't have a reason to say anything until the first question is answered.

If admins answer the first question as yes, there's no need to go to arbcom or anywhere else; see what HaOfa has to say about it. If the admins say no, then there's no need to go anywhere else, just close the report saying so. If admins disagree about whether it's yes or no, then it might be worth seeking additional input at another venue (although the decision of which venue should be left up to the editor(s) who intend to volunteer the time to present evidence).

As for the conduct of other editors, I strongly agree with Nableezy's comment that If an editor were to write 'Poland lost the majority of its Jewish population due to various causes' nobody would be talking about how there are two sides battlegrounding or edit-warring .... If someone can put together a list like the one above about some other editor, then they should post that to AE, and reviewing admins should answer the two questions about that set of diffs.

FWIW, from my perspective, AE has worked better than I expected so far, and I don't see why it shouldn't continue to work for this report or any other similar report. Levivich (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC) Edited Levivich (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a mistake to send this to arbcom, or take any action, without first hearing from the reported editors.

And if there are concerns about other editors, step one would be to file an AE case against those other editors. It'll be hard to show that the community can't resolve something when no effort has been made yet. Levivich (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me: "It'll be hard to show that the community can't resolve this."

The community: "Hold my beer."

HaOfa hasn't edited since I filed this report five days ago. That hasn't stopped the rest of us from filling up most of this page, and now we've somehow gotten to the point where either BM and Nabs are sanctioned or this goes to arbcom. I've tried and failed to bring this back on track.

It took me a while to write both versions of this report. And I get that we're all volunteers, and if people don't want to read it, that's fine. Or if they read it and they don't think it amounts to much, that's fine, too. But please don't use it as a springboard to air pre-existing grievances about other editors. To everyone: if you have a problem with another editor, please file your own report (at AE, ARCA, RFAR, ANI, or wherever). Don't use my report as an opportunity to bring attention to an unrelated grievance between other people. Please respect the time I put into this. Unless it's about me, or HaOfa, it doesn't really belong in this thread, it belongs in a new one. That is, after all, what I was told when I brought up HaOfa's and others' conduct in the Nishidani thread (Further action related to anything here will need a separate report.). So I wrote a separate report.

And I ask again that we focus on that, and not on the sideshows (and my thanks to those who did focus on the report). HaOfa hasn't edited since I filed this report, which means there is no disruption ongoing right now, regardless of what people think about the diffs. So one available option is that this can be closed as moot; should disruption continue, I or someone else can ask for admin intervention again. And then other people can go write their own reports if they want to. Levivich (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Apr 17

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/1239832951

Discussion concerning האופה

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 האופה

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

See also participation in this edit war [48] (same one as the case involving me above) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ABHammad

Time to get upfront? This is the latest of multiple reports by the same editor, where unsubstantiated claims are being expressed repeatedly in what may feel like a constant threat to potentially scare off editors with different views. A substantial amount of the diffs presented are valid attempts to restore the last consensus versions in the face of constant additions of disputed content through edit warring regardless of consensus and in violation of WP:ONUS. Although it is best to assume goodfaith, this is certainly becoming cumbersome and perhaps even humiliating for these editors. We may need to consider a potential WP:BOOMERANG in this case. ABHammad (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron, I think the reverts from the two editors are very different in substance. The lead for Zionism was recently changed to include a very controversial definition ("colonization of a land outside Europe") that has not achieved consensus. HaOfa appears to be restoring the last stable version and advocating for further discussion and an RfC on talk, while Selfstudier seems to be reinstating a new, disputed change despite considerable opposition (which, I must admit, includes me). I think this context should be taken into account. ABHammad (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

@ScottishFinnishRadish: What's that "warned for aspersions" about, please? Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Please change the misleading diff to reflect the situation. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: That's a pretty fair misrepresentation of what has occurred at the UNRWA allegations article, the first diff is me doing what was agreed to in talk page discussions that have been taking place over a long period of time, it wasn't a revert and no-one was objecting to it until Haofa/PeleYoetz showed up together out of the blue to revert it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Those discussions have been going on for months including prior to that and that is why there is also an RM in process to give effect to them. I am sincerely displeased that one editor has filed a complaint against two others and yet it seems that I am being put on trial by selective diff as a result.Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: You haven't reached this one as yet in your "content review". Look now at the developments with the UNRWA allegations article edits. The RM that I said was in progress has concluded as I wished it and the 2 reverts by these editors look now completely left field as both Levivich and myself initially pointed out. No need for an admin to decide any content issue, it has been decided.Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: If sanctions need to be spread more widely then so be it, but the totality needs to be examined not just selected parts of it. That my name would show up at these articles is hardly a surprise, I would be surprised if it didn't, as I have been attending these articles for years, not months. As I have specifically commented at the other related case, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Who was I tag teaming with, please? Did you mean PeleYoetz 07:38, 11 August 2024 and Haofa 09:10, 11 August 2024? Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Let me just parse that. The edits on the 10th are about different material than the edits on the 11th. Of the four edits on the 11th, I restored along with Tarnished Path while the actual reported editors here claimed to be restoring an earlier consensus version. It was my one and only edit for a month or more, so the answer to my question must be that I tag teamed with Tarnished Path, who I don't know from Adam. Are there any other examples of my tag teaming with Tarnished Path? Let me now go back to June/July. I made one edit in July, on the second, tag teaming with no-one, instead I was tag teamed by Vegan (now Tbanned) and Hammad (now 0RR). So nothing there. Let's have a look at June. On 6 June I presumably tagteamed with Unbandito against KentuckyRain(indeffed) and HaOfa (reported here). That's it, 3 edits. How on earth are those 3 edits construed as tag teaming edit warring??? Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: A simplification at least, no tag teaming. Except that now it is said that because I participated on the talk pages I must have been aware of earlier edit warring and that my revert therefore constituted a continuation of that edit warring (which I did not participate in) over a period of two months prior. I concede that I was aware of the prior edit warring, at least in general terms, but this construction strikes me as novel, to say the least.

Should I have not reverted and instead started an RFC myself? Well, I don't think so, not in the circumstances, which can be adduced quite straightforwardly at the relevant talk page section, per my contemporaneous comments on 11 August at Talk:Zionism#Recent additions done against consensus, and request to get collaborative. As yet, of those calling for an RFC none has attempted to start one.Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Seriously?? 3 totally unconnected diffs from 2022??? And a diff pointing to my opening an AFD in February this year? I really do need to get this straight. Levivich files a complaint against a couple editors for tag teaming and provides a bunch of diffs as evidence of that. I add a couple more. Then I am firstly accused of tag teaming with zero diffs/evidence of that based on a single revert that I made (my one and only edit to the article in over a month, followed up immediately on the talk page). Now, how does that work, exactly? Grateful for any coherent explanation. To reiterate, if someone wants to bring a case against me for tag teaming or for anything else, then they can do that, but not that a judge turned defense attorney attempts to find me guilty of I don't know what exactly, via selective historical diffs. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to do this properly, let's look at this editor interaction thing, I threw myself and Iskandar into it for 1 January to date (this year, not 2022), What's to see? Well, the first noticeable thing is that a large majority of the results are talk pages. And RSN. So let's leave those alone and pick out an article instead, the first one we come to is South Africa's genocide case against Israel, that's a controversial one, so let's have a look a the detailed timeline for that. Oh wait, I made 109 edits but Iskandar only made 2, should we discard it or take a closer look at the 2? Let's see, what about Zionism article, 9 edits by Iskandar and 4 by me. There you go, I put it out there for anyone that wants to build their case against me. You could try it with others besides Iskandar, Nableezy, etcetera. I'll wait. Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: If tag teaming is demonstrated, it should be sanctioned. One more time, waiting for anyone that wishes to bring a case against me for tag teaming using your diffs or any others. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is difficult in certain cases to entirely separate content issues from behavior, however desirable that might be in theory. There is certainly a continuity of both subject matter and editors between the two cases here (one case, really) and the Nishidani case, for example. Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The content review, the link for "On the apartheid edit..." is wrong, I think? Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC) @BilledMammal: That it? Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish: Levivich and myself did discuss such a filing during the Nishidani case but it never quite got off the ground. Not sure we're quite there with this either, part of the problem is that a case ostensibly about tag teaming has, somewhat unnecessarily imo, turned into another sort of case by osmosis or something. Not hearing from the editors in question doesn't help. If the party line is that tag teaming is too difficult to pin down, let's just say that and then we know. But let's not pretend that we're sending this case (or two cases) to Arbcom. If we did want a generalized Arbcom case, this wouldn't be it in my view.Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by fiveby

SFR, edits which restore the "various causes" language following IOHANNVSVERVS' comments here probably deserve a more critical view. fiveby(zero) 16:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

I can add this quite balatant POV-push edit [49] where HaOfa unilaterally removed the Israel Defense Forces from the infobox of Sabra and Shatila massacre. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

The Zionism article has been targeted by numerous people using deception via sockpuppetry. Examples include

Here come the Suns, Kentucky Rain24 (NoCal100),
ElLuzDelSur,
Aroma Stylish, BanyanClimber, SoaringLL (AndresHerutJaim/יניב הורון)
ManOnTheMoon92 (Tombah)

So we know a) the article is being targeted by sockpuppets, b) socks edit war and c) the costs of sanctions for disposable accounts is precisely zero. Any decisions based on the notion of balance, sides/bothsidesism etc. should presumably take this into account because "sides" can't include accounts that are not allowed to edit at all. This is another reason why accounts reported (and commenting) at AE should have checkusers run on them, to avoid arriving at a false balance. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

With regards to the examples pulled up below regarding aligned edits by myself and Self, isn't the issue raised above by Levivich more about actual slow-motion edit warring, not just joint appearances on talk pages? I'm not saying that editors don't naturally overlap on watched pages, but there's quite a significant material difference between edit wars on page and contributions on talk. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: It appears that you have opened Pandora's box with your examples and now BilledMammal thinks it fit to post laundry lists of complaints. I'm not really party to this AE proceeding, so I would rather appreciate it if all of these off-topic shenanigans could cease and order be re-imposed. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: On the nitty gritty, since we're getting into this, I also only argued against the geographical rescoping on the Al-Awda talk, so that's a mischaracterisation. I simply didn't engage with any other aspect. Aside from that, you mention 8 discussions where I'm in line with the community consensus and 4 not – so a 2/3 super majority of me being in line with the community consensus. You basically have beef with me on the engineer's building, where my argument was coloured by the specific HRW finding of the event as being an standout war crime case study. Differences of opinion on the relevance of that are allowed. We must agree to disagree. You have also mischaracterised the first set of edits that you have presented from myself and Self as "restores", when they are quite clearly different edits, even if overlapping. They are nothing so simple as restores, however. You would also be better to strike the error pointed out by Zero, since merely editing the table once it has been referred to is probably going to make this back and forth more troublesome to understand for the admins (without them looking at the page history). Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Similar edits aren't "restores" in the conventionally understood sense, and blandly stating that it is is misleading. As for your accusations of POV pushing, there are serious conversations to be had about language use in the conflict, as RS have highlighted, but that purpose isn't served by your reductive analysis. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dan Murphy

Last stable version, last stable version, last stable version. No consensus, no consensus, no consensus. These folks need better material. And saying a thing does not make it so. (Point being, the constant repetition of stock phrases - ones clearly at odds with the facts, in my opinion - by fly by reverting account is telling you something) Dan Murphy (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Umm, ScottishFinnishRadish, if you want to say something about me the usual thing would be to ping me. No, I am not "continuing the long term edit war", I am restoring material that already had consensus. I am not even putting in the edit that I support, I am putting in what already has an established consensus for. If you want to even pretend to give a shit about the things that matter here, like not making things up in articles, that would be great. Next time maybe ping me if you have a concern about an edit I make. If you really think my changing "fled" to "made to flee" and including "by paramilitaries and the IDF" is continuing an edit-war then feel free to justify that claim, rather than snidely assert it without so much as a the bare minimum notification that you are talking about somebody. nableezy - 15:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So restoring the pre-RFC content is somehow continuing the edit-war that the RFC is supposed to resolve but editors are changing during the RFC. Makes sense. nableezy - 17:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ScottishFinnishRadish, because being frustrated by an admin who has repeatedly attempted to put in place unjustified sanctions and who appears unwilling to look at past discussions or anything beyond the math of reverts is "about as battleground as it gets". And for the record, there was consensus on how to include the expulsions in the lead, see for example the discussion at Talk:Israel/Archive 96#3rd lead paragraph (March 25). But all this is avoiding the point here. If an editor were to write "Poland lost the majority of its Jewish population due to various causes" nobody would be talking about how there are two sides battlegrounding or edit-warring or any of the other superficial things you have as your sole focus. Youd call them a Nazi and kick them to the curb, and you would be right for doing so. But here, oh no, it's "battlegrounding". And oh of course I cant take off my blinders to see how one group of editors is so obviously editing in bad faith, that they are propagandizing in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. And let me be frank, I am not under any misimpression that I will be able to convince you, or that I am lessening the chances of you finally getting to impose the sanction you have been itching to put in place on me. But this is bullshit, you have editors engaged in utterly bad faith actions, and all you can say is "both teams played hard". nableezy - 19:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 I had no intention of engaging in this request at all until an edit of mine was raised without my being notified. I only engaged at all because another editor was courteous enough to ping me to draw my attention to it. But Ill collapse this entire section and we can all get back to pretending that all reverts are the same and anybody reverting anything is edit-warring and/or battlegrounding. I wish the admins here would have learned something from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive336#Nishidani, where an admin was focused on "Civility concerns, Battleground concerns" and less so on the obvious bad-faith editing in which throw-away accounts are used to edit in direct opposition of what is supposedly the core policy of this place, one that is non-negotiable. But that lesson does not appear to have taken hold. Ah well, take whatever action you think necessary. And I mean that, Ive long thought you were one of the more judicious and considered admins here, so if you feel my presence on this project is a detriment then you should remove me from it. nableezy - 22:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my most decorous way, let me state that I continue to find SFR's complaints about me to be misinformed, and I cannot explain why he thinks I am the subject of this request. After he raised an edit of mine here, without pinging me or notifying me, he has then repeatedly focused on me here. While ignoring that, for example, BilledMammal has multiple times in this request made untrue statements, eg that Iskandar supported "massacre" at Al-Awda school attack when all they opposed was BilledMammal's attempt to obfuscate the target of the bombing by removing the school that was attacked from the title, or at a discussion they opened (WP:RFC/G) where he cautioned four editors for bludgeoning when one of those editors, again BilledMammal had nearly twice as many comments as another, me. And then BM presents, yet again, an inaccurate portrayal of what occurred after that cautioning, when he said I had made four comments compared to his 2, when mine were either in response to the caution or questioning why BM's continued arguing was being ignored. I cant say why SFR has this seemingly uneven focus on me, at least without once again falling afoul of the decorum requirements here. Maybe its because I dared to appeal a sanction of his, who knows, but I dont know why he keeps bringing me up. Especially when the subject of this report has not even deigned to respond to it. I am unaware of when I engag[ed] over behavior on talk pages since that warning. This is the forum for bringing complaints to uninvolved administrators, so it is curious to then complain about my doing so instead of engaging over behavior on talk pages when that was the warning. nableezy - 14:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero evidence of battlegrounding on my part, and I don’t see how my objection to how an administrator is acting here is in any way related to battleground behavior in the topic area. As far as tone, after having been silently accused of edit warring without notification, I spoke harshly but I also collapsed that section once Barkeep raised it. My raiding untrue statements by another editor is likewise not grounds for an Iban. SFR has repeatedly attempted to impose sanctions on me on shaky grounds, and this just continues here. I’m barely even involved in the request and I’m the one being proposed for a topic ban lol. If SFR wants a thread about me he should open it or he should do what he did previously and ban me on spurious grounds and I can appeal it. nableezy - 16:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my requesting that you actually treat people fairly, and not allow the one user who actually was bludgeoning that discussion to continue doing so, and my asking you if you felt an objectively dishonest portrayal of what occurred was in fact dishonest is not engaging in behavior on talk pages or battlegrounding. I was curious as to if you actually thought that comment was honest. But if we’re raising emails I’d be happy to discuss the ones you’ve sent me including the unprompted one that started with "If you want to talk outside of the restrictions and worry of Wikipedia and without the peanut gallery of WPO, I'm more than willing". For the record, my email to SFR said "just out of curiosity, do you think an edit like this is honest? you think that is a good faith portrayal of fact there?", linking to the same comment by BM I linked to here. That’s his definition of battlegrounding I guess. nableezy - 16:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d request this go to arbcom so we can examine all editors conduct here, especially if we are going to be ignoring the actual POV pushing and tendentious editing occurring in this topic area. nableezy - 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

Since Selfstudier requested it, I reviewed some of their and Iskandar323's edits from the past month, and found the following tag teaming/mild edit warring, as defined above:
Anti-Defamation League:

09:12, 2 August 2024 Selfstudier added content to the lede
17:45, 2 August 2024 Iskandar323 restored it
13:59, 4 August 2024 Selfstudier restored it

Golan Heights:

11:30, 31 July 2024 Selfstudier removed content from the lede
14:33, 1 August 2024 Selfstudier removed it
15:02, 1 August 2024 Iskandar323 removed it

They have also engaged in POV pushing. This is most obvious in "massacre" RM's since the start of the war, where different standards are applied to attacks against Palestinians and attacks against Israelis.

S means they supported the use of massacre
O means they opposed the use of massacre
N means they participated but didn't express a position on the use of massacre
Green background means the article covers attacks on Palestinians
Blue background means the article covers attacks on Israelis

Article	Selfstudier	Iskandar323
Al-Awda school attack	N	S
Al-Tabaeen school attack	S	-
Engineer's Building airstrike	-	S
Flour massacre (first RM)	S	S
Flour massacre (second RM)	-	S
Attack on Holit	O	O
Kissufim massacre	-	O
Nahal Oz attack	O	O
Netiv HaAsara massacre	-	O
Nir Oz attack	O	O
Nir Yitzhak attack	-	O
Nirim attack	-	O
Tel al-Sultan attack	-	S
Yeshivat Beit Yisrael bombing	O	O

Iskandar323 in particular makes their POV pushing very clear. For example, at at Attack on Holit they said we should follow the sources, and that the arguments for massacre rely more on independent reasoning over the nature of the event rather than the sourcing. However, at Engineer's Building airstrike they the opposite, that more than 100 civilians were massacred with narry a shred of evidence of military motive in sight, making "massacre" pretty aptly descriptive.

See also this discussion, where they say we should counter systematic bias in reliable sources in relation to the use of massacre.

Selfstudier has done similar, although it isn't as blatant; at Nir Oz attack they said that we should only call an event a massacre when the weight of sourcing actually names it as massacre, but at Al-Tabaeen school attack they said the opposite, that while a plurality of English language sources do not call the event a massacre, that we should still use the term because they see it as systematic bias.

(I would also like to commend Vice regent for their position in these discussions; they have frequently participated in them and have consistently taken a neutral line.) BilledMammal (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Oh, I see what I did - I initially wrongly listed Iskandar323 as having supported and Selfstudier having not participated. I then realized I'd missed Selfstudier and corrected it, but didn't realize Iskandar323 had not actually participated. Corrected, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: At Anti-Defamation League, all three edits added something along the lines of It is known for and received criticism for its pro-Israel advocacy to the lede.

Regarding the massacre discussions, applying different standards - POV pushing - is disruptive even when you end up aligned with consensus. Arguably, it is even more so in those cases, as the question becomes whether POV pushing changed the result. BilledMammal (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Regarding your proposals:

As previously mentioned, I would support an IBAN - while I would prefer a voluntary one that expires at the end of the war, obviously the first half isn’t an option with Nableezy rejecting it.
I think a comment restriction would be more effective than a word restriction. This is because the latter would limit the amount of evidence an editor can post, and sometimes it is necessary and productive to conduct systematic reviews of sources or similar - for example, while I summarized it in about one hundred words, in a recent non-PIA topic area RFC I posted 750,000 words of evidence (in my user space), so that editors could verify my claims rather than needing to take them on faith.
Because bludgeoning is such an issue in the topic area - many editors engage in it, and problematically I'm probably not even the worst - if this went to ArbCom I was planning to suggest a topic-wide anti-bludgeoning restriction. Specifically, that editors are limited to ten (or five, although at lower numbers issues start to occur with multi-question RFC's) comments per discussion. I would suggest/request than any anti-bludgeoning restriction imposed here use this form.
Alternatively, the standard anti-bludgeoning restriction imposed at ANI is to limit editors to two comments per discussion per day. I’m not a huge fan of this form, as in theory it still allows slow-bludgeoning, but it does seem to have worked for some editors, so perhaps the enforced delay is sufficient to control the behavior.
I think some consideration of Iskandar’s POV pushing is also needed.

BilledMammal (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

To editor BilledMammal:, where did Iskandar323 support "massacre" at Al-Tabaeen school attack? Zero^talk 08:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning האופה

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

I don't find this, or the report above, terribly convincing. There are two sides involved in these disputes, and both are doing the same thing.

This doesn't actually prove anything except there is no consensus for a lot of these changes, and both sides engage in long-term edit wars for their preferred versions. We can tally up warnings and first times having edited an article, but that doesn't actually prove anything. Editors will show up at articles they have not yet edited, in fact every article that everyone has edited they had previously not edited, and huge numbers of editors have warnings and sanctions related to the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was getting at Levivich's noting a partial list: editors who have been sanctioned recently or have pending reports at AE. I recently warned you and BM. Nish has a logged warning, Bluethricecreamman has an open report. Just because editors agree with someone who has been sanctioned or has a pending report at AE doesn't mean their position on content is a problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Talk:Israeli allegations against UNRWA#Article development, I assume, where you, Makeandtoss, Iskander323, Nishidani and Kashmiri discussed it? I am not at all surprised that when it was noticed by an editor from the other side of the battleground that they reverted. You were still part of the edit war there, but I'll adjust my statement a bit to make it more clear how events flowed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, I'm not trying to put you on trial, but your name came up when I looked at a few of the articles in these reports so you got used as an example. What I'm trying to communicate is that the types of diffs presented by Levivich are not uncommon, and when we're dealing with relatively small groups of editors the same names are going to show up next to each other a lot. You're not on the hook for that, and I'm saying that other editors aren't either unless there is some evidence of malfeasance or bad faith editing. If we're going to start sanctioning these patterns the sanctions are going to end up widespread if applied even-handedly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be clear to Selfstudier and Iskandar323 that I'm not proposing sanctions, this is just to illustrate my point.
That was after a few minutes of looking. When people are active in the same topics this kind of thing is incredibly common. If we're going to ABF for these patterns then there is a lot of this going on and it should be evenly enforced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, again, not saying you're doing anything wrong, just demonstrating that if we're using the threshold of "edited the same page in support of each other without having first edited the page" than it's going to be an enormous problem.
Levivich, those were picked at random from the editor interaction analyzer. I'm sure you'll find hundreds more examples like that, as 20% of Iskandar's 46,500 edits are to pages also edited by Selfstudier, and 60% of Selfstudier's 37,800 edits are to pages also edited by Iskandar323. People who edit in this topic area edit the same pages, and people with similar views support each other. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The UNRWA edit above

A B

B A

A B (part of the same dispute on settler colonialism)

A B

A B

A B

A B
That is without looking particularly hard. So do we want to start sanctioning for tag-team editing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, you were already over the diff limit with your initial statement, and now we've gone far beyond that. I think the venue you're looking for to judge when AGF isn't necessary, how many edits to an article insulates you from tag-teaming, if newly EC editors are allowed the same privileges as established editors, what amount of poor content or content one side disagrees with justifies tag team editing, if someone who made an edit was sanctioned does that mean reverting them isn't reverting, and if there is off-site coordination among new editors in the topic, isn't AE.

If you have to provide ~35 diffs and links in your initial report and it still needs back and forth with deeper analysis it probably needs to be seen by a committee of some sort, maybe of diverse views and elected by the community to deeply analyze a wide body of evidence provided by editors addressing complex, long-running conflicts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, while this AE report is opened in part to look at edit warring at Israel no one is continuing the long term edit war. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, I didn't ping you because I was more concerned with showing that this edit war was still on-going to communicate the point that the editors reported here are not doing anything that is unusual or unexpected, and if we're going to sanction it there will be a lot of those sanctions going around.

As far as your edit not being part of the long-term edit war, and instead just being a restoration of consensus, there is currently an RFC waiting closure on that point, and there has been a large number of versions of the Nakba/expulsion sentence in the lead. The version you restored is not a consensus version.

Some versions of that sentence back to May 10th chosen at random

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

13 Aug The majority of the Palestinians were expelled or made to flee, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.

9 Aug Over both phases of the war, a majority of Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled for various reasons

21 July The next day, armies of neighboring Arab states invaded, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. A majority of Palestinians were expelled or fled due to various causes.

23 June The Palestinians were expelled or made to flee by militias and the military, a core component of the Nakba.

Pre-RFC start 7 June During the war, the Palestinian population was expelled or made to flee by paramilitaries and the IDF, known as the Nakba.

3 June The war saw the expulsion and flight of most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population, known as the Nakba. A minority remained and became Arab citizens of Israel.

Also June 3 Primarily as a consequence of the war, there was an influx of Jews, previously living in the North Africa and the Middle East, who were expelled or fled, beginning a near total exodus of Jews living in the Muslim world.

21 MayPrimarily as a consequence of the war, from 1948 to 1951, 260,000 Jews migrated, fled, or were expelled from Muslim-majority countries throughout North Africa and the Middle East beginning a near total exodus of the more than 850,000 Jews living in the Muslim world, and whose descendants today constitute the largest Jewish ethnic identity group in Israel.

10 May The 1949 Armistice Agreements saw Israel's borders established over most of the former Mandate territory. The rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were taken by Jordan and Egypt respectively.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is that a certain group of editors is tag-teaming to get around 1RR, or that people like to engage in long-term edit wars to get the article to look their own preferred way by force, wouldn't imposing individual WP:0RR restrictions be a way to stop that? Can't really edit war if you can't revert. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that I am not generally a fan of imposing 0RR, as there is some natural back-and-forth to Wikipedia's editing that is often healthy. But if there are individuals in this area who:
Write decent quality articles from the ground up;

Engage in talk page discussions productively; and

Nonetheless, have a habit of engaging in long-term edit warring in the topic area's established articles;
Then, we may have a case that a 0RR would work. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warn HaOfa and Selfstudier for the tag-team editing at Zionism. Being the fourth and fifth reverts, respectively, is beyond reason, and HaOfa actually participated in an edit war over the same exact content two months ago. Enough already. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why this and not for edit warring? Barkeep49 (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Sorry, i meant tag-team edit warring. If there are instances of them unilaterally edit-warring, I'd be happy to lump those in. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: No, I mean you. I thought you'd know that I'm referring to the edits to Zionism on August 10 and 11 where KlayCax removes some text, Nishidani restores it, PeleYoetz removes it, TarnishedPath restores it, HaOfa removes it, and you restore it. Looks like tag-team edit-warring to me, and not the first instance, but the third recent instance given that there were outbreaks of it in June/July. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ABHammad: I'm not even sure how to begin to engage with "my team's edit-warring is more justified because my team was doing it in the name of stability". Edit warring is destabilizing. Next time, ask an admin to lock down the page and start an RfC instead of doing that. Also, no, the last stable revisions were the ones before you made your edit to the page on June 10/before KlayCax made their edit on August 10. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[M]y team was doing it in the name of stability is right up there with "they've edited the page before" in terms of justification. Add a dollop of "one of them is blocked for unrelated copyright violations" and we're cruising right along. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: in which case this is a continuation of the edit war over the lead sentence that began in June and has basically continued on-and-off since then. Given the extent of your participation on the talk page and at these AE threads, you were certainly aware that that edit war happened. In that case, your diff is still intentional edit-warring. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I'm not sure I need to give AE an opportunity to address this before it's taken up at any other noticeboard is true. You could, instead, just go to the community, or, truthfully, go to ArbCom (perhaps via ARCA) since this is an area that ArbCom already has "jurisidiction" with. I will say that I think AE is pretty ill served to your desire to consider multiple editors' behaviors in relation to each other. I think both ANI and ArbCom do that better. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Along those lines, that seems like we may want to refer this to the ArbCom. After all, if there is another process that would handle this exact sort of dispute better, and if AE is ill served to review this evidence, why would we not just have the better process handle this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've been saying in the past few complicated reports. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support – is the scope of the case the edit warring on the one page, or more broadly the battleground behavior? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit warring is just a symptom of the battleground behavior, so battleground behavior more broadly. We literally have, here at AE, an editor ^{Pinging Nableezy} saying If you want to even pretend to give a shit about the things that matter here, like not making things up in articles, that would be great. for an admin ^me pointing out that they were continuing an edit war, and they've already been sanctioned for battleground editing. That's about as battleground as it gets. If no one but me is interested in sanctioning for that type of behavior then Arbcom is the route to take. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are three other admins in the thread interested in curbing it (i proposed a small warning above), but i do feel that ArbCom is better at breaking down long-term behavior like this. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to referring this to ArbCom; the only thing holding me back from being 100% supportive is Levivich's statement that he's prefer not ArbCom. Now we as uninvolved administrators can certainly reach a different consensus - especially given the way some non-parties have come in hot to this discussion (see my comment below) but want to note this thought before we send it along. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note that I find Levivich's new presentation of the material more compact and thus more helpful to reaching some conclusion here. I've looked through about half of it and I'd say only about half of what I've examined concerns me and virtually none of it is edit warring, but if those ratios carry through it will add up to a pattern of problems worth a sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the amended report, I don't find the two edits to Palestinians and two to Talk:Palestinians overly concerning. In the article the break is over indigenous to Palestine, being descended from the various inhabitants of the region over the millennia, that are culturally and linguistically Arab. and descending from peoples who have inhabited the region of Palestine over the millennia, and who today are culturally and linguistically Arab., so the sticking point was using indigenous or native. There are sources provided in the talk page discussion that are from peer reviewed papers challenging the applicability of native or indigenous. It seems consensus has been formed, however, and the edits in this case were about two months ago.

The three edits to the lead of Israel aren't great. Long term edit warring is a problem, especially as all three edits are while there is an active RFC on the topic. Linking to an article that says scholarly consensus today is that violent expulsions were the main factor rather provided that detail does appear to be intentionally burying the lead.

The sources in Golan Heights that discuss annexation also use the phrasing extending Israeli administration over the Golan, and the article says On 14 December 1981, Israel passed the Golan Heights Law, that extended Israeli "laws, jurisdiction and administration" to the Golan Heights. Although the law effectively annexed the territory to Israel, it did not explicitly spell out a formal annexation. It obviously changes the framing, and the annexation phrasing looks to have been pretty stable. All that said, per the edit summary of the prior edit and their edit, it looks to have been a revert about US recognition in the lead, Rv, US view doesnt belong in lead, its elswhere in article followed by the world's leading superpower, I think it is worth a mention. Obviously, everyone is responsible for the full content of their edits and effects of their reverts, but this was a single edit and it appears to not have been the main thrust of the edit.

As for Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though under international law East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel. versus Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally., it should be summarizing the content in article, The Golan Heights and East Jerusalem have been fully incorporated into Israel under Israeli law, but not under international law. Israel has applied civilian law to both areas and granted their inhabitants permanent residency status and the ability to apply for citizenship. The UN Security Council has declared the annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem to be "null and void" and continues to view the territories as occupied. The status of East Jerusalem in any future peace settlement has at times been a difficult issue in negotiations between Israeli governments and representatives of the Palestinians.

For the settlement issue, Israel has established settlements across the occupied territories, which is deemed illegal under international law, and has annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which is largely unrecognized internationally. remains the the lead. A partially duplicative paragraph, Israel has established and continues to expand settlements across the occupied territories, which is deemed illegal under international law, and has annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which is largely unrecognized internationally. Since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt, returning the Sinai Peninsula, and Jordan, and into the 2020s has normalized relations with several Arab countries. However, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded. Israel has been internationally criticised for its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, and been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinians by human rights organizations and UN officials. was removed from the lead. The only information on the settlements that changed was the and continues to expand language. Was that an issue with removing duplicate information from the lead and overlooking moving those four words to the earlier use of the same prose, or an intentional whitewashing? This was also a single edit.

On the apartheid edit, this has been a long running issue that was being actively discussed again at an RFC that ended with no consensus to include. Is the issue editors removing something that never had consensus, or repeatedly adding it?

That's all I got in me for now, except to say that it certainly looks like we're asking admins at AE to decide which content is right. I'm not seeing black and white NPOV violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, link fixed. I formatted it like a wikilink and not an external link. :/ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich: the community has already shown it is unable to handle this topic area. That is why there have been four arbcom cases already. AE is not some community venue. It is instead an Arbitration Committee venue where ArbCom has delegated some of its powers to others - in this case uninvolved administrators. Those administrators saying "actually we are unable to handle this with the powers you've delegated" is not an unreasonable outcome (if not one I'd like to see yet). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, it's all bad, that's why I'm calling the entire thing an edit war. You said I am restoring material that already had consensus, despite there never having been a consensus for that. It was the phrasing edit warred in right as the RFC started, but that doesn't give it some special status, and especially doesn't make it consensus. Everyone should stop edit warring, but acting like the four edits to Israel in the original report are the real problem doesn't pass muster. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy I find your decorum here to be below what is expected of editors. I suggest you review the expectations, consider striking any statements you've made that do not meet those expectations, and adjust how you respond going forward. My understanding of why you're frustrated is what has stopped me for exercising one of the options presented there to uninvolved administrators. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Nableezy for your actions here. I'm trying to give what little time I currently have to things like this, but it's inadequate to doing a full job. And so that prevents me from having too many opinions at the moment; I hope if I spend more time I don't reach the conclusion that you need to be removed from the topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, what mystical incantation do we need to etch in runes on this page to refer this to arbcom? Do we just light some candles and repeat Arbcom, Arbcom, please take heed! More diffs and words and context we need! Restrained and ill attended is this place! Please heed us Arbcom, TAKE THE CASE! three times? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, it's not that tag teaming is hard to pin down, it's that it is so widespread between the two sides that it doesn't make sense to treat reports in a vacuum. Also, you're not requesting a case, we admins are saying that these reports are all related and need to be handled in a venue suited to looking at an entire topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close it with that rough consensus and then fill out the paperwork at WP:ARCA. I will note I haven't given up all hope here though. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would you like to move forward here? In my eyes there is POV pushing, battleground editing, and tag teaming, but it is coming from both sides. So we can a) do nothing, b) give out more stern finger waggings which are generally ineffective, c) start evenhandedly sanctioning for the reported behavior, d) kick it to the group designed to handle large, complex, multiparty disputes. In this section we have multiple editors who've already racked up warnings and sanctions but continue with the same behavior, so I don't see a or b as solutions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I will close this with rough consensus to send to ArbCom in around 12 hours. I understand that Barkeep has not given up all hope here, but all other admins here appear to see ArbCom as the best venue given the complexity of issues in this area, and I do see a rough consensus for such a close at this point. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 14:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your rush RTH? I think you closing this when at least 2 of the four admins are still trying to find consensus with each other is a mistake. It's not like I'm 1 against 6 or 7 admins here. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that this is now a struck comment, as the objection was withdrawn, but your criticism is fair. I will try to keep this in mind going forward. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My goal, since becoming re-involved at AE, has been to do C. Now you and I might disagree about what sanctions are appropriate; I think formal warnings are a sanction whereas it seems like you're characterizing it as stern finger wagging. I am not opposed to d if we get there but I would love to truly exhaust our ability to do c. I thought we had gotten there with this coupling of reports but now wonder if maybe it's not true. I'm hopeful I'll have some more time to reply to your evidence analysis today or tomorrow. And if taht doesn't happen then I'd have no objections to the referral. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I call the warnings generally ineffective because, as an example, Nableezy has been racking up warnings for years, agreed to a reduction in sanctions with an assurance from Nableezy that they will moderate their tone and bring concerns about editor behavior to an uninvolved administrator or AE rather than engaging over behavior on talk pages.[50] and here we are again with you saying I find your decorum here to be below what is expected of editors. I suggest you review the expectations, consider striking any statements you've made that do not meet those expectations, and adjust how you respond going forward. Surely this is the time it won't be ineffective finger wagging. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I with draw my objection to sending this to ArbCom. Nableezy's latest comment shows the complexity and the multiple editors involved (including perhaps SFR though I don't find those accusations all that convincing) in just this complaint. Multi-party complaints (as opposed to the serial/sequential complaints Levivich has been trying) and complaints of Administrator problems enforcing conduct in the topic area are poorly served at AE and so yes this should just go to ArbCom. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see this as either Arbcom or:
I-Ban between Nableezy and BilledMammal

Topic ban Nableezy for continued battleground/civility/tone issues

BilledMammal restricted to 500 words in any ARBPIA discussion
Probably a few other editors too. This isn't a standard remedy so it can't be placed by an individual administrator unless we dress it up as a topic ban from any arbpia discussion where you have already used 500 words. Just look how smooth this RFC went without the normal bludgeoners bludgeoning and opponents arguing.

Maybe even everyone is limited to 500-1000 words in any ARBPIA discussion. Probably need to request that at ARCA for blanket application, but we can do this at AE for pages or discussions

0RR for pretty much anyone who has taken part in any of these long-term edit wars (including the subject of this report), which is going to be a lot of editors.

I guess the benefit is we can do this without the huge time sink of arbcom with just a rough consensus. Do we want to try to do something drastic, or do we want to kick it up to Arbcom? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my statement above that I do not think AE is well equipped to handle multi-party complaints like this. As a procedural matter now that sanctions are being considered against BM and Nableezy I will formally notify them (though obviously both are already paying attention). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, you said I am unaware of when I engag[ed] over behavior on talk pages since that warning. immediately after talking about making multiple comments about editor behavior at an ARBPIA RFC, and as far as battleground editing you returned to that RFC to complain that they got the same "please disengage" as you did and made two additional comments, then emailed me about their correcting saying one reply to two replies. And that's just today. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that assessment, and I think ArbCom would be the better route. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Lima Bean Farmer

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user: Lima Bean Farmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2020 § c-Dreamy Jazz-2020-12-19T12:38:00.000Z-American politics 2

Administrator imposing the sanction: Dreamy Jazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [51]

Statement by Lima Bean Farmer

I am looking to appeal a topic ban on post-1992 American politics. These case would be more open and shut if there weren’t a more recent edit to this ban. The original ban was over 3 years ago for post-1932 American politics but was changed to post-1992 American politics over a year ago. I would like to edit in this section a bit more freely, and I have not faced any sanctions or other administrative action since then. I have made large structural edits to pages such as List of productions impacted by the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike and List of convicted war criminals, demonstrating my ability to work with other editors to come to consensus while also using reliable sources when and where appropriate. In summary, since my last appeal, I have demonstrated more frequent Wikipedia editing that follows guidelines, helps productive editing, and understanding consensus for the past year. Having knowledge in the topic of post-1992 politics, having this topic ban lifted would allow me greater freedom for productive editing. Thank you for your decision in advance! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if it is appropriate to reply here, but I would like to address that the reason I was indefinitely blocked was for socking. I do acknowledge that using an alternative account most times, but especially to evade a ban or block is wrong. I can assure it won’t happen again and I can assure that it hasn’t happened in the past 3+ years. Please let me know if this addresses your concern. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I already spoke on the part of editing (please let me know if you’d like me to further clarify), but the indefinite ban was due to socking. I will avoid this issue by never editing with another account, especially to evade or bypass a block or ban. I can assure that I haven’t done this in the past 3+ years since the ban and can assure you that I won’t do it again in the future. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish, I had to go back and check but it was a 3 month ban for “disruptive editing”. I believe this was due to a high volume of editing in this topics at that time and my edits/experience not being up to par. A mix of things caused this I believe, including edit warring/not using talk pages appropriately, not using edit summaries regularly, and adding unsourced content. All of these are things I have demonstrated at least some level of proficiency in over the past 3 years (although I am most definitely still learning a lot here) and have shown a commitment to becoming a better more productive editor. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dreamy Jazz

Based on a quick look from their contributions and what others have said at WP:ARCA, it seems that Lima Bean Farmer has been editing constructively elsewhere.

However, the text of this appeal does not directly address the reasons why the indefinite topic ban was placed. I would, personally, like to see some acknowledgement of what led up to the topic ban and a commitment to not repeat the mistakes of the past.

For example, in their last appeal they said please don’t hold a grudge when asked about a comment they made while appealing their block. I would like to be sure that Lima Bean Farmer understands that we need to see that they have changed, and therefore we are not holding a grudge but instead want to be sure that the topic ban is no longer necessary. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 06:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to socking, I have not run a check. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 06:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Lima Bean Farmer

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Lima Bean Farmer

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

I'm generally amenable to appeals made after a few years, but I'm interested in Dreamy Jazz's thoughts, as well as if there has been any further socking. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lima Bean Farmer, can you please explain why the indefinite topic ban was placed and how you will avoid the same issues in the future? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what were the issues that led to the original topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lemabeta

Lemabeta is indefinitely topic-banned from the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:34, 22 August 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 Lemabeta

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanezi Astghik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Lemabeta (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/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

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

15 August 2024: Reverts to their original POV WP:OR. The problem with these are: “Armeno-Georgian” or Mamikonian roots is supported by the sources in the article (including 3 in the lede), yet the user removes the “Armeno” part and adds doubt to Mamkionian roots for no reason (second time now), engaging in WP:TE and WP:OR.
10 June 2024: Removes content based on “outdated” source Brosset, 1849. FYI, it's the same source that's used for Georgian origins [52]; apparently it's outdated for one thing, but can stay for another.
10 June 2024: Adds “cn” templates to existing sources and adds unexplained doubt.
15 August 2024: Removes material that's in the body; this after being specifically called out for selective POV-pushing in the previous edits and shown an additional modern WP:RS in the same comment (which was added to the article), RS that literally supported the info they removed.
24 July 2024: Another WP:TE and WP:OR push by changing sourced material under the guise of “WP:NEUTRALITY violation”. If you read the book's page, it literally says; “These three men, Davit Soslan, Zakare and Ivane Mkhargrdzeli restored the kingdom to a position of conquest”.
13 August 2024: undue Georgian POV with an “Agritourism guide” book despite the lede already having 2 sources, including a far better book from Oxford University that specializes in cheeses and states (including with a quote already in the ref); “Twisted string cheese, chechil panir, husats, or tel cheese are Armenian pasta filata cheeses,…”.
15 August 2024: Reverts to their undue POV now with WP:PRIMARY Georgian government source; this comes after they were shown the quote from the better secondary source that’s in the lede already which doesn’t support their POV.
29 June 2024: WP:OR removes any mention of Armenian from 1st paragraph and adds unexplained doubt, with OR opinionated summary “Armenocentric article”.
5 July: Removes any mention of Armenian and adds WP:OR doubt, no explanation.

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 March 8, 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Lemabeta has been pushing heavy Georgian POV in Armenia-Georgia articles, while downplaying Armenia/Armenians, WP:OR changes of sourced material / adding WP:OR doubt to sources, disregard of sources, or removal of sourced material. I think it’s time AE reviews Lemabeta’s behavior; I’ve tried to talk with them but to no avail, usually they revert and restore their original problematic edits, or push new POV.

Makes personal attacks during AE; "If you could read, you would see that...".

Adds more unexplained WP:OR doubt [53] to a WP:RS during AE.

Response to [54]: I don't think saying the user seemed eager to be blocked was a threat as the user was edit-warring [55], [56] during AE despite not having consensus for changing stable version or adding weaker sources that were directly challenged on talk, thus violating WP:ONUS.

I believe this comment is content related which is intended for talk pages.

Lemabeta claims "I simply didn't look at the sources of other sentences...", but they literally put "cn" tags on everything in this section (even when mostly sourced) excluding the Georgian origins paragraph which had the most outdated source; funny how the only paragraph they "didn't look" suits their POV. And even after, when I added better (modern/expert) source and told them about it [57], they still removed content sourced by it [58] and then put doubt on it [59]. Vanezi (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[60]

Discussion concerning Lemabeta

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 Lemabeta

1)Cyril Toumanoff work is cited in the source, while Cyril himself never says that the Tumanishvili house was an Armenian house, but rather he says that the origins of Tumanishvili house go back to Mamikonians who Cyril considers to have originated in Georgia specifically in Zaneti region, he in his work mentions that the root of the last name Mamikonian - Mamik comes from the Georgian language theory which is also accepted by the famous Armenian historian - Nicholas Adontz, they both connected the roots of Mamikonians and therefore roots of Tumanishvili to Georgian - Lazs .^[1] ^[2] Which was deleted by the individual reporting me.

2-3-4)The Pro-Armenian POV pushing is visible from the 2nd reference link he inserted---> [61] as you can see the he wrote that the "The Albano-Armenian theory is mostly accepted today, Adarnase being the first independent sovereign of Hereti, which was most likely an Armenian territory beforehand and followed the Monophysitism of Albanians and Armenians instead of the Christian Orthodoxy of the Bagrationis" meanwhile adding a source of Brosset, Marie-Félicité who lived in 19th century, by what standards is this considered as a "modern historians" - plural. Moreover, theory of Brosset is denounced today as he wasn't aware of the medieval works of historians attributing Adarnase of Hereti to Chosroid dynasty of Caucasus, which i inserted in the newer changes, which was completely deleted by the individual reporting me.therefore theory that isn't accepted by most, shouldn't be in the leading.

While Heretian Georgians are still presentHeretians or Ingiloys descendants of a legendary Heros, he keeps changing the Kingdom of Hereti ethnic affiliation to "South Caucasian" to a broader term than Georgian is. Meanwhile in modern historiography Kingdom of Hereti is considered as a Georgian monarchy 5) reference which he inserted [62] --- Since when is NPOV wording of a sentence considered as Armenophobia? But he wants to make it look like Armenian and Alan were the only reason of success of Kingdom of Georgia.

6)-7) Now let's talk about the deletion of sourced material by the individual reporting me. [63] Whole sourced etymology section was removed, because it didn't fit the pro-Armenian narrative he's pushing. Moreover, on Chechili geographical indication is registered in Georgia, protecting the origins of Chechili, which i wrote according to the articles such as Champagne. Chechili origins and GI are protected in more than 30 countries.

8)Melikishvili-Melikov was never known as-Melikyan.Melikov was a russified form of Melikishvili after it was written by Heraclius II as part of Georgian nobility in treaty of Georgievsk^[3]

9)Wikipedia:No personal attacks violation by him "So you have nothing else to do but to edit war again after posting a ridiculous WP:OR rant on a clear scholar"[64] also violations are seen here by using offensive language[65]

"if you could read" isn't an insult. It's same as "If you may" or to politely ask someone. Lemabeta (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lemabeta (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[66] also the threatening to get me blocked "Seems like you're just eager to get blocked ot topic-banned" Lemabeta (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Rosguill's initial comment I simply didn't look at the sources of other sentences due to the busy schedule involving my masters degree exams. Now that i am aware of the poorly written article, i will take my part in and contribute to the richening of Adarnase Sumbatashvili page, especially because i am a direct descendant of his paternal line. Lemabeta (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Rosguill's comment So it's better to have an unargumentative and a provocational claim stated as an absolute fact in an article than to delete it? It should have been discussed in a talk page if there was something wrong with my edit instead of accusing me and reporting me of anything firstly.

Moreover, in the talk page [[67]] he had a problem over Kingdom of Hereti being refered to as a Georgian kingdom, thats where the problem lies, thats why he was writing King as "South Caucasian" and Kingdom as "South Caucasian" kingdom. If you want to topic ban me, do it. But my honor in front of god is clean and you can not change that--Lemabeta (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Армения в эпоху Юстиниана: Политическое состояние на основе Нахарского строя, СПб., 1908, cт. 402-404 (Nicholas Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justinian: The political Conditions Based on the Naxarar System. Trans. into Eng. with expanded notes, bibliography, and appendices by Nina G. Garsoian, Lisbon, 1970)
^ (Toumanoff 1963, p. 211, n. 23.).
^ (in Russian) Stanislav Vladimirovich Dumin. Pyotr Grebelsky. The Noble Houses of the Russian Empire. Moscow, Russia: 1994. Думин С. В., Гребельский П. Х. Дворянские роды Российской Империи. — Москва, 1994

Statement by Spinney Hill

It is possible that this cheese is traditionally made in both Armenia and Georgia or that each country claims to be the origin. Something similar may be the case with Gruyere, which is certainly made in Switzerland and France although this is not quite reflected in the wp article on that cheese. See the following source Larousse gastronomique p534 English edition published by Hamlyn (London) 1988 translated from the 1984 French edition.ISBN 0 600 32390 0 More on this source later. .I do not have the sources OUP or the Tbilisi equivalent relied on by the two editors so I cannot comment. I have not seen any other articles on Armenian or Georgian subjects they may have clashed on. The online sources are inconclusive. At an early stage in the argument I put in a piece based on a British Government source showing that Britain recognised a kind of chechill was made in Georgia. I also found a general source which showed it was "a European and Central Asian cheese" suggesting it was made anywhere and everywhere from the west of Ireland an Portugal to Mongolia. I put a sentence in mentioning this but I am considering withdrawing this as it does not seem accurate. I am a cheese lover but I have never seen or tasted it in UK where I live nor any of the other western or central European countries I have been to (even Greece) The only other sources my Google search revealed were cheese selling sites which revealed the cheese was also made in US, Turkey (I think), Bulgaria.and South Africa! I have searched my copy of Larousse gastronomique-see above. The article on cheese does not mention chechil, nor does it mention Georgia or Armenia. Chechill does not have its own article as do many cheeses such as Gruyere, Stilton and Gorgonzola, nor do Armenia or Georgia. I also searched Russia as this is a 1984 book and both countries were part of the USSR . Here it says Georgia was home to a hard cheese called tuchouri.. No cheese is mentioned for Armenia. The only other "Russian" cheese mentioned is Sovietski which has its own article and which presumably is either no longer made or has been renamed.. I think both parties have shown intemperate, but both have made some valid points and surely a compromise article should be arrived at showing that the cheese is made in both countries. I am not sure if an origin can be stated with accuracy. Spinney Hill (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC) I think Tbillisi University is quite capable of having an independent unbiased publishing arm. It is no longer part of the USSR or even Russia.Spinney Hill (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Lemabeta

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

Vanezi Astghik, you're at about 670 words. Please trim to 500, and consider whether you'd like to save some words for future replies. Lemabeta, you're right at the limit; do not respond further. Both of you can request an extension, but I wouldn't recommend it at this time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While at first blush I was tempted to say that this was just a content dispute and should be resolved via RfC, I am concerned by Lemabeta's responses. With regard to point 2 in particular, this is the state of the article as of when Lemabeta began to edit it. While it's valid to contest the validity of a 19th century source, it is glaring that this source already comprises 2/3 of the citations in the article, including, as noted in the initial report, the specific claims of Bagratoni/Georgian heritage. It's hard to assume good faith of the objections to the sourcing of other claims to these same sources. I'm also dissatisfied with Lemabeta's response listed as "6-7", as, irrespective of the merits of the underlying edits, in this context Lemabeta's addition of content could be taken as the continuation of an edit war for a matter actively, so accusing Vanezi of deletion of sourced material seems a bit off base--at this juncture, adding the material was not appropriate: it should have been discussed, and potentially resolved via RfC if a consensus could not be reached between the two of you and other editors watching the article. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lemabeta, at AE replies are not threaded (except occasionally between admins); new comments should be placed in your own section (I have moved the substantive portion of yours already as a courtesy). You're also a bit over your word limit--rather than request that you retract or rephrase, I'm just going to issue Vanezi Astghik a commensurable 50-word extension so that you're both allowed the same amount. Please do not reply further in this case unless addressed directly for comment _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having now actually reviewed the content of Lemabeta's response, I don't find this explanation persuasive at all given the length of the article at the time and the position of the content edited vs other content that had previously been the crux of the dispute. And even if it were persuasive, it would still be a violation of the WP:CTOP instruction to edit carefully--if you're so rushed that you overlook such an obvious issue with your edit, you shouldn't be editing this topic. I'd appreciate other admins' input, but am currently leaning toward a topic ban on history of the Caucasus, including the history of its cultural heritage, broadly construed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, although possibly only an article-space topic ban, leaving them an allowance to engage on talk pages, as there is no evidence of talk page disruption given. That said, bespoke sanctions of that sort seldom work, and create more work for the others in the topic area, so I'm also fine with the standard topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just based on the diffs coming since the awareness notice, I'm seeing actionable POV-pushing. The legalese OR at places like Talk:Chechil#Georgian origins of the cheese is disruptive enough that I'd favor a standard topic ban, though I'm happy to see it kept as narrow as Rosguill's suggestion. It is reflective of the problem that Lemabeta has worsened their word limit violation despite the direct instructions from myself and Rosguill. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers, @ScottishFinnishRadish, I’m not sure we’re interpreting my proposal the same way. My thinking was that the scope needs to be “Caucasus”, rather than Georgia or Armenia, because the pattern of editing suggests to me that if banned from those topics, they would likely continue similar disruption by editing to remove the claims of other neighboring culture groups that compete with Georgia’s. I included the extra clause about “history of its cultural heritage” as I anticipate that without such a stipulation we’ll see a breaching attempt at an article like Chechil with the argument that it’s “not history”. While of course such a move could be sanctioned (although in my experience more likely than not it would result in just a final stern warning), getting ahead of it now would save us some wikilawyering. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 12:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I interpreted it. I'd prefer that over an article-only ban. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish, is this option amenable to you, at least as a second choice? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm fine with that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bajaria - 2

Blocked by me for one week for ECR violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:14, 19 August 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.

Second request concerning Bajaria

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: The Kip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bajaria (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: ARBPIA ECR, again

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

See the case still on this page above, but linked here for convenience. They received a two-day block after multiple warnings, and it subsequently took them three days to go right back to editing in the area:

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked 48 hours on 11 August by @Theleekycauldron: for ARBPIA ECR violations, covered in the aforementioned/above case.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Copied from above:

Initial CTOP notice given 07:47 on 4 August.
Template:Welcome-arbpia given 07:55 on 10 August.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As mentioned in the first case, Bajaria was given the CTOP notice on 4 August, given the ARBPIA welcome template and an additional warning by myself on 10 August, was aware and responded to the case above, and was blocked for the ECR violations. That they went right back to them, and that they were overly confrontational/didn't seem to acknowledge the repeated warnings that they aren't allowed to be editing in the ARBPIA area at the initial report, makes me wonder if CIR may come into play. Again, this really is a shame, because from their contribs it seems they could be legitimately productive if they properly worked towards XC status - they just don't seem to get that ECR is a hard-line rule. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified at time of report.

Discussion concerning Bajaria

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 Bajaria

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bajaria

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

Blocked a week. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peckedagain

Peckedagain is indefinitely topic banned from gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 21 August 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 Peckedagain

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Raladic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Peckedagain (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/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality

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

09:34, 13 August 2024 Edit-warring with continuous POV pushing as warned by User:Licks-rocks on their talk page
11:45, 16 August 2024 More POV pushing and completely changing the prose of the lead making it appear as if it is contentious beyond just the UK. Reverted by User:Crossroads [68]
12:20, 17 August 2024 and then they just reverted it again, placing their POV there
16:01, 17 August 2024 more edit-warring of previously reverted content by User:Snokalok
11:13, 13 August 2024 insertion of the very same editorialized edits they were warring over on the other article above, again POV pushing
13:32, 17 August 2024 Deletion of large swaths of well supported RS
21:04, 17 August 2024 Adding undue content trying to whitewash Conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy, violating NPOV, UNDUE
21:57, 17 August 2024‎ Again, reversion against consensus of adding coatrack NPOV of prior undo from another user, reverted by User:Flounder fillet
00:47, 18 August 2024 And now pushing their POV on another article without discussion, after having been warned about it on the other article's talk page and having responded to the AE here.
21:00, 19 August 2024 - The user has now started WP:CANVASSing people who may share their views to this AE discussion
23:15, 19 August 2024 NPA accusation without the receipts, the lead of Cass Review clearly supports the statement that it was commissioned for policies of the country
23:40, 19 August 2024 BLP vio, defamation (was REVDEL'd)
21:14, 20 August 2024 More POV pushing, it's getting pretty wild - can we strike a lot of this after enforcement?
00:31, 21 August 2024 Second time making the same BLP vio on defamation (WP:REVDEL by admin)

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

User_talk:Peckedagain#Introduction_to_contentious_topics

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor appears to be a WP:SPA that joined several months ago, coinciding with the UK's release of the Cass Review, which has been hailed by anti-trans organizations and the user has continuously tried to push anti-trans content in multiple articles since joining. They will often make far ranging changes without actual consensus that had to have been reverted by multiple users. At this point with the latest swath of bad edits that I've linked above that occurred over just the last few days, which were the final straw of why I'm now bringing this to AE (there would be many more that could be pulled up). I don't think this editor is making useful contributions to the GENSEX CTOP area, as they require countless reversions and corrections, so I'm requesting a Topic ban to stop the unconstructive editing of the user.

(On a side note, while this user has been particularly egregious, ever since the UKs release of the Cass Review, there has been a considerable uptick of anti-trans POV pushing happening on various articles, with some editors pushing these views often WP:TAGTEAMing on it, so as someone recently mentioned at ANI, there may very well be a time for a new ArbCom case to help curtail this anti-trans POV pushing that is becoming very WP:TENDENTIOUS.)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

22:23, 17 August 2024‎

Discussion concerning Peckedagain

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 Peckedagain

edited 21 Aug - after Radalic's point 12 & 14

Radalic has reverted my posts on Cal Horton talk - root cause was a quote from another Talk page: both reverts did not state this.
see my [| my talk page]

Re the points:

1- @Licks-rocks has since praised my edits on that
7 The UKCP is a credible professional body: I quoted directly: "exploratory therapy must not be conflated with conversion therapy which seeks to change or deny a person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Conversion therapy as so defined is harmful and must not be practised" Is that whitewashing ?
2 my edit is pulling up relevant detail from the page: before my edit the lead seemed to minimise that not all organisations supported puberty blockers. Radalic reverted, but could have engaged on Talk at the same time
4 after that reversion I opened a section on the Talk page, to invite comment on the importance of the UKCP statement. You have not given even 12 hours for Snokalok, or yourself, to share views there
6 Updated for: DanielRigal. Content was transferred to the PP page, apart from text stating what PP is. I checked now and I apologise, I did lose one sentence, starting: "They are also used in specific cases of hormone-sensitive cancers..."

In reply to "user's edits have mostly been unhelpful" by CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath: please see [this example] of constructive work, that took some time

In reply to new points:

8 - Ralidic also reverted positive work I did on the page - [Talk]
But regards the James Esses case, I am at fault: I now realise it was inappropriate for the Cass page, even though the UKCP statement referred to Cass in their opening line.
9 - Yes I am at fault: I didn't read carefully enough that I was being invited to use the Talk page, not the page. I have now done that.
10: as the diff shows -the bulk of my comment was praising editors of all persuasions and invited them to help on another page.

Is Raladic coming with clean hands to this issue? In the Talk page, they yesterday stated a view that has been many times in Talk shown to be misleading, to be wrongly undermining of what Cass actually is: "The government of one nation has issued a review for use of policies in that country. That is the purpose of the Cass Review, not more, not less." That seems to be a rut they are in, where they are at odds with the consensus of the cass page editors.

Because the Cass review included all worldwide evidence: although it was commissioned by one country, its scientific findings on PB evidence is valid to all.

Is Nosferattus coming with clean hands? - they are being criticized by others for 'completely wrong' statements, and by me for digging up resolved, dead questions

Statement by DanielRigal

I have not been following this closely but I saw the diff of the big revert, checked the history, and yeah, it looks like several days of edit warring in an attempt to add POV and remove other material from the Puberty blocker article by a (more-or-less) SPA. The big diff is 12.2KB but only ~8.5KB went into Precocious puberty so plenty of material would have disappeared had it not been reverted. Furthermore, moving it all into Precocious puberty doesn't make sense, as some of the material that was moved relates to the blockers in general and is not all specific to precocious puberty. The whole point of having a separate article about the blockers is to cover the medications in detail and leave Precocious puberty to focus on the condition itself, covering the blockers briefly, maybe with a little overlapping content but not too much. I feel that moving so much material about puberty blockers out of the article about puberty blockers has the effect of creating a void of factual medical information in that article, a void that can then be filled up with even more coverage of the trans related political "controversies" instead. That is not what we want in a medical article!

I had a quick look at Peckedagain's other edits. This was their very first edit which seems surprisingly advanced for a first edit. Maybe they edited anonymously before but clearly they had prior experience. Only a very small proportion of their edits are on topics other than transgender issues. Most of the edits I looked at showed signs tendentious editing to some degree. I think it is fair to call them an SPA.

I believe that a topic ban is justified. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath

I haven't been following this too closely however I recently interacted with the user at Talk:Puberty blocker. I'm not super familiar with the whole arbitration process on Wikipedia so please mistake any knowledge gaps here. Based on my interactions with the user it seems that they have very fixed beliefs on the topic of transgender healthcare and those views seem to be getting in the way of them making constructive edits. Several users have taken the time to explain to them why some of their edits have been unhelpful and despite this, they continue to make similar edits. I think a topic ban is appropriate here as the user's edits have mostly been unhelpful and they don't seem very open to changing how they contribute. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of my statement was not to say that you have not made any quality contributions to Wikipedia; my point was that if we were to look at all of your contributions to Wikipedia and weigh them as being either helpful or unhelpful, the majority of your contributions would fall under the unhelpful category. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't plan on updating my statement but I think this diff really shows the user's real intentions here and their clear lack of a neutral POV. I do see that an admin has weighed in on the topic but it doesn't seem like a conclusion has been reached yet. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Licks-rocks

Since I've been mentioned here twice now, I'll inform the court that I have seen this. Not much to add, besides that I concur this is a CIR issue and that I have advised Pecked on their talkpage to edit in other areas of the wiki to build some experience. There's definitely some IDHT-symptoms here as well. [69] --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (LunaHasArrived)

I wasn't going to comment here because I thought everything I would say has been said but I think this users reaction to being bought to ae has increased their more problematic editing. As well as this one particular pov pushing diff #[70] caught my attention and was the main reason to comment. I really think the diff speaks for itself. I truly think pecked can be a productive editor and they have been praised for good editing previously. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nosferattus

Peckedagain's edit history shows a pattern of POV-pushing on issues related to transgender health care. Their editing on this topic is not in line with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Contentious topics, particularly adherence to WP:NPOV, so a topic ban may be in order. Nosferattus (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Peckedagain

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

The edit warring is almost enough for a topic ban on its own, and the POV pushing found here with extensive quotation certainly isn't a good look. I think some experience in general editing before they're allowed to continue in GENSEX is probably a good idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We really don't need another POV-pushing SPA in this area, it's crowded enough with them already. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Johnrpenner

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 Johnrpenner

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Johnrpenner (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: WP:ARBPS

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

[71] 21 August 2024—violates WP:PSCI by immunizing Anthroposophy from falsification through performing WP:OR (seeks to reject the label of pseudoscience through attempting to make it look like a category mistake—but not according to any WP:RS)
a lot of previous edits at the same article, 21 August 2024, see e.g. [72], having the edit summary cutting like a knife between physics and metaphysics

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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 [73] 2 May 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

About WP:OUTING at Talk:Anthroposophy#Evidence: I did not Google Mr. Penner, I have Googled my own username. There is no policy against "doxxing" my own username. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I even reported it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1148#WP:MEAT at Anthroposophy, and nobody complained that it were WP:OUTING. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A more nuanced view of how I see Anthroposophy: [74]
attacks against users like myself—if you mean the reports mentioned above: I simply did not know that you were a Wikipedia editor. Otherwise, reporting you to arbitration enforcement is not a personal attack. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaborative environment—up to a point. We don't seek to "collaborate" with those who breach our WP:RULES with impunity. More to the point: Johnrpenner is violating WP:RULES such as WP:PSCI and WP:OR. If he thinks I'm wrong, he should WP:CITE mainstream WP:RS to that extent. Merely giving us his own opinion won't do. Again: his assertion that the label of pseudoscience is a category mistake, is solely based upon his own opinion. He did not WP:CITE anything to that extent. Even if his POV were the unvarnished truth, he still does not have WP:RS to that extent. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a villain, nor a WP:RGW-warrior. I'm simply a popularizer of mainstream WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Of course, some people are terrified by it. But that's what Wikipedia is for. A lot of people say they love mainstream academic learning. But that no longer holds when it's mainstream academic learning about their own religion. If their religion gets creamed at Wikipedia, it does not mean it's because of some villain, nor because of malfeasance. Malcontents should not blame me for what full professors write. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
About "critical" sources, e.g. from Talk:Anthroposophy#List of many: another editor stated that Anthroposophy isn't a religion because there was a court case in California which settled that issue. So, such statement made me curious about what real scholars (of all stripes and colors) are saying about Anthroposophy being a religion. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Until May 2024, I had no idea that Penner is a Wikipedia editor. In respect to what you say: I would accept a restriction of 1RR and a limit of 500 words per topic. Also, you have to consider that these Anthroposophists overtly stated they want me banned from Anthroposophy, so, while they knew they stand no chance in respect to their own edits, they were merely flamebaiting. Anthroposophists are generally speaking highly educated people, so if they behave as too dumb for their credentials, it is a token they are merely acting a show. Playing dumb and employing vicious libel (flamebait) is justified, according to them, since they are defending the public image of Anthroposophy. I mean: for a university-educated Lead Technical Writer it would be easy-peasy to understand they're breaching website policy. And if I lambasted them for failing to do so, my criticism was genuine and to the point. What do they stand to lose, here at Wikipedia? A bunch of disposable accounts. Since both Johnrpenner and the previous Anthroposophist at WP:AE are extremely fond of performing WP:OR—I don't think that's just a coincidence. When multiple accounts misunderstand Wikipedia in the same way, we may suspect they're WP:MEAT. What the two have in common? They care for the public image of Anthroposophy, through rejecting claims of racism and of pseudoscience, and both have a cavalier attitude to WP:V. Another lead: SamwiseGSix has edited VxWorks, and I have private evidence about Johnrpenner and VxWorks. But only by going by what Johnrpenner has posted upon his own user page, it is not an unreasonable conclusion. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: It was not intended as mockery. I don't think he is unintelligent, and if he appears as unintelligent, that's for flamebaiting purposes (just to make me angry). tgeorgescu (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[75] 21 August 2024

Discussion concerning Johnrpenner

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 Johnrpenner

after making additions to the 'Anthroposophy' article — user tgeorgescu deleted / reverted my edits, and so i took it on to the talk page, asking him: instead of just deleting a whole bunch of stuff, why not engage in something more constructive? he did not engage in a friendly fashion, and quickly shut me down, and launched this Arbitration request against me.

if i were writing an article on the phenomenolgy of colour — i would expect to see criticism and debate — but i would also expect to see some effort in improving the article — doing what wikipedia does — helping provide some sense of the topic, which covers a neutral and informed point of view.

user tgeorgescu has expended considerable effort solely directed towards attacking and finding sources discrediting Anthroposophy (hundreds upon hundreds of edits.. almost as if it were some sort of personal vendetta). if one sees only efforts directed at this — then i might also question how neutral things are — when i dont see as much effort towards contributing anything that might help provide insight on the given topic.

tgeorgescu claims category error — and my claim is that anthroposophy is no more scientific than the subject of philosophy. in my edits — i did not dispute or remove his claims, and took care to preserve his references/links and to make it clear that anthroposophy is not scientific.

i believe i was following the wiki principle as stated in WP:RNPOV — as follows:

WP:RNPOV § Neutrality: In the case of beliefs and practices, Wikipedia content should not only encompass what motivates individuals who hold these beliefs and practices but also account for how such beliefs and practices developed. Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from religion's sacred texts as primary sources and modern archaeological, historical, and scientific works as secondary and tertiary sources.

in short — this issue could have been more constructively solved with some friendly edits aimed at improving the article, and making a subject more understandable — for example:

i) what are the epistemogical differences which distinguish anthroposophy from critical idealism?

ii) from whom did steiner get the idea — the article mentioned 'German Idealism', but neglected to mention Goethe.

iii) the article talks about 'perception of the spiritual world' — but it fails to mention the key role Anthroposophists place on Intuition in this regard.

these would all be useful things to know if i was a reader and unfamiliar with the subject.

instead, tgeorgescu has undertaken to report me to arbitration — i find it disingenous to spend such an inordinate amount of time logging in such an amount of effort cataloguing all criticisms against Anthroposophy — without making any efforts towards providing the reader with a better comprehension of what is being criticized — the criticisms and critics tgeorgescu has referenced only makes a case for condemning Anthroposophists — and deleting or reverting edits which disagree with him — and ultimately weaponizing the wiki process — which i find is generally quite fair, and i expect someone might be able to follow up and arbitrate his disproportionate critical activity, and attacks against users like myself which are trying to make honest contributions (as i have helped improve numerous other wiki articles, and believe in the wiki process).

i have no complaint against a good critical review of contributions to wikipedia - good editors, good referencing, and the good will to work together instead of shutting people down is what makes wikipedia great and useful. please, lets work together, and find a way to make better articles. peace out. Johnrpenner (talk) 03:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Johnrpenner

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

Looks like tgeorgescu is exhibiting the exact same behavior that landed them a logged warning for battleground behavior and incivility nine months ago. that's a shame, because they seem to solidly be in the right that Johnrpenner is only here to push a pseudoscientific POV. If Tgeorgescu doesn't agree to stop bludgeoning talk pages, going on long-winded "own the crazies" rants, insulting other editors, and generally behaving as if yelling at people about how wrong and stupid they are is the best way to make them go away, the pseudoscience topic area will lose a valuable editor. perhaps a topic ban from Anthroposophy is in order, since the last row took place there as well. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tgeorgescu - first, "A more nuanced view of how I see Anthroposophy:" has no bearing on how you should be editing. Your personal views are no more useful than the personal views of Johnrpenner or any other editors. In fact, you state later in this very filing that "Merely giving us his own opinion won't do" so putting your views here isn't helpful to the admins looking into your filing. Further, with "Malcontents should not blame me for what full professors write" you are continuing to describe other editors (I think? It's hard to tell if you're referring to other editors or merely folks who subscribe to Anthroposophy, but either way it's a sign of battleground behavior) as "malcontents". You were warned for this last November. Here's another unhelpful comment "I mean: for a university-educated Lead Technical Writer it would be easy-peasy to understand they're breaching website policy." ... you're clearly mocking the editor who you filed this against. Really, this battleground approach needs to stop.
Okay, so to the edit that is given as the basis for this filing: this edit, I see a description of the subject sourced to a pile of what appear to be independent reliable sources (at a quick glance) that is being replaced with stuff sourced to Steiner's own works. Also, I see that "Though proponents claim to present their ideas in a manner that is verifiable by rational discourse and say that they seek precision and clarity comparable to that obtained by scientists investigating the physical world, many of these ideas have been termed pseudoscientific by experts in epistemology and debunkers of pseudoscience." this sentence (which is sourced to the pile of independent sources) is replaced with "Anthroposophy does not belong to the study of the physical sciences, any more than Plato's Metaphysics should be considered Physics — doing so would be pseudoscientific" while still sourcing it to the same pile of reliable sources. This is source mis-representation unless each of those sources actually supports this new text (I'll go on a limb here and say it likely doesn't). On the griping hand, though, Johnrpenner isn't exactly a prolific editor - his edit count is around 1700, but they are widely spread out and mostly appear to relate to Goethe. While they are not editing well, I'm not sure they've had a chance to learn that wikipedia isn't a philosphical debating place. They need to learn to edit well with others, but either a topic ban from the narrow topic of Anthroposophy or a warning about their editing there would probably be fine. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] 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.

[3] Армения в эпоху Юстиниана: Политическое состояние на основе Нахарского строя, СПб., 1908, cт. 402-404 (Nicholas Adontz, Armenia in the Period of Justinian: The political Conditions Based on the Naxarar System. Trans. into Eng. with expanded notes, bibliography, and appendices by Nina G. Garsoian, Lisbon, 1970)

[4] (Toumanoff 1963, p. 211, n. 23.).

[5] (in Russian) Stanislav Vladimirovich Dumin. Pyotr Grebelsky. The Noble Houses of the Russian Empire. Moscow, Russia: 1994. Думин С. В., Гребельский П. Х. Дворянские роды Российской Империи. — Москва, 1994

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

@@ Line 2,363: / Line 2,363: @@
 ==Lemabeta==
+{{hat|{{u|Lemabeta}} is indefinitely topic-banned from the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 15:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)}}
 <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
@@ Line 2,454: / Line 2,455: @@
 ::::[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]], is this option amenable to you, at least as a second choice? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 12:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
 :::::Yeah, I'm fine with that. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
+{{hatb}}
 ==Bajaria - 2==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards