Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

xDanielx

xDanielx is subject to the zero revert rule on content within the scope of WP:ARBPIA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning xDanielx

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: xDanielx (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

Material was originally added to the infobox on 17 October and

Removed by reported editor on 4 Dec, 5 Dec 7 Dec and 8 December with the last revert coming despite an explicit warning.

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

PIA5 notice

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Experienced ex admin who should know better.

@Fiveby: It's out of scope for the PIA case as reported editor is not a named party. Both AE and Arbcom prefer not to deal with content issues. Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby: I did not add the content nor have I edit warred over it. Obviously there are 3 editors who don't share your view while I have not as yet made up my mind, there is an ongoing RSN discussion now, and I will communicate my thoughts on the content there or possibly in an RFC if it ends up as that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion concerning xDanielX

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 xDanielX

I don't think the "explicit warning" by Selfstudier (Last time, RFC or RSN else AE) was appropriate; it seems like the sort of intimidation that WP:BATTLEGROUND prohibits. The idea of adjusting my editing based on intimidation by a highly involved non-admin didn't feel right.

Under the conventional view that removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert, I made two reverts here, with a lot of discussion in between (here, here, here, and this older discussion). My second revert was undoing what seemed like a ~~reflexive tag-team~~ revert, by a user who didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them asking for an explanation.

I normally revert very selectively - looking at my past 500 edits, there are only five reverts (at least obvious ones), with only these two being controversial. If I was a bit aggressive here, it was because the material violated our policies in a particularly blatant and severe manner.

The estimate in question falls under WP:SCHOLARSHIP since it's based on a novel methodology, and it fails that standard due to a lack of vetting by the relevant scholarly community (public health). The closest we have is this paper by an anthropologist, which includes the estimate but doesn't discuss whether the methodology is valid. The paper also appears to have no citations, and the group that published it doesn't appear to have any real scholarly vetting process.

The claim is also a highly WP:EXTRAORDINARY one. Health officials reported 38 starvations (as of Sep 16), which is quite different from the 62,413 (as of Sep 30) estimate. To me pushing to include such an extraordinary claim in wikivoice, with sources that clearly fall short of our relevant policies, indicates either POV pushing or a competence issue. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to M.Bitton

@M.Bitton: removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring, and in practice are generally not understood as reverts, even if they appear to meet the literal definition. Some recent discussions on this were here and here.

I believe you misread the (confusing) history a bit; I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1. A related edit by Bogazicili had the effect of moving some footnote content, including a second instance of the 62,413 figure which I had initially missed, into the infobox. I hadn't understood this as an objection to my removal, since the edit summary conveyed a different purpose.

It didn't occur to me that you might not have seen my ping. I'll strike that remark, but I still feel that reverting an extensively discussed change with only there is no valid reason to remove this leaves something to be desired. I see that you've now joined the discussion, but still without substantive engagement; merely stating that you're unconvinced doesn't help to move the discussion forward. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: okay I missed that footnote change, but I think the point stands that neither change clearly conveyed an objection to the idea of removing the estimate from the infobox. If there was such an objection, I would have expected it to be noted in an summary or the discussion thread. And please assume good faith. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: there is no valid reason to remove this isn't really an explanation. I still have no idea what you disagree with and why. Is your position that the Watson paper is vetted scholarship, or that WP:SCHOLARSHIP doesn't apply, or something else? While this isn't the place, it would be good if you could explain your position in one of the relevant discussions. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I would argue that EW enforcement should account for factors like scale, engagement in discussions, timing, policy support, consensus, and broader patterns of user behavior.

Scale: I thought I had made two reverts. Maybe there's an argument that it was really three, but I wasn't aware of it.
Engagement: I discussed very substantively (here, here), and tried to get more input.
Timing: I thought the discussion seemed to have settled. Noone appeared to be continuing to defend the content in a substantive manner, so I felt more justified in removing it. The latest points like this didn't receive a response (besides Still disagree).
Consensus: the local consensus appeared to be leaning toward at least requiring attribution (as we do in the body which I didn't remove). There's also just a very clear global consensus against including unvetted WP:SCHOLARSHIP (no peer review, citations, etc) in wikivoice.
Patterns of behavior: these were my only controversial reverts in recent memory (at least looking at 500 edits).

If I could rewind, I would at least give it extra time to make sure that the discussion had settled, and maybe leave it to someone else to enact the result. However, I think if this were to be considered actionable edit warring, then nearly all active editors in the topic area would be guilty of it. Even in this same dispute, a different user just made their second revert, with less engagement and so on. I would argue that the single revert with no explanation might actually be the most problematic EW here, although I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW (there have been some inconclusive discussions on that). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: understood, though I think you mean EW broadly rather than 1RR? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm receiving the message that the factors I mentioned aren't good enough, but would still appreciate input on what acceptable participation in an edit war could look like. Maybe the answer is that there is none, but that would seem to depart from convention as I understood it, and possibly lead to a lot more formal RfCs. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: understood, but I think a strict/literal reading of EW would capture a lot of activity that's accepted in practice. It seems like in the absence of brightline violations, more subtle distinctions are drawn between acceptable and unacceptable forms of EW. I thought that I was on the right side of this distinction, per my remarks above, but maybe my understanding of it was off base. I can understand a warning here, but it would be more effective with more specific guidance on what to avoid. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: it looks I'm already past 500 words, is it okay to continue? Very briefly, I was trying to get at the idea that there seem to be certain informal customs limiting when EW should be enforced, going beyond the formal WP:3RRNO exceptions. If the policy were to be enforced to the letter, there would seem to be a vast number of violations; this same dispute contained at least a second ([1] [2]) and possibly a third. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 04:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee:: I was ideally hoping for some clarifications, i.e.

A couple comments here made me wonder if this was being (mis)interpreted as a 1RR violation. Are we on the same page that this is a non-brightline instance of EW?
Is the intention to enforce EW to the letter, irrespective of factors (outside of WP:3RRNO) like engagement in discussions?
Is there a reason for the focus on my involvement and not say [3] [4] (from the same edit war)? Maybe there are good reasons for it, I just want to understand.

If this needs to be wrapped up soon, I can commit to following WP:EW to the letter to be safe, unless or until a different line is clarified. I might start a WT:EW discussion afterward to clarify whether there's community support for enforcing WP:EW the letter. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit puzzled by the admin discussion. It seems like there are two concerns,

That I'm not entirely clear on where the line is. I've acknowledged this, and that's why I've asked for some clarifications in my last five comments, but I haven't really received the clarity I was hoping for.
That I'm continuing to justify the edits (as I did initially). This seems like an uncharitable reading of my past several comments; asking for clarity on where the line is isn't an argument that my edits were on the right side of it.

I think the implied message I'm getting is along the lines of "it's best to follow EW to the letter, irrespective of any other factors", which would be a clear line that I can follow. It's just frustrating that this hasn't been spelled out very clearly, and my questions seem to have been interpreted as something other than sincere requests for such guidance. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: thank you, that is pretty clear and I can commit to that. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M.Bitton

removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert old content means stable content (you know what that means).

I made two reverts this is factually incorrect. You made 3 reverts (excluding the first content removal):

Removal of stable content.
1st revert, after Stephan rostie restored it.
2nd revert, after Cdjp1 restored it.
3rd revert, after I restored it.

undoing what seemed like a reflexive tag-team revert casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets.

didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them this is extremely disingenuous as it implies that I was editing something else while ignoring your notification, when in fact, you pinged me long after I logged out and I haven't edited anything since (the editing history and the diffs don't lie). Furthermore, I already made it clear in the edit summary that I disagree with your reasoning (which consists of made-up rules and demands to satisfy you with answers).

The bottom line is that xDanielx is edit warring against multiple editors who disagree with them for various reasons. M.Bitton (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XDanielx:

removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring we all know what edit warring is, so please don't make-up another rule.

I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1 ~~maybe that's because you only see what you want to see~~. Here is is. Like I said, diffs don't lie.

It didn't occur to me that's because you assumed bad faith. You made that clear with your aspersions casting that I highlighted above.

For the last time, I don't need to convince you. M.Bitton (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Instead of simply striking their aspersions, they doubled down on their bad faith assumption (see their edit summary); and to add insult to injury, they reversed the roles and asked me to "assume good faith" (see their comment above). M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the single revert with no explanation xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with and that they'd rather edit war than take it to RSN or start a RfC"). Anyway, they can also argue all they want, but what they cannot do is justify what they did (edit warring, casting aspersions and assuming bad faith). M.Bitton (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW I hope not, because that would mean that you violated that rule three times. One thing is certain though, the 3 reverts that you made are considered EW. M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XDanielx: quote the complete edit summary or don't bother quoting any of it. I didn't invite myself to this board to discuss content. All I'm interested in is your edit warring, your bad faith assumption and the fact that you doubled down on it after casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Done. What about their aspersions casting and assumption of bad faith? M.Bitton (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: only when the person is not responding (i.e., they are editing something else and ignoring the other editor). I know that they struck the comment, but not without doubling down on the bad faith assumption (see above note). I covered all of this and more in my previous comments. M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by fiveby

I'm surprised that Selfstudier is making this report. If you're unable here to look at the article content and sources then this should go straight to the arbcom case as evidence. fiveby(zero) 03:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier:, this is blatantly bad content. Like UFO level blatantly bad. It seems to me WP:PROFRINGE editors in some topic areas get told right off to go edit somewhere else, often harshly, quickly warned by admins, and finally sanctioned without a great deal of fuss about the thing. It seems no big deal when admins in those topic areas have some basic knowledge and apply a few research skills to start warning, topic banning, or blocking editors over content when they are otherwise following policies. @Valereee:, seems like an awfully high burden to impose on everyone here, especially when the RfC process seems to be a big part of the problem in the topic area. I could easily put the shoe on the other foot here, find some trivial bits of content: infobox, lead phrasing, or titles, complain on talk pages and then start a few RfC's. If i were to do that it seems best for WP that Selfstudier report me here for wasting everyone's time and admins here should be able to forcefully let me know that i'm just being a jerk. See ya back here when i've some idle time for the devil's work. fiveby(zero) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 editors who don't share your view... bad actors, not because they do not share my view but because they don't share Wikipedia's. Just like all those non-EC editors flooding Talk:Zionism with edit requests and EC editors who've gamed the system to get there. Bad policies. Now there are two good actors and reasonable looking editors here, and more with good work and ideas targets at arbcom. I'd say better to join the edit war and remove that nonsense rather than wasting time with this. fiveby(zero) 17:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: i think there are such reasonable editors in the topic area who can work things out and are trying to work things out on talk pages with WP:BESTSOURCES, and good work on the real article content in the bodies. Why are they ending up here and at arbcom? I think it's due to the bad policies and the bad actors gaming them. Wastes time and frustrates everyone. fiveby(zero) 18:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning xDanielX

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

Daniel, your excuse for edit-warring seems to be that the claim is extraordinary. I totally see your point on this being an extraordinary claim; to me it seems highly dubious that 62,000 people could have died of starvation over the course of a year and it wouldn't be ongoing international front page news rather than speculation/estimation in obscure sources, with multiple mainstream RS only reporting starvation deaths in the dozens. But edit-warring isn't the answer. The answer is an RfC with notification to projects and noticeboards. It would even be fair to suggest the content be removed as dubious until the RfC closes; there's no particular urgency for WP to include such a dubious number in an infobox, which as you pointed out is similar to providing that info in Wikivoice. Valereee (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiveby, sure, it would be better if editors at an article would just be able to work it out by saying to themselves, "Hm...yeah, that doesn't really make sense. 62,000+ people dead of starvation? And no one's talking about it except some obscure unpublished research and a letter to POTUS, and both of those estimates are based on a single unproven theory? Maybe we should rethink". But it seems like the editors at the article talk who want to keep this dubious content in the infobox have dug in their heels on defending the poor sourcing and are in the majority. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XDanielx, the exceptions to edit warring are detailed at WP:3RRNO. It's best to claim an exception in the edit summary. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XDanielx, I feel like WP:3RRNO is specific guidance on what to avoid. What are you not understanding? What revert did you think would covered under the exemptions? Valereee (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@xDanielx, you said I think the implied message I'm getting is along the lines of "it's best to follow EW to the letter, irrespective of any other factors", which would be a clear line that I can follow. So here's a clear line to follow, explicitly stated rather than implied: When reverted, go directly to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor, and discuss. Do not revert until consensus has been reached. Unless a reversion is for reasons included by 3RR exemptions, such as a BLP vio, that is best practices. Can you commit to making that your default setting? Valereee (talk) 15:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, looking at the diffs here, it seems like xDanielx removes the content once, it's reverted, removes a second time. Then someone else bundles the list into a footnote and a second person re-adds the content, which xDanielx doesn't recognize as a readdition and thinks that they forgot to remove the same content somewhere else, gets reverted, reverts back. If it were actually the situation that there were two instances of the same content, it'd merit maybe a reminder because it's generally not good practice to arm-wrestle in the revision history to get edits through. Given that and the fact that they weren't being careful, I'd say either a warning or reminder is best. As for the content dispute, both positions are reasonable enough that neither one would be sanctionable on its own as POV-pushing, so it's out of scope for this thread. @M.Bitton: maybe that's because you only see what you want to see is inappropriate for a civil discussion. Please strike that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@M.Bitton: Seems like they struck the "reflexive tag-team revert" comment. As for the pinging, it's pretty reasonable to bring up that someone isn't responding when you try and engage with them, I'm not sure I see the same assumption of bad faith. Open to your thoughts on it, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per Valereee above, the argument of an extraordinary claim is a reasonable one, but that isn't one of the very few exceptions we allow for edit-warring. I'm also not impressed by the dismissal of SelfStudier's warning as a threat. That said, there is engagement on the talk page, and no bright-line violation, so I would stop at a logged warning about edit-warring. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel, there is no 1RR exemption for being right. You need to learn that the revert-button isn't a good first (or any) option in this topic area. Yes, it's frustrating to have to expend effort to discuss things but that's what system we have here at wikipedia. I'm okay with a logged warning, but I do want Daniel to understand that contentious topics such as this demand the best behavior. That's how you stay out of trouble, and yes, the filing against M.Bitton, while perhaps merited, certainly gave off a distinct impression of a retaliatory filing - too much of that sort of thing gets editors topic banned or worse. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very slightly lean 0RR restriction, just because I think that might help the editor get the idea that edit warring isn't a good idea at all, which might not get through with a logged warning. But its very slight and a logged warning also works. (Sorry for delay - snowfall and I got mesmerized by the beauty of winter ... so nice to be all snug in the house next to the wood stove with hot tea and watching big fluffy flakes falling...) Ealdgyth (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to stave off the archive bot. We should reach some resolution here; it looks to me like this is tending toward a warning for edit warring with no further sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is that Daniel keeps arguing that this edit warring should be one of the exemptions and/or indicating that because not all edit warring gets exactly the same response consistently, they don't recognize where the line is. I'm fine with a warning if Daniel will indicate they do now understand where the line is and will comply. Valereee (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
xDanielx, please consider yourself to have a 300 word extension for the purpose of responding to the above from Valereee. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if this is a case where 0RR may be usefully applied. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need to close this. @Valereee, Seraphimblade, Ealdgyth, and Theleekycauldron: Is there agreement on a logged warning for edit-warring? I agree with Valereee that the justifications above are concerning, but that isn't enough to push me to something more draconian. I floated the idea of a 0RR restriction, but nobody has commented on that, so I would default to a logged warning. I see no history of sanctions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still pretty concerned about Daniel's most recent explanation of their understanding of EW. I feel like 0RR might be a better solution, but I'm willing to go along with a logged warning if 0RR doesn't work for others. I kind of feel like if this needs to be revisited, it's quite possibly likely an arbcom case. Valereee (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here for the record that Ealdgyth supports either, above in their own response area. Valereee (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I prefer 0RR here. I'm just not seeing an indication that xDanielx understands that "But I'm really sure I'm right!" is not an exception to the rules on edit warring; indeed, that is the cause of probably 99% of edit wars. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to go for a logged warning, given that Daniel has now committed to 0RR as a personal default. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that's the way to go, I don't have any particular objection to that. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I'll close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the tardiness: I was hoping TLC would chime in, but then this fell off my radar. I'm reading a slight consensus in favor of 0RR, given that Seraphimblade, myself, and Ealdgyth all preferred it, and Valereee's latest post does not indicate objection. In addition, if xDanielx intends to hold himself to this standard, it shouldn't prove an onerous restriction. I would be willing to consider an appeal within a few months based on engagement in disputes without a violation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton

M.Bitton is warned against casting aspersions and reminded to abide by WP:CIVIL. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning M.Bitton

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: XDanielx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: M.Bitton (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

I'll limit this to WP:CIVIL related issues for now, since they're easiest to evaluate with minimal context.

2024-12-09 xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with")
2024-12-08 casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets ... this is extremely disingenuous ... made-up rules and demands to satisfy you
2024-12-08 please don't make-up another rule ... maybe that's because you only see what you want to see (partly struck per admin request)
2024-12-01, 2024-12-01 Wikipedia is not a collection of every piece of alleged garbage
2024-11-18 When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness
2024-11-18 I'm starting to question your motives
2024-11-18 Please refrain from repeating your lies (edited to You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV)
2024-11-15 I don't take lessons from those who misrepresent the sources and edit war over WP:OR
2024-11-15 please don't attribute your nonsense to me (this is totally unacceptable)
2024-11-15 Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find
2024-11-15 you've been very busy adding whatever garbage you could find to the article
2024-11-15 Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is?
2024-11-14 I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense ... Your self-serving opinion is irrelevant
2024-11-12 offensive humor

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

I'm not aware of CTOP sanctions. The block log seems to show four blocks, but they're not that recent and I'm not sure how relevant they are.

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

Was a subject of a previous ARBPIA AE request.
Made a couple other statements in ARBPIA AE requests: 2024-12-06, 2024-12-08

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Another 15 diffs were (rightfully) removed by an admin for exceeding the diff limit as well as falling outside PIA scope; just mentioning for transparency. They might be relevant on a different forum but admittedly not here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: I planned to file something after the "garbage" comments (about BobFromBrockley) on Talk:Al-Manar. I reconsidered after being surprised by M.Bitton's diplomatic compromise there. Admittedly M.Bitton's comments in the thread above prompted me to reconsider again, but that wasn't about the fact that I might receive a warning there (irrespective of M.Bitton's participation); it was just about me personally being on the receiving end of some personal attacks. I don't really follow why me being emotionally affected by the conduct would affect the legitimacy of the report. Most of the incivility was directed at other users, and letting this conduct continue wouldn't seem fair to them. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2024-12-09

Discussion concerning M.Bitton

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 M.Bitton

Not content with edit warring, assuming bad faith and casting aspersions (see #xDanielx), they now decided to go even lower and file a retaliatory report. M.Bitton (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 and Ealdgyth: I just want to draw your attention to their aspersions casting tag-team revert (their edit summary, while striking it, leaves no doubt about they believe) and the fact that they falsely accused me: of ignoring their ping (when I was logged out) and reverting without an explanation (when, in fact, I did provide one). M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: I agree and will make sure that doesn't happen in the future, regardless of what's coming the other way. I should know better than let myself take the bait, but lesson learnt nonetheless. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: sure. M.Bitton (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning M.Bitton

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

This is shamelessly and obviously a retaliatory filing, and I'm leaning towards a one- or two-way interaction ban to stop the back-and-forth sniping. But I'd still draw uninvolved admins' attention to this thread and ask what their thoughts are. That seems like pretty battleground-y behavior to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see it as a bit retaliatory, but we do need to stop this sniping, especially at AE and other such venues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a logged warning sounds like enough to me, given their responses so far. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is retaliatory, and at the same time, M. Bitton's language is not acceptable. Bad behavior should be addressed at an administrator noticeboard, or in a civil post to a user talk page, not with what SFR accurately describes as sniping. I would log a warning for casting aspersions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SFR and Vanamonde93 that the language used does not help the topic area at all. I don't know if M.Bitton's had a long history of logged warnings before (I'm a bit busy trying to get the farm ready for an artic clipper coming in) but I'm fine with a logged warning. But the filer should be aware that they need to also try to avoid retaliatory-filing look in the future... Ealdgyth (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not happy about Daniel's behavior (but will try to find time to look at it in the earlier filing to avoid getting this one off track) but, M.Bitton, your comments are not just sub-par, but not at all what editors should be directing at others. An acknowledgment of that and working to avoid that in the future is something you need to seriously consider if you're not going to end up sanctioned in the future. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think a logged warning should be adequate here, particularly given the limited sanctions history and the commitment to do better in the future. Personally I'm not bothered by the timing of this report in light of xDanielx's explanation, although it's wise to avoid even the appearance of retaliation when you're at AE. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that this is retaliatory, but that doesn't moot the issue. M.Bitton does tend to approach editing in a battleground-y way, and their language often escalates rather than de-escalates. I'd very much like you to start using de-escalating language, M.Bitton. Can you discuss that? Valereee (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant can you discuss it here, but maybe I wasn't clear. Valereee (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have not read this but will note that xDanielx is at their word limit. Daniel if you want to post anything else please get an extension first from an uninvolved administrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to stave off the bot. Looks like the proposed resolution here is a warning for battleground behavior, does that still seem the way to go? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A logged warning, sure. Valereee (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I also agree we should put this to bed. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Epic

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 Ethiopian Epic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tinynanorobots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ethiopian Epic (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/Yasuke

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

November 14th created during the Yasuke case and went active when it ended. First 11 edits were to Government of Japan. In one case three edits were used to write one sentence.
November 12 Manually reverted the lead back to how it was in September.
November 16 Falsely Claimed cited material was OR. (G
November 24 Falsely Claimed cited material was unsourced
November 24 It took an ANI report to get him to use the article talk page. His defense was accusations and denial.
November 23 He reverted to a version that went against consensus established on the talk page and contained a falsely sourced quote.
November 25 Engages in sealioning
November 29 Removes a well sourced line from Yasuke as well as reverted an edit that was the result of BRD. He has now started disputes with me on all three Yasuke related articles.
November 30 starts disputing a new section of [Samurai]
December 2 Brought again to ANI, he claims that I didn't get consensus for changes, even though I had discussed them on talk prior to making them.
December 4 He keeps mentioning ONUS, and asking me to discuss it, in response to me discussing.
December 9 Used a non-controversial revert to hide his edit warring.
December 11 did the same thing on List of foreign-born samurai in Japan.
December 11 He also repeatedly complains that he doesn't like the definition because it is vague and claims that his preferred version is "status quo"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date 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 December 1 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am not sure if this is actually a AE matter, but was told to go here by multiple admins. The biggest issue is the Editing against consensus on [List of Foreign-born Samurai in Japan] accompanied by bludgeoning. However, there are signs of bad faith editing on all three pages where I have interacted with EE. It could also be a CIR issue or it could be some sort of harassment. I don't know. I just know that EE first avoided providing clear reasons for reverting edits and has been trying to engage in Status Quo Stonewalling. He keeps citing Onus or Burden and asks me not to make a change until the discussion is over. Often, this doesn't make sense in context, because the change was in place. He has made false claims about sources and what they say. His editing on Yasuke is not so much a problem as the discussion which comes across as gaslighting.

@User:Red-tailed hawk, I am not an expert on proxies or socks. All the IPs have only posted on the one article and have advocated an odd definition for samurai, that doesn't apply to the article. All except the first one have just reverted. It is possible that this is just laziness, or lack of confidence in writing skills etc. After all, the false citation was added by another user and was just kept. I found the latest one the most suspect, in part because of it first reverting to the incorrect definition, before restoring most of the text and second because of falsely citing policy. I am not sure if they are proxies, but I hoped that someone here would have the expertise to know. I don't think the proxy evidence is the most important. EE is either acting in bad faith or has CIR problems. The later is possible, because he thanked City of Silver during ANI, although City of Silver has been the harshest critic of EE's behaviour towards me.[5]

I think there should be some important context to the quote: "those who serve in close attendance to the nobility". The quote can be found in several books, on Samurai it is sourced to an article published in Black Belt Magazine in the 80s by William Scott Wilson, where he describes the origin of the word samurai. He is describing the early phases of its meaning in that quote, before it became to have martial connotations. It also refers to the time before 900. The earliest foreign samurai on the list was in the late 1500s. It also doesn't apply to most of the persons on the list. Finally, it is not mentioned in Vaporis's book, which EE keeps adding as the source. He hasn't even made the effort to copy the citation from Samurai.

@User:Eronymous

Not only did I have a dispute with Symphony Regalia about samurai being "retainers to lords", but also on Yasuke about "As a samurai" and on List of Foreign-born Samurai in Japan EE made the same reverts as SR.[6][7] EE had with his first edit in all three articles continued a dispute that I had already had with SR.

@User:Ethiopian Epic I actually don't have a problem with you discussing things. Your talk page posts aren't really discussion though. Your main argument on all three pages has been a shifting of the burden of proof. You don't really discuss content and continually ask me not to make changes without discussing first, and then make changes yourself. I understand that your position is that your preferred version is the status quo. However, my edits regarding the definition on List of Foreign-born samurai in Japan , were discussed and consensus was clearly gotten. Similarly, my edits on Yasuke were discussed, and even though I didn't use the exact same version as Gitz said, Gitz had suggested using warrior instead of bushi, so I used samurai, because I thought it would be less controversial.
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

Discussion concerning Ethiopian Epic

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 Ethiopian Epic

This is clear retaliatory filing because I recently didn't agree with Tinynanorobot's edits against RFC consensus, and because I made talk page sections on some recent edits.[9]

@Eronymous That's not true and you are a very obvious alt account with only 26 edits. No one gave you a notification of this discussion and it's not on the Yasuke talk page. This suggests you are the sock puppet of someone here. Your post is also misleading and incorrect it wasn't an insertion. The line you are talking about in Samurai has been there for over 10 years and is normal. I know because I've read it before. Here is a version from 2017 that still has it. I don't understand why you are misrepresenting edits and using an alt account.

@Red-tailed hawk I think he is just fishing. That's why he removed his IP claims. Even his other diffs are just mislabeled regular behavior. It's amusing because Eronymous is the likely alt of Tinynanorobots or someone posting here. I think the way Tinynanorobots edits against clear consensus, skips discussion, and then files frivolous ANI/AE reports with misleading narrative like above is disruptive. Discussion is an easy solution and benefits everyone. I hope he will respect RFC consensus.

Statement by Relm

I am largely unfamiliar with the account in question, but I do frequently check Yasuke. I believe that EthiopianEpic has displayed a clear slant and battleground mindset in their editing in regards to the topic of Yasuke, but that their conduct on the Yasuke page itself so far has generally been in the ballpark of good faith edits. The revert on December 9th was justified, and their topic on November 29th is well within bounds (though I acknowledge that the background of their prior disputes on other pages with Tinynanorobots shows it may be edit warring) given that the two things being reverted was a change that seemed to skirt the prior RFC with agreement being given in a very non-direct way, and the other portion being an addition which had not been discussed on the talk page prior to its implementation (though previous discussions ered on the side of not including it). I am not accusing Tinynanorobots of any misconduct in any part of that either.

What I will note is that in addition to the sockpuppet IP allegations made by Tinynanorobots, I wanted to lodge that the posting style of EthiopianEpic, as well as their knowledge of much of the previous discussions on the page deep in the archive, led me to suspect that they were an alt of User:Symphony_Regalia. I never found anything conclusive. Relm (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

These two editors have been tangling at WP:AN/I repeatedly. Last time they came there I said that this would likely continue until a third party intervened. And then the thread got archived with no action (see AN/I thread here) so I'm not surprised that the two of them are still tangling. There is evidence that both editors have engaged in a slow-motion edit war. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Both have claimed the other is editing against consensus. Here I will say that it appears TinyNanoRobots is more correct than Ethiopian Epic. Furthermore, while neither editors' comportment has been stellar, as other editors have pointed out, it appears more that EE is following TNR about and giving them a hard time than the alternate. [18]. In the linked AN/I case (above) you'll note EE attempted a boomerang on TNR and was not well-received for the effort.

Frankly my view is that both editors are not editing to the best standards of Wikipedia but there is definitely a more disruptive member of this duo and that is Ethiopian Epic. I think it would probably cut down on the noise considerably if they were encouraged to find somewhere to edit which was not a CTOP subject and if they were encouraged to leave TNR alone. Simonm223 (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Eronymous

Similar to Relm I check on the Yasuke page every so often, and it seems very likely given the evidence that User:Ethiopian Epic is an alt of User:Symphony_Regalia created to evade his recent ArbCom sanctions, having started editing the day prior to the Yasuke case closure. Of note to this is the last edit of Symphony_Regalia on Samurai was him attempting to insert the line "who served as retainers to lords (including daimyo)" - curiously enough, Ethiopian Epic's first edit on Samurai (and first large edit, having just prior made 11 minor ones in a short timeframe to reach autoconfirmed status) is him attempting to insert the same controversial line that was reverted before.

Symphony_Regalia has a history of utilising socks to edit Yasuke/Samurai related topics and is indefinitely blocked from the .jp wiki for extensive sockpuppetry (plus multiple suspected IPs) for this.

Prior to being sanctioned Symphony Regalia frequently got into exactly the same arguments concerning wording/source material with User:Tinynanorobots that Ethiopian Epic is now. One could assume based on their relationship that he is aggrieved that Tinynanorobots was not sanctioned by ArbCom during the case and is now continuously feuding with him to change that through edit warring and multiple administrator incidents/arbitration requests in the past few weeks. Eronymous (talk) 22:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

I was ?one of the editors who suggested Tinynanorobots consider ARE in the future. I did this mostly because after three threads on ANI with no result, I felt a change of venue might be more productive especially since the more structured nature of ARE, as well as a likely greater concern over low level of misconduct meant that some outcome was more likely. (For clarity, when I suggested this I did feel nothing would happen from the third ANI thread but in any case my advice being taken onboard would likely mean the third thread had no result.) I did try to make clear that I wasn't saying there was definitely a problem requiring sanction and also it was possible Tinynanorobots might themselves end up sanctioned. Since a topic ban on both is being considered, I might have been right in a way. If a topic ban results, I'd like to suggest admins considered some guidance beyond broadly constructed on how any topic ban would apply. While the entirety of the Yasuke article and the list of foreign born samurai stuff seem clear enough, one concern I've had at ANI is how to handle the editing at Samurai and its talk page. A lot of the recent stuff involving these editors seems to relate to the definition of samurai. AFAIK, this is generally been a big part of the dispute of Yasuke (he can/can't be a samurai because it means A which was/wasn't true about him). Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Ethiopian Epic

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

I've never been very impressed with retaliatory filings, and the one below is no exception. I will also note that I'm never too impressed with "must be a sock" type accusations—either file at SPI or don't. In this case, though, I think Yasuke would be better off if neither of these two were participating there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red-tailed hawk, what are your thoughts after the responses to you? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be declined if it were an WP:SPI report and the editor should be mindful not to throw sock accusations around willy-nilly going forward. But I typically don't see any sort of sanction imposed when someone makes a bad SPI report, particularly if they're newer or aren't quite clueful yet. So I don't see much to do on that front other than tell them that we need more specific evidence of socking when reports are made than merely shared interest, particularly when the IPs are scattered across the world. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still inclined to topic ban both these editors from Yasuke, but would be interested in hearing more thoughts on that if anyone has them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also generally don't like "might-be-a-sock"-style accusations; when we are accusing someone of sockpuppetry by logged out editing we typically need evidence to substantiate it rather than just floating the possibility in a flimsy way. Filer has provided several diffs above as possible socks, but each of those IPs geolocates to a different country (Germany, Norway, and Argentina respectively) and I don't see evidence that any of those IPs are proxies.
@Tinynanorobots: Can you explain what led you to note the IP edits? Is it merely shared interest and viewpoint, or is there something more?
— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this .... mess... first, I'm not sure what actually was against the ArbCom decision - I don't see a 1RR violation being alleged, and the rest really appears to me to be "throw stuff at the wall and see if it sticks". But, like Seraphimblade, I'm not impressed with either of these editors actual conduct here or in general. I could be brought around to supporting a topic ban for both of these editors in the interests of clearing up the whole topic area. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tinynanorobots: you are well above the 500 word limit. Please request an extension before adding anything more. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tinynanorobots

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 Tinynanorobots

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: EEpic (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tinynanorobots (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/Yasuke

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

09:21, 14 November 2024. Tinynanorobots removes As a samurai from the lead text and replaces it with signifying bushi status against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification).
17:12, 15 November 2024. Tinynanorobots removes who served as a samurai from the lead text and adds who became a bushi or samurai against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate).
12:43, 20 November 2024. On List of Foreign-born Samurai, Tinynanorobots removes the longstanding definition and adds This list includes persons who ... may not have been considered a samurai against RFC consensus (There exists a consensus against presenting Yasuke's samurai status as the object of debate).
07:48, 23 November 2024. Tinynanorobots reverts to remove As a samurai in the Yasuke article after Gitz6666 opposes at [19], again ignoring WP:ONUS.
03:13, 4 December 2024. I restore and start a talk page discussion so that consensus can be formed.
14:10, 6 December 2024 . Tinynanorobots, when consensus fails to form for his position, becomes uncivil and engages in a sarcastic personal attack What you are saying doesn't make sense. Perhaps there is a language issue here. Maybe your native language handles the future differently than English?
14:22, 11 December 2024. Tinynanorobots removes "As a samurai" again, ignoring WP:ONUS and BRD even though no consensus has formed for his position, and no consensus has formed to change existing consensus.
08:37, 6 December 2024. Tinynanorobots explains their reasons, I don't know if samurai is the right term which is against consensus.
07:27, 28 November 2024. POV-pushing - With no edit summary Tinynanorobots tag bombs by adding Slavery in Japan.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date 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 23:06, 13 November 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tinynanorobots frequently edits against consensus, restores his edits when others revert, doesn't wait for consensus, and engages in feuding behavior. He seems to think WP:BRD or WP:ONUS don't apply to him which is disruptive, and I don't know why.

Unaccounted removals of sources 23:44, 14 September 2024 - Warning from other editor about repeated removal of content when multiple users are objecting.

AGF 12:21, 15 September 2024 - Warning from yet another editor about not assuming good faith and making personal attacks

It seems to be chronic which suggests behavior problems. Tinynanorobots also frequently fails to assume good faith in others. I don't know why as I don't have any issues with him.

Their preferred edit for Yasuke against the RFC consensus is now still in the lead section.

@Relm Sorry for the confusion. I think we talking about different edits, so I'll adjust that part. I am referring to Tinynanorobot's repeated removal of As a samurai against RFC consensus, which states There exists a consensus to refer to Yasuke as a samurai without qualification.[20][21][22][23]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

18:40, 12 December 2024

Discussion concerning Tinynanorobots

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 Tinynanorobots

The accusations made by EE are so misleading as to be evidence against him. Most of what he is discussing is in reference to a successful BRD. I actually discussed the bold edit first on the talk, but didn't get much of a response. I decided a bold edit would get more feedback. The edits were reverted and then discussed.[24] Gitz's main problem was OR, not a RfC violation. This was because he didn't read the cited source. Anyway, since Atkin says "signifying bushi status", I have no objection to restoring this text.

I never used any sarcasm, I know that some languages handle how they talk about time differently. It seems reasonable that a translation error could be the reason for EE asking me not to change the article, althoug my edit had already been restored by someone else and at the same time asking me to discuss that I had already discussed and was already discussing. I am disappointed that EE didn't point out that he felt attacked, so that I could apologize.

[25] This was written in response to another user, and the whole thought is I don't know if samurai is the right term. It is the term a fair amount of sources use, and the one that the RfC says should be used. It is also consistent with common usage in reference to other historical figures. In fact earlier in that post I said this: I am not qualified to say whither or not Yasuke having a house meant that he was a samurai This is blatantly taking a quote out of context in order to prejudice the Admins against me.

@User:Ealdgyth I filed here, because the last time I filed at ANI it was suggested that I bring things here if things continue by an Admin. I try to follow advice, although I keep getting conflicting signals from Admins.[26][27] I am most concerned that you find my work on Samurai and List of Foreign-born Samurai in Japan not adding anything helpful. My suggestion to rewrite the way samurai was defined on the List in order to reduce OR and bring it in line with WP:LSC was meant with unanimous approval by those who responded. Samurai is a high importance article that has tags on it from years back, is unorganized and contains outdated information. I am not the best writer, but I have gotten some books, and am pretty much the only one working on it.

I just thought that the Admins here should know about the ongoing SPI [28]

Statement by Relm

I am the editor alluded to and quoted as 'protesting' Tinynanorobots edit. When I originally made that topic, I was fixing a different edit which left the first sentence as a grammatically incomplete sentence. When I looked at it in the editing view, one of the quotes in the citation beforehand was quoting Atkins Vera, and I mistook this for the opening quote having been changed. When I closed the editing menu I saw 'signifying samurai status' in the second paragraph and confused the two for each other as I had not noticed the addition of the latter phrase a little under a month ago. I realized my mistake almost immediately after I posted the new topic, and made this (1) edit to clarify my mistake while also attempting to instead direct the topic towards making sure that the edit recieved sufficient assent from Gitz (it did) and to talk about improvements that could be made to the opening sentence. I further clarified and made clear that I was not accusing Tinynanorobots of having done anything wrong in a later response (2).

Though many of their earlier edits on the page may show some issues, as they grew more familiar with the past discussions I believe that Tinynanorobots has made valuable contributions to the page in good faith. Relm (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

@Ealdgyth I think this misinterprets the ArbCom decision. So Yakuse is a contentious topic and it has a 1RR restriction, in the same way as say PIA. As in PIA administrators can sanction behavior that violates the contentious topics procedures besides 1RR. Beyond that, editing against the RFC is a finding of fact from the case. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tinynanorobots

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

As above, I'm failing to see what exactly is against the ArbCom case rulings - I don't see a 1RR violation. But also as above, I'm coming to the view that neither of these editors are adding anything helpful to the topic area and am leaning towards a topic ban for both. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier

No evidence of misconduct was presented. Filer Allthemilescombined1 is informally warned against frivolous filings. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 02:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

} This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Selfstudier

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Allthemilescombined1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Selfstudier (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 5

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

16 October 2024 Concern for WP:CIVIL violation when Selfstudier told me on my talk page: “enough now.This is a warning to cease and desist with the WP:ASPERSIONS and general unhelpfulness at the Zionism article.”
3 November 2024 Selfstudier dismissed my source ISBN 9798888459683, with “Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”.
3 November 2024 Selfstudier dismissed my source Adam Kirsch ISBN 978-1324105343 “does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint". These dismissive comments are uncivil.
6 December 2024 Concerning for possible WP:GAME and WP:NOT ADVOCACY violations. Editors with one POV swarmed RM:6 December 2024 and closed it immediately for SNOW. Selfstudier immediately archived parts of this discussion, including my comments, while leaving the parts that supported their POV.

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)

Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On I/P topics, my edits on numerous occasions have been reverted almost immediately, by Selfstudier and their fellow editors who seem to be always hanging around I/P, and "owning" the topic area. They are creating a hostile editing environment and are violating NPOV.

Concerns for possible WP:CIVIL and WP:TENDENTIOUS violations:

Abo Yemen dismissed my reasoned arguments as “feelings”:8 December 2024

RolandR dismissed the author of "Saying No to Hate: Overcoming Antisemitism in America", ISBN 978-0827615236, as a “non-notable children’s writer”:3 November 2024

Zero told me “We should stick to history books and not cite emotional polemics”. 3 November 2024

Concerns for possible WP:GAME and WP:NOT ADVOCACY violations:

Smallangryplanet accused me of WP:SYNTH and reverted my edits as irrelevant to the article on Holocaust inversion: 2 December 2024 whereas the article, prior to vandalism, resembled:[29]

Nableezy added that the only material that can be relevant to the aforementioned article is that which compares Israel to Nazi Germany, ignoring that such comparisons are antisemitic.2 December 2024

Levivich asked me “Why are these academic sources relevant to the discussion? How did you select them?” and added “I won’t bother reading the other two, I'll assume they also say the same thing that everybody else says.” (referring to Katz, Segev, and Goren)3 November 2024

Valeree wrote “If you'll read this talk page rather thoroughly so that you can bring yourself up to speed, you'll probably find fewer editors making sarcastic remarks about your suggestions.” 16 October 2024

Concerns for possible WP:ASPERSIONS violations:

Sean.hoyland accused me of “advocacy and the expression of your personal views about the real world” 8 December 2024 and told me to see MOS:TERRORIST 7 August 2024 and accused me of violating WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY:8 December 2024

Sameboat wrote: "Please take extra attention to this recent ECU whose edits to I-P articles look rather deceptive to me".11 December 2024

Concerns for possible WP:TAG TEAM violations:

Sameboat wrote on my talk page about Gaza genocide, though they were not involved in the earlier discussion, warning me about WP:NOTFORUM RM:6 December 2024.9 December 2024

Selected examples of my edits which were reverted within hours or minutes (this list is far from comprehensive):

11 December 2024 by Butterscotch Beluga claiming vandalism against a University of Michigan regent was irrelevant to pro-Palestine protests because it happened off campus;
24 November 2024 by Zero arguing that an egregious antisemitic incident 'fails WP:WEIGHT by a mile'
2 December 2024 by Abo Yemen removing my additions to Palestinian perspectives comparing Israel to Nazi Germany from a section on exactly that; along with 24 November 2024 and 2 December 2024 by Smallangryplanet;
1 December 2024 by AlsoWukai removing the disappearance of the ANC's $31 million debt when South Africa accused Israel of genocide.

In summary, I have experienced a pattern of consistent, and what appears to be organized, intimidation from a small group of editors.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[30]

Discussion concerning Selfstudier

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 Selfstudier

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I see I've been mentioned but not pinged. That's nice. I encourage anyone to look at the diffs and the context. Why are there editors in the topic area apparently ignoring WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY? It's a mystery. It is, and has always been, one of the root causes of instability in the topic area and wastes so much time. Assigning a cost to advocacy might reduce it. Either way, it needs to be actively suppressed by enforcement of the WP:NOT policy. It's a rule, not an aspiration. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Butterscotch Beluga

I didn't say it was "irrelevant to pro-Palestine protests" as a whole. The edit I reverted was specifically at 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses, so as I said, the "Incident did not occur at a university campus so is outside the scope of this article". We have other articles like Israel–Hamas war protests & more specifically Israel–Hamas war protests in the United States that are more in scope of your proposed edit. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

I wish the filer would have wiki-linked names, then you would easily have seen that Bernard-Henri Lévy "is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism”, or that Adam Kirsch “does not appear to be an expert in Zionism or Settler colonial studies but is apparently well known for a pro Israel viewpoint", Huldra (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

I too have been mentioned above, and complained about, but not been notified. If this is not a breach of Wikipedia regulations, then it ought to be.

As for the substance, I see that I am accused of describing Norman H. Finkelstein as a "non-notable children’s writer". Norman H. Finkelstein was indeed a children's writer, as described in most reports and obituaries.[31][32][33] At the time of the original edit and my revert, he was not considered sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article; it was only a week later that the OP created an article, of which they have effectively been the only editor. So I stand by my characterisation, which is an accurate and objective description of the author.

Further, I was concerned that a casual reader might be led to confuse this writer with the highly significant writer Norman Finkelstein; in fact, I made my edit after AlsoWukai had made this mistake and linked the cited author to the genuinely notable person.[34]

This whole report, and the sneaky complaints about me and other editors, is entirely worthless and should be thrown out. RolandR (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

This edit by OP is illustrative. It is just a presentation of personal belief with weak or irrelevant sources. I don't see evidence of an ability to contribute usefully. Zero^talk 00:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sameboat

It is clear that the filer has failed to understand my message, which was a warning about repeated violations of the NotForum policy. Instead, they have misinterpreted my actions, as well as those of others, as part of a coordinated "tag team." I raised my concerns on User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish after the filer's edit on the UNRWA article regarding its controversy, which failed to properly attribute the information to its source—the Israeli government. This filing is a complete waste of time, and serious sanctions should be imposed on the filer if similar issues occur again in the future. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlsoWukai

Contrary to the filer's complaint, I never made an edit "removing the disappearance of the ANC's $31 million debt when South Africa accused Israel of genocide." I can only conclude that the filer misread the edit history. AlsoWukai (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereeee

The diff allthemiles links to above is me responding to their post (in which they complained about a mildly sarcastic remark by another editor) where they said, "If respectful discussion is not possible, administrative involvement will be needed." I've been trying to keep up at that article talk, so I responded giving them my take on it.

I tried to keep engaging, trying to help them understand the challenges for less experienced editors trying to work in the topic, offering advice on how they could get up to speed at that particular article, even offering to continue the discussion at their talk or mine. Valereee (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, editors working in PIA are brought here often and bring other editors here often for various reasons, and it doesn't always mean a given editor is problematic. For instance, the particular appearance you're referring to was brought here by a suspected sock of an LTA. I've seen admins working here who don't work in PIA wonder if the fact someone is brought here often or brings others here often means that editor is a problem, and I get why it feels like some issue with that editor has to be a factor, but in my experience it isn't usually. Some of the best editors working in that area are brought here for spurious reasons, and also need to bring other editors here for valid reasons. And some of the worst offenders there avoid AE. Valereee (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Selfstudier

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

While I'm on record as saying that the topic area could us more civility from editors, I'm failing to see anything actionable against the editor filed against here. There's an edit from Oct that isn't great but not even begining to get into my "not civil" category. Then there's a perfectly civil statement about a source from 3 Nov (Hint - "Bernard-Henri Lévy is not an expert on Zionism or colonialism" is exactly the type of discussion that SHOULD be taking place in a contentious topic - it's focused on the source and does not mention any editors at all. The full comment "There is nothing to suggest Bernard-Henri Lévy is an expert on Zionism or colonialism. As I said, it is rather simple to find a source saying what you want it to say, whether that's a WP:BESTSOURCE is another matter." is still quite civil and focused on the source - nothing in this is worth of sanctioning....) The other statement from 3 Nov is also focused on the merits of the source. The fact that it isn't agreeing with your source analysis does not make it dismissive nor uncivil. Frankly, it's quite civil and again, what is expected in a contentious topic - source-based discussion. The comment from 6 Dec is also not uncivil.
The rest of the filing is not about Selfstudier and is instead an excellent example of (1) throwing a whole bunch of diffs out hoping something will stick to someone and (2) an example of why filings in this area often turn into huge messess that can't reach resolution. This is supposed to be a filing about Selfstudier's behavior - instead most of it is about a grab-bag of other edits from many other editors, and frankly, seems to be motivated by the filer feeling that they aren't being taken seriously enough or something. I'm not going to read any of these diffs because they are not about the editor you filed against and my time is worth something and we should not reward abuse of this process by this sort of grab-bag-against-everyone-that-disagreed-with-an-editor filing.
The only reason I'm not going for a boomerang against the filer is that they have only been editing for about six months and this is the first AE filing they've done. Let me suggest that they do not file another one like this - it's a waste of admin time. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second Ealdgyth's reading. The presented diffs against Selfstudier are not actionable, and a lot of the complaint is not about Selfstudier at all. I don't believe the filing alone is grounds for sanction on the filer, but if someone wishes to present more evidence against them I suggest they do so in a separate report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stumbled into this by accident and I don't do these requests anymore, but I wonder if filer should edit outside the subject area until they have much more experience in WP:BRD and dispute resolution.YMMV. Best-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another case on this editor was just closed a week ago, is there any relation between this filing and issues brought up in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive345#Selfstudier? It seems like some editors are brought to AE on a weekly basis. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rasteem

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 Rasteem

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rasteem (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:ARBIPA

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

23:21 12 December 2024 - removed wikilink of an Indian railway station thus violating his topic ban from India and Pakistan.

This violation comes after he was already warned for his first violation of the topic ban.[35][36]

Upon a closer look into his recent contribution, I found that he is simply WP:GAMING the system by creating articles like Arjan Lake which is overall only 5,400 bytes but he made nearly 50 edits here.[37] This is clearly being done by Rasteem for passing the 500 edits mark to get his topic ban overturned.

I recommend increasing the topic ban to indefinite duration. Nxcrypto Message 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: "topic banned from the subject of India and Pakistan, broadly construed, until both six months have elapsed and they have made 500 edits after being notified of this sanction."[38]

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [39]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I agree that there are genuine CIR issues with Rasteem, for example while this ARE report is in progress they created Javan Lake, which has promotional statements like: "The lake's stunning caluts, majestic desert topographies, and serene lakes produce a shifting destination. Its unique charm attracts a wide range of guests, from adventure contenders to nature suckers and beyond". Nxcrypto Message 03:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [40]

Discussion concerning Rasteem

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 Rasteem

This approach seems to be a coordinated attack to abandon me from Wikipedia indefinitely. Indeed, after my ban for 6 months. I was banned on 6 December, and in just 7 days, this report is literally an attempt to make me leave Wikipedia.

1. I rolled back my own edit; it was last time made unintentionally. I was about to revert it, but my internet connection was lost, so when I logged in again, I regressed it.[41]

The internet is constantly slow and sometimes goes down. I live in a hilly location and I had formerly mentioned it.[42]

My edits on Arjan Lake isn't any WP:GAMING factual number of edits I made; it is 45, not 50. Indeed, I made similar edits before in September and December months on the same articles within a single day or 2-3 days.

2. List of villages in Khoda Afarin on this article, I've added 5680 bytes & made 43 edits.[43]

3. List of villages in Tabriz on this article I've added 4000 bytes & made 49 edits.[44]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rasteem

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

While I don't see a change in editing pattern that indicates gaming, the edits to Arjan Lake indicate issues with competence, as the article is weirdly promotional and contains phrases such as "beast species", "emotional 263 proved species". —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to Femke's point, magnific 70- cadence-high waterfalls in this area is not prose that inspires confidence in the editor's competence to edit the English Wikipedia. So, we have violations of a topic ban and questions about the editor's linguistic competence and performance. Perhaps an indefinite block appealable in six months with a recommendation to build English competency by editing the Simple English Wikipedia, and to build general Wikipedia skills by editing in the version of Wikipedia in the language they speak best during that minimum six month period. As for Arjan Lake, although the prose is poor, the references in the article make it clear to me that the topic is notable, so the editor deserves some credit for starting this article that did not exist for two decades plus. Cullen328 (talk) 08:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

שלומית ליר

שלומית ליר is reminded to double-check edits before publishing, and to try to reply more promptly when asked about potential mistakes. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning שלומית ליר

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: שלומית ליר (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#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

10:23, 13 December 2024 claiming a source supports something it never mentions

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)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 5 April 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user wrote that NATO had supported accusations against Hamas citing a chapter titled Hamas and Human Rights in a book titled Hamas Rule in Gaza: Human Rights under Constraint. They cited the entire chapter, pages 56–126. The source itself is a work of scholarship, and nobody would challenge it as a reliable source. Luckily, the full text of the book is available via the Wikipedia Library, and anybody with access to that can verify for themselves that the word "shield" appears nowhere in the book. Not human shield, or even NATO (nato appears in searches with the results being "explanatory, twice and coordinator once, or Atlantic, or N.A.T.O. It is simply made up that this source supports that material. The user later, after being challenged but declining to answer what in the source supports it (see here), added another source that supposedly supports the material, this paper by NATO StratCom COE, however they themselves say they are not part of the NATO Command Structure, nor subordinate to any other NATO entity. As such the Centre does not therefore speak for NATO, though that misunderstanding is certainly forgivable. However, completely making up that a source supports something, with a citation to 70 pages of a book, is less so. That is to me a purposeful attempt at obfuscating that the source offered does not support the material added, and the lack of any attempt of explaining such an edit on the talk page led me to file a report here. nableezy - 23:48, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a matter for AE because violations in a CT topic are AE matters and I’ve previously been told to come here instead of AN(I). What sanction? I don’t think there’s any action more serious than making up something about a source, so I’d say it would be anywhere from a logged, and first only, warning to a topic ban. The second sourcing issue isn’t a huge deal, but the first one, the diff im reporting, is IMO such a severe violation that it merits a sanction. I don’t think this is simply misrepresentation, it is complete fabrication. They cited 70 pages of a book without a quote, to a link that doesn’t have the text. Without the Wikipedia Library this would have been much more difficult to check. This is going back a while, but this was a similar situation reported here. If there had been some explanation given on the talk page I wouldn’t have reported this here, but the wholesale fabrication of claiming that a source that never mentions the topic supports some material was ignored there. nableezy - 14:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to be clear, I am not claiming any sanctionable behavior in the second diff. I only brought it up to say that rather than address the fabrication in the first one they simply attempted to add some other source. They have as yet not addressed the diff I am reporting here. I am only claiming an issue in that diff citing the book chapter for a book that never even says the word shield in it. nableezy - 19:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WikiBlame, the insertion of that source was here, the diff I've reported. As far as I can tell no other user has introduced that source on that page. The revision that the user below says has the sources they took from in the article's edit history is after the insertion of that source by that user. If there is some prior revision showing that source being used for that statement then I'd withdraw my complaint, but that does not appear to be the case. nableezy - 19:58, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed reproducible then I suggest this be closed with a reminder, not a logged warning, to check the output of any tool more thoroughly. And answer questions about your edits when raised on the talk page instead of ignoring them. nableezy - 19:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I verified the bug in the VE sandbox as well. Had I been told of that sequence when I asked about the edit I obviously would not have opened this request. nableezy - 18:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning שלומית ליר

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 שלומית ליר

The article "Use of human shields by Hamas" is intended to address a well-documented phenomenon: Hamas’s deliberate use of civilian infrastructure — homes, hospitals, and mosques — as shields for its military operations. This includes hiding weapons, constructing military tunnels beneath civilian populations, and knowingly placing innocent lives in harm’s way. Yet, I found the article falls far short of adequately describing this phenomenon. It presents vague and generalized accusations while failing to reference the numerous credible organizations that have extensively documented these practices.

During my review, I discovered that essential sources were available in the article's edit history (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas&oldid=1262868174). I retrieved and restored these sources without reverting prior edits, including a source referenced by user Nableezy. When it was brought to my attention that an error had occurred, I acknowledged it, thanked the user, and corrected it by incorporating two reliable references. I had hoped this would resolve the issue, but apparently, it did not.

Now, I find myself the subject of an arbitration enforcement hearing that feels not only unwarranted but intended to intimidate me from contributing further to this article.

I would also like to point out that the responses to my edits raise serious concerns. For instance, an image depicting missiles hidden in a family home — an image used in other Wikipedias to illustrate this topic — was removed. This raises the question: why obscure such critical evidence? Similarly, a scholarly source with credible information that emphasizes the severity of this issue was reverted without clear justification.

This article should serve as a thorough account of Hamas's war crimes, which have resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians. Instead, it seems that some editors are working to dilute its substance, resisting efforts to include vital context and documentation at the start of the article. This undermines the article’s purpose and risks distorting the public’s understanding of an issue of profound international importance.שלומית ליר (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that what Nableezy’s accusation is a complete misrepresentation (and, at times, distortion) of the sequence of events. A reference was mistakenly carried over from a previous editor, and once it was pointed out that it lacked the necessary supporting quotes, I removed it myself.

I find it difficult to accept that failing to respond immediately to an inquiry regarding a removed source (and good faith attempt to find a sufficient replacement) equates to misrepresentation. I strongly believe that using this forum to imply such a thing, based on the actual facts here, is a misuse of the process.

To the arbitrators: I want to ensure the sequence of events is clear, so I request permission to strike through extraneous elements in my initial response, if necessary, to include more technical evidence while staying within the 500-word limit שלומית ליר (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from V93's comment) It’s simple. If you copy the reference from the previous version: 'Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza' (PDF), NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, and add it using the automatic reference tool, it changes it to: Mukhimer, Tariq (2013), Hamas and Human Rights, Hamas Rule in Gaza, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 56–126, ISBN 978-1-349-45658-1, retrieved 2024-12-17.

This is an innocent error caused by the Wiki program itself. You can try it and see for yourself.

Where it led and what Nableezy allowed himself to do is a story by itself that demands investigation שלומית ליר (talk) 12:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I see your point, the issue here was indeed caused by a bug in the 'Add a Cite' tool on automatic mode.

I suggest you take the time to verify this before jumping to far-reaching conclusions.

. שלומית ליר (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking it out and confirming; I appreciate it. שלומית ליר (talk) 23:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

True, and I would most definitely will check next time. שלומית ליר (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

Valereee created the article Politics of food in the Arab–Israeli conflict. She is therefor involved in the topic area and shouldn't be editing in the uninvolved admin section.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning שלומית ליר

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

Please forgive my ignorance, but what specific sanction are you requesting and what exactly makes this possible interconnected source misrepresentation a matter that needs AE? Is the information removed (I'm assuming it is). Is this a long-term pattern? The filing even admits that the second instance is understandable given the name of the group putting out the source. I would be more concerned if this was a continuing problem - are there other recent instances of this editor possibly misrepresenting a source? And I'm still not sure that source misrepresntation is something that falls under AE's remit, rather than just something that could be dealt with at ANI or AN? Not saying no, but I'm not sure we need the big gun of AE for this just yet. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure I'm ready to (1) take a 2011 discussion as binding in 2024 and (2) decide unilaterally that "violations in a CT topic are AE matters". Sorry, but I'm not that much of a cowboy (despite the cowboy hat in my closet and the western-trained horses in my paddock). I'm not trying to be difficult and not at all trying to minimize the severity of source misrepresentation - but I do not see where this topic area has sanctions authorized for that specific behavior - civility and aspersions yeah, but I'd like to see what other admins think. I also would like to see if שלומית ליר has any statement to make (while noting that not replying here is a very bad look for them). Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I would agree with Nableezy's view regarding jurisdiction, and was under the impression that this was already standard practice. AE is intended to address disruptive editing in designated contentious topics--source misrepresentation is definitely disruptive editing even if it was not specifically a matter of issue for the parties to ARBPIA4. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm perfectly happy to be shown that it's a matter for AE, I've just not seen it dealt with that I can remember (bearing in mind that I'm not as young as some other folks and can forget things) and I don't see it mentioned in the CT topics bits or in the case pages referred to. I prefer to err on the side of caution in these matters. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To my reading it would be directly justified by Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Arbitration_enforcement point 2: [AE's scope includes] ...requests for an individual enforcement action against aware editors who engage in misconduct in a contentious topic _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331#Crampcomes is a report where I ~recently sanctioned for source misrepresentation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry - but I find this explanation ... not quite believable. Nableezy is saying that the Mukhimer source was introduced with this diff by you. You claim that "If you copy the reference from the previous version: 'Hamas' use of human shields in Gaza' (PDF), NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence, and add it using the automatic reference tool, it changes it to: Mukhimer, Tariq (2013), Hamas and Human Rights, Hamas Rule in Gaza, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 56–126, ISBN 978-1-349-45658-1, retrieved 2024-12-17." What automatic reference tool? And even if the tool is malfunctioning - you are responsible for your edits - especially in such a fraught topic area. Looking at the diff in question its pretty clear that the first citation is listing the author as "Mukhimer" which should have clued you in (if indeed the automatic tool is a problem) that there was an issue. And when Nableezy raised this issue on the talk page - you didn't actually try this explanation or even any explanation, you just replied "I thought you noticed and understood that I had updated the references." which is deeply concerning that you did not consider the fact that you inserted references that did not support the material (and yes, I did do a rapid read/skim of the Mukhimer work's chapter that was in that citation - the chapter is mostly concerned with Hamas' internal governance and human rights record. I saw nothing discussing human shields or even the war with Israel in that chapter (the chapter does discuss Hamas' actions against Gazans that Hamas accuses of spying/etc for Israel, but nothing about actual military conflict)). The lack of collaborative explanation and the seeming unconcern about the issues brought up are making me lean towards a topic ban, frankly.

I apologize that it took me a while to circle back to this - yesterday was a day of small things breaking and needing to be taken care of and I didn't have the time in the afternoon that I expected to revisit this. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And add yet one more reason to not use VE.... if its some weird bug, then yes, a warning is sufficient. But, really, you need to double check when you use tools to make sure that there are not bugs (and yes, Visual Editor is buggy...) Ealdgyth (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone on record saying that I consider source misrepresentation to be some of the most disruptive conduct in a contentious topic - it is insidious in a way that calling another editor names is not. That does not mean I support sanctions by default, but I do think we need to take such a report seriously. A lot depends on the specific circumstances - the second instance above seems like a very easy mistake to make - but I would like to hear from שלומית ליר. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
שלומית ליר, I would like to see a specific response to Nableezy's evidence about where you got your source, so please go ahead and strike or collapse parts of your original statement (please don't remove anything entirely). NB; we are (mostly) administrators enforcing arbitration decisions here, not arbitrators ourselves. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vanamonde that source misrepresentation is disruptive on its face, and the first time I see it, AGF is pretty much gone. Valereee (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if this was a bug -- which is really concerning -- then a logged warning is overkill, especially given this editor's inexperience. Valereee (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what "automatic reference tool" is being referred to here, but I'm generally not impressed with "It was the tool's fault." Editors are responsible for the edits they make, and while of course there's no problem with using tools to help, the editor, not the tool, is still responsible for ensuring that the final result accurately represents the sources which are cited. Overall, I'd tend toward Ealdgyth's line of thinking; source misrepresentation is an extremely serious form of misconduct and must under no circumstances be tolerated. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
שלומית ליר, it has now been necessary on several occasions to move your comments to the proper section from other editors' sections or this one. Do not comment outside your own section again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Above stuff out of the way, if this actually is reproducible, it may be wise to check Phabricator to see if such an issue has been reported—chances are pretty good this isn't the only time that bug will bite. I'm good with a logged warning to more carefully vet the output of automated editing tools before making the edit, given that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't a logged warning a bit too much for not catching a bug? I'd rather go for a reminder as Nableezy suggests. Will check Phab or open a new phab ticket when I've got a bit more time. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't love the whole thing, but it seems that most people want to just do an informal reminder, so I've got no strong objection (of course, as long as the bug actually does get reported, if it's not been already.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To my surprise, it's true that copying that text into VE's automatic citation formatter gives this output. Most absurd bug I've ever seen. Of course it's an editor's responsibility to check if the citation is correct, but this is not something you might think to check for, especially as a newer editor. While intentionally misrepresenting a source is highly disruptive, I don't think this weird error is sanctionable. I would like to give User:שלומית ליר one piece of advice for editing a contentious topic like this: always use edit summaries (you can change your settings so that you're warned if you forget them). That can help reduce misunderstandings. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Femke about how to resolve this request, including the advice to check things and to use edit summaries. I am also extremely concerned about the bug-created citation issue and wonder where is the best place to request that the error be investigated and fixed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KronosAlight

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning KronosAlight

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Butterscotch Beluga (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: KronosAlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

14 December 2024

Adds "depiste being an ex-Muslim" to dismiss accusations of Islamophobia MOS:EDITORIAL.
Adds MOS:SCAREQUOTES around ‘promoted Islamophobia’ & ‘Islamophobia’ while removing the supporting context.
Changed "interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred" MOS:CLAIM & MOS:EDITORIAL

14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST

Changes "Israeli settlers" to "Israeli soldiers" despite the source only explicitly stating them "throwing stones on settlers."

Unnecessarily specific additions that may constitute WP:POVPUSH such as adding "against civilians" & changing "prevent the assassinations of many Israelis" to "prevent the assassinations of many Israeli civilians and soldiers"

14 December 2024 - MOS:TERRORIST

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

24 June 2024 Warned to abide by the one-revert rule when making edits within the scope of the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
22 October 2024 Blocked from editing for 1 week for violating consensus required on the page Zionism

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 22 October 2024 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 24 January 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

All edits were made at Mosab Hassan Yousef. After I partially reverted their edits with an explanation, I brought the issue to their attention on the talk page, asking for their rationale. They replied that they were "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" & asked if I "perhaps have a deeper bias that’s influencing [my] decisions in this respect?"

They then undid my partial revert

Ealdgyth - While I can't find any comments where they were explicitly "warned for casting aspersions", they were asked back in June to WP:AGF in the topic area.

Also, apologies for my "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" section, this is the first time I've filed a request here & I thought it'd be best to explain the preamble to my revert, but I understand now that I misunderstood the purpose of that section & will remember such for the future. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 I was able to find a copy of the opinion article being cited 'They Need to Be Liberated From Their God'. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[45]

Discussion concerning KronosAlight

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by KronosAlight

This is a complete waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.

1. That Yousef was born and raised a Muslim is important and neutral context for readers to be aware of when the article refers to claims of ‘Islamophobia’.

2. The scarequotes indicate that the claim comes from the sources provided, rather than being an objective ‘fact’ determined by a few Wikipedia Editors with an axe to grind.

3. This was already addressed on the Talk page and I updated the sentence to say settlers/soldiers with a further label that it needed further clarification because the source does not in fact unambiguously say what Butterscotch Beluga claims.

A few lines above what Butterscotch Beluga quotes is the following lines: “AMANPOUR: How did you take part in that? Were you one of the small children who threw rocks at Israeli soldiers?

YOUSEF: The model for every Palestinian child is a mujahid (ph) or a fidahi (ph) or a fighter. So, of course, I wanted to be one at that point of my life. It wasn't -- it's not my only dream. It's every child's dream in that territory.”

The updated Wiki page noted both settlers/soldiers and included a note that this requires further clarification, perhaps based on other sources, because it isn’t clear (contra Butterscotch Beluga) whether he is referring to soldiers or settlers.

4. It is not controversial to accurately describe Hamas as a terrorist organisation. It is simply a fact. To suggest otherwise is POV-pushing.

5. This is not POVPUSH; ‘assassinations’ against civilians during peacetime are usually called ‘murders’.

I in fact didn’t even remove the word ‘assassinations’, I merely broadened the description from ‘Israelis’ to ‘Israeli civilians and soldiers’ (as Butterscotch accepted) to indicate the breadth of the individuals in question included both civilians and combatants. This is not POVPUSH, it is simply additional information and context verified in the source itself.

All in all, a vexatious claim and a waste of the Arbitration Committee’s time.

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Regarding "I was correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors", it would be helpful if KronosAlight would explicitly identify the antisemitic editors and the edits they corrected so that they can be blocked for being antisemitic editors. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has been here since 2012. It is reasonable to assume that they know the rules regarding aspersions. It is reasonable to assume they are intentionally violating them, presumably because they genuinely believe they are dealing with antisemitic editors. So, this report is somehow simultaneously a vexatious complete waste of time and the result of the someone interfering with their valiant efforts to correct errors made by antisemitic editors. Why do they have this belief? This is probably a clue, a comment they had the good sense to revert. For me, this is an example of someone attempting to use propaganda that resembles antisemitic conspiracy theories about media control to undermine Wikipedia's processes and then changing their mind. But the very fact that they thought of it is disturbing. Their revert suggests that they are probably aware that there are things you can say about an editor and things you cannot say about an editor. From my perspective, what we have here is part of an emerging pattern in the topic area, a growing number of attacks on Wikipedia and editors with accusations of antisemitism, cabals etc. stemming in part from external partisan sources/influence operations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Aspersions:

Zero^talk 10:36, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vice regent

KronosAlight, you changed on 14 Dec 2024: "An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders interpreted that statement as a threat and incitement to violence" to "An open letter signed by Christian and Muslim religious leaders claimed was a threat and incitement to violence, though no threats or violence in fact occurred".

Can you show where either of the sources state "though no threats or violence in fact occurred"? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smallangryplanet

Wanted to add some pertinent evidence:

Talk:Zionism:

Talk:Allegations of genocide in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon:

This article gave me a very hearty laugh. It's hilarious. Nothing else to add, but congrats to the Editors for a very amusing article.

Talk:Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world:

I want to make it clear that large parts of the Arab world agreed with Hitler’s goal of exterminating the Jewish people.

Talk:2024 Lebanon electronic device attacks:

No evidence or reason to believe the attack targetted civilians, every reason to believe it targetted Hezbollah members. Also it's a bit of an overstatement to describe Lebanon as a "sovereign country".

Talk:Anti-Zionism:

Talk:Gaza genocide:

Talk:Nuseirat rescue and massacre:

It’s not how Wikipedia should work, and it badly distorts articles which should be neutral but are unfortunately pushes into pro-Hamas territory.

Talk:Al-Sardi school attack:

Yes, we’re familiar with your propaganda campaign masquerading as some sort of neutral position.

Talk:Eden Golan:

Can we stop acting like we aren’t creating double standards for Jews? Like there isn’t a profound problem of antisemitism among Wikipedia editors and moderators? It’s disgusting and shameful.

Other sanctions:

March 2024: indefinitely topic banned from the subject of flood myths for sealioning, WP:ASPERSIONS, etc
June 2024: warned to abide by 1RR
October 2024: blocked for a week

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KronosAlight

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

Much of the "diffs of edits that violate this sanction" fail to explain "how these edits violate" the sanction - to me, much of these diffs look like a content dispute. However, the "additional comments" section DOES have a diff that is concerning and violates the CT by casting an aspersion that is not backed up by a diff - the "antisemitic editors" diff. Has KA been previously warned for casting aspersions? If they have, I'm inclined to issue a topic ban, but many other editors get a warning for this if they lack a previous warning. The diffs brought up by Zero (not all of which I necessarily see as aspersions, but the "Jew-hatred" one is definitely over the line - but it's from September so a bit late to sanction for just that) - did anyone point out that aspersions/incivility in this topic area is sanctionable? I see the warnings for 1RR and consensus required... Ealdgyth (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @KronosAlight: - can you address the fact that saying "correcting factual errors introduced by previous antisemitic editors" and "Is there no limits you will not cross in order to seek to justify your Jew-hatred"? Neither of these are statements that should ever be made - and the fact that you seem to not to understand this is making me lean towards a topic ban. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KronosAlight, can you please provide quotes from the references you cited for - for instance - "for his terrorist activities" in this addition, showing that the sources explicitly supported the content you added? Calling a person or an organization is perfectly acceptable if you support that with reliable sources; if it is original research, or source misrepresentation, it isn't acceptable. I cannot access some of the sources in question. You may provide quotes inside a collapsed section if you wish to save space. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I missed Zero's comments earlier. A lot of those comments, while concerning, are generic, not directed at a specific editor. this, however, is beyond the pale. I would need some convincing that this user is able to edit this area constructively. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KronosAlight, can you please respond to this? I too am concerned...the quote you're objecting to wasn't from DrSmarty. It was a direct quote, scare quotes and all, from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. You seem to have reacted to it as if it were DrSmarty. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like to sanction in absentia, and I'm not yet suggesting we do so, but I want to note that not choosing not to respond here, or going inactive to avoid responding, will not improve the outcome as far as I am concerned. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're a pretty sporadic editor...many edits over a period of a few days, then nothing for two weeks. Maybe we pin this until they edit again? Valereee (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Valereee that this editors contribution history shows a pattern of editing for a day or two at a time followed by several weeks of inactivity. So I don't think it's fair to say they went inactive here but also holding this open for multiple weeks waiting for a response places some burden on the other other interested editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, 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: Nicoljaus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring, and intent to game 1rr, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.

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

Notification of that administrator: I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nicoljaus

The circumstances of my blocking were:

I was looking for a Wikipedia account for Hiba Abu Nada to add it to Wikidata. I couldn't find it, so I did a little research. The reference in the article indicated that she participated in some WikiWrites(?) project. I didn’t find such a project, but I found the WikiRights project: https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ويكيبيديا:ويكي_رايتس. It was organized by a certain Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor. I read the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor article and didn't see any outside perspective, "controversy" or anything like that, just self-representation. I surfed the Internet and instantly found information that must be in the article to comply with the NPOV. I started adding [46], everything went well for two days. Then:
12:53, 23 April 2024 - Zero0000 made a complete cancellation of all additions [47]
13:14, 23 April 2024 - (20 minutes later!) Selfstudier wrote on my TP [48]
14:20 - 14:22, 23 April 2024 -‎ With two edits (first, second) I partially took into account the comment of Zero0000 about "ethnic marking", but returned the last [49].
14:27, 23 April 2024 (7 minutes later!!) Selfstudier makes a second complete cancellation of all my edits, blaming POV editing [50]
14:45, 23 April 2024‎ - I’m returning the version where I partially took into account Zero0000’s comments (removed "ethnic marking")[51]
15:10, 23 April 2024 - Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit User talk:Nicoljaus#1RR_breach
15:41, 23 April 2024 Selfstudier writes on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement [52]
16:10, 23 April 2024 (30 minutes later!) ScottishFinnishRadish issues an indefinite block [53]. No opportunity to write my “statement”, as well as an extremely bad faith interpretation of my remark as "an intent to game 1rr".

Given that the both Selfstudier and Zero0000 are currently being discussed in Arbcom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_5/Evidence), I humbly ask you to take a fresh look at my indefinite block and soften the restrictions in some way". Nicoljaus (talk) 19:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: - You mean, I need to discuss my previous edit war blocks? Well, the last one was almost four years ago and that time I simply forgot that I was under 1RR (there was a big break in editing) and tried to get sources for a newly added map, and the opponent refused to do so [54]. As it turned out later, the true source was a book by a fringe author, which the RSN called "Usual nationalistic bullshit, no sign of reliability"[55]. Yes, it was a stupid forgetfulness on my part. Nicoljaus (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them) -- That's why I wrote that my "so problematic edits" attracted attention only after two days, but two users appeared within 20 minutes. However, after months, a lot of data about the cooperation of these users appeared (and this is not my imagination): "While a single editor, Shane (a newbie), advocated for its inclusion, a trio of veterans including Zero0000, Nishidani and Selfstudier fought back. After Selfstudier accused Shane of being a troll for arguing for the photo’s inclusion, Zero0000, days later, “objected” to its inclusion, citing issues of provenance. Nishidani stepped in to back up Zero0000, prompting a response by Shane. The following day, Zero0000 pushed back against Shane, who responded. The day after, Nishidani returned with his own pushback. The tag-team effort proved too much for Shane, who simply gave up, and the effort succeeded: the photo remains absent" [56]. I'll add that after Selfstudier accused Shane of trolling, Zero0000 appeared on Shane's page and said: "Kindly keep your insults to yourself [...] I won't hesitate to propose you for blocking if you keep it up" [57]. According to the table at the link [58], these two users cooperated like this 720 times. Probably hundreds of people were embittered, forced out of the project, or led to blocking like me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Hello, thank you very much for transferring my remarks, now I understand how it works. I would like to clarify the issue of meatpuppetry. You directly accused me of such intentions in justifying the block, and now this accusation has been repeated [59]. Let's figure out whether my hint that Selfstudier and Zero0000 are working too closely was so absurd? Was it really and remains so absurd that it could not be perceived as anything other than my self-exposure? I don't think so.

As for the "edit war" - I understand that edit wars are evil. In the spirit of cooperation, I tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule - I will of course avoid it in the future.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Hello, I understand your point that edit wars can be disruptive, particularly in a CTOP context. However, I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting. Furthermore, I acknowledge your reference to the 1RR/3RR rule and my history of blocks for edit-warring. However, given the amount of time that has passed, I believe I have gained valuable insights and learned a great deal. Moreover, given this topic, I think I actually learned something unlike the other side, whose history of blocks for edit-warring remains clean.--Nicoljaus (talk) 4:24 am, Today (UTC−5)

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Absent from the appeal is discussion of the five prior edit warring blocks and any indication that they will not resume edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said They have a long history of edit warring, so I'd like to see that addressed rather than blaming others above, twelve days ago. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoljaus, you should be focusing on convincing people that you won't edit war in the future rather than more WP:NOTTHEM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Nicoljaus

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 Simonm223

This edit looks like a bright-line WP:BLP violation via WP:ATTACK and WP:WEASEL - and removing BLP violations are generally somewhere where there is some latitude on WP:1RR which makes the actions of Zero0000 and Selfstudier more justified, not less. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Selfstudier accuses me of 1RR breach. In the dialogue, I explained that the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination. My first undo was part of a counter edit - I feel like this is obvious enough that I probably don't have to point it out, but "counter edit" is not a WP:3RR / WP:1RR exception. Even if you were correct that Selfstudier & Zero0000 were WP:TAGTEAMing (always a tricky accusation, because it's hard to separate that from just your edits being so obviously problematic that two people independently reverted them), it still would not justify your revert. The fact that they're parties to an ArbCom case (which hasn't even yet found any fault with them!) doesn't change any of this. You should probably read WP:NOTTHEM. --Aquillion (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

"the group that really violated the rule was Selfstudier&Zero0000, who obviously acted in close coordination"...yet another conspiracy-minded evidence-free accusation against editors in the PIA topic area, the third one at AE in just a few days. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus

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

I do not see any indication that Nicoljaus actually realizes the problem. The edit warring blocks were indeed some time ago, but one might think they would remember it after being blocked for it repeatedly, not to mention that being issued a CTOP notice might call a CTOP restriction to mind. And the remark in question sure looks to me like a threat to game 1RR via meatpuppetry, too. Given all that, I would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in this appeal that makes me think they've taken on board the changes that they'd need to do to be a productive editor. It reads to me like "my block was bad, here's why", and that's not working as a reason for me to support unblocking. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nicoljaus, what we need to see is you demonstrating you understand edit-warring at a CTOP, which is what you were blocked for, and convincing us you won't do it again. Arguing the block should be lifted because other editors did something you thought looked suspicious isn't going to convince us. Just FWIW, Nicoljaus, the source doesn't actually say these two users cooperated like this 720 times. It says they edited the same articles 720 times, and that's not unusual. Most editors see the same other editors over and over again in articles about their primary interest. And edit by editor 1>2 days>revert by editor 2>revert by editor 1>20 minutes>revert by editor 3 is also not at all unusual anywhere on the encyclopedia and isn't evidence of tag-teaming. People read their watch lists. Any editor with that article on their watchlist, which is nearly fifty editors, might have investigated the large revert of an edit by an experienced editor at a contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicoljaus, it's not that edit wars are evil. It's that they're disruptive, and particularly in a CTOP we really really don't need additional disruption and drama. A revert is a revert, even if you tried to meet my opponents halfway, as in this case, taking into account their claim, which I could understand, in the counter edit. Re: If such an action is also considered an edit war and a violation of the 1RR/3RR rule: a revert is a revert and is covered in the policy around reversions. And you have a history of blocks for edit-warring, including at other CTOPs.

It's been seven months since the block. I'm trying to come around to a way to at least allow this editor a chance to show us they've taken this stuff on board...maybe a 0RR at all CTOPs? Valereee (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nicoljaus, re I believe it is essential to recognize that not all reverts carry the same implications. While it is true that a revert is a revert, the context and intent behind the action should also be taken into account. In this instance, I made efforts to address the concerns of the other party involved, which reflects a willingness to engage in dialogue rather than simply reverting. Some editors at talk pages will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just take you to ANEW. Some admins at ANEW will take your apparent intentions into account. Some will just reblock you.

No one anywhere is promising that your intentions will be taken into account -- or even that they'll try to figure out what your intentions are -- and therefore it's completely your responsibility to read the situation you're in correctly. If you read it wrong, you're likely to be blocked again, and honestly another block for edit-warring at a CTOP is likely to be another indef, and it would absolutely not surprise me for the blocking admin to require 12 months to appeal. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PerspicazHistorian

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 PerspicazHistorian

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: PerspicazHistorian (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:ARBIPA

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

17:57, 18 December 2024 - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of Hindutva (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
17:59, 18 December 2024 - tag bombed the highly vetted Hindutva article without any discussion or reason
10:15, 18 December 2024 - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
12:11, 18 December 2024 - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting reverted
17:09, 18 December 2024 - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
18:29, 18 December 2024 - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation
14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC) - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring.[60]

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [61][62]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I do not see any positive signs that this editor will ever improve. So far he has only regressed. Nxcrypto Message 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While going through this report, PerspicazHistorian has made another highly problematic edit here by edit warring and misrepresenting the sources to label the organisation as "terrorist". This primary source only provides a list of organisations termed by the Indian government as "terrorist" contrary to MOS:TERRORIST. Nxcrypto Message 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [63]

Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian

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 PerspicazHistorian

By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu Page. I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before User: Ratnahastin told me about this: User_talk:PerspicazHistorian. Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.
In the below statement by LukeEmily, As a reply I just want to say that I was just making obvious edit on Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu by adding a list of notable people with proper references. And according to Edit_warring#What_edit_warring_is it is clearly said: "Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." It was a good faith edit but others reverted it. I accept my mistake of not raising it on talk page as a part of Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle.
As a clarification to my edit on Students' Islamic Movement of India, it can be clearly seen that I provided enough reference to prove its a terrorist organisation as seen in this edit. I don't know why is there a discussion to this obvious edit? Admins please correct me if I am wrong.

@Valereee, Yes I read about 1RR and 0RR revert rules in Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is#Other revert rules. I now understand the importance of raising the topic on talk page whenever a consensus is needed. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will commit to that. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

At that time I was new to how AFD discussions worked. Later on when Satish R. Devane was marked for deletion, I respected the consensus by not interfering in it. The article was later deleted. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Doug Weller , I just checked your user page. You have 16 years (I am 19) of experience on wiki, you must be right about me. I agree that my start on Wikipedia has been horrible, but I am learning a lot from you all. I promise that I will do better, get more neutral here and contribute to the platform to my best. Please don't block me.

P.S.- I don't know If I will be blocked or what , according to this enforcement rules, I just want to personally wish good luck to you for your ongoing cancer treatments, You will surely win this battle of Life. Regards. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section.Valereee (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LukeEmily

PerspicazHistorian also violated WP:BRD by engaging in an edit war with Ratnahastin who reverted his edits and restored an article to a stable version by admin. Also, I want to assume good faith but it is surprising that PerspicazHistorian claims that he did not know the three revert rule given that he has more than 800 edits.LukeEmily (talk)

Statement by Doug Weller

I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and User:Deb's comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving Draft:Satish R. Devane to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. Deb (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. Doug Weller talk 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... Doug Weller talk 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning PerspicazHistorian

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

PerspicazHistorian, can you explain your understanding of WP:edit warring and the WP:3RR rule? I'd like you to read thoroughly enough to also explain wny someone may be edit warring even if they aren't breaking 3RR. Valereee (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PerspicazHistorian, that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is the first time someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that?

Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH; in their revert NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here. Valereee (talk) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Tau

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 Walter Tau

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bobby Cohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Walter Tau (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:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision

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

4 December 2024 Creation (and subsequent editing and AfC submission) of Draft:Maternity capital. See it's page history, there's no need to supply the entirety of the diffs here.
- For context on how this subject falls under the purview, see the context given by the news article as shared on the talk page: Russia using adoption of Ukranian children during the Russo-Ukranian war.^[1] Then note how this state program directly discusses adoption support, which was adapted by Putin following the start of the war. A citation given in the draft article.^[2] The Google translated version specifically notes the changes "At the same time, residents of the new regions will receive maternity capital regardless of the basis and timing of their acquisition of Russian citizenship" (emphasis mine).
This draft, as it is written, is extremely promotional in areas and could basically be hosted on a state-sponsored website. Given the context, I believe this falls under the topic ban.

References

^ Bruce, Camdyn (14 December 2022). "Ukrainian official rips Russia for 'kidnapping' more than 13,000 children". The Hill.
^ "Путин подписал закон, уточняющий условия выплаты материнского капитала" [Putin signs law clarifying conditions for payment of maternity capital]. interfax.ru.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

26 November 2024 Notice given by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that they were now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
5 December 2024 Blocked by Swatjester (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for violating the sanction based on the edits to a project page.

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

Has been made aware, see the diffs in the above section.
Alerted about contentious topics as it applies to this specific draft, on 4 December 2024 by Asilvering (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), given a warning about this specific draft and how it falls under the above purview.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

It has been repeatedly pointed out to Walter Tau that they are skirting the line of the their topic ban by specifically not mentioning the "elephant in the room", see the diff by Asilvering above. They have also repeatedly chosen to ignore advice that they stop editing in the subject area and have repeatedly claimed to fail to see how their editing is problematic. As such, I have opened this discussion here so as to get an answer for Walter Tau on their editing, see "Also, since you mentioned a "topic ban", I would appreciate, if you provide a reference to it, as well as explain how it relates to this article Materniy Capital." They claim to continuously be unaware of the ban, see also their talk page discussions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified 24 December 2024.

Discussion concerning Walter Tau

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 Walter Tau

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Walter Tau

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

Sidestepping for now the question of whether simply not mentioning anything conflict-related would have been enough to avoid a TBAN violation, the references to "new regions" make this a violation much more straightforwardly. Justice is blind but not stupid. Walter, I think we're going to need to see recognition from you that this was a TBAN violation, if we're going to find a good path forward here. I'd also like to know who you are referring to when you reference other editors working on the draft? Auric has made some gnomish edits but you appear to be the only substantive editor. And why are you implying, on Bobby's talk, that y'all have been corresponding by email, when he denies that? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 22:29, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be direct: I think Walter knows what he is doing and has no intention of abiding by his TBAN, even when it was exhaustively explained to him, and I don't think we should be wasting further time here when we're almost certainly going to be right back here again within a few weeks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 05:29, 25 December 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] Bruce, Camdyn (14 December 2022). "Ukrainian official rips Russia for 'kidnapping' more than 13,000 children". The Hill.

[4] "Путин подписал закон, уточняющий условия выплаты материнского капитала" [Putin signs law clarifying conditions for payment of maternity capital]. interfax.ru.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[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 and 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