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

Southasianhistorian8

No action. Everyone should keep in mind that within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and: adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia, comply with all applicable policies and guidelines, and follow editorial and behavioural best practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:25, 7 November 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 Southasianhistorian8

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: GhostOfDanGurney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Southasianhistorian8 (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

00:22, 2024 October 26 Raises temperature of an existing talk page discussion discussion with multiple personal attacks, accuses me of "preemptive[ly] poisoning the well", of "nearing WP:BULLYING conduct" and "trying to muffle Indian viewpoints and opinions".
00:38, 2024 October 26 Ignores WP:ONUS to restore content that was removed without first getting consensus to restore the content. Continues the "muzzle" PA against me in the edit summary.
01:39, 2024 October 26 Second revert in an hour, reverts my attempt at a compromise with further personal attacks/WP:ABF in the edit summary about my motives ("and intentionally caricutrarizing [sic] his quote".
01:41, 2024 October 26 Gives me a level-4 (!) template further accusing my attempt at compromise as "WP:POINTy" (aka disruptive editing).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

20:47, 2022 May 30 Indeff'd for abusing multiple accounts in the area of conflict as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Suthasianhistorian8/Archive. Unblocked in December 2022 following a standard offer.
19:06, 2021 November 11 48hrs for edit warring in the area of conflict.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:31, 2021 November 27 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SAH appears to have little to no good faith towards me, making PAs and airing old dirty laundry in an article talk page discussion which prior to their arrival had remained focused on content(Permlink to version of talk page prior SAH posting). They take issue with my use of the phrases "sour grapes" and "cherry picked" when referring to content in my edit summaries, but then turn around and make PAs and aspersions in theirs. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm here because I don't know how else to respond to "repeated-PAs-on-CTOP-article-talkpage-into-level-4-template" and if the statement in defense of evidence of PAs being made is to exceed their wordcount entirely on the other party, then that is pretty clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that is not conductive to editing on this project. SAH's ignores their own behaviour entirely, bringing up misassumptions about stale behaviour, either twisting my words or outright fabricating them.

but you omit that you copied content ~~that I had written~~ in that article into Khalistan movement without attribution,[1] so I don't know why you're all of a sudden questioning my sincerity in there? - I restored content rather than adding it for the first time which I believed I had.[2]

"Ghost, in his own words..." not only is this stale, this is an outright lie. For it to be "in my words" I'd have to have actually said the alleged statement, which I did not nor did I even attempt to infer.

Reporting an unsolicited apology is a low blow, doubly so that it's stale.

SAH also accuses others of POV-pushing[3], so mentioning here about my general comment on how "pro-India skewing" should be a PA doesn't seem fair. They also call out others for not heeding WP:ONUS [4] so their failure to do so themself tonight is also dubious. These two diffs also happen to have both occurred at Khalsa, where SAH was trying to restore content critical of that Sikh community.

I believe, given the above information that a topic ban from Sikhism, the Khalistan movement and related topics, broadly construed for SAH be considered. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks for your time. My main issue that led me here is that yes, this was 100% a content dispute prior to SAH entering the dispute with diff #1 in which SAH wants me to discuss content, but with an entire first paragraph dedicated to a character assassination/repeated PAs towards me, then giving me a level 4 template on my talk page in diff #4 threatening to have me blocked for attempting a compromise on some of the content.

The Canada-India row relates to the murder of a Sikh man in Canada who advocated for an independent Sikh state in India. Canada has accused India of involvement in the murder. Pages related to the row have been attacked by IP- and low-edit-count-users, often adding content which pushes the POV of the Indian government

SAH's contributions show that they are a SPA with a focus on Sikh topics. They are heavily involved in removing content that they see as pro-Sikh,[5] and adding content that they see as anti-Sikh.[6], including content directly related to the Canada-India row.[7]

As an SPA (who has also taken the Standard Offer, which includes point 3), SAH should take care to not turn content disputes in their chosen topic area (which they are aware has CTOP status) personal by accusing those they disagree with of poisoning the well/bullying/etc in a post in which they are asking that person to engage on content. Rather, this can be seen as trying to intimidate another editor (me) out of the topic area, and I hope that isn't the case. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) What I should have done differently was explain to the editor (which, as you point out, only had four edits) how I felt that the content that they added amounted to "pro-India sour grapes", and with time to look back, acknowledge that I should have done this without using the phrase in question. However, SAH accusing me of "poisoning the well" on the article talk page in response to this is much worse because it is a direct PA directed at another editor at a venue which should be 100% focused on content. If SAH had an issue with my conduct, a message (NOT a template) on my talk page laying it out would have been much more appreciated.

2) Your "diff 2" is identical to your "diff 1" so I assume you're talking about this in response to this? The comments I added were said in this source which I mistakenly forgot to add and had been reverted and templated before I realized that error. Adding quotes verbatim is a common practice in Canadian politics articles (I point to Pierre Poilievre as an example), especially when content is disputed, so if it's against policy, fine, but again, a level-4 template is unjustified as a first warning. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

Discussion concerning Southasianhistorian8

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 Southasianhistorian8

This is a completely unnecessary escalation, which I believe to be an extension of Ghost's firm convictions that Wikipedia ought to amplify pro-Canadian narratives and vitiate Canada's opponents. The bizarre thing about this conflict is that I'm a Canadian citizen myself, and have been living in Canada for over 95% of my life. My stance is that Wikipedia should not overtly amplify/muzzle pro-Canadian or pro-Indian narratives respectively, but neutrally explain both sides' arguments.

Inflammatory edit summaries on 2022 Conservative Party leadership election-it's really something when Brian Lilley of all people is calling you out on your conspiracy BS, rmv garbage, Baber's another one who's gone down the conspiracy rabbit hole, using a juvenile nickname for a political candidate.

Posted ridiculous, inflammatory content on his user page ("NEVER VOTE CONSERVATIVE FUCK THE CONVOY Resisting the Christo-fascist takeover of North America") and incited unnecessary arguments on the 2022 leadership election t/p-[9], yet has the audacity to scold others for affronting his biases and convictions.

One the page Air India Flight 182, Ghost, was removing hard facts from the article on the basis that the edits affronted his pro-Canadian sensibilites-[10], contravening Wikipedia's policies on NOTCENSORED. He then extensively edit-warred with numerous editors, yet dishes out the same accusations against others-[11]

He then basically admitted to following a user whom he was engaged in a dispute with, and left him a message on Twitter-[12]. It's fair to infer that the message he left was likely antagonistic in nature, given the heated edit war that preceded and his need to give an apology.

On the page Hardeep Singh Nijjar, Ghost was tacitly vitiating a Globe and Mail report, which included some fairly unsavoury details about the subject at hand. Notable examples include this edit in which he removed details which were clearly written in the article. Here he added a disingenuous descriptor that would make it appear as though the relationship between Dhaliwal, an arrested associate of Nijjar's, and some mutual associates who admitted that Nijjar was involved in clandestine activities, was based on hearsay, contrary to the report's tone. Here, he disingenuously attributed the descriptor "un-credible" to testimonies from people in India's custody to the Globe report, even though the Globe report itself attributed this claim to a Canadian-Sikh organization

Remarkably, while Ghost admitted to having a pro-Canadian bias, he regularly scolds others for "pro- India skewing", which should be regarded as a personal attack. While I did agree with some of Ghost's edits, his edit summaries, in which he was unnecessarily interjecting his disdain for "Indian narratives" left a grating impression on me. This is in addition to Ghost's slow edit warring on the page (yet ironically he accuses me of the same thing).

Here he removed an edit of mine in which I added a relevant view of a prominent Indian diplomat, accusing me of cherry-picking and adding a claim without evidence (a personal attack which instigated this whole conflict), even though the claim was attributed and the Wikipedia page itself contains numerous claims from Canadian officials, whom as of yet have not yet publicly disclosed pertinent evidence.

[13]- Here, he replaced my sentence which was neutrally worded and attributed, and replaced it with an obvious caricature of Verma's quote in a not so thinly veiled attempt to undermine India's position. He used this article, despite not citing it correctly, in which an interview transcript was provided below. It should be noted first and foremost that an interview transcript is a primary source, and the quote "I also know that some of these Khalistani extremists and terrorists are deep assets of CSIS. So I'm giving that accusation again; I'm not giving you an evidence.", or a summary or analysis of the quote was not provided beyond the transcript, hence rendering it unusable for inclusion in Wikipedia as per WP:PRIMARY. Secondly, if you read beyond that quote, it's clear that Verma was making the point that Canadian officials had not provided evidence implicating India's involvement in the murder, and he was basically using the same logic against them. It was an undeniable and objective violation of WP:NPOV, and it justified a harsh warning.

I also suspect that the last diff was GhostofDanGurney trying to bait me into reverting what was an obviously bad edit, so he could entrap me and report me. The diffs above are the tip of the iceberg, but I believe it is demonstrably obvious that GhostofDanGurney is far, far too aggressive and juvenile for Wikipedia.

Ghost has once again levied a false allegation against me, claiming that I copied content written by him on Hardeep Singh Nijjar to the Khalistan movement-This is an outright and outrageous lie. The paragraph starting with "According to a Globe and Mail report published one year after Nijjar's death," was my own summary of the Globe report, it was not written by Ghost. I was the one who originally added the following content to the Nijjar page right after the Globe came out-"The report further claims that some Canadian security experts did not believe India's claims about him, remarking that there was inadequate evidence to arrest Nijjar and that India had a "reputation for torqueing evidence to fit with political objective". This was done well before GhostofDanGurney's modifications.

Ghost is basically trying to kick me off a topic area where I've helped counter vandalism and POV pushing for the past 2 years, all because I disagreed with him and objected to his persistent personal attacks and rude edit summaries. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, I apologize if I went over the word limit as I have zero experience in A/E, but I strongly request you to take action against Ghost's allegation that I plagiarized his work. For Christ's sake, June comes before July, no? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, thank you for your response.

With regards to GhostofDanGurney labelling me a SPA, it is important to note that I did make mistakes during my early time here on Wikipedia, no denying that, but I think context is crucial. Literally a week or so into my joining Wikipedia in 2021, another SPA called HaughtonBrit through his account MehmoodS began hounding me to an extreme degree, provoking me into frivolous content disputes, essentially just trying to make my time on Wikipedia as hellish as possible so he could perpetuate his relentless Sikh nationalist views. The harassment from that sockmaster only just recently abated after numerous SPAs were blocked from 2023-late 2024. How would any other editor feel if they were being stalked and harassed for 3 years straight?

This topic area, because it's unfamiliar to a lot of people, has a major, major problem with POV pushing, including fabricating claims to make it appear as if the Sikh religion militarily dominated other groups; the POV spans articles about battles in the 1600s up to the recent Insurgency in Punjab.It also includes the pushing of Hinduphobia and Islamophobia, particularly pushing anti-Afghan views and articles (whom the Sikhs fought for a period of time), and basically publishing hagiographies of certain religious figures through poor sourcing or other unsavoury methods.

I'm not claiming that I'm perfect but I do tend to carefully analyze sources and their reliability and only include content into pages once I'm confident that the source is high quality and is somewhat DUE. The diff in which GoDG claims I added content critical of the Sikh community-[14] is sourced through a prominent university press and the CBC, so I don't see a problem there, though I'm willing to engage on the t/p.

Regarding the C-I diplomatic row article, I do acknowledge that my initial response on the t/p and level 4 warning (the latter was unintentional as I have a hard time navigating the Twinkle box for warnings) probably wasn't the right way to go about things, but I was upset that Ghost made personal attacks against me in his edit summary, claiming I was cherry-picking, and I believe Ghost was using unnecessary edit summaries beforehand as well. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my ending bullet point above, the quote GhostofDanGurney used I'm not giving you any evidence of that was found in the CTV's article interview transcript, not in the main body of the article. Including a conclusion/implication from a selective quote in an interview transcript constitutes WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, because we have to rely on a reputable, secondary source to aggregate the information from the interview and concisely present the relevant information that hopefully does not misrepresent what was said and analyzes any statements through fact-checking. If the quote was in the main body of the article, it would've been a different story. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I striked some of my commentary on the t/p as it wasn't the right way to go about things. Also striked the level 4 warning on Ghost's t/p. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Srijanx22

Canada–India diplomatic row has been created just today and needs improvement. The highlighted disputes should be handled on the talk page without either of the users commenting on each other. It would be better if they can get along. I don't see any need for sanctions as of yet. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Southasianhistorian8

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

I'm looking into this now, but there's a lot to dig into. I'm not a fan of the level 4 warning, or a lot of the language used, but much of this seems to be a content dispute. This edit linked in the original report is interpretation of a primary source, but you're transgressing beyond reason isn't the right response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this looks to be a content dispute, albeit a heated one with some less than ideal behavior. Maybe it is because of some of my unfamiliarity with the topic, but I'm not seeing any obvious POV pushing from the editor reported, or GoDG. I'm not a fan of pro-India sour grapes, but that was also a revert of what looks to me like POV pushing (even with bold text to show what you should be mad about) from an editor with four edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GhostOfDanGurney, diff 1 contains some pointed (more so than I'd like) commentary, but that was after your characterization of other edits as pro-India sour grapes. Is your use of that phrasing any better or worse than I want to point out that it is unacceptable to cast aspersions in edit summaries, in what appears to be a preemptive poisoning the well tactic to dissuade others from adding content which you personally deem unacceptable.?

Diff 2 was in response to this, where you added After Verma's expulsion, he alleged in an interview on CTV News that "some of these Khalistani extremists and terrorists are deep assets of CSIS", but explicitly told the interviewer, Vassy Kapelos, "I'm not giving you any evidence on that". with this source. That source doesn't mention that quote, so it does appear that you engaged in interpretation of a primary source, and the wording but explicitly told the interviewer is heavily loaded with implication not found in the source cited. Was that worth a level 4? Probably not, but I don't think it's severe enough an issue to sanction at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

Appeal is declined. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: IdanST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 1 month block; see this thread on user's talk page.

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

Notification of that administrator: 2024-10-27

Statement by IdanST

I was blocked for 1 month. I was not aware of the edits on which the admin ScottishFinnishRadish based the violations leading to this block because the admin failed to inform me. However, after a couple of weeks, I recently saw a comment by the same admin stating that the edits leading to the block "were [10], [11], and [12], which are also clear ECR violations."

I appeal on this block because I believe these were justified edits because:

This edit: violation WP:ECR. It's clearly an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1. - pointing out on a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. The article presents Yahya Sinwar as the political head and Mohammed Deif as the military head, but for the opposing side, only Colonels are listed. Senior military officers like Brigadier General Avi Rosenfeld, General Yaron Finkelman, and Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi , all of whom participated, were omitted. I didn’t even include the political head, Benjamin Netanyahu. The admin deleted this edit request and used it, along with two other edits, as grounds for blocking me while violating WP:NPOV and WP:ADMINACCT.
This edit: violation WP:ECR. It's basically similiar to the first edit (request) under WP:ECR Section A.1., just in a reply in the "Talk" section, only this time I've added the political figures "defence minister Yoav Gallant and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu", in contrast with the political Hamas head Yahya Sinwar. However, I acknowledge that maybe these suggestions were not very comprehensive and clear and I'll try to improve my editing.
This edit: violation WP:ECR. I'll explain the background. Beforehand I've left a barnstar on this user as it's allowed, and even encouraged, under WP:BARN: "Remember, any user can give out Barnstars! You do not have to be an administrator!". Then, the same admin deleted my message ("reason: WP:ECR") and included that in a previous block for 1 week. Now, the same admin deleted this message and stating, again, "reason: WP:ECR". I've read ECR rules and there is no statement forbidding users with fewer than 500 edits from leaving messages or barnstars on others’ talk pages.

In conclusion, I strongly believe these 3 edits were justified.

Regardless of this appeal, I want to apologize to ScottishFinnishRadish for my behavior on my own talk page. I should not have acted that way, violating WP:NPA and being unprofessional. My belief that I was wrongly blocked, combined with the admin’s failure to specify my violations, does not excuse my behavior, and for that, I apologize. IdanST (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from IdanST's talk by request:

-Reply to xDanielx comment-

"Copied over by request. This was also appealed at AN previously. — xDanielx"

This was not appealed at AN. What I appealed at AN was the 1-week block, which I appealed after it expired, and it had nothing to do with the current 1-month block. IdanST (talk) 4:07 am, Today (UTC−4)Reply

-Reply to CoffeeCrumbs comment-

"There were more violations than listed here and it'd be an enormous stretch even to describe more than maybe one or two of them as having the character of a specific edit request"

I have replied regarding all violations that SFR stated were the cause of the 1-month block.

"Given the appeal at AN a few days ago got no support"

I have not appealed the 1-month block anywhere until now, at AE.

Valereee (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Included in that first edit that I reverted was this, which is a plain ECR violation. As for the initial edit, WP:ER says Any edit request must be accompanied by a detailed and specific description of what changes need to be made. As they were already blocked for ECR violations I would have expected them to familiarize themselves with the expectations of making edit requests. If not followed up by a clear ECR violation I would likely have left the initial edit as a good-faith borderline case. The barnstar is clearly a violation, and leaving the same barnstar for the same editor was part of the reason for the first block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I blocked them for a week for ECR violations on October 4th, and then for a month on October 13th for further violations. Both times Doug Weller pulled their TPA for personal attacks. [15] They said during the AN appeal I want to clarify that I appealed the first block. I didn't appeal the second block yet because I am not aware of the alleged violations for which I was banned for one month. I'm not sure if this was an elaborate ruse to get two bites at the apple for appealing, or just unfamiliarity with our processes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by IdanST

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

Copied over by request. ~~This was also appealed at AN previously.~~ Edit: seems IdanST's intention was to appeal the initial 1-week block at AN, though others understood it as appealing the 1-month block. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor CoffeeCrumbs

I don't think this is even a close thing. There were more violations than listed here and it'd be an enormous stretch even to describe more than maybe one or two of them as having the character of a specific edit request. I don't see the WP:BARN argument as having any merit either because WP:ECR doesn't claim to be an exhaustive list of the contexts in which a non-ECR editor is not allowed to discuss the topic; the controlling language is all pages and articles related to the topic area, with exceptions being noted, not inclusions. Given the appeal at AN a few days ago got no support and the filer wasn't that far from seeing increased restrictions based on the appeal, I'd recommend the filer retract their appeal while it's still only a month. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The filer insists the previous AN appeal was of the one week block, but the linked AN appeal is clearly of a one-month block and filed on October 22. The one-week block expired nearly two weeks before the 22nd (the 11th). There appears to be a bit of either lawyering or disorganization; the filer appealed the judgment of the second block and the second block's conclusion but talked about the evidence of the moot first block, but the supporting evidence that led to the second block was presented and evaluated by the commnunity as well. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor berchanhimez

The first edit linked to, while not ideal per WP:EDITXY, is pretty clearly an edit request. The inferred request is "remove these people who are not of general rank from the list". To penalize an editor for a mere procedural issue in how they formatted their edit request seems to be heavy handed and non-constructive - as a similar example, would someone be penalized for making a well-thought out, sourced, and non-controversial edit request just because they didn't use the edit request template to make their talk page post? I hope not - so I would support giving this editor the benefit of the doubt on the first edit that they were trying to comply with the restriction and thought that pointing out a discrepancy/inaccuracy counted as an edit request.

Edits 2 and 3 are clearly against the ECR, however. Edit 2 is clear engagement in discussion that did not amount to making an edit request or clarifying a reasonable edit request the person previously made in compliance with ECR (such as adding a source or offering an alternative wording upon request). Edit 3 is not permitted by exceptions in ECR and the appellant seems to be trying to rely on other policies to attempt to justify the barnstar award. The confusion is somewhat understandable, but upon thought such understanding falls apart - in any other situation where there is a conflict between two requirements of equal stature (real life law, for example), people must abide by the stricter applicable requirement.

But it's unimportant to know that. What's important is that they've shown through their edits that they're unable to contribute constructively in this area - both through inability to wait until they're extended-confirmed before contributing, as well as through their incivility, accusations of propaganda, and other edits whether they were edit requests or not. There's a clear solution here - an indefinite topic ban that cannot be appealed until the editor is extended confirmed and such appeal will almost certainly fail unless they edit in other areas of the encyclopedia constructively first. This gives the user a clear cut rule - do not edit related to the Israel-Palestine conflict anywhere on Wikipedia - at all, while also giving them the opportunity to gain experience and show the community that, eventually, (at a minimum) after they're extended confirmed, they may be given a second chance to return to this topic area. I'm unsure if there's precedent for basically "increasing" a sanction at an AE appeal, but if the user is willing to agree to an enforced topic ban and abide by it, I would support removing the block and allowing them a chance to show they will abide by the topic ban rather than forcing them to wait a month (or the time remaining) then begin doing that. I support a topic ban regardless - otherwise the user will likely shoot themselves in the foot trying to edit in the topic area after their block expires. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by IdanST

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

IdanST, I'll agree that the first diff you posted is an edit request. (And it would help prevent confusion in cases like this if you'd format such requests as formal WP:edit requests.) Your second two diffs do not appear to be edit requests. You are literally not allowed yet to discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia, including giving out barnstars to other editors for your hard work on Wikipedia and fighting propaganda made by other editors regarding Arab–Israeli conflict. You need to basically ignore all articles in that topic. Since you were posting about the topic at both article talk and user talk, the only real other choice the editors had was to p-block from talk space and user talk space, and a block from talk space necessitates a block from article space, too. So really an full block isn't much more restrictive.

Your statement tells me you do not yet understand what the block was about. If you haven't, please read WP:GAB. You aren't likely to convince people you should be unblocked if you don't understand the reason you were blocked, and from the diffs you provided it seems clear you don't. Valereee (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting IdanST has requested via email three days to allow them time to clarify. They've posted a couple of clarifications on their talk, which I will copy over. Valereee (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read the contentious topic appeal procedures Idan could have chosen to appeal to AN or to AE. They choose to appeal to AN and had their appeal rejected days ago. As such I think they don't get to make this appeal again to AE - the consensus at AN matters and stands. They can choose to appeal to ArbCom via WP:ARCA and if Idan agrees, we can carry over the appeal for them there. This is different than someone appealing an indefinite sanction (e.g. topic ban), where there could be multiple appeals to AN or AE and could be switch between the two forums. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, IdanST is saying (in the clarification I just posted; maybe we had an EC) that this is an appeal of a different block than they were appealing at AN. Valereee (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no second block according to the block log. The AN appeal was for a 1 month block by SFR. That block is still in effect and so there can be no other block to appeal but the one which has already been declined by AN. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RE:SFR's comment about the first vs second block, regardless of what Idan's intent was the bulk of the discussion (such as it was) focused either on Idan's second block or their overall fitness. I find that AN discussion to be a consensus to still be in force, which I should have made clear in the comment above. In fact, I find it as further evidence of the kind of boundary pushing and gaming the system which the contentious topic procedures explicitly prohibit. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would decline this appeal both on the merits and on procedural grounds, per Valereee and Barkeep49, respectively. And I note that if they hope to engage with this topic on Wikipedia, continually re-litigating the same matter does not bode well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for a week, and there is no appetite for granting this - as such I am closing this appeal as declined. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mhorg

Mhorg is indefinitely topic banned from Eastern Europe, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:52, 3 November 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 Mhorg

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Manyareasexpert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mhorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log; Special:PermanentLink/1253900233#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion ManyAreasExpert (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Mhorg, thanks for getting into my edits. The LeMonde issue was discussed and resolved here Talk:Stepan Bandera#Le Monde an unreliable source. You, too, replied in this section, which means you saw the issue was resolved, and it was not that I claimed that LeMonde is unreliable.
Which makes your One of the most recent was when they removed Le Monde with the reason "No reliable source",[46] triggering Ymblanter's response:[47] "next time you call Le Monde an unreliable source I will open a topic ban request" accusation an intentionally false accusation. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 15:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive307#Mhorg

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

28 October 2024 returns contested edit
28 October 2024 again
4 October 2024 tendentious edit and WEIGHT violation, source has just a passing mention of a subject and the editor puts that into the lead
10 September 2024 POV pushing, downgrades academic conclusion published in 2022, gives preference to facts from 2014 research, news reports, adds quote meant to mean something
14 October 2024 returns contested edit with "get consensus first in tp" comment
2 September 2024 "anti-government" is not in source

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive307#Mhorg First. Mhorg is indefinitely topic banned from Lyudmyla Denisova, very broadly construed. There is a fairly clear consensus that BLP violations took place and there is too much bias for Mhorg to edit this topic in a neutral fashion. This means you need to completely avoid this person and any section of an article that even incidentally mentions her. This also means you may not discuss her, mention her, or refer to her, in any way. Breaching this will likely result in blocks and/or wider topic bans. Second, there will be a formal logged warning for the entire subject area "Eastern Europe". This is a bit against my better judgement, as I think an indef topic ban is the better way to go, but this formal warning should be seen as an absolute last chance. Any violations of policy in this area, no matter how minor, will be justification for any admin to indefinitely topic ban you from the entire area, without requiring a report at WP:AE. I would suggest you self-impose a 1RR restriction and use the talk page more before editing. It is my hope you will get the message and find a way to be less biased in your editing.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tendentious editing, edit warring. Do we need more diffs?
User talk:Mhorg#October 2024
Special:PermanentLink/1158190670#June 2023
Special:PermanentLink/1158190670#March 2023

In discussion, appeals using their personal opinion Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Mhorg-20240923111300-Genabab-20240919094400 , uses a strawman and makes assumption about opponents behaviors Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Mhorg-20241028083600-Manyareasexpert-20241028071000 . Ignores previous arguments and demands an approach contrary to WP:CONS Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Mhorg-20241028123700-Manyareasexpert-20241028104100 .

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:PermanentLink/1253900233#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Discussion concerning Mhorg

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 Mhorg

1&2 are are my attempt to recover content from other users, as the user wanted to remove any source stating that the Azov had not depoliticised. Here[16] they removed the statement of Efraim Zuroff (in april 2022) with the motivation: "Academic researchers argue that the regiment has changed since its integration into the National Guard, tempering far-right elements and distancing from the movement". Consider that there is a large section on Azov Brigade[17] itself where this debate is described, which is still open. The user decided, despite all sources to the contrary, that the debate is over.

3 is the statement of Merezhko, deputy for the Servant of the People and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Accusations made by members of the government against the Ukrainian extreme right. I think it is important enough to be mentioned in "Far-right politics in Ukraine".

4 The user first in June 2024 reversed the meaning of the stable article "Commemoration of Stepan Bandera" by inserting his text in the first line of the lede.[18] I added, months later,[19] some context: chronologically the condemnation of the Ukrainian Jewish groups against the rehabilitation of OUN and UPA and the scandal of Bandera's words quoted by the Ukrainian parliament (a scandal in Israel[20] and a diplomatic confrontation with the Polish leadership[21]). Both reported by Haaretz.

6, Bumaga is a well-known[22] Russian anti-government journal.

The user has already had several problems with other users and also administrators. One of the most recent was when they removed Le Monde with the reason "No reliable source",[23] triggering Ymblanter's response:[24] "next time you call Le Monde an unreliable source I will open a topic ban request". The user opens a discussion where they justifies themselves.[25] Ymblanter rightly replies that they should have put that justification as edit summary and that "no reliable sources" was not acceptable, confirming the issue. Now the user is saying that I am falsely accusing them.

Since a Topic Ban is being considered in the field that most interests me and where I have spent almost 10 years here, may I ask that my case not be assessed by just two administrators and that there be a broader discussion?

Statement by TylerBurden

I don't think there is a more clear example of a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor in this topic area than Mhorg, unfortunately despite numerous warnings and even official administrator action, parroting Russian propaganda and talking points is the most important thing to this editor, and they are more than willing to break policy to do so, mostly by misrepresenting sources and edit warring. This has been going on for years, so at this point an eastern Europe topic ban is the only sensible solution to prevent them from further damaging the project. --TylerBurden (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mhorg

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

Based on the finality of the previous warning, I'm thinking an eastern Europe topic ban is necessary here. There is a whole lot of subpar editing, NPOV issues, tucking things into the lead for prominence, misrepresenting sources, and some edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of sub-par editing by several users in the history of these pages, but I agree with SFR that given the previous warning, an EE-wide TBAN is the next step here. I'm most bothered by the insertions of obviously tangential content into the lead, and the edit-warring. Some of the other material comes closer to being a genuine content dispute, but the aggressiveness on display isn't appropriate. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be closing this with an eastern Europe topic ban soon if there are no objections from administrators. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

Rough consensus among uninvolved administrators that the Arbitraiton Comittee is better able to determine what, if anything, the problems are and any appropriate sanction. Will be referring it to them at WP:ARCA (Further discussion can be found here). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 7 November 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 Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Andrevan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nableezy (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:PIA4

I'm asking for civility. An RFC remaining at the status quo is not gaming the system. That is standard procedure. Accusing me of tendentious and disruptive editing is not appropriate. I am simply making normal edits and am not alone. It's an open dispute and I followed the advice of SFR in opening an RFC. That Snowstormfigorion happened to revert beforehand is not gaming the system, it's a classic "wrong version," and wiki veterans should know better. I don't see that I should simply put up with being accused falsely and aspersions cast in bad faith. See the discussion at the 1948 war talk page. See the history of the 1948 war article. The material was removed by several editors and restored by several editors. There's currently no consensus on what to do. It was suggested by SFR that I start an RFC which I did so. Nableezy accuses me of tendentious editing, gaming the system, and disruptive editing. I left a message on his talk page and on SFR's talk page and he did not clarify or modify his aspersions. Andre🚐 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Nableezy below, no. Starting a new RFC on a different article, as SFR suggested and confirmed [26], is not improper. WP:CCC, but in this case it's long-standing content that was in the article for years and the RFC being referred to was on a different article. It is not mentioned at all in the policy or guidelines on disruptive editing or tendentious editing, or gaming at all. I made a total of 12 reverts to that article [edited Andre🚐 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)], started an RFC and had discussion. Please explain how any of this is described by any behavioral guideline. It's incivil accusations and doubling down on it. Andre🚐 21:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Barkeep's message, I agree with the point - a child article could have something DUE that isn't DUE at the parent. I would argue it does in this case. I would also argue that it's not terribly relevant to the civility of accusations of tendentious editing and disruptive editing, though. How could I be guilty of those charges with the record of editing to that article? I restored the material ~~once~~twice separated by 7 days [edited Andre🚐 22:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)], and then I started the RFC at SFR's prompting. Even if Nableezy were right on the merits, which he isn't, an uninvolved admin said I should start the RFC so I did. How can this be gaming the system? Andre🚐 21:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WRT Huldra's message, the 2nd revert by Nableezy was his revert of me removing my post. Since he removed my reply and then I removed my entire post but he reverted that restoring my post. And yes I guess the diffs are slightly out of order but that shouldn't really matter since they are timestamped. That was not intentional, I suppose I can correct the order, shouldn't be too difficult. Andre🚐 22:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, I believe I fixed the diff order. Nableezy, if you agree that starting the RFC wasn't disruptive or tendentious or gaming, then nothing I did was gaming. The standard procedure is that when an RFC runs, you don't edit the part under RFC. Isn't it? Or has that changed? Things change all the time but last I checked, that is officially how things work. Andre🚐 22:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, one of your diffs is not a "new post" but a removal of the post. I did not post after being told repeatedly not to. The only reason why I posted at nableezy's page at all was to seek to resolve the dispute and clarify it before bringing it here. "Kindly take your leave" is not the same as "don't you post any more posts here." It is suggested to attempt to resolve disputes with users before escalating them which I have attempted in good faith to do. Andre🚐 22:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, how am I selectively reading SFR's message? If there's no consensus the status quo remains, per NOCON. I do not have more than one revert. I had 1 revert to Nableezy's talk, removing my whole post. I didn't revert to restore. Please look again. Andre🚐 22:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I had two total reverts to 1948 separated by 7 days [27] [28], that's my mistake. Andre🚐 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, I posted one more clarifying question since Nableezy referred to SFR's message and I sought clarification. Nableezy reverted it so I posted it to SFR's talk page. Contrary to your assertion, I did not post again to Nableezy's page. Nableezy did though respond to the thread on SFR's page. That all seems a bit silly. I didn't disrespect Nableezy's subsequent directive to stay off his talk page. And Vandamonde, I didn't selectively interpret SFR's post. SFR said to start an RFC. I said "No" to nableezy's repeated assertion that this was gaming the system. I didn't dispute SFR's statement that there is no consensus. If there's no consensus we retain the status quo for the RFC. I didn't edit war. I made 2 reverts separate by 7 days and I was not alone in doing so. Andre🚐 22:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep, I don't see how I was supposed interpret "kindly take your leave" as "do not post any clarifying further questions" nor was Nableezy's subsequent post to my talk page "necessary" as it came after I removed my post, not added a new post. Andre🚐 22:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep, I interpreted that as Nableezy wasn't interested in apologizing or modifying his accusations, not a blanket talk page ban. I don't see that I should interpret that so strictly as you seem to. It became clearer afterwards, but I wasn't intentionally flouting that. It seemed more sensible to continue the conversation with the followup question to SFR in-context. After it was made clear by Nableezy reverting that I did not post to his talk page again. My next post was to remove the whole thread. Andre🚐 22:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further regarding the issue of edit warring, it's clear that a number of editors tried to remove the material and a number of editors restored it. But I'm here about Nableezy's claims of tendentious, disruptive, and gaming. I didn't engage in those. I restored the content twice over the course of 7 days. Then I started the RFC at prompting from SFR. I did not engage in any disruptive behaviors. If some editors try to remove material and other editors are restoring material, are you trying to say that the correct action is to simply let the editors removing it leave it out? That's not how things have ever been done here that I know of. If an RFC is merited as an uninvolved admin suggested, and if the article scopes are different as an uninvolved admin suggested, then the RFC would have the status quo during the duration. That's always been the case in my experience. I'm rather disappointed that this is now about whether I violated nableezy's talk page or whether I edit warred. Even if you believe my 2 reverts are edit warring, pblock me from that page then. But how about Nableezy's sanctionable incivility? Andre🚐 22:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ManyAreasExpert, thanks, but, I think there is a policy somewhere that permits such talkpagebans, although judging from Nableezy's last message and the one from BilledMammal (thanks, also) this should no longer be an issue. Also, the topic ban is from 9 months ago so it is expired. Andre🚐 23:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The policy @ManyAreasExpert, I found it, it's WP:USERTALKSTOP. Andre🚐 00:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ManyAreasExpert, I suppose that may be the case then that Nableezy violated their topicban in March of this year, though I'm not sure if there is some kind of statute of limitations on litigating old stuff here, and but I see no problem with someone looking into that. However, I wouldn't be surprised if that would be considered too old or a case of laches in common Wikipedia precedent, since all of Wikipedia's remedies are at least in theory based on preventing possible harm and not punishing technical violations (which, should also apply to the question of any edit war, since it hasn't been one since the RFC has been opened, as is customary). Andre🚐 00:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add two more things. One, about edit warring. I do not think my bias for WP:PRESERVE is tendentious, or my 2 reverts defending the status quo slow-mo edit warring. When editors remove something without a valid rationale, it's not a violation to restore content that's been there since 2020 especially if more than one person is doing it, and when an uninvolved admin has agreed there is no consensus and a RFC is needed. Under Wikipedia norms, consensus, and PAG, that content is status quo, always has been unless someone can explain how that doesn't apply. It doesn't become a violation because I restored it twice. If it is considered edit warring though simply because I did so twice and not once, it's not necessarily tendentious, gaming, or disruptive. Those have policy definitions that aren't met by the simple act of restoring content which, if it's edit warring to restore it, it was editors edit warring to remove the content. It's a content dispute and there's nothing to show or say that my particular participation was disruptive or tendentious. And the second thing about the talk page guidelines. I was not hounding or harassing nableezy. I believe it is encouraged to try to defuse disputes. The alternative was simply to allow the incivility to stand. I don't see how that is justifiable. If nableezy had a problem with my behavior, the proper forum and venue is this one. Instead, nableezy persisted in making unfounded and incivil accusations. That remain unsubstantiated. I therefore really had no other choice, except dropping it, than pursuing it on nableezy's talk page. WP:SOMTP was the response. That itself may be problematic. Even if you agree that my 2 reverts were edit warring, I don't see how that changes the issue here. Aspersions require detailed diffs and evidence. Once SFR had confirmed there was no consensus and we needed an RFC, at that time nableezy should have agreed I was not being tendentious or disruptive. Andre🚐 00:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding again to Barkeep, as I said, I thought that since Nableezy referred to the statement by SFR I would ask SFR to clarify. That seemed simple enough and didn't seem like it would offend since Nableezy was the one who pinged SFR on the article talk to begin with. At any rate, if the subsequent message after the "kindly take leave" was unwelcomed, I apologize for that. Andre🚐 01:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Nableezy invokes "the wrong version." But I didn't revert it back to that immediately before the RFC. Another user did that. I started the RFC. But either way, once SFR confirmed that an RFC was proper, the argument fell apart, yet you still fail to acknowledge or admit that. I was simply following the advice of SFR and not at all gaming anything. However, even if it hadn't been reverted by Snowstorm, it is the case that for 30 days (or however long the RFC runs) it is normal for the status quo to remain, even when it has no consensus, that's completely normal wiki procedure and not disruptive, tendentious, or gaming. Andre🚐 01:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TarnishedPath, I wasn't sure about that so asked about it on Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#ONUS_a_blank_check? and there was no consensus there, nor has there ever been in the past, that in general ONUS supercedes WP:PRESERVE, WP:NOCON, and WP:RFC. The standard has always been during RFCs not to edit the page. Andre🚐 01:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the others aren't edit warring and I am because I had 2 reverts, I think a 1RR-7day restriction or a 1RR-14day restriction would be easier to comply with than a 0RR. I also don't think a 0RR is a fair sanction. Andre🚐 18:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The important diffs

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[29]
others in AE archives

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

Nableezy is aware of CTOPs restrictions having been previously sanctioned.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[30]

Discussion concerning Nableezy

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 Nableezy

It *is* tendentious to make editors go through the same argument over and over again. We had a recent RFC on the exact same topic on the parent article. Anybody is justified in discussing and attempting to find a new consensus, but when we have already had that argument and there was a consensus established at the parent article demanding that the material be retained for 30 days because an RFC was opened *is* tendentious and it *is* gaming. That isnt an aspersion. If there is something about my reverting Andre on my own talk page or responding to his admin-shopped complaint at another talk page I need to respond to here lmk. But citing evidence for an accusation is the opposite of "casting aspersions". nableezy - 21:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, yes, something can be relevant in a child article where it is less important in the parent article, but that isnt the issue here. The issue is whether or not the topics are even related, with the established consensus being that the wars of 1947-1948 not being related to the mass emigration of Jews to Israel over the next decade. If it is not related to the wider war, it is likewise not related to something with an even smaller scope. The discussion at the parent article found a consensus that this was at most an indirect result of the entire conflict, it makes no sense that it would then be a direct, and major, consequence of the smaller scoped article. Ill also point to this comment by another editor saying the same thing. nableezy - 21:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, starting the RFC is not the issue. Starting it and demanding the material that does not have consensus for inclusion and that past RFC consensus against the very same arguments being offered for inclusion here *is* what I am saying is tendentious and gaming. nableezy - 21:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal it means that discussion has concluded and Id like the person to no longer continue it. When Andre ignored that I then asked that he no longer edit my talk page at all. I dont think his final two edits to my talk page are really an issue worth discussing. At this point though, yes I have asked him to no longer edit my talk page except when required. nableezy - 23:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Manyareasexpert I decline to engage with anything else you’ve written as I see literally no point, but please read through the end of the section of the link to my talk page that you posted to see that ban was reduced on appeal to 30 days. nableezy - 00:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, stay off my talk page was not the response, that came after you went from discussing with me to badgering me. Pinging an admin to my talk page after me asking you to end the discussion, removing the entire discussion on my talk page without my permission, that was what led me to ask you to stay off my talk page. Not your initial message, or your next message for that matter. You can say my comments were unsubstantiated, but I did substantiate them, I provided the reasons why I say those actions were gaming and disruptive. Aspersions are unsupported claims, not claims you disagree with. I do think you both edit warred and transparently attempted to game inclusion of what does not have consensus for inclusion and in a very closely related discussion has consensus against. I’ve given the reasons why I say that. Why didn’t I come to AE? Because every time I try to deal with any behavioral thing at AE it becomes an ungodly clusterfuck and I just don’t have that energy to give right now. But yes I think you are gaming and yes I think that is sanctionable. If the admins have any questions for me I’m happy to answer them but other than that idk what else there is for me to say here. nableezy - 00:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, that is neither true nor related. Both the status quo and the consensus of that discussion was to include in the lead. You yourself removed it from the lead and then attempted to claim that to be the status quo. I’m pretty tired of this throw whatever you can against the wall to see what sticks method of seeking sanctions, so unless an admin tells me I need to respond to something else here I am going to ignore it as noise. nableezy - 02:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. You removed it on August 19, when it had been in the lead unchallenged since April. nableezy - 03:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, there is zero cause for any interaction ban at all. Disagreeing with somebody doesn’t make it so there is no constructive communication. The idea that if people consistently disagree with each other the correct course of action is to limit any discussion between them is, to be blunt, childish. We are not children to be put in time out. We don’t have to agree, but others may find our points persuasive and from that a wider consensus may develop. How many people cited either of our views at the RFC on Hamas-run as a qualifier for the health ministry? Consensus development is not about the two of us agreeing or persuading one another, it is about us persuading other users, and by limiting any interaction you stifle that. nableezy - 12:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as who cares, due to another users repeated reverts, the articles lead now includes an outright false statement, not just an irrelevant one. You may not care about that, but I do. nableezy - 12:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as 0RR, I have made a grand total of one revert, and I did so on the basis of a highly related RFC consensus. If you are defining participant in an edit war as anybody who made a single revert and justified it then I think you and I are operating with different dictionaries. nableezy - 13:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may not care about that, but I do is now being offered as harsh language by me lol? You literally said But, really, who cares if that sentence is there or not for the duration of the RFC. That is just ridiculous. I answered who cares about including factually incorrect, and there is no dispute on that part, material in the lead of an encyclopedia article. I do. nableezy - 15:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe I participated in a multi-party edit war, I made the edit I made, and explained it, without even looking at the history of the article. I saw the discussion, and recalled the prior RFC, and saw people making the same exact argument that was rejected by consensus in that RFC. So I made a single revert. When it was restored I complained about a factual inaccuracy. Somebody else modified that, that was reverted to restore the inaccuracy, and Zero removed that because with the inaccuracy it was even less related to the topic. I do not think either of us "participated in a multi-party edit war", and I think if you are going to define edit-warring to include a single revert made with a justification on a talk page that needs to be made considerably more explicit. My past sanctions, a decade ago, were because I did indeed edit war. It is something I have not done for over a decade intentionally. Ive given others the same advice, eg here, where I advised a user if you make it a rule to instead of reverting an edit of yours that was reverted to go to the talk page and essentially convince others to revert it by consensus you will save yourself most of the administrative headaches in this area. I had no intention to edit-war, and would not have made any additional reverts. And as such I do not think it reasonable to portray my actions at that page as edit-warring. nableezy - 16:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 I think it certainly turned into that, but I don't really think it was when I removed the sentence. But also, I think the RFC from the prior article clearly applies to this same issue. It is the same issue with the same sources, mostly offered by the same users. To me this was a simple issue of math. If the set of consequences of A is the sum of the set of consequences of B and of C, than if something is not in set A it is in neither sets B or C. I think it is plainly obvious, if you review both discussions, that we already have a consensus on this topic. And so I removed a sentence once. When it became a prolonged back and forth yes it was a multi-party edit war, but I don't think it was when I reverted. nableezy - 22:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@the admins, if you're going to be looking at the entire history, Snowstormfigorion is even reverting tags about a false statement in the article. That is their now third revert, two of them inserting false statements that fail verification. nableezy - 15:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ManyAreasExpert

Special:GoToComment/c-Nableezy-20240311163900-Coretheapple-20240311163900 Thanks for demonstrating your inability to respond to math.

Edit: Special:PermanentLink/1204764975#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction so the editor was still under the topicban at that time? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually surprised this uncivility (and topicban violation, if I'm correct) complaint is down to how to interpret some requests to not to edit a user talkpage. A talkpage is a legitimate method to communicate between the editors. Including posting warnings if one assumes some Wikipedia rules are broken. Actually, one is encouraged to post legitimate warnings to user talkpage by the rules. This is how editors encourage others to adhere to the rules, and this is how we maintain the health of the community.

And nowhere in the rules I saw an option to "ban" somebody when I don't like their warnings. Actually, I would expect administrators to be wary about the repeated behavior of "banning" those giving warnings, as the editor did also for me User talk:Manyareasexpert#my talk page . If I understand the rules correctly, one simply cannot "ban" you from a talk page, it's contrary to the rules!

I would also expect administrators to be wary of the (repeated?) behavior of undoing the warnings without archiving them [31] with "lol".

Behaviors like these go against the collaborative spirit editors are supposed to work within the community. Somebody may even consider them offending. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, I'm not aware of the policy to restrict others from my talkpage, if there is such, please disregard the message above (and enlighten me with the policy, thanks). ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, given the editor has "banned" at least 2 other editors, and me, an uninvolved editor, who was not a target of their personal attack, we may have a WP:SOMTP case here: Except in specific and clear cases of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, such "banning" is highly problematic and an indication that the banning editor is having serious problems cooperating with others. How many other editors were "banned"?

The topicban was ending at the end of March 2024 and the editor participated in discussion on March 11.

Correction: as pointed out, the TB was appealed and shortened to the end of Jan 2024. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

A' list for diffs are not chronological:

8) is 19:59, 28 October 2024 to N's talk page where N tells A. to "Kindly take your leave from this page. Thank you."
6) is 20:17, 28 October 2024 to N's talk page where N revert a new post by A
7) is 20:27, 28 October 2024 to N's talk page where N revert yet another post by A

Possible boomerang for keep posting on a user-page after you have been told not to? Huldra (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrevan yes, please get the diffs in a correct order, thank you, Huldra (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the following diffs are to N's talk-page:

19:59, 28 October 2024 N to A: "Kindly take your leave from this page. Thank you."
20:02, 28 October 2024 new post by A.
20:17, 28 October 2024 N reverted A's post with the edit-line: "you can ask your question somewhere besides my talk page"
20:23, 28 October 2024 new post A to N's talk-page (removal of stuff)
20:27, 28 October 2024 new revert by N, with edit-line "Please dont edit my talk page again"

Is it ok to post on a talk-page after been repeatedly asked not to? Huldra (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrevan wrote: "Kindly take your leave" is not the same as "don't you post any more posts here." Actually, that is how I would have interpreted it. At least, you shouldn't be surprised about curt language if you insists on posting again, Huldra (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

Just noting that Nableezy doesn't interpret "So kindly take your leave from this page" as a ban from the talk page; instead, they appear to interpret it merely a request. See this clarification that they made when they used the phrase previously.

As note on the dispute itself, this discussion appears to contain a related issue.

Nableezy and a couple of other editors wish to include "In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel". The status quo is to not include, but based on their WP:INVOLVED reading of that informal discussion, they argue that there is a consensus to include it, and have repeatedly done so.

Nableezy, it was WP:BOLDLY added on September 11 and disputed immediately, and has continued to be contentious. It isn't the status quo.

That isn't the content currently being disputed, or the content I am saying is not the status quo. That content is the sentence "In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel", which is not in the diff you provided, and was added on September 11.

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding; now that this has been clarified, do you withdraw your objection that the inclusion of this content is the status quo? 03:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Unfortunately, your proposed method of restoring the status quo while an RFC is proceeding does not appear workable; see this test of it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I'll add that I previously tried something similar with WP:RMTR; an editor was repeatedly making bold moves, and rather than get into a move war I would go to RMTR to request that an uninvolved editor restore the status quo title. It almost never happened, with the uninvolved editor instead converting the technical request into a requested move proposing moving the article back to the status quo title.

Given the issues we've seen with the experiment here, as well as the issues I've seen with previous similar requests, I don't think this is a workable solution. BilledMammal (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0RR probably isn't the best solution to this common problem. A better solution is to treat reverts away from the status quo as different from reverts back to the status quo - treat the former as more disruptive than the latter, because they are more disruptive.

This would function as "consensus required", requiring editors to get consensus if their disputed bold edit is reverted, as well as providing a clear path to get the content back to the status quo. BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, if there is consensus then that is the new status quo, and reverting away from that will be the disruptive behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

WP:ONUS would suggest that once material is removed from an article and while discussion is occurring on the article's talk page that the content stay removed until such time as there is consensus unless there is some other policy reason for the material to be re-inserted. Per the policy, "[t]he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". TarnishedPath^talk 01:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by arkon

Clearly the important thing here is a nebulous personal talk page ban that was or wasn't. Should have already been a case via ARCA, but I'm apparently in the minority. Arkon (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

The disputed sentence covers two separate issues 1) The total number of Jews that immigrated to Israel in the three years following the war and 2) Included within that, those Jews immigrating from the Arab world. The currently running RFC addresses only the second issue so the QUO argument should only be about that part, nevertheless, despite it being made absolutely clear on the article talk page that the material covered in 1) fails verification, Snowstormfigorion has again made another revert restoring this material claiming that it is subject of the RFC, which it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase du jour is "multi-editor edit war" (by experienced editors), I suppose that might be an "improvement" over "tag-team edit warring" (by regulars) per the potential ARCA. I deliberately decided not to revert the changes being made, although I thought that they should be reverted, for fear of this dismal accusation being made once again and there it is. If we want this "behavior" (which I regard as being arguments over content) to stop, then the need is to define this "offence" clearly so that it is simply not an option anymore. How does it come about? There is a removal (usually, it could be an addition)), then it is reverted and off we go with the supposed regulars, typically supplemented by some irregulars, back and forth. OK, the first removal must not give simply ONUS as reason, there must be some substantive real reason for removal. If there is, then any revert requires an equally substantive, real reason. If that's so, then the only recourse is discussion starting on the talk page. That's a particular case of WP:BRD turned into a rule instead of an optional thing (not saying this "rule" doesn't need workshopping and tidying up). Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alaexis

Considering that we've learned recently about what appears to be a large-scale and well-organised effort to influence the Wikipedia coverage of the conflict (link, please see the part about the Discord channel used to coordinate Wikipedia editing), I think that it might be worthwhile to review the decisions taken recently in this topic area, including the closures of RfCs like this one. Alaexis_¿question? 22:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, for sure, my point was that opening an RfC in this situation wasn't disruptive. Alaexis_¿question? 23:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

I have edited that article only twice in more than two years. Any suggestion that I edit-war there is false. Moreover, I'm happy to justify either of those edits.

Only a fraction of reverts are to-and-fro between regular editors. A large number are reverts of new or fly-by-night editors who don't know the subject and come along to insert bad text in violation of NPOV or RS or the facts. This type of revert is a good edit and without it keeping the article in an acceptable state would be impossible. An inevitable result of hitting the most experienced editors with 0RR would be deterioration of article quality. Zero^talk 00:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: You ask a fair question, and if you study my record you'll see that I do that sort of thing hardly ever. If I'd thought for more than a few seconds, I would have decided against it. As far as I remember, my motive at that moment was that there was a recent RfC about exactly the same question and there was no talk page consensus to overturn it. So I felt there was already a consensus until someone established a different consensus, which is what I wrote in my edit summary. I also knew that the sentence I removed is factually incorrect, as Nableezy had pointed out on the talk page and I had checked. Zero^talk 14:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a consensus to change the status quo, and especially if there is an RfC to change the status quo, then reverting back to the status quo is obviously more disruptive than implementing the consensus. It negates the very purpose of consensus. So BilledMammal's latest idea doesn't pass scrutiny. Zero^talk 14:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ABHammad

I'd like to point out that the editors mentioned in this complaint each have their own record, which could suggest the need for tailored sanctions. For instance, only three months ago, User:Makeandtoss, who took part in this edit war, was given their 'final warning' "for behavior that falls below the required level required when editing in contentious topics", with Seraphimblade writing that it should be given "with very clear understanding that any more problems will almost certainly lead to a topic ban". To me, it's obvious now that just giving more warnings won't make a difference. ABHammad (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Makeandtoss

@Valereee: Thank you for the ping, I had been seriously ill. As well-articulated by @Vanamonde93:, there are different aspects to this dispute. Removing material that had no consensus for its inclusion or keeping conforms with WP:ONUS, while constantly re-adding that contested material is in direct violation of it. WP:DON'T PRESERVE is actually the relevant guideline, rather than WP:PRESERVE, since the former's scope includes contentious material such as this one. WP:STATUSQUO is an essay. RFCs are a way of reaching broader consensus so they cannot be considered to have a freeze effect on contentious material that has no consensus, and this RFC was anyway belatedly opened at the end after the removals. Having avoided making further reverts myself and engaged extensively in the talk page and encouraged those re-adding the contentious material to seek proper dispute resolution, conformity with all the relevant guidelines and policies was maintained. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the IBANs for the other editors I think it might not be helpful, since, during disputes, we need more communication, not less of it; disputes are often the result of a lack of communication. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nableezy

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

@Nableezy: - I have little patience for people who don't respect RfC consensuses. And I could understand the idea of saying "This was rejected as UNDUE at the child article, so it definitely wouldn't be appropriate at the parent article." But I would expect things to be appropriate to include at a child article, with a smaller focus, that would be wrong to include at a parent article with a larger focus. So, for instance, when I split YouTube and privacy from YouTube I covered stuff in the LEAD that I wouldn't think appropriate for the lead at YouTube. Can you explain what that wouldn't be true in this circumstance? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find Nableezy's explanation reasonable for why the situation here is different than what I suggested above. I am also not impressed with Andrevan continuing to post on Nableezy's talkpage (other than required notifications) after being asked not to - Nableezy shouldn't have had to go to Andrevan's user talk to make that request, requesting it on Nableezy's user talk should have been more than sufficient. I hope to be able to look into the edit-warring piece soon. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrevan how did you interpret Kindly take your leave from this page. Thank you. then? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andrevan: The context BM provided matters in that it clearly has some wiggle room but I think the idea that Kindly take your leave from this page. Thank you. meant something for Nableezy and not you is just a really poor reading of things. Taking it as a cue to continue the discussion only seems likely to inflame tensions - as it did here with a more formal and complete request for you to absent yourself from his user talk. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When a given piece of content is in dispute, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss it substantively. Edit-warring over what version of the content remains in place while said discussion occurs is battleground conduct - why did there need to be seven reverts after this initial removal? And while Nableezy's language on the talk page is harsh, I will note that Andrevan is the only one to have made more than one revert in that sequence. Andre is also selectively reading SFR's message in this post, and Nableezy's response is understandable at the very least. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For ease of others the chronology is:
- 01:54, October 21, 2024 IOHANNVSVERVS removes
- 02:00, October 21, 2024 Andrevan restores
- 02:12, 21 October 2024 IOHANNVSVERVS opens talk page discussion
- 13:48, October 26, 2024 Nableezy removes
- 14:18, October 26, 2024 Alaexis restores
- 03:45, October 27, 2024 Zero0000 removes
- 04:19, October 27, 2024 Andrevan restores
- 12:23, October 27, 2024 Makeandtoss removes
- 21:17, October 27, 2024 Snowstormfigorion restores
- 21:40, 27 October 2024 Andrean opens RFC
Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So here we have yet another situation where there is no firm consensus on content which led to an edit war among multiple parties and the commensurate escalation of hostility. The RFC against inclusion is for a related article, but not the same article and arguments about DUE aren't addressed by an RFC on another article with a different scope. In descending order, the biggest issues I see in this situation is the edit warring, the user talk page behavior exhibited by Andrevan, and the lack of using established dispute resolution to just open an RFC and wait a month. If we're looking for the status quo while the RFC runs then it would include the sentence about Jewish migration, as that was the long term status quo. That is wasn't in the article around the time the RFC was opened is a function of a multi-party edit war. But, really, who cares if that sentence is there or not for the duration of the RFC? Was it really worth edit warring over for either side? Nableezy, as they often do, used needlessly aggressive language, but that's pretty common for the topic.
Now, on to things we can do.
- 0RR for anyone involved in this edit war that was also involved in another edit war discussed at AE in the past year. These multi-party edit wars instead of just following DR are far too common in the topic area and make an appearance at most AE reports
- Iban Andrevan and Nableezy, which I should have done when I sanctioned them both a year ago
- Iban BilledMammal and Nableezy, because as we can see in this report, they're not capable of constructive communication or collaboration (this isn't really related to the situation being reported, but it is evident from their behavior in this report)
- Restore the article to the pre-edit war status quo ante and apply consensus required and everyone just waits out the RFC, which is what should have happened six reverts ago
- Sternly wag our finger at Andrevan for their shenanigans on Nableezy's talk page
- Yet again wag our finger at Nableezy's use of harsh language
The Ibans should have a blanket exclusion for anything directly before Arbcom, e.g. a case request, a clarification/amendment request, or a case itself, and should also have a carve out to allow them to respond to an RFC created by the other editor, though only addressing the RFC question. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hate to see either of these ibans; all three editors would have a very difficult time trying to avoid one another. I almost feel like it's asking them to game the system. I'd support 0RR for the edit war participants. These round-robin wars by experienced editors who appear to be gaming the system are disruptive, and I think we should actively discourage it. Support restoring pre-edit war version until RfC is completed. Fine with stern finger-wagging. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It obviously is fair for administrators to question the utility of warnings, but I think continuing to refer to formal warnings as "finger wagging" serves to undermine any utility they have. SFR, what you derisively call finger wagging just caused me to escalate something from a warning into a sanction in this topic area - to no small amount of pushback. I find what Andrevan did on Nableezy's usertalk wrong, lacking in collegiality, and failing to follow editorial and behavioural best practice. I would hope you do as well and would wish it to stop and if this is so, I would hope we could all act accordingly in the message we send to people about it. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should treat the warnings with a bit more respect, despite my feelings about their overall utility. In this situation, Andrevan has been sanctioned in the topic area, and in my view that is a level above a final warning. I would support a formal warning, stern even, for Andrevan. I would support further sanctions, as well, up to an indefinite topic ban since I believe that misbehavior after a sanction demonstrates that the sanction wasn't effective. As for Nableezy, we're yet again at AE for what Vanamonde called harsh language, which they have been consistently warned about ~~and they're yet again dropping You may not care about that, but I do. at AE which they were warned about~~, so I would also support a formal warning or further sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the person being linked to there for a warning there I see a large difference in the decorum Nableezy showed there (and in fairness to them struck when asked, which is in-line with the revert when asked ethos you've promoted in this topic area) and what they did here. I see them explaining their actions to an uninvolved administrator. The explanation may be insufficient for participating in a multiparty edit war, but I don't find anything about the explanation itself to have crossed lines. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to accept that my reading of that may have been more harsh than was intended. Nableezy, my apologies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy so if we're not calling this a multiparty edit war, what should we call it? I called it that because it was the first phrase that came to mind but am very open to describing the sequence in a different way - it was definitely not the focus of my message. And from your perspective is there any issue with the history I captured above? From my perspective it is a problem. I'm wondering if you agree and if not why (so perhaps I can reconsider). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you're right, we shouldn't be flip. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zero0000, you say you didn't edit war and you're happy to justify your edits. This is the edit I'm concerned about: you were part of a multi-editor edit war by experienced editors who know how to avoid individual sanctions. Why did you participate in an ongoing edit war? Valereee (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find Andrevan's actions here - as the only person to appear twice on the timeline for removal/restoration - and for the actions on Nableezy's talk to be qualitatively different than anyone else we're talking about. It also seems to me that 0RR here would have resulted in an outcome that enshrines the "wrong version" (the analysis of which I agree with SFR) for the duration of any discussion and RFC and as such I'm not sure is the right response to what happened on that page. And if we're seriously discussing sanctions on anyone other than Andrevan and Nableezy, I think we need to formally notify them. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference in outcome with 0RR in place is there wouldn't have been seven reverts, and hopefully the issue would have followed dispute resolution earlier and with less acrimony. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me the 0RR is to discourage this kind of ECR round-robin edit war where everyone takes a turn so nobody gets sanctioned. And I don't see it as necessarily enshrining a wrong version. Open an RfC and at the same time make an edit request asking for the edit to be reverted by an uninvolved editor while the RfC is running. That would turn it into IO removes, A opens an RfC and an edit request asking for an uninvolved reversion. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sold on this being the right response yet, but want to think more about it since I hear what you two are saying. Since it's being seriously discussed I have notified the other 5 people about this thread and possible sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alaexis that's so far into Arbcom territory it's reviewing checkuser applications. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When examining this sort of slow edit-warring, a key question for me is whether editors are engaging substantively with the content, or making reflexive reverts. Having made reverts, Nableezy, Alaexis, Makeandtoss, and Zero have all participated substantively, and avoided making further reverts. Andrevan also participated substantially, but made two reverts, and there was the user talk fracas. Snowstormfigorion has edited the talk page, but their participation there leaves something to be desired - they clearly had not read the discussion before making a revert, and have not engaged since. As such the conduct of Andre and Snowstormfigorion is qualitately different from the others for me; I would not support 0RR on anyone else based on this evidence, though I'm willing to consider who else may have a history of edit-warring per SFR above. I would support a warning, but no more, for Nableezy for combative language. I don't believe successive warnings make them pointless. There is a spectrum of bad behavior, and the response needs to be proportionate - the examples discussed here merit warning, and I don't think a history of warnings changes that for me. I also don't think IBANs are a good idea. On the merits, I don't think the problem is that these editors bring out the worst in each other, it's the topic that does. On the practicality, for editors whose primary focus is PIA articles, with a contribution history as long as Andre, Nableezy, and BM have, an IBAN would lead to considerably more drama than it would avoid. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss, you haven't made a statement. You've been mentioned in Nableezy's statement, ABHammad's statement, and Vanamonde's comment. Would you like to make a statement?

Snowstormfigorion, ditto. Valereee (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I have TBANned Snowstormfigorion for six months, given that they continued to revert - including reverting in content with verification concerns that had been acknowledged by others, and then reverting the addition a tag on the same, without any talk page participation. This does not change my assessment of the rest of the dispute. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archives908

Archives908 is warned that further edit-warring in this topic may be grounds for stringent sanction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 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 Archives908

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Archives908 (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

Archives908 has engaged in slow edit warring against multiple editors in National Assembly (Artsakh), resorting to POV-pushing (repeatedly adding controversial information about a dissolved entity still existing using questionable sources) before consensus is reached. They were warned that this behaviour was unconstructive and were asked to revert their edits while the discussion is ongoing [40] but disregarded the warning.

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

[41] Archives908 is aware of AA2-related articles constituting contentious topics.

[42] Archives908 was previously reported for mass-reverting edits in AA2 articles without regard for content (the report had to do with undoing the edits of a topic-banned user in violation of WP:GRAVEDANCE) and appeared to offer a sincere apology for doing so: [43], leading to the case being closed without sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [44]

Discussion concerning Archives908

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 Archives908

User Parishan made one edit, which was reverted one time by myself on National Assembly (Artsakh). We have since been civilly discussing the edit on the talk page according to WP:BRD guidelines in an attempt to reach WP:CON. Neither of us have engaged in an WP:EW or violated either WP:3RR or even WP:2RR. I am utterly confused by this report. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in 2021, I was a relatively unexperienced editor and was unaware about the policies regarding reverting edits made by confirmed sockpuppets. I apologized, educated myself of those policies, and never violated those rules since. This old report, from almost half a decade ago, is in my opinion irrelevant to this topic as I have never "mass reverted edits" made by a sockpuppet ever since. Archives908 (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to provide additional clarification. Parishan made this edit on October 28. I restored the last stable version (only once) because Parishan's edit was factually incorrect. In Parishan's WP:ES, they used the word unlikely, implying uncertainty in their own edit. After the revert, we proceeded to have a very civil discussion regarding the status of the National Assembly of Artsakh. Parishan, at first, asserted that the body is defunct. Then on October 29, Parishan stated that the body does engage in "local media outreach". Yet, sources I found showed that the National Assembly has been actively operating in Armenia. From releasing official documents, organizing rallies, press briefings and protests, and meeting with leaders of the 2024 Armenian protests. It's significantly more then just "local media outreach". In any case, we were trying to reach a WP:CON. There was no WP:EW. As you see here ([45]) I even recommended a fair alternative by suggesting we create a new article which would be centered around the government-in-exile in Yerevan, while the current article could be focused on the former legislative body in Stepanakert. This would have been an ideal solution for both of our concerns, but my proposal was ignored. I abided by WP:BRD ethos. Parishan's "B"old edit was "R"everted, and then we both "D"iscussed. Parishan did ask me to revert my edit, but in all honesty, I skimmed the users message very fast that day and totally read over their request (by mistake). I should have taken time to read their response more carefully, and for that I do apologize. However, I acted fully in accordance with WP:BRD ethos and did not violate WP:2RR. I ask the Admins for leniency. I will certainly work on reading responses more diligently in the future. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Archives908

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

I'm definitely not happy to see a long term WP:1AM edit war in a contentious topic. The number of reverts is over the top, so an only warning for edit warring is about the lightest touch I think we should use here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support an only warning. Archives908, realize the other option is a likely tban from AA2, and that would be the likely outcome if you ended up back here again. Valereee (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit surprised everyone's on board with just a warning for what happened here (including trying to pretend the issue here is from 2021 rather than diffs about 2024), but sure. I would just say that if this were to repeat we'd be going to an indefinite topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, my position is that the minimum we should do is an only warning. I'd be fine just going straight to a topic ban, but I figured I'd mention the lightest action we should take firs since I'm pretty sure I already have a reputation as a hanging judge. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any appetite to going straight to a topic ban in this case? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at their top edited articles, this editor is interested almost completely in Armenia. Could we do a time-limited topic ban rather than an indef? My reasoning is that an AE indef tban is incredibly difficult to appeal. With a stated caveat to the editor: we want you to show you can edit outside of Armenia unproblematically, so if you just stop editing for (length of tban) and then jump right back in to editing problematically there, I'd support an indef tban. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I like time and edit limited tbans instead. 6 months and 500 or 1000 edits requires them to edit outside of the topic and gives those assessing an appeal something to look at. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have also proposed a time limited topic ban (though I'd have done 3 months). This editor has 2700+ edits over the last six months and so I think a 6 month + 500 (non-gamed) edit sanction is reasonable in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, either a 3- or 6-month, + 500 non-gamed. Valereee (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose a topic-ban at this time. The disputed edits relate to a single issue, and there is currently a discussion on the talkpage that should resolve the disagreement. Moreover, the broad scope of a typical AA2 topic-ban far exceeds what would be necessary here. A logged warning to move sooner to the talkpage when edits are reverted would be much more proportionate to the offense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this rises to the level of a TBAN. Reverting different editors over a long period of time is what you expect to see if there is a popular misconception about something - my edit-history looks like this not infrequently. The latest revert is not ideal - they should have the discussion play out - but this is the same STATUSQUO vs ONUS problem we've seen elsewhere, and for that alone I'm not willing to sanction. The statement here is more of a problem - there is distinct disingenuousness on display. But taken in sum I would prefer a logged warning, or possibly a 1RR restriction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish, Valereee, Barkeep49, and Newyorkbrad: It would seem we're not in agreement here. This has been open a while and we should move toward closure; absent consensus I would suggest closing with no action, but if any of you still feel strongly that a sanction is needed I'm open to hearing arguments for it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a rough consensus for a logged/only warning, with the assumption that Barkeep49 is open to a lesser sanction if that is where consensus is headed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any opposition to a logged/only warning? Valereee (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was only proposing a limited topic ban and while I think that better, have no real objections to a logged warning as long as we're in general agreement that if this behavior continues - particularly if there is further self-description of their behavior which is plainly contradicted by facts - that the next step might be a full topic ban rather than something more targeted. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is the rub, getting a second chance with a warning means the next slip up, even if not terribly severe, will probably jump a ways up the ladder of sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing with a warning, and a note that a next offence will probably receive more stringent sanction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Baltimore

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 Bohemian Baltimore

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Bohemian Baltimore (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/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

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

19:52, 25 October 2024 Adding self-identification category to Grant Fuhr without direct support from article and its cited sources. Reverted by me.
18:35, 25 October 2024 Replacing Taino descent category with self-identification category. Was reverted by User:Lewisguile noting same issue.
18:34, 25 October 2024 Replacing Taino descent category with self-identification category. Reverted by Lewisguile noting same issue.
16:43, 22 October 2024 Replacing Navajo People category with self-identification Indigenous Mexican category. Reverted by me because neither article text nor its cited sources verify self-identification.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 07:49, 30 May 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I first learned about Bohemian Baltimore's disputed edits that introduce a self-identification qualifier to biographies of living people without explicit support from RSes on a May BLP Noticeboard discussion about Patricia Norby.[46] Consensus was against these edits. As far as I can tell, Bohemian Baltimore has made hundreds of this type of edits since 2023, mostly by use of categories.[47] The categories are very contentious themselves based on a prior CfD discussion.[48] I have reverted many of these edits and previously warned Bohemian Baltimore in August about this.[49][50][51]

I believe Bohemian Baltimore should be barred from BLPs involving Native/Indigenous topics.

Despite YuchiTown's attempt to rationalise the self-identification label, I'd like the reviewing administrators to consider what also happened when the categories were linked to the individual biographies as raised in the CfD discussion. It is not just the word self-identify that is added. When people click on the category page, they can see variations of the following summary about the listed people: "This category page lists notable citizens of the United States who claim to have _____ ancestry but who have no proof of this heritage. In some cases they make the claim despite having been proven to have no ______ heritage at all." with a later Pretendian link. BB created these categories and their corresponding summaries[52][53][54][55] and then linked people to these non-neutral contentions without direct unchained support from RSes. Think of the impact these unsourced gatekeeping assertions have on people. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49,@Seraphimblade, @ScottishFinnishRadish Similar to Hemiauchenia's example, I thought it was weird that BB brought up a lack of literacy and racism[56] in a discussion about whether a third-party report of a DNA test supported a self-identification of descent category. BB questioned another user's reading comprehension[57] in the Norby talk page discussion when that person objected about self-identification on OR grounds. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[58]

Discussion concerning Bohemian Baltimore

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 Bohemian Baltimore

I do not appreciate this transparent attempt to harass me and censor my contributions to Wikipedia. Each of these individuals was either adopted or self-identifies as Taíno. None of these people have tribal citizenship; the source of their Indigenous identity is very literally through their own self-identification rather than through any tribal citizenship. As for the ArbCom discussion, where is this "consensus"? Where is this stated and by whom? What binding precedent was set or rules established for editing? Please, enlighten me. What exactly am I missing here? It is very disappointing and alarming that this user is deploying strong-arm tactics to permanently suppress the contributions of Native and allied editors. This is not the first time this editor has defamed or harassed me, based on his own idiosyncratic and self-declared definition of self-identification. There are many ways to handle disputes. Trying to get me banned from editing is outrageous and controlling and it undermines Wikipedia's diversity. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic Please stick to the topic. I regard dragging these long dead and irrelevant debates into this conversation as a smear. I made an attempt to improve visibility for gay, lesbian, transgender, and bisexual people; to address erasure and invisibility of LGBT people, as a proud member of the LGBT community. I will not apologize for being queer. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish What knowledge do you have of tribal citizenship? Is this a topic you have attempted to research and educate yourself on before declaring that I should be banned? Tribal citizenship is very much verifiable and defining. The fact that the Taino have no tribal citizenship is not "original research". It's simply a fact. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 17:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee American Indian tribes under law are sovereign nations with citizens. There are neo-Taíno revivalist organizations that promote Taíno identity and who promote reviving a distinct Taíno culture, which was assimilated into the Spanish-speaking Puerto Rican culture centuries ago. However, these non-profit organizations are not tribes. Typically, they are registered as 501c3s. They have no citizens. They have no sovereignty. The basis of their identity is purely through their own self-identification, rather than any legal status. Whether or not a group should be recognized as a tribe is an opinion. Not that my opinion really matters, but I know of several groups of American Indian descendants who have no recognition as a tribe, but who I think should be recognized. The Taíno revivalists lack of any sovereign nation is a fact, not an opinion. A Puerto Rican who self-identifies as Taíno is simply a US citizen. Whereas, for example, an enrolled Cherokee Nation member is both a citizen of the US and a citizen of the Cherokee Nation. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad In the United States, American Indian tribes are defined as "domestic dependent, sovereign nations" under law with government-to-government relationships with the US government. Members of tribes are citizens of sovereign nations. Being Native American is a matter of citizenship and sovereignty, not merely a question of race, color, ethnicity, or ancestry. There are no Taíno tribes in the United States. Due to genocide, disease, assimilation and other factors, the Taíno assimilated into the larger Puerto Rican population. The Taíno language is extinct. The Taíno as a culturally distinct people have not existed for centuries. In recent years, some Puerto Ricans have begun to self-identify as Taíno based on their DNA heritage. These neo-Taínos self-identify as Indigenous due to centuries old Indigenous ancestry. No Taíno group is recognized as a sovereign nation. That is to say, neo-Taíno identity is inherently a question of self-identification rather than citizenship in a sovereign nation. Puerto Ricans who self-identify as neo-Taíno are US citizens and they have no additional tribal citizenship. The term "self-identification", while wrongly perceived by some uninformed white editors as a pejorative term, is actually widely used by Indigenous peoples. The term is used by the Department of the Interior, the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and many other bodies. The fact that neo-Taíno revivalists have no recognition as sovereign nations is just that, a fact. The question of whether a neo-Taíno group should be recognized is a separate matter. That's an opinion. Their lack of sovereignty is not an opinion. It is a fact. Right now, historical Taíno people of Puerto Rico who lived during colonial and pre-colonial times are in the category Category:Taíno people from Puerto Rico. Whereas, neo-Taíno revivalists were listed under Category:Puerto Rican people who self-identify as being of Taíno descent. That category was emptied and nominated for deletion. The people who were in the category are now under Category:Puerto Rican people of Taíno descent. The historic Taíno people are clearly distinct from neo-Taíno revivalists who invoke DNA heritage, and for navigational purposes there should be separate categories for these separate groups of people. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic I really despise having to re-hash ancient and irrelevant drama, but some of the categories I created were actually kept. So actually, it was a useful and productive conversation about the visibility of queer people within the ace community, and about the definition of bisexuality (and the "two or more genders" definition I used is actually widespread and normative, despite Wikipedia's fossilized conservatism on these matters). I do not like homophobia. I do not like being subject to homophobic attacks. These old conversations have been irrelevantly thrown in my face, on-Wiki and off-Wiki, by multiple people. Your intent doesn't really make a difference. To assume good faith, I am sure you and Mason think of yourselves as harmlessly correcting mistakes. Whereas, I view it as objectively homophobic as it creates a hostile environment for queer editors. I do not feel welcomed or respected as a queer person on Wikipedia. I feel defamed and excluded. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Raladic

A similar issue around identities also occurred a few months ago in the LGBTQ space when @BB created a series of erroneous categories and tried to shift categories into sub-categories that would mis-categorize people with different LGBTQ identities. Refer to User talk:Bohemian Baltimore#Aromanticism and Asexuality are the A of LGBTQIA+ and Intersex is the I and is inherently an LGBTQIA+ identity and this one User talk:Bohemian Baltimore#Pansexuality is not the same as bisexuality by @Mason for context. And the resulting cleanup that had to be made afterwards per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Category:LGBT asexual people these wrong categorizations. So it does appear that the user may have a pattern of, while good-faith, wrong categorizations of BLPs, which are problematic, so a warning to be more careful of working on categorization of BLPs may be appropriate. Raladic (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No smear is intended, I merely pointed out that as I said above, that while I fully believe you made the changes in good faith, they were clerically incorrect as was pointed out in the subsequent discussions. I also fully appreciate you trying to increase visibility for LGBTQ people, as that is where I spend a lot of my time on Wikipedia as well as a queer person myself. Raladic (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

I had similar interactions at Talk:Indigenous_cuisine_of_the_Americas#Content/context_removal? regarding removal of identification of individuals as native American in Wikivoice over the tribe not being recognized by federal/state governments, at that article and at Louis Trevino and Vincent Medina. BB wanted to insert 'self-identify as'. They did drop it after I pointed out the NYT was calling them Ohlone and another editor reverted them, but BB does seem to be pretty focussed on the concept of self-identification (vs. identifying in WV) of BLPs if they don't agree a group officially exists or how it's defined? Valereee (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NYB, I'd like to hear that explanation w/re: identification of members of any tribe that isn't officially recognized by a government body. Valereee (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohemian Baltimore, so you are saying that if a tribe isn't officially recognized by a government body, Wikipedia should be referring to folks as "self-identified", even if RS are referring to them as tribal members, because no one can actually be a member of a such a tribe? Valereee (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This category page lists notable citizens of the United States who claim to have Shoshone ancestry but who have no proof of this heritage. In some cases they make the claim despite having been proven to have no Shoshone heritage at all is pointy, RGW, and a BLP vio. I'm sympathetic to the fact there are many people out there making such false claims, but I feel like this is basically categorizing people as liars. Valereee (talk) 12:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Yuchitown

Bohemian Baltimore should not be banned from Native American topics. None of their edits to topics relating to Indian Country have been controversial or contested. Instead, MorbidThoughts has followed Bohemian Baltimore around and decided unilaterally that “self-identified” must be censored with certain individuals from Wikipedia. I was part of the Norby noticeboard discussion; the consensus was that New York Post was not an WP:RS and WP:CLAIM precludes the use of the word “claim” in BLPs. Native American identity is controversial and contested; it is a unique political identity in the United States.[59] In published literature about Native American identity, variations of “self-identified” are used freely (examples here). Self-identified does not mean “fraud”; it means exactly what the dictionary states: “To identify or describe oneself as belonging to a particular category or group of people; to assign a particular characteristic or categorization to oneself.”[60] A unique phenomenon has evolved in the US of tens of thousands of people believing and stating they have Native American ancestry without substantiating that belief (discussion and citations can be found at Cherokee descent). Making a statement of Native American descent is self-identification. I’ve yet to see anyone produce a published citation saying that the term “self-identification” is an unacceptable term in regard to statements of Native American descent. If MorbidThoughts would like to propose the censorship of this term as Wikipedia policy, they need to go through that process, as opposed to unilaterally deciding it is Wikipedia policy and attempting to get Bohemian Baltimore topic-banned based on their unsourced, personal feelings. Yuchitown (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For those suggesting a topic ban, I'd just like reiterate that Bohemian Baltimore's edits to topics related to Indian Country and to federally recognized tribes have not be remotely controversial and have been extremely helpful. The contested gray area of unrecognized organizations and individuals have been the topic areas where other editors have made pushbacks. It would be a loss to the encyclopedia to lose this editor's contributions to Indian Country topics. These two topic areas are not the same. Yuchitown (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

My concern reading this, conductwise, is WP:FAIT - it is clear from eg. the CFD discussion (where Baltimore participated) that the categories Bohemian Baltimore created are highly contentious. Numerous other discussions and objections since have made that even more clear. Yet they seem to have taken the no-consensus outcome as a green light to go around making hundreds of replacements, effectively trying to ram through the template's usage via FAIT without ever going through the discussion necessary to do so. Obviously that discussion is now necessary, but since they've shown that they're not going to wait on it, my suggestion is that Bohemian Baltimore be barred from implying that any aspect of someone's identity is self-identified, or creating, using, applying, or reapplying any categories of that nature until / unless a clear affirmative consensus is reached to do so or under what circumstances to do so. I don't think that this is just a content dispute - that would be true if this was just on one or two articles; WP:BOLD protects a few individual edits. But making the sorts of systematic changes that Bohemian Baltimore has been doing after editors have objected is trying to force your opinions through by FAIT and is inappropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Clayoquot

Courtesy ping to HouseBlaster who closed the relevant CFD discussion as "no consensus, therefore keep". Some of the statements being made here could be read as challenging that closure. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 I agree that there's a difference between whether or not a category should exist and how particular editors use it. In practice though, since it's rare for RS to say that a given individual self-identifies as X, requiring RS to use a category is almost the same thing as deleting the category. I like your thinking that a community noticeboard discussion on how to use "self-identify" in BLPs could be fruitful. Many participants in the CfD discussion tried to discuss that issue but it probably wasn't the right venue. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A core issue seems to be whether "self-identifies as..." is contentious material. In the CfD and on this page I see arguments both ways - to some it seems obviously contentious, and others put forth academically-sourced arguments that it's not contentious at all. A community consensus on whether it is or is not contentious would be helpful. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Bohemian Baltimore's wording in the category pages was a BLP violation. I fixed one just now and noticed that nobody else had tried to do it.[61] For the other non-deleted category pages named in this enforcement request, there has also been no effort made to edit the page to remove BLP problems.[62][63] (I will go fix them after I publish this comment). Re-editing a page is the first part of community-based dispute resolution and in some cases it has not been done, which suggests that very little community-based dispute resolution has been tried. Things seem to be headed in the direction of "If the community hasn't decided whether something is a BLP violation, file a complaint and the admins at AE will decide." Is that how Wikipedia is supposed to work? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:34, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

In response to Yuchitown, the BLPN discussion established the obvious. You cannot claim someone "self-identifies" as something unless supported by sources. Whether you want to call it pejorative, it doesn't matter much. BLP policy establishes that we shouldn't be adding unsourced content to articles point blank which includes saying someone self-identifies when it isn't what the sources say is. If sources said something like "according to subject A, they are Navajo" or "subject A has informed us they are of Navajo descent" then perhaps we could count that as self identification. But when the source says [64] "Only when he was contacted by his birth mother decades later (a Fed-Ex package with photos and a letter) did he learn that his biological father was a Mexican Navajo Indian."; this isn't the same thing. We assume that sources have done what they feel is necessary to verify claims they present, and this source has said "his biological father was a Mexican Navajo Indian" not "his biological father self-identified" or "the person he believes is his biological father". Therefore we take this claim at face value as being true and don't add our own interpretations. From what I've seen, most of the time, there's no reliable secondary sources on whether the subject has tribal citizenship. So commentary on the lack of tribal citizenship isoften WP:OR based on primary sources (i.e. looking into records or worse asking the tribe themselves) or based on non RS (e.g. blogs). That said if RSS do mention lack of tribal citizenship we should present this in our article, and can consider how to handle this in categories. But it's unlikely via a self-identification one. Nil Einne (talk) 07:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of Bohemian Baltimore's problematic editing [65]. Removing the indigenous Mexican category is fine, was nothing in our article supporting it. But they not only added a self-identification category but added text to present the claim. The source they used [66] only says "Her maternal grandmother was of Spanish and Shoshone Native American ancestry". Nothing suggests this self-identification. The Walk of Fame probably doesn't have a reputation for fact checking so we IMO shouldn't present the claim of Shoshone ancestry as true. But we have no idea whether this was from Swank, a publicist or whatever else nor what evidence there is. With no source demonstrating this is a wider concern there's no reason to mention this at all. [67] Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hemiauchenia

Although this is not related to the conduct at hand, I was concerned by the baseless personal attacks Bohemian Baltimore made in Talk:African-American_Jews#Merge_Proposal a few weeks ago, where he without foundation accuses editors in the discussion of displaying overt anti-Black racism [68] for having the audacity of... proposing that an article BB wrote be merged? Making baseless racism accusations is really unacceptable, especially for an editor with as many edits and as long a tenure as BB. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pingnova

@Barkeep49 Here are a couple instances when Bohemian Baltimore has been incivil or disruptive when discussing this topic outside mainspace: Talk:Guainía_Taíno_Tribe and Talk:History_of_Georgetown_University#White_supremacy.
Pushing OR: Talk:Bessie_Coleman#Not_Native and Talk:Bessie_Coleman#Native_American_claim. This is only one page, but is a theme with him.
He also pushes the WP:FRINGE theory that Native Americans are not a race or ethnic category: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_15#Category:American_people_who_self-identify_as_being_of_Native_American_descent.
Bohemian Baltimore seems preoccupied with editing unsupported claims of race fraud into BLPs (and other pages) and has made such edits to hundreds of pages. His OR frequently includes looking up 100 year old family census records, as with the Bessie Coleman article. These edits are not based on RS. His editing is extremely disruptive to the topic area. Tracking down and fixing all of them will take some time. The Native American topic area has only a few regular editors. Additionally I think we should take extra caution in this case because he is targeting marginalized people, especially living marginalized people, and is pushing race WP:FRINGE. Pingnova (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bohemian Baltimore

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

I'm interested in hearing Bohemian Baltimore's response while I go through the background. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each of these individuals was either adopted or self-identifies as Taíno. None of these people have tribal citizenship; the source of their Indigenous identity is very literally through their own self-identification rather than through any tribal citizenship. None of this is covered in the articles, and appears to be WP:OR. WP:CATDEFINE says A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic, such as the nationality of a person or the geographic location of a place. These edits clearly fail that bar for categorization. I'm thinking a topic ban from the identification and citizenship of indigenous people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The diffs above are not about tribal citizenship, but about descent. What you say above, some Puerto Ricans have begun to self-identify as Taíno based on their DNA heritage, is about being of Taino descent. Everything else you've said about this falls firmly under WP:OR as it applies to specific living people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clayoquot, if there is this much disagreement about it then it is fairly plainly contentious. WP:BLP says Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. Even if the self-identified label is neutral or even positive there is clearly contention about its use. In this situation no sources have been provided using the label, so it is unsourced, and arguments made here about its inclusion amount to WP:OR. Content policies, with OR specifically called out, must be strictly followed when dealing with BLPs.

I agree that there should be a broad community discussion about this, but as it stands applying the label without consensus and sourcing is a violation of our BLP policy. These violations have been persistent, and I would say after the amount of discussion on the topic clearly demonstrating a lack of consensus for inclusion, egregious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bohemian Baltimore: Before I evaluate this, can you please clarify what you mean by "tribal citizenship" as a member of the Taino people? I am certainly not an expert, but my understanding is that the Taino people are not a legally organized tribe, and that the ongoing efforts to create a registry of Taino citizens are unofficial and are themselves based on self-identification and voluntary registration. What criteria are you using to separate people whom you feel belong in Category:Puerto Rican people who self-identify as being of Taíno descent as opposed to Category:Puerto Rican people of Taíno descent? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea, as Valereee writes, that we can only identify a characteristic of a person if it is government recognized regardless of what RS says (meaning, for instance, we could possibly have to label someone born in Ontario as "self-identified male/female/non-binary" because their birth certificates do not require any gender/sex field[69]) strikes me as an extreme position. But I feel we're in content decision territory here rather than BLP contentious topic violations and so this would either need to go to a community noticeboard - where there are more options for an uneasy mixing of the two - or have a content decision on this that Bohemian Baltimore is then violating in order for us to sanction them here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although there is not firmly established consensus, with BLP that defaults to exclude contentious labeling. Bohemian Baltimore is obviously aware of the contentious nature of these edits, and continues to make them without consensus or sourcing. To me that falls far enough on the wrong side of WP:BLP that a narrow topic ban on the identification of indigenous peoples, even if limited to such a time as consensus supports their position, is called for. Trying to force through contentious labels on BLPs without consensus is disruptive. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really good point and you've convinced me that we can address the issue here. Per the other feedback, I'm definitely not ready to topic ban them from indigenous people and I wonder if even your narrow topic ban could impact positive work mentioned by some others above. So what if instead we issue a consensus required to change the identification of indigenous people restriction? Obviously we normally apply CR to articles not editors, but in this case I think them needing to get consensus before changing would address the issue at hand while still allowing them to do the other work. And per your comment - should there be a topic wide consensus formed (through an appropriate RfC held at a place like a Village pump) that these kinds of changes are appropriate the restriction effectively goes away. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Clayoquot there's a difference between whether or not a category should exist and how particular editors use it. The fact that there is not even consensus about its existence - I read that CfD at the time - does actually say to me that a higher degree of care is needed by those who do use it. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bohemian Baltimore needs to recognize that whatever their beliefs may be about the logical categorization of people of Taino heritage vs other indigenous groups, Wikipedia cannot apply labels unsupported by reliable sources. Absent such recognition I think the TBAN SFR proposes is necessary. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bohemian Baltimore If an editor were engaging in homophobic behavior toward you, they would be sanctioned for it. For that very reason, it's a serious accusation that needs to be backed up by evidence. I'm not seeing anything in this discussion that constitutes a homophobic attack. Please provide evidence, or retract that claim. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be clear just from reading the discussions over this matter that this is clearly a contentious thing to say about someone. So, we don't need to get into great intricacy of what a rather obscure part of the MOS says, or anything like that. WP:BLP is very clear on the point: Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Saying "self-identifies" is in this case clearly contentious. If the sources don't unambiguously support that, it must be removed immediately and may not be restored without clear and unambiguous consensus, and anyone who does unilaterally restore it is engaged in sanctionable misconduct. I would also reiterate that there is a difference between the question of a category's existence, and its appropriateness of use. Category:Drug dealers exists, and should, but its use on a given article could still most certainly be a violation of BLP unless reliable sources unequivocally back up that it belongs there. Similarly, it seems the issue is not the existence of these categories, but their use in a lot of particular instances where the sources do not seem to back that. As to the instant case, I have no objection to a topic ban for Bohemian Baltimore since they obviously have no plans to stop doing this without such a sanction, but I'm afraid that in itself, that will not solve the BLP issues here, which seem by now to have become quite widespread. I think we might need to consider wider-scale action to address that, but I'm not yet sure what that looks like. I see above that a "consensus required" provision was mentioned, and there is in principle no reason that a "consensus required" sanction could not be added to a category, so perhaps a first step could be a "consensus required" restriction to add (or re-add) these categories to any article? If we did that, topic bans on individuals may not be necessary, provided that they will in fact abide by that restriction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could support such a sanction, but surely the first step is simply enforcing WP:NOR; categories may not be used without supporting sources that are in the article, and doing so is already grounds for sanction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure we can make that type of sanction at AE with a rough consensus, but I'm with Vanamonde that we should start by enforcing policy around BLPs normally. I would hope that if editors see that we're taking action on this they'll be less likely to engage in the same type of editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's give that a try first then. Hopefully it will suffice, if not we can always look at it again later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the "this" (that) which e're giving a first try? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A topic ban from the identification and citizenship of indigenous people is what I proposed above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have evidence of disruption with discussion? Because if not I'd still prefer we allow them that. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we've been given evidence of that. I'm fine with a article space topic ban, unless evidence of disruption in discussions is provided. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the discussion provided by Hemiauchenia does show poor behavior, and there was a second inappropriate comment. This does (somewhat) fall under the BLP CTOP, but is different than the issue we're discussing here. Combined with the aspersions above of homophobic attacks, I think along with the topic ban we should issue a warning about aspersions and accusations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, would you see the above as evidence of disruption with discussion? I know I certainly do, so I would be more in favor of an overall topic ban, discussion included, than an article-only one. Throwing around baseless accusations like that is quite disruptive to a discussion, and between here and the above article merge discussion, it seems to indicate that's a pattern of behavior, not a one-time mistake. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is evidence of disruption during discussions for me. It also is outside of the scope of the proposed topic ban. My bigger thinking is that I think Bohemian Baltimore is doing work the encyclopedia benefits from and so if there are ways we can have them focus on that work I'd like to try it. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think a topic-ban is needed at this time, unless there is evidence of additional problems after this discussion. I perceive the challenged edits as based on a good-faith understanding of the underlying issue, and as being quite defensible as within policy (since any living person's identification as of Taino descent may have a subjective component). Of course there are other arguments against changing the category (because the "self-identified" wording has an unjustified accusatory overtone), and consensus seems to be against doing so, but is there evidence that BB is now disregarding that consensus? If not, a reminder to be circumspect and to maintain civility on these sensitive and difficult topics hopefully should, in my view, be sufficient at this time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised you find his answer to your Taino question sufficient @Newyorkbrad as that answer helped push me towards sanction. Ialso find the evidence presented by Nil Einne, Pingnova, and Valeree of problems sufficient for a topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: The consensus here seems to favor your view. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bohemian Baltimore's behavior is incredibly aggressive and disruptive. Reading through the diffs in this thread and the thread itself, I can't imagine how people are supposed to collaborate with them when they malign their detractors as idiots, bigots, and bad-faith actors without anything approaching evidence. (Look at Hemiauchenia's thread, the filer diffs, Raladic's thread, and literally this page.) I think the best solution here would be a topic ban from self-identification with marginalized groups, broadly construed, but since that's not a CTOP, i support topic ban per ScottishFinnishRadish. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the self-identification falls under BLP which is a CT and thus something we could do. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a BLP self-identification with marginalized groups TBAN works for me :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh, Self-trout, I assumed SFR was proposing a topic ban from indigenous groups (which, as it turns out, isn't a CTOP either!), but they've actually proposed one around identification of BLPs with indigenous groups. I would extend it beyond indigenous groups, since they have the same behavioral problems in the Jewish and LGBTQ topic areas, but yes, support that suggestion too. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though it borders on blasphemy to disagree with Newyorkbrad about arbitration matters, I do disagree. Very basically BB is not showing a willingness to stick to what sources say. That's a problem anywhere, and particularly a problem in this fraught topic. I still support a TBAN with the scope suggested above. I recognize that there have been problems with categories on biographies of queer folk, but I'm leery of a TBAN there simply because it seems to me a recipe for wikilawyering, given that the dispute they were involved in was with respect to the boundaries of "LGBT". Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Please don't worry about disagreeing with me. I probably cast more solo dissenting votes while I was on the Committee than everyone else put together, so why should it stop now? Obviously there is a consensus here that agrees with you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We just need a bit of clarification of where support lies, and we can wrap this up. We have on the table currently:
1. A topic ban on the identification and citizenship of indigenous people, broadly construed
2. A topic ban on the identification and citizenship of indigenous people, mainspace only, broadly construed
3. A topic ban on self-identification of marginalized groups, broadly construed
4. A warning for casting aspersions and accusations
I think marginalized groups is too blurry to make an effective topic ban. I believe there has been enough demonstration of issues with their discussions to go for the full topic ban on identification and citizenship of indigenous people without the allowance for talk discussion, but I'm not so opposed to allowing discussion that I would hold things up over it, although it looks like the rough consensus here covers talk pages as well. At the risk of adding another thing to consider this late into the process there's a topic ban on the self-identification or citizenship of living or recently deceased people (we'll call this 5), which covers marginalized groups without any blurry edges. If we think there is enough concern to be talking about specific tbans covering marginalized groups, LGBT people, and Jewish people then I think self-identification and citizenship of BLPs is tight enough to allow their editing to continue, but broad enough to stop disruption. Call me in support of 1, 4, and 5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the bolded topic ban proposal (which I see as inclusive of discussion). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support 1 and 5, and 4 in addition to but not instead of one of those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me we're going beyond the warning with the topic ban we're choosing to enact. But yes the aspersions and accusations are important to note. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 4 and 5 simultaneously, oppose 1 and 2 as too narrow (although support 1 if 2, 3, and 5 don't gain consensus). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, are you opposed to the warning, or just ambivalent? Right now I would say we're on the edge of a consensus about the warning, with a solid consensus for the topic ban on the self-identification of living or recently deceased people. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the warning doing here that the topic ban is not? We're not warning them for the other misbehavior they've displayed here - we're topic banning them. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like homophobia. I do not like being subject to homophobic attacks. These old conversations have been irrelevantly thrown in my face, on-Wiki and off-Wiki, by multiple people. is an example from this AE report. This and this are tangentially related. I see the topic ban as addressing the BLPvio, and the warning relating to communication style in general. I support the warning, but I also see that the reason for the warning is why you supported the broader topic ban that covers Talk: as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyramids09

Pyramids09 is p-blocked for a week from Zionism and is warned not to violate the the consensus required provision and our policies on edit-warring. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:40, 5 November 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 Pyramids09

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Pyramids09 (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#Discretionary sanctions, the consensus required provision at Zionism

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

05:38, 31 October 2024 violation of the consensus required provision, restoring the edit that was reverted previously. Prior edits were this and this. It is also a dishonest edit summary, claiming that a substantive change to content was simply "Formatting and streamlining"

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 24 October 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user was reminded of the consensus required provision on their talk page 25 October after they violated the 1RR (first revert, second revert). They said they would propose on talk page. To date the user has 0 edits on the talk page.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Pyramids09

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 Pyramids09

Hello. I am not going to try to defend my actions, because I am clearly in the wrong. I did not familiarize myself with the rules around contentious topics, such as the I/P conflict. I have been informed of my mistakes, and am now going through the proper procedure about editing. Thank you. Pyramids09 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I should have been more clear with my edit summary, but there was no malicious intent to hide the edit. I just should have been more specific. Pyramids09 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from response to Valereee in admin section) Yes, I should have gotten consensus, but saying that all Zionist organizations use similar methods to achieve their political goals is nonsense. The Haganah policy of Havlagah was completely different to the methods that Irgun and especially Lehi used in conflict. But once again, should have gotten consensus Pyramids09 (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by xDanielx

This isn't the most experienced user, and the consensus-required restriction isn't obvious. I know it's one of the items in the edit notice, but it's visually similar to the usual extended-confirmed notice which we're all used to skipping over. Users probably need to be personally notified before we can really expect compliance. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

@XDanielx: Reported editor was advised in edit summary here and acknowledged the crp here along with a statement that they would seek consensus on the talk page. The subsequent reversion with a disguised edit summary simply ignores this. Still, at least now, they are making an attempt in talk. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Pyramids09

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

This is a clear-cut violation of the consensus-required provision. I would like to hear from Pyramids09 to determine what the most appropriate response would be. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the warning SFR proposes, but I'm inclined to think a page-block is also in order. Of the very many highly charged pages in this area, Zionism is possibly the most contentious - so if someone feels the need to be deceptive while editing it (which they still haven't acknowledged), a break from it feels indicated to me. A page-block is pretty mild, as sanctions go. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I normally go with a week pblock for a first offense. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, a week pblock + logged warning? I can close with that in a little while if I hear no objections. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plain consensus required violation, and I'm also not happy with the false edit summary when yet again reverting to their preferred prose. Normally I go with a one week pblock for first offenses like this, but the edit summary might be enough to step it up a bit. Waiting to see their statement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pyramids09, can you explain your misleading edit summary here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking a warning for edit warring/violating consensus required, and for using disingenuous edit summaries, with a note that further violations will likely result in sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pyramids09, you've edited since this was filed, so we can assume you've seen the notification. Would you like to make a statement? This is not something that will go away if you ignore it. Valereee (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pyramids09, "More clear" with the edit summary? I'm having a really hard time seeing it as simply not being clear enough. You changed:

Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos, having adopted similar strategies to achieve their political goals, in particular in the use of violence and compulsory transfer to deal with the presence of the local Palestinian, non-Jewish population.

to:

Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie both in their presentation and ethos, as well as strategies to achieve political goals.

How is this simply "formatting and streamlining"? How is this simply not clear enough or not specific enough? It completely changes the content in a profound way. I think you should think about what you're telling us here. Valereee (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yes, I should have gotten consensus, but saying that all Zionist organizations use similar methods to achieve their political goals is nonsense. You seem to be saying "I wanted to change content at a CTOP because I knew that content was incorrect, but I didn't want to have to go argue about it first, so I decided to use a vague and disingenuous edit summary, hoping no one would check." Valereee (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LivinAWestLife

LivinAWestLife blocked for 24 hours for a straightforward violation of WP:1RR. The next block will be longer. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 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 LivinAWestLife

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: LivinAWestLife (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

Oct 3 09:53 - first reversion of Zionism back to a version from a year prior (before 10/7)
Oct 3 10:04 - second attempt (a 1RR violation)
Oct 31 19:47 - third attempt
Oct 31 20:08 - fourth attempt (another 1RR violation)

These are four of their five edits to that article [70]. They have made two edits to the talk page [71]: 1, 2.

I don't think we should wait for them to make a fifth attempt; they should be formally warned not to do this again.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: None AFAIK

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): User talk:LivinAWestLife#Introduction to contentious topics (Oct 3 10:15)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/1254602171

Discussion concerning LivinAWestLife

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 LivinAWestLife

Statement by Selfstudier

Think we are beyond a warning now. Clearly no intent to comply with crp or 1R.Selfstudier (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning LivinAWestLife

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

This is a straightforward violation of 1RR after previous warnings and where an edit-notice was present - blocked for 24 hours. Closing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Shahray

Appeal declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Shahray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Shahray (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: ban for three months from editing anything related to the history of Ukraine and/or the Rus', see this thread [72]

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

Notification of that administrator: [73]

Statement by Shahray

I was topic banned by another editor for three months from editing "anything related to history of Ukraine or Rus', broadly interpreted". I was accused in "edit warring" in this topic. I acknowledge the fact that I was banned previously for edit warring, and understood the issue. But regarding this case, I believe I was wrongly banned, because of the following reasons:

1. This ban was initially appealed by Mellk. After a few responses on the talk page where I tried to discuss with them proposed changes in the article, they dropped out of discussion [74], refused to answer afterwards and headed to Asilvering's talk page instead, where they stated:"I still find it impossible to discuss with Shahray" [75]. Asilvering supported their behavior and even suggested to go to Notice Board, basing it solely on the fact that I was banned two times previously (one time by Asilvering). Mellk themself made some unconstractive reverts and edits with barely any explanation given [76] [77] [78], and even could respond to me from other editor perspective [79] without their approval first. I didn't have any such problem with other editors and followed the suggestions they've given to me [80].

2. I usually followed one revert rule everywhere and didn't continue to revert Mellk and tried to discuss instead.

3. Asilvering might unconstractively target me. Besides the support they gave to Mellk's behavior mentioned above, on their talk page, they ignored my comment and concerns about Mellk [81], and told them instead to "use it as evidence". Their block doesn't appears to be constructive either. I recently made RFC in Second Bulgarian Empire article about "Russian" anachronisms, but they removed it [82]even though there was not a single word about "Ukraine" or "Rus'".

I genuinely apologize where I could have made a few more reverts and didn't initially discussed. I won't revert (restore my changes) entirely if that helps. I will only revert changes done by other editors without reaching consensus. At least I am requesting to allow me to edit talk pages to broadly request comment from community for my changes like I did in Second Bulgarian Empire article.

@Vanamonde93, what have you considered as evidence? What Mellk quoted in first sentence is my comment regarding this block [83], with time I looked back at my behaviour there and and understood that I was a bit too pushing with my edits. But it's not appropriate to take this as evidence for the current case, I tried to follow 1 revert rule everywhere and discuss, and I addressed this to Mellk [84], which they didn't apperently denied. Shahray (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, no it's not reasonable. You haven't provided any arguments for it to be reasonable and ignored what I said or apologizes I provided. Please judge fairly and reconsider your decision. Shahray (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Comment moved to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade, I don't need to wait for 3 months, instead we can solve the problem quickly here and I won't do any disruptions again. I won't revert (restore my changes) at all if that helps, or revert only the changes other editors make which they haven't reached consensus for. My apologies for possible disruptions I have caused, but I promise I won't restore my content anymore without carefully reaching consensus. I hope for your understanding as well. Shahray (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Asilvering

Nothing much further to say, but happy to answer any questions. Please also see User talk:Asilvering#topic ban? -- asilvering (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Shahray

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 Ymblanter

Since the user does not seem to have understood why they were topic-banned, it might be a good idea to make the topic ban of indefinite duration, appealable in 3 months.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Shahray

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

Shahray was sanctioned in response to this ANI discussion. The evidence there shows they are unable or unwilling to understand that they have not appropriately discussed contentious edits they have made, and bad conduct by other editors does not excuse that. I would decline this appeal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. This was a perfectly reasonable enforcement action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shahray seems to be under the impression that "xRR" is an entitlement. Since this is a somewhat common misconception, I'll clear that up in hopes that in three months time things can go better. "xRR" means that "If you revert more than x times in 24 hours, you are almost certainly edit warring." It does not mean "If you revert fewer than x times in 24 hours, you are not edit warring." Repeated reverts, even if they technically stay under the xRR limit, can still be disruptive and cause for sanction. I don't see this as an unreasonable sanction, and would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shahray's persistent inability to understand where to place their responses in an AE discussion does not inspire confidence that they suddenly understand the finer points of CTOPs editing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. This is a singularly unpersuasive appeal, and is clear that the editor does not understand the reason for the sanction. Cullen328 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for 1RR at Fascism

This article had 1RR imposed indefinitely in 2009, by KrakatoaKatie, as an individual admin action. Judging based on comments so far, there's uncertainty about whether the restriction is enforceable. The options are to leave the restriction in limbo, remove the restriction, or have an admin adopt the restriction explicitly under CT, potentially AmPol. Are any admins willing to do so? There has been recent, AmPol-adjacent disruption of the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a serious issue with an article restriction stuck in limbo like this. Some admins and editors think it's in place and enforceable, and others think it's misplace and unenforceable. We should move in one direction or the other. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a bit of a pickle, since the content being edit warred over isn't really AP2, persay, so placing 1RR as a CTOP action is a bit squirrely. I don't think anyone would object to using AmPol in this way, but if someone did they would have a point that it is a borderline use of CTOP sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To make the connection a bit more explicit:

The main person recently edit warring to remove "far-right" as a descriptor of fascism is Johnny Spasm. I'll drop a formal notice at their talk page, but to be clear, I'm not advocating for enforcement action against him. Diffs of removal: 1, 2, 3, 4.
JS contextualized this repeated removal as an American-politics-related action in comments at the talk page:
1. dismissing the view of another editor and making assertions about their politics because they "live in Seattle, Washington" (diff)
2. identifying as an "American with far right beliefs" and arguing that "it is the far left in America that displays more fascist values than the far right", calling Biden out specifically (diff)
3. Criticizes the descriptor's inclusion while "both candidates in the US Presidential election are throwing around the word fascism" ([85])

If that's not enough of a connection, it's unlikely that enforcement of the 1RR could be reasonably connected to any other CT, and the restriction should be removed. Admins here, with experience judging which articles are covered by which CTs, are best placed to make the call to either adopt the restriction or remove it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before assuming this as a CTOP action, has there been much edit warring other than the recent edit warring that resulted in a block? For an indefinite 1RR there should be a substantial history of edit warring. That 1RR looked like it was a response to an edit war almost 15 years ago, so absent more disruption I'd say let it lapse. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty actively edited, with multiple reversions in the past week. I have no objection to allowing it to lapse, though, replacing it if needed. KKatie hasn't edited in a week, maybe suspense for a few days as not urgent? Valereee (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been any other recent major edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CoolAndUniqueUsername

Closing with no action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:13, 5 November 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 CoolAndUniqueUsername

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Chess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: CoolAndUniqueUsername (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:PIA4, specifically the implied ban on gaming edits to bypass the 500/30 rule.

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

CoolAndUniqueUsername has obviously gamed the system to get ECP.

Xtools contribution analysis CoolAndUniqueUsername put down 500 edits in July. After acquiring extended-confirmed on July 30th, this editor has switched most of their editing to commenting on talk pages and RfCs near exclusively in the Israel-Palestine conflict area.
July 31st The day after getting ECP, immediately starts editing Netanyahu's page.
October 22 October 22 Attempted to use their EC perms to canvass editors to an RfC on the Jewish Chronicle, saying I thought folks here might be interested, since I see Islamophobia is a top priority.
July 1 Samisawtak's guide for editors in the Tech for Palestine influence operation says From Ivana: This category contains almost 150k articles with small css errors that anyone can fix. If you click on a specific subcategory it tells you exactly what is wrong and how to fix it. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:CS1_errors It's pretty clear that CoolAndUniqueUsername was following this guide given that most of their contributions to boost edit count involved fixing cs1 errors.

Interaction analysis with Smallangryplanet List of common articles There is a considerable amount of overlap for someone that doesn't edit very often. More specifically, most of the talk pages[86] CoolAndUniqueUsername edited in the Israel-Palestine area are in common with Smallangryplanet. The exceptions are Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation, Talk:Palestinian suicide attacks, Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu, Talk:Gaza Strip, and Talk:Code Pink. But even on articles like Code Pink, there is tag-teaming behaviour. [87] [88]

@Barkeep49: The issue isn't socking, they're likely different people. The issue is there's an influence campaign offwiki run by Tech4Palestine. We know a member of that campaign has given guidance to that campaign to fix CS1 errors as a way to boost edit counts. CoolAndUniqueUsername shows up a month after this guidance and starts fixing a lot of CS1 errors. Then, 6 days after getting EC, adds onto the exact same section as Smallangryplanet on No Tech For Apartheid,[89] backing up a move review as an "uninvolved editor" on Gaza genocide for Smallangryplanet,[90] !votes on another requested move for SmallAngryPlanet, [91] and that's just within 7 days of getting EC.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: You're right. I would like to withdraw this request in favour of the massive WP:ARCA thread that'll potentially result in a new case. The more I start looking the more I realize I can't fit what I want to say into this thread. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More info at WP:ARCA: [92]

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

Alert

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

They're clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Building up an account with hundreds of minor fixes in article space to get EC, then immediately quitting once hitting the EC boundary is very suspicious. It's more indicative of a person trying to farm edits on an account for the sole purpose of influencing discussions/content on-wiki.

The strategy of making several edits to fix CS1 errors then switching to POV-pushing is the MO of the "Tech for Palestine" Discord/influence operation so this is the biggest giveaway.

Fixing CS1 errors isn't the average beginner task. I think this user is part of an offsite influence campaign that uses EC accounts to swing discussions.; @Butterscotch Beluga: Thank you, I forgot them. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[93]

Discussion concerning CoolAndUniqueUsername

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 CoolAndUniqueUsername

Statement by Selfstudier

Gaming ECR is not to be condoned, pretty sure that fixing maintenance categories is engaged in by more than a few, here's a recent example, the question arises whether there is actual evidence of reported editor being instructed by T4P (for ease of writing) rather than it being pretty clear.Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A report of ECR gaming is now something else altogether? Are we going to run in parallel, a discussion at a potential ARCA and another here? Almost sure that's not the right thing to be doing. Selfstudier (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ïvana

Apparently I need to comment here since months ago I shared a category with CS1 errors so that means anyone fixing them is my pawn. I'll just link to what I have already said in ARCA here. Thanks. - Ïvana (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Butterscotch Beluga)

I went and notified Smallangryplanet at their talk page as they are currently being accused of tag-teaming & participation in an off-site campaign - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smallangryplanet

Hey, I'm not sure why I've been pinged here. As far as I can tell it just looks like CoolAndUniqueUsername and I have similar interests, we've interacted on a talk page maybe once or twice? But again, it is not against wikipedia policy to be interested in the same things as other editors. This feels like WP:ASPERSIONS because of a coincidence, rather than a serious accusation. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CoolAndUniqueUsername

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

For me, this is firmly in the grey area of gaming and the offense is a few months old at this point. There were a lot of different small edits, de-orphaning, adding to lists, cs1, as well as some more substantial edits. Some of the maintenance work has continued after they gained EC, but since September almost all of their edits have been ARBPIA related. It's a real noodle cooker. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chess, I think this user is part of an offsite influence campaign that uses EC accounts to swing discussions You'll need the regular Arbitration committee for that. AE tastes great, and has fewer calories, but it's not quite the same as the real thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EC-gaming is evident. The normal response would be to pull the EC flag, which I would support doing in this case. Absent other evidence of the substance of their edits being a problem, however, I don't see a justification for other sanctions. I also found their early edits suspicious enough to run a check, but I found nothing suspicious. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me this is more ECR box checking. Their intent is clearly to get ECR but the edits they did were of benefit to the encyclopedia; for me ECR gaming is doing things like clearly doing something in multiple edits which could have been a single edit or making and undoing your own work or messing around in userspace. I am also unsure how, if we pulled ECR, they would qualify to regain it. In my mind we said "here are the rules to be able to edit in this topic area" we have an editor clearly motivated to do that and they followed the rules, and for me they also mostly followed the intent of the rules. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The things that concern me are the string of CS1 fixes within days of registering an account, and the link additions that I think are quite likely bot/LLM assisted (see this, for instance). I have yet to find a clear-cut example of a violation of something more serious than OVERLINK, so perhaps you're right that the intent of the rules has not been broken. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my several trips to AN related to EC gaming I saw a rough consensus that rushing to make minor edits and fixes, even if constructive, in an obvious effort to gain EC is seen as gaming. There's a lot of grey area, however. I looked at this editor in the past, but with the mix of CS1, linking, and some more substantial edits, as well as some questions, and a new article led me to let it slide at the time as not completely obvious gaming. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ran a CU on this user even before Chess' most recent comment and found no technical evidence of any socking. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to be persuaded that this is just the right side of the line. I have spotchecked other contribs and found no issues. Page overlap in and of itself tells us nothing - at the moment I would expect every ARBPIA editor to have interacted on a core set of pages. If there is private evidence of canvassing or other off-wiki coordination it needs to go to ARBCOM, nothing I have seen here is sufficient for sanctions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I looked into this before and declined to act. There's no firm consensus among the community of where the line is, and this is far enough in the grey area, and months past the time for some action. Arbcom has Chess' statement, so I don't think there's anything for us to do here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I was the only one inclined to do anything here, I'm going to close with no action taken. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Snowstormfigorion

Appeal declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user : Snowstormfigorion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Snowstormfigorion (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 6 month topic-ban from the Arab-Isreal conflict, broadly construed

Administrator imposing the sanction: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Diff

Statement by Snowstormfigorion

The ban concerns two edits (first and second), as well as what the imposing-admin states to be re-inserting of content where verifiability is in dispute without engaging in discussion in the talk page; see here.

As I have explained to the admin, I did not participate much in the discussion as I truly had no strong preference for either of the options listed. And regarding the verification concerns, I was genuinely under the belief that the verification issue was a matter of debate between the two sides, rather than an established fact; had I known the latter, I would not have made the two edits restoring the original phrasing and removing the verification tags. The admin also mentions that I responded to being told I was inserting misinformation and that the tags were not removed by an editor, Andrevan, making the same reverts as I was. As with the former, I truthfully believed that the issue was a topic of discussion, and thus, that what I was told was a side of that discussion and that Andre was misled in this case; clearly, I was.

I understand the significance of administrators' role in ensuring a healthy environment for all users, and I very much respect your decisions. I have been on Wikipedia for just over a year, and have certainly made my share of mistakes, as shown on my talk page. I have only really started editing contentious topic articles this September, with all the regulations and protocols that apply to them being newfound to me and frankly somewhat intimidating. It was, wholeheartedly, never my intention to create conflict or undermine the efforts of others, I was simply trying to contribute to the topic based on my understanding at the time.

To that end, I have already taken the initiative to familiarize myself with the relevant policies and guidelines and best practices to avoid similar issues in the future, and, in the event that I do not adhere to the former, will be ready to accept any measure administrators deem necessary. I genuinely value the opportunity to participate, improve, and constructively contribute to the site, therefore, I ask for a last and final chance to demonstrate that I can be a positive member of the community.

@Valereee: As mentioned above, this is all new to me. I had never encountered this page before being pinged, and it all seemed, overwhelming. And as I was, falsely, under the impression that the two reverts I made did not violate any procedures, I did not comment nor make a statement. In hindsight, I realize I should have. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde93

I stand by this sanction. Snowstormfigorion was told "you are inserting false information", and responded to that claim, yet chose to both revert in the content where verifiability was in dispute and subsequently reverted even a failed verification tag. All of this was on a page they'd previously been blocked from for edit-warring, so this was a second offence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Snowstormfigorion

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Snowstormfigorion

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

Continuing an edit war that is under active discussion at AE while also not engaging in the talk page discussion is disruptive. I would have probably gone with 90 days to start, but 6 months easily falls within discretion. I'm a decline on this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barring any objections I will be closing this as declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Snowstormfigorion, you were pinged to ask for a statement, and you didn't show up? Valereee (talk)

Snowstormfigorion, a topic ban from a single CTOP, even one this broad, is still an opportunity to show that you can be a positive contributor. Stay far, far away from Arab/Israel conflict and go edit in other places. I'd recommend -- for anyone -- that you just avoid all CTOPs in general until you understand the policy surrounding them better, as CTOPs are a terrible place to learn on the job.

It's unfortunate that the general area seems to be your primary area of interest, but I see that you've edited in/around regional food and music; many culture articles are not anywhere near the conflict; that's something you could discuss with Vanamonde on your talk page (and nowhere else, and with no one other than an admin). You can also edit on Simple English Wikipedia, which would ensure you didn't inadvertently violate the tban by getting too close to it and would show you can edit near the area without being disruptive.

I'm a decline, but no objection to another appeal after three months of active non-problematic editing. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323

No action, broader case currently before Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:01, 12 November 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 Iskandar323

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Iskandar323 (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

Iskandar has engaged in POV pushing, in the process systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view in violation of the UCoC.

Requested Moves

Iskandar takes differing positions on whether to refer to an event as a massacre depending on who the victims are; they consistently support using the word when the victims are Palestinian, and oppose its use when they are Israeli.

The double standard can be seen in their justifications for these moves; at Engineer's Building airstrike they argue that "massacre" should be used as a descriptive title - in other words, using independent reasoning. At Attack on Holit, however, they argue that the title should reflect the sources, and that independent reasoning should not be used to support "massacre".

While individually these !votes can be justified, collectively they demonstrate a systematic effort to manipulate content to advance a specific POV.

Language in articles

Iskandar uses different words to refer to the Palestinian POV than the Israeli POV. This can be demonstrated by reviewing under which circumstances they add or remove the word "claim"; they consistently remove it when used in relation to the Palestinian POV, and frequently add it in relation to the Israeli POV.

The double standard is very evident in some of these edits. For example, at Anti-Palestinianism during the Israel–Hamas war they corrected a MOS:CLAIM issue in relation to a Palestinian POV, explaining statement is already attributed: it doesn't need to be double-couched with a "claimed" - also per MOS:CLAIM.

Three weeks later, at Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike, they took a statement by the IDF which was already attributed with "said" and "double-couched with a 'claimed'"; the only explanation here was ce.

In isolation, some, but not all, of these edits can be justified - but collectively, the pattern demonstrates a systematic effort to manipulate content to advance a specific POV.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

25 September 2021 - Topic banned for one year

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Ealdgyth: The scope of that case request is limited to activities including an off-wiki component, which is why I didn’t include these originally - and unless ArbCom decides on a different scope, these probably don’t fit in there. BilledMammal (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: The massacre data is before ArbCom; the word use analysis is not. To respond to your request about whether the disparity in language use exists in the sources, it does not. Reviewing some of the examples, I find the following where Iskandar deviates from sources. They include presenting positions aligned with a pro-Palestinian POV as statements when sources present them as claims, and presenting positions aligned with a pro-Israeli POV as claims when sources present them as a statements or even facts:

7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel
Says that it is a "claim" that victims were burned alive with their hands bound. The source presents it as a statement.
Al-Shifa Hospital siege
Says that it is a "claim" that tunnels exist beneath Al-Shifa. The source presents it as a fact.
Martyrdom in Palestinian society
Says An image claimed by the IDF to be a martyr poster found in Jenin. The source is the IDF themselves; attributing in line with MOS:CLAIM would be the appropriate response here.
Use of human shields by Hamas
Says IDF press release materials that it claimed showed rockets hidden under a girl's bed in Gaza. The same issue as the above.
Al-Shifa Hospital siege
Says the IDF "claimed" to have recovered a body. The source presents the recovery as as fact.
Al-Shifa Hospital siege
Changes attribution of position that the IDF targeted ambulances from "claim" to "said". The source attributes it as "claim".
7 October Hamas-led attack on Israel
Says that Israeli first responders "claimed" to have recovered documents regarding Hamas intents. Sources present it either as statement with a high likelihood of being factual, or as a fact.

BilledMammal (talk) 01:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: The issue I'm trying to highlight here is that Iskandar uses "claim" when sources use "said", and "said" when sources use "claim", but only when doing so advances their POV. In my view, this is not an equivalent language disparity in the sources, and thus Iskandar is engaging in POV pushing.

For example, in the first they present the doctors quote as a statement (which is what I meant by "statement"), but Iskandar presents it as a claim. For the second, third, and fourth, if we take MOS:CLAIM as a the baseline, to be deviated from only when justified by sources, then Iskandar should have used "said".

For the fifth, it does present it as "says" in the headline, but WP:HEADLINE applies, and even if it didn't it doesn't justify the use of "claim".

It's not that they're not edits a pro-Israeli editor would make; it's that they're not edits that a neutral editor would make - and if we tolerate such edits, particularly at the scale that editors like Iskandar contributes on, then we allow our articles to be distorted away from neutrality and towards a partisan perspective. BilledMammal (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: It's about the deportation of Jews from what is now Israel/Palestine. Given that there is considerable debate about who the "real" native people of the region is, I think it is appropriately classified. As for attribution of IDF/Israeli statements - yes, it was appropriate to attribute them. The issue is that Iskandar chose to do so against MOS:CLAIM and use claim - and if such edits are neutral, why are there so few instances of them attributing Hamas/Palestinian statements with "claim"? BilledMammal (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: We're getting off topic, but whether the Jews voluntarily left or were forced to leave is relevant to perceptions of the Jewish Right of Return, as well as to perceptions of other historical events such as the Nakba, which is why downplaying that deportation is relevant to the topic area. It is also relevant that the sources describe the deportation as a fact, not a claim, meaning that Iskandar has once again misrepresented sources. BilledMammal (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93: Given your comment about the CAE report, was what you needed evidence like this?:
1. Robert Jenrick - 19:29, 4 September 2024
  Added that a students visa was revoked after she made a speech defending the Palestinian right to resistance. The source doesn't say "right to resistance", and instead describes her defending the October 7 attacks, saying "We are really, really full of joy of what happened". Also described the revocation as "arbitrary" in Wikivoice, when the source attributes it.

BilledMammal (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: I see that as summarizing the words, because her visa wasn't revoked for speaking at the event - it was revoked for the words she used. Regardless, there are many more examples, but I'm already well over the word limit so I will only present a couple of them:

Falafel - 09:22, 10 August 2024
Adds The adoption of the Palestinian chickpea version of the falafel into Israeli cuisine and its identification as Israeli is contentious, and has led to accusations of cultural appropriation. The source does not support this claim in any way; it doesn't say who created the falafel, and the closest is saying that Israeli food is mostly Mizrahi Jewish, North African, Balkan, Arab, Turkish and Palestinian food.
Anti-Defamation League 15:14, 4 August 2024
Added Domestically and internationally, the ADL engages in advocacy for Israel by working to counter messaging critical of the illegal Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories. The source describes it as an "occupation", not an "illegal occupation".
Israeli Air Force - 13:58, 24 August 2024
Adds In August 2024, a commander of the 200th brigade, which operates the IAF's fleet of drones, told +972 magazine that his unit had killed 6,000 people since the start of the war without distinguishing between armed combatants and unarmed individuals. The source doesn't support the claim "without distinguishing"; the closest it comes is when, the commander explained that for a specific airstrike they distinguished between civilians and militants by assuming that those who didn't flee when the fighting started were militants - problematic in itself, but not what Iskandar claimed.

BilledMammal (talk) 07:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

04:31, 6 November 2024

Discussion concerning Iskandar323

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 Iskandar323

Statement by xDanielx

@Ealdgyth: could you explain what you mean by isn't actually against policy? BM linked to the relevant UCoC policy. I'm not aware of any cases where this board has sanctioned POV pushing, but I thought it was theoretically possible; Red-tailed hawk also seemed to agree. Are you saying that there isn't enough evidence of a violation?

I'm not commenting on the merits of this particular case, but the general approach of demonstrating a pattern of inconsistencies seems sound. There will never be incontrovertible proof of POV pushing, at least of the more covert type that experienced editors might engage in. Isolated instances of source misrepresentation could also be simple mistakes. I think the question is whether there's sufficient evidence of a pattern. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 16:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

BilledMammal put his "massacre" statistics before ArbCom more than two months ago and they are still there. Why is it permitted to introduce them again here?

As to their value, in this RM about a massacre of Israelis Iskandar323 actually proposed two alternative titles which both have "massacre" in them. This isn't in BilledMammal's table, but when I suggested that it would make his table more balanced, BilledMammal refused with an excuse that I consider tendentious. More generally, the table says nothing about what the sources say, and nothing about the occasions when editors declined to intervene in an RM on talk pages they were already active on. BilledMammal in particular has not refuted the claim that changing the titles of several articles on killings of Palestinians was required to correct a glaring NPOV imbalance. Zero^talk 11:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't help noticing that BilledMammal lists this diff about an Assyrian ruler circa 720 BCE as "Advances the Palestinian POV". This is simply ridiculous. I also notice that about 1/3 of the "claim" examples are addition of attribution to assertions made by the Israeli military or government that had been added as facts in wikivoice. Zero^talk 03:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Thanks for confirming that it wasn't an accident. I'll leave aside the fact that "claim" is entirely appropriate for the boasts of ancient rulers. The relevant point here is that Iskandar323 did not make the connection you claim, not even the slightest hint of it. The connection is only being made by you, according to your own POV. It doesn't even make sense; if Sargon didn't deport the Jews it means they remained in Samaria, which hardly supports the Palestinian POV. Zero^talk 10:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: "downplaying that deportation is relevant to the topic area"—sorry but there is only so much nonsense that I want to reply to. Zero^talk 03:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor ScottishFinnishRadish: Are you going to propose that all ARBPIA reports should go to ArbCom? That's the way it is heading. This is a report about one person and I don't see the slightest reason that AE can't deal with it. Zero^talk 14:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC) To editor ScottishFinnishRadish: No administrator has given an opinion that there is even prima facie evidence of a case to answer. A "nebulous case" isn't a case at all. Vanamonde93 wrote "I looked at your first five links, and they don't hold up to scrutiny". He is right. The closest is that Ealdgyth prefers that BilledMammal add it to an existing case. BilledMammal is on a drive to get his POV-opposites banned and will continue for as long as his nebulous cases are taken seriously. Another point is that Iskandar323 has not edited since several weeks before this case was opened and might not even be aware it exists. Zero^talk 15:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ABHammad

Following this filing I decided to take a look at Iskandar323's recent edits from September (as far back as I had time to check). I clearly see that Iskandar323 is doing edits that can be described as POV pushing.

Iskandar323 has removed content from sources (including notable scholars) they decided on their own that are 'unreliable': [94],[95] while I found the user adding content based on sources listed as unreliable by WP:RSN [96], [97] (By the way the citations added by Iskandar323 for some reason mention only the article title but not their source - quite unusual for such a veteran editor).
Iskandar323 is repeatedly removing content from articles related to controversial issues leaving them more partisan [98], [99],[100].
Iskandar323 added the category "Propaganda in Israel"[101] to the film Bearing Witness (2023 film), about atrocities conducted by Hamas during the October 7 attacks.
I've seen examples of massive removals in Jews or Jewish history related articles, some info was sourced, although it is still very extreme to remove so much content especially when the sentences weren't tagged before. Here's one recent example: [102]. This seems to be a practice continued by Iskandar323 for months if not years, and it is especially odd seeing that we have lots of content on extremely notable non-Jewish history topics (History of the Roman Empire) without sources that nobody ever tries to delete.
I've only looked at recent edits but there is already a pattern of what can be interpreted as tendentious with goals such as changing the name Judea to Palestine: [103] or making a British politician who supports Israel look bad [104], [105]. I have no idea if it's connected but the Pirate Wires said that the Tech For Palestine group was trying to influence British politicians.
Although it may not be connected, Iskandar323 also removed information on human right violations by the Iranian Islamic republic [106].

Most of the edits are not policy violations (though there are cases of gaming of policies used to remove content that doesn't seem to align with the general ideological line promotedf by this editor), but it is consistent with a systematic attempt to strengthen one side. ABHammad (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vice regent

ScottishFinnishRadish, I think both of those diffs are justified.

In this edit Iskandar attributed claims of a tunnel underneath Al-Shifa to IDF, as opposed to stating it in wikivoice. I think this is justified as multiple sources had already doubted the veracity of Israeli claims in this matter: Guardian, WaPo (quoted in RollingStone), NBC News.
This edit attributes claims to Israel's National Center of Forensic Medicine, instead of stating in wikivoice. This is not that different from attributing deaths in Gaza to the Gaza Ministry of Health, rather than stating it in wikivoice. In fact, the head of that institute was found to have been making false claims[107], so this edit is at least not unreasonable. We probably need a centralized discussion on whether to attribute Israeli forensic claims or state them in wikivoice.

Of course, I agree that instead of using the word "claim" Iskandar should have said "according to" or "stated by" etc.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Just a note on one of the diffs: Al-Shifa Hospital siege: ™Says that it is a "claim" that tunnels exist beneath Al-Shifa. The source presents it as a fact.". The problem is that the Israeli source is highly disputed. There is even a wp-article about it: Alleged military use of al-Shifa hospital. Yes, he should have brought other sources, but the reality is that it is a much-disputed claim, Huldra (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Wafflefrites

I don’t think these mos:claim issues are too big a deal. They can easily be fixed by another editor. Iskandar323 does have a tendency to mass remove content, but usually provides a legitimate reason (for example, removing unsourced content). I can’t comment on whether his removal of info based on source unreliability requires additional scrutiny because I am unfamiliar with the sources.

Some of his edits, like mass removals (or replacing a long-standing user generated map, or changing the Star of David black) can be jarring but I think most of the time they are based on legitimate wiki policies. Except changing the Star of David Black. I (and I think other editors) probably assumed he was under a lot of stress and maybe looking at too many graphic images, videos, and news about the war.

Recently, Iskandar323 was heavily involved in a discussion that downgraded the Anti-Defamation League’s reliability ranking on Wikipedia. I do not agree with the extent of the downgrade, especially when there are real cases of current antisemitism . However, he did have a point that the ADL needs improvement. It needs improvement in its methodology and presentation of numbers and in explaining/giving examples of how anti-Zionism can lead to antisemitism, rather than just equating the two and changing definitions. I did see his username being written about in some articles outside of Wikipedia about this ADL thing. Ultimately I think downgrading ADL to the extent that it was downgraded was the wrong move (should have been downgraded to additional considerations in that category), and there is public backlash. So in conclusion, I think Iskandar323 is an editor who mostly is following Wikipedia policies but sometimes his very bold POV can draw anger and may result in situations and outcomes (like the ADL outcome and backlash) that really should have been more moderate.

I also appreciate BilledMammal bringing up his concerns here. Sometimes I don’t think editors take Talk page discussions seriously. And if there is a real issue with editing, editors should try to determine if it is a real issue that is in line with policies. BilledMammal could be wrong or he could be right at times. Wafflefrites (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Iskandar323

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

As per the request against Nableezy, looking at the presented diffs, I don't see how this is something that can be dealt with at AE. Trying to get sanctions for an editor for something that isn't actually against policy is (at best) something that needs ArbCom. Having an opinion and editing with that opinion isn't something we necessarily sanction - only when that opinion leads to misrepresentation and other misbehavior does AE become involved. MOS enforcement is not something that AE is set up for (which is, in the end, what this boils down to - MOS:CLAIM is a manual of style guideline). Again, much like Nableezy, we don't sanction editors for having and editing in correlation with their own opinions on subjects - unless they start misrepresenting sources or engage in other proscribed behavior - and I'm not seeing that any of the presented information meets that standard. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the UCoC enforcement guidelines - 3.1.2 "UCoC violations that happen on a single wiki: Handled by existing enforcement structures according to their existing guidelines, where they do not conflict with these guidelines" - AE is not equipped to handle this sort of complex investigation - make the case at ArbCom. Given that AE is generally limited to 500 words and 20 diffs (even if there is the ability to go beyond if needed), I cannot see how even with quadrupled word and diff allowances AE could possibly begin to investigate such a nebulous thing as is alleged here. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The real question is: do we open a new ARCA filing for each of these reports, roll all three into one, or dump it all in the 2.3 tomats and almost three month old discussion that's still sitting there? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Personally, can I choose option Z - return to my blanket fort and ignore the world? Barring that option, I would prefer that BM piled these into his case request he just filed (considering that one of the three editors that BM filed an AE request on is also listed in the ArbCom request... I think that's probably the best idea). Ealdgyth (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not necessarily saying "we admins refer this to ArbCom", I'm saying that I do not see anything here that AE can deal with, without going greatly over the word and diff counts and getting deeper into the situation than AE is designed to do. If the filing party here decides that they want to take their much-too-long evidence to ArbCom, that's on them. I didn't see enough in the diffs to say "this is bad editing and we need to sanction it at AE". It very well may be possible to prove the case with greater evidence limits, but we function here at AE with somewhat limited evidence limits. I do not see that we can say that not adhering to MOS:CLAIM occasionally is a sanctionable offense. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated elsewhere, I'm unwilling to use language comparisons in isolation; I would consider such disparity in language use an NPOV violation iff there is not an equivalent disparity in the sources. As to the rest, I'm also not willing to consider evidence that is simultaneously before ARBCOM. BilledMammal, can you please clarify which pieces of this filing do not concern evidence you have already presented there? Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BM, I looked at your first five links, and they don't hold up to scrutiny. The first is a quote from a doctor, not the source stating something in its own voice. Iskandar's stated reasons for the second are that it was a liveblog source, not that the source wasn't reporting something in its own voice. I don't see the difference between what Iskandar did and what you are saying should be done in the third instance, or the fourth. And in the fifth, the source goes back and forth between attributing the claim and not; Iskandar isn't creating a claim out of thin air. These may be examples of editing with a POV, in the sense that a person with a pro-Israeli POV is unlikely to make them; but per Ealdgyth, that isn't forbidden. What's forbidden is violating NPOV with specific edits, and I will need to see stronger evidence of that to suggest taking action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BM: Yes, that's the sort of thing I take seriously, but on the face of it the summary appears to be of "speaking at a university demonstration on Gaza’s historical resistance to Israel’s “oppressive regime”" and not of her actual words; if they were a summary of her actual words, I would agree that that is very concerning. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we fine just closing this as also referred to Arbcom? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zero0000, this is another report with ~40 diffs and links to 15 full discussions, with feedback from admins like I'm unwilling to use language comparisons in isolation then saying it needs a source analysis, and another admin saying I cannot see how even with quadrupled word and diff allowances AE could possibly begin to investigate such a nebulous thing as is alleged here. Neither of those admins is me. So yes, I will continue to support referring AE requests that clearly exceed the capacity of AE to Arbcom, especially as there is likely a case in the pipeline. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we should refer this one to ArbCom - is any uninvolved admin convinced there is a reasonable chance of wrong doing in the evidence? If so and it's beyond our ability at AE to prove it, great let's refer. If not, I don't htink we should refer. If ArbCom opens a case BM could then represent this (presuming it's with-in the scope and they have the word/diff limits to do so). Speaking only for myself and not for anyone else, I am also not a fan of people asking us to enforce the UCoC. According to the policy, This Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) defines a minimum set of guidelines of expected and unacceptable behaviour. It is my contention, as well as established ArbCom principle, that our policies and guidelines at least meet this minimum and in most cases and definitely around content misbehavior that turns into conduct misbehavior, such as POV pushing, goes beyond that minimum. As such I think enwiki editors should be using enwiki policy when asking for enforcement. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I was getting at was close this as in Arbcom's hands. Half of the evidence is before them already, and this looks to be going to a case. This edit definitely does add claim language that is not found in the source. This edit adds claim language that is not found in the source. Is that enough to show a pattern? There are ~40 more diffs to check to analyze and weigh to come to that decision. There's already a case, so whether it is referred to arbcom, closed as already before arbcom, or closed as moot due to an upcoming case that is better equipped to analyze this, I think the end result is effectively the same. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine closing this as "In Arbcom's hands". Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth, Vanamonde93, any objections to that closure? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't see a material difference between that and "no action", since we cannot in any way prevent a user from going to ARBCOM, and much of the evidence is there already. SFR, I don't think those instances are in any way clear-cut enough to merit sanction. This isn't uniformly the case across BM's reports; I was going to propose sanctions on CarmenEsparzaAmoux below before that was rendered moot. I certainly don't believe we should be telling ARBCOM to deal with this specific report. But I don't care especially about the wording used to close it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CarmenEsparzaAmoux

Closed as moot Valereee (talk) 17:16, 7 November 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 CarmenEsparzaAmoux

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: CarmenEsparzaAmoux (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

CarmenEsparzaAmoux has engaged in POV pushing, in the process systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view in violation of the UCoC.

Source misrepresentation

CarmenEsparzaAmoux has repeatedly misrepresented sources, in a way that advances a Palestinian POV. This includes making claims not supported by the source, making claims in Wikivoice that the source attributes, and including only the Palestinian POV even when the source they use prominently includes the Israeli POV.

The following is a small sample of these edits; if helpful I can provide many more, although please be aware I only reviewed a small sample of their edits and there will be many I overlooked:

05:16, 6 October 2024
Source says that Israel will place "Hamas militants who remain in the area under siege"; CEA misrepresents this as place anyone remaining there ... under a complete siege.
02:01, 23 September 2024
CAE says Netenyahu considering ordering siege tactics against Gaza City. Source says "examining a plan to use siege tactics against Hamas in northern Gaza". Also a BLP violation.
05:01, 17 September 2024
CAE says that an Israeli sniper killed a UN employee in the West Bank. They neglect to mention the Israeli position, covered prominently in the source, which is that the man had been throwing explosive devices at Israeli soldiers.
05:13, 13 September 2024
CAE says Israel killed at least four Anera aid workers. The source doesn't say that they were part of Anera, or that they were aid workers. All it says that they were in an Anera vehicle, and that according to Anera the men "had not been vetted in advance", and their presence "was not co-ordinated with the IDF", but that they "had stepped in to take over the lead vehicle". Further, CAE neglects to mention the Israeli position, that the men were armed assailents who seized control of the vehicle.
05:26, 12 September 2024
CAE says that Israel has killed 207 UNRWA staff; the source doesn't say who is responsible, with the closest it comes being "mainly due to Israeli air attacks". While it may seem reasonable to assume that Israel killed all of them, we are not permitted to go beyond sources in this manner, and it neglects the fact that there have been incidents of friendly fire.
21:29, 17 August 2024
CAE puts the death toll of an airstrike in Wikivoice. The source attributes it.
00:52, 18 August 2024
CAE says that Israel ordered the evacuations of districts in Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya. Omits the fact, prominently presented in the source, that this was ordered due to rocket fire from those districts.
00:59, 15 June 2024
CAE said that journalists were arrested due to being attacked by far-right Israelis. The source says that a single photographer was attacked by far-right Israelis, who was later arrested. The photographer claims that a right-wing operative contacted the police and claimed he was a Hamas operative; the Israeli police claimed he had recently been banned from the Temple Mount. Either way, the source does not at any point suggest his arrest was related to him being attacked, and the final paragraph includes an explicit statement from the Israeli police denying that claim.
20:03, 11 June 2024
The source says that both the IDF, Hamas, and the PIJ were added to a "list of offenders who fail to protect children". On an article about Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict CAE only added that the IDF were.
23:34, 10 June 2024
CAE said, in Wikivoice, that 33 members of Palestine Red Crescent Society had been killed since the war begun. The source attributed this claim.

This issue has been raised with them previously, but it was not rectified.

Language in articles

CarmenEsparzaAmoux uses different words to refer to the Palestinian POV than the Israeli POV. This can be demonstrated by reviewing under which circumstances they add or remove the word "claim"; they consistently remove it when used in relation to the Palestinian POV, and frequently add it in relation to the Israeli POV.

This double standard can be seen in edits like this one, where in regards to competing positions they say that Hamas "states" while Israel "claims". It can also be seen in the differing ways they treat sources based on whether the content aligns with their POV; in this edit, they change the appropriately-attributed "New York Times reported" to the "New York Times claimed", while in this edit Al Jazeera "states" while Israel "claims".

In isolation, some, but not all, of these edits can be justified - but collectively, the pattern demonstrates a systematic effort to manipulate content to advance a specific POV.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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 15 October 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Liz: The only connection between the two reports is the editor - the evidence presented and the activities I'm asking to be reviewed are unrelated. BilledMammal (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

04:30, 6 November 2024

Discussion concerning CarmenEsparzaAmoux

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 CarmenEsparzaAmoux

I am not here to "advance a specific POV." I am here to help build an encyclopedia. I do add statements by the Israeli government regarding their explanations for specific actions [108], [109]. In the last year, I have worked with a high volume of information and editing in this topic area, and I am sure I have made mistakes. BM has raised these concerns in the past, and I have tried my absolute best to improve my editing. I know I'm not perfect, but I'm not here to "systematically manipulate" anything. I take full responsibility for any edits that do not perfectly match the source or improperly use the word claim, but I categorically reject the notion that I'm here to push a POV or "manipulate" content. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FortunateSons

Please note that the reported party has been blocked following a CU. I believe that this report can now be closed. FortunateSons (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CarmenEsparzaAmoux

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

Just noting that their is a current arbitration case request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area involving these same two editors. I know Arbitration and AE are two separate forums but I want to make sure there isn't "double jeopardy" or the same claims being made in two different noticeboards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

Rough consensus among uninvolved administrators that the Arbitraiton Comittee is better able to determine what, if anything, the problems are and any appropriate sanction. Will be referring it to them at WP:ARCA. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 7 November 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 Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nableezy (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

Nableezy has engaged in POV pushing, in the process systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view in violation of the UCoC.

Requested Moves

Nableezy takes differing positions on whether to refer to an event as a massacre depending on who the victims are; they consistently support using the word when the victims are Palestinian, and oppose its use when they are Israeli.

They support this by applying double standards. For example, at Attack on Holit, they argue that massacre shouldn't be used because "attack" is more common in reliable sources. At Engineer's Building airstrike they argue that we shouldn't follow WP:COMMONNAME but should use a descriptive title, with them arguing that "massacre" is that descriptive title.

While individually these !votes can be justified, collectively they demonstrate a systematic effort to manipulate content to advance a specific POV.

Language in articles

Nableezy uses different words to refer to the Palestinian POV than the Israeli POV. This can be demonstrated by reviewing under which circumstances they add or remove the word "claim"; they consistently remove it when used in relation to the Palestinian POV, and frequently add it in relation to the Israeli POV.

While less blatant than the behavior of CAE or Iskandar, this manipulation is still clear. For example, at List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, they changed B'tselem claims that 2,038 were civilians to According to the Israeli human rights organization B'tselem, 2,038 were civilians, correctly citing MOS:CLAIM.

Three weeks later, at Al-Shifa Hospital they Attribute to israel by adding "claim", and at Gaza Strip they add Israel has claimed that the blockade is necessary to protect itself from Palestinian political violence.

One week later, at Ahed Tamimi, they are back to correcting MOS:CLAIM violations by changing Her lawyer claimed that she was beaten during her arrest to her lawyer said she was beaten during her arrest.

In isolation, some, but not all, of these edits can be justified - but collectively, the pattern demonstrates a systematic effort to manipulate content to advance a specific POV.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

26 December 2023 - Topic banned for 30 days for battleground editing
12 October 2021 - Cautioned to moderate their tone
19 March 2021 - Warned to moderate their tone

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

Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

That source was published on November 14; ten days before your edit, and three days before the tunnel was discovered. The source used for the statement was published two days before your edit, and says in its own voice that the tunnels exist and that they have visited them.

However, the issue isn't the specific edits - the issue is the pattern, which demonstrates you apply different standards to claims aligned with the Israeli POV than you do claims aligned with the Palestinian. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: For the most part, an experienced editor intending to POV push won't behave in that way; they'll be more subtle. The exception is "generally distorting our content relative to the body of published literature on a subject", but unfortunately that is almost impossible to prove as it becomes a content dispute.

Instead, what I am trying to demonstrate here is selective application of policies. Nableezy does that when they argue we should use "massacre" as a descriptive title when the victims are Palestinians, but that we should match the language used in sources when the victims are Israeli. Similarly, they do that when they strictly apply MOS:CLAIM to the Palestinian POV, but frequently diverge from it - even when the relevant sources makes the statement in their own voice - when it comes to the Israeli POV. BilledMammal (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 and Seraphimblade: Looking at the specific edits of the claim review, I believe there is evidence of the sort you ask for. In addition to the previously discussed Al-Shifa Hospital example, where they use "claim" to attribute a statement to Israel when the source put the statement in their own voice, we have:

Israel–Hamas war - 2023-12-12T15:11:57Z
Nableezy adds "Hamas has repeatedly denied the claims of sexual abuse". The source says "Hamas has repeatedly denied allegations that its fighters committed sexual violence during the attack — despite the evidence."

In this edit, they represent the allegations as a "claim", despite the source being very clear that it is skeptical of Hamas' claim, not Israel's.
Israel–Hamas war - 2023-12-10T17:34:12Z
Nableezy adds The New York Times reported that the claim of Hamas fighters surrendering was made after video and photographs of "men stripped to their underwear, sitting or kneeling on the ground, with some bound and blindfolded" were seen on social media.

The source says The Israeli military said on Thursday that it had apprehended hundreds of people suspected of terrorism, adding The New York Times has not verified the images or the video.

In this edit, Nableezy presents the Israeli position with less credulity than the source, and at the same time presents the videos with more credulity.
Gaza Strip - 2023-11-28T19:36:21Z
Nableezy adds "Israel has claimed that the blockade is necessary to protect itself...", while the source says "The government said the purpose of the new regulations..."

Again, they present the Israeli position with less credulity than the source.

(Note that I could continue - including with edits outside the narrow scope of MOS:CLAIM, but I'm already approaching the word limit and so would need a word extension)

In contrast, when Palestinian claims are discussed, they consistently reflect the language of the sources. I believe this demonstrates them misrepresenting sources, and distorting content to advance a particular POV - is this the sort of evidence you require? BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: The issue there is that your wording doesn’t reflect the incredulity that the source treats Hamas’ claims with. However, if you wish, we can focus on the other examples - "said" is not a synonym for "claim". BilledMammal (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: It is possible to argue that they are reasonable paraphrases - which is why I structured the evidence this way, because if they are a reasonable paraphrases and Nableezy is not POV-pushing, why do they never paraphrase Palestinian claims in that way?

There is an particularly insidious type of POV pushing, where individual edits can be justified (although the Al-Shifa hospital edit cannot, as you can't take a statement the source presents as fact and instead present it as a third parties claim), but when we look at the broader picture we see that an editor is consistently trying to push a particular POV by applying different standards and sourcing expectations. This is far harder to address than more blatant forms, and as a consequence far more damaging to the encyclopedia in the long run.

However, I understand that it can be difficult to act on this sort of evidence, so instead it it possible to get a word extension, so that I can present evidence across a wider scope that can better meet what Vanamonde93 is asking for? BilledMammal (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

04:30, 6 November 2024

Discussion concerning Nableezy

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 Nableezy

I can’t seriously believe I’m going to explain edits from 2023, but MOS:CLAIM isn’t a prohibition on using the word. Sources, such as the Associated Press, said of the Israeli claims that Shifa is Gaza’s largest and best-equipped hospital. Israel, without providing visual evidence, claims the facility also is used by Hamas for military purposes. Changing a sentence of Wikipedia using its own voice to present an unsupported claim by a combatant that sources have repeatedly said was lacking any evidence as fact and correctly saying that it was an Israeli claim is showing caution to only use the word where appropriate. The idea that Btselem was claiming something that no source has questioned is the equivalent of that is what is actually POV pushing. Given the low quality of the evidence here, if there is some specific diff that admins think I need to answer for, even if it’s from a year ago, let me know. But I’d advice them not to simply accept BilledMammals *claims* as they likewise fail even the slightest scrutiny. As far as move requests, I saw lots of requests for massacres in Israel that I saw no need to oppose calling massacre. I got involved in the ones I thought were an issue. But again, if there is something in this mishmash of diffs going back a year I should pay attention to please let me know. nableezy - 04:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that Btselem is Israeli lol. I don’t apply different standards based on whose claim it is, I apply different standards based on how credible the claim is according to reliable sources. I don’t intend to get into a back and forth with BM here, I think his evidence is tendentious and dishonestly presented (for example my support of massacre for the attack on the engineers building was based on the same argument being used for an attack on Israeli civilians being moved to massacre, but that’s glossed over as supports for Palestinians and opposes for Israelis, and my not participating in ones about Israeli victims that I did not object to is also treated as though it consistently opposes for Israeli victims). So, to cut off any extended dialogue here, if an admin thinks there is anything in here I should respond to please let me know. nableezy - 05:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, changing your comment after it’s been replied to is generally considered a no-no. nableezy - 05:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms for claim: allegation. If BilledMammals position is I used the wrong synonym for what a source called allegations I don’t know how this is not a tendentious report. nableezy - 12:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a synonym, your example is just dishonestly presented. I reverted to a prior version there (search for "Israel has claimed" here) and made some additional edits. That I did not correct every issue in that prior version while reverting due to other issues may be a minor issue, but your claim that this is something I initially inserted is just made up. As Zero says below, the edit in Israel-Hamas war, several organizations immediately cast doubt on the claim by Israel, saying that what Israel said were "terrorists" were in fact civilians. Claim was appropriate there. Im not sure AE is the place to litigate content disputes from a year ago, but most of this evidence is distorted in similar ways as the first example here. (Oh, you still havent reverted your material modification of a comment already replied to). nableezy - 12:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the lol, at the time BilledMammal said I use different language for Israeli claims than Palestinian ones, and he presented me removing claim from an Israeli organization as proof of that. That literally made me laugh. I am not really sure how you all think an lol is rude but sure I won’t laugh again on Wikipedia. nableezy - 14:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you can address it here, because these claims are either non issues or dishonestly presented. Even ignoring they are a year old. nableezy - 14:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes SFR, after other discussions were closed on the basis of massacre being an appropriate description without looking at the usage in sources for killings of Israelis I argued the same standard should be followed for the killings of Palestinians. You seem to think that arguing that we should be following a consistent standard, after other articles have set that standard, is inconsistent. For the Flour massacre article, when reliable sources flat out say something is a common name then that is the evidence needed for it to be a common name. The substantive part of my argument about the Engineer's building move was as you quoted, The idea that only when Israeli civilians are indiscriminately targeted and killed is what is a massacre is what is "far too POV". When we have articles that base their name being massacre on the number of Israeli civilians indiscriminately killed and I argue that if this is the case then it should also be the case for the killing of Palestinian civilians indiscriminately that is not taking an inconsistent position. An if then statement is one in which the the then depends on the if. I am not opposed to following any consistent standard for these articles, what I object to is the set up in which Israeli civilians are "massacred" and Palestinian civilians "die in an airstrike" independent of the sourcing. Yes, I referenced an RM that ignored the sources entirely to move an article to a title that contained massacre based on the number of (Israeli) civilians killed that when an exponentially higher number of (Palestinian) civilians are killed the same logic should hold. That isnt inconsistency, that is asking for systemic bias to be addressed. nableezy - 16:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And oh by the way, this move request has me suggesting a move target that did not contain massacre and was accepted by all. This is my criticizing the systemic bias in language Wikipedia uses in this conflict, Israelis are "murdered" or "massacred", but Palestinians are "killed" or "die in an incident" This is my asking for a consistent standard for all these articles. This is my saying that for this article reliable sources have already said that it is a common name. This is my saying that if we are following the standard of the Engineer's building airstrike then that same standard should be applied there. This is my saying I do not mind the change from massacre for the killings of Palestinians and what I objected to was not including the target of the attack, but that is dishonestly portrayed as my supporting massacre there. Over and over again the evidence you uncritically cite is bogus and falls under the weight of even the tiniest amount of scrutiny. My asking that the same arguments be applied evenly is not "inconsistent positions", and it is absurd to claim that my asking that the same standards be followed is POV-pushing. nableezy - 16:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No SFR, my argument is that personal opinions on what makes massacre an appropriate title was already being used for the killings of Israeli civilians. And if that is the case the same should apply to the killings of Palestinian civilians. And no, my objection at Al-Awda school attack was specific about it being an attack on a school, I made no comment on massacre at all in my vote there. I disagreed with the proposed title, so that means I must support it being at massacre? That is a simple logic fail, made obvious by my agreeing that a move from massacre was fine with me. BilledMammal suggested a name that concealed that a school was targeted and that was what I opposed, full stop. But Im not sure if you are playing the role of prosecutor or judge here, and as has often been the case in discussions between you and me this feels more like you throwing whatever you think will stick against a wall against me as has happened in the past. I dont find your characterization of my arguments to be in any way reflective of what they actually were, my position is there should be a single standard applied for both sets. Not the one that exists in which Israelis are murdered or massacred and Palestinians passively die in a strike on some random street. nableezy - 18:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually SFR from what I can tell all the admins have said this evidence is unconvincing and until you suggested punting to AC nobody had said any of the diffs brought were actionable. BM is totally capable of taking whatever he wants to the committee, but this complaint seemed to be being dealt with fine until you suggested taking it there. nableezy - 13:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABHammad's distortion of what happened at Samir Kuntar should honestly result in a boomerang. Taking a decision made by the US and Canada *after* I said that it was a registered charity in Canada to attempt to claim I was wrong when what I said when I said it was completely accurate is intentionally misleading. As far as EI, that is a. a BLPCRIME issue, and b. an OR issue. It is also something I raised on the talk page, a discussion that the two editors who put in this material have completely ignored, and that includes ABHammad. As far as JNS, I saw a completely unexplained deletion and reverted it. Seriously, can you all deal with the editors who so readily make things up on this board? Please? nableezy - 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

This has to be one of the weakest reports here for quite a while.

In the third example of BM's "claim" list, Nableezy added a sentence "Hamas has repeatedly denied the claims of sexual abuse." which BM classified as "Added 'claim' to content related to an Israeli POV (Advances the Palestinian POV)". Note that Nableezy added the sentence immediately after a sentence noting allegations of sexual abuse by Hamas, with no mention that the allegations were denied. Turning to Nableezy's CNN source we read "Hamas has repeatedly denied allegations that its fighters committed sexual violence". So Nableezy's hanging offence was to balance the POV with a close paraphrase of how the source balanced it.

In the next example, which includes "claim of Hamas fighters surrendering..." using "claim" rather than stating the surrendering as fact is in conformity with the NYT source, which explicitly says that it could not verify the account. Note also that Nableezy gave two additional sources that directly challenge the truth of the account. So this is a perfectly good (and, more importantly, accurate) use of "claim". Zero^talk 11:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's as far as I plan to look, but I propose that these are representative examples of this "evidence".

There's no secret that every regular editor in the ARBPIA area has a POV. Nableezy and BilledMammal have one, and so do I. A report here should provide some evidence of wrongdoing, not just evidence of a preference for editing certain content. Zero^talk 11:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleging" someone did wrong and "claiming" someone did wrong have exactly the same meaning. Moreover, editors have every right to extract the factual content of sources without bringing the opinion content along with it. Even more so when our article already states the opinion in the previous sentence. Zero^talk 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor ScottishFinnishRadish: "AE is too small scale to address the depth of allegations of this sort." — What depth are you talking about? This report is just one editor with a strong POV complaining that another editor doesn't share that POV. And BilledMammal's misleading RM statistics are at ARCA already, so why are they here again? Every single regular editor in every single contentious area will be in trouble if you pick their edits apart under a microscope. Zero^talk 11:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NadVolum

My reading of WP:CLAIM is that it should not be used if it is undue. I take that as meaning it should not be used unless there is good reaon for considering what was said was false. On that basis I believe it is quite correct to use the word in statements like 'Al-Jazeera reported that the claims of babies being beheaded and were killed en masse were false' and to remove it from statements like 'B'tselem claims that 2,038 were civilians' when changing to 'According to the Israeli human rights organization B'tselem, 2,038 were civilians'. I see very little to dispute in the changes. I can see a person with an 'Israeli POV' might wish things were different but that doesn't mean they break NPOV. NadVolum (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chess

You seem to think that arguing that we should be following a consistent standard, after other articles have set that standard, is inconsistent. is the correct view. It's sometimes difficult to distinguish that from POV-pushing, but it's made easier by reading the explanations.

In Nableezy's case, BilledMammal's table shows consistent opposition to the term "massacre", then a flip to saying that the term "massacre" is fine after a series of losses. [110] From that point onwards, Nableezy only argues in favour of the term "massacre", until a loss at the Engineer's building RM forced Nableezy to re-evaluate their views. Nableezy uses the term "massacre" consistent with prior consensus but will only actively use that reasoning to benefit Palestinians.

It's unrealistic to expect otherwise because we are volunteers, and we devote our limited time to what we are passionate about. This can create a double standard when something conflicts with unwritten consensus and the closer doesn't recognize that. Oftentimes this happens when actual POV-pushers flood specific articles.

I would call the current system a failure of our existing guidelines. Nableezy, unlike the majority of people in this topic area, actually respects consensus and tries to create objective standards. A better way to utilize Nableezy's experience and credibility would be to collaborate on writing up an Israel-Palestine specific MOS for terms like "massacre" or "claim", and a central discussion board for the conflict. BilledMammal's skill at identifying examples of systemic bias could be more effectively used there.

Because global consensus trumps local consensus, we could ban "massacre" across all articles in the recent war. Then, when an influence campaign tries to POV-push, we can ignore that campaign citing WP:NOTAVOTE. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ABHammad

I've also noticed the same conduct from Nableezy. Sharing here an example I also provided on another Wiki page: When I pointed out that Samidoun is an unreliable source (after another editor used it on the article for Samir Kuntar), writing him that they are a terror organization according to multiple countries, Nableezy responded with, Oh ffs, that a government says some group is a terrorist organization has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is a reliable source for some statement. The IDF is a proscribed terrorist organization in Iran, should we not cite it for anything? [111]. Nableezy also says that It’s just Israel that claims some connection to the PFLP[112] and calls them "a registered charity in Canada", [113] but both Canada and the US call them a terrorist entity, with the US Department of Treaury saying Samidoun is "a sham charity that serves as an international fundraiser for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)."[114]

On two very odd consecutive edits, Nableezy also removed information on a British counter-terrorism investigation into Asa Winstanley, who is an associate editor of Electronic Intifada and removed that its Executive Director Ali Abunimah said Nasrallah gave his life to liberate Palestine [115]. saying it is undue, but this standard of thinking was not applied by them on Jewish News Syndicate, where Nableezy restored the assertion of the newspaper promoting Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian ideas in Wikipedia voice [116] even though it is not sourced. ABHammad (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

@Valereee: Although I have said previously that content issues cannot entirely be ignored, I agree about the pile of complicated diffs issue. How about making better use of the Wikipedia:Template_index/User talk namespace#Multi-level templates, maybe make a new one for CPUSH, such that in order to bring a case to AE, several such warnings need to have been given (responses mandatory), with diffs (say two or three at a time). Then most of the work will have been done by the time it would get here.Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nableezy

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

I have yet to go through the evidence in detail, but I want to note that we achieve NPOV by strictly summarizing what reliable sources say, not by balancing both "sides" of a conflict. As such comparing !votes in different RMs is usually an apples to oranges comparison. What I would find persuasive evidence of POV-pushing includes source misrepresentation; supporting or opposing the use of a given source based on its POV in a particular instance; cherry-picking material from a source; elevating poor sources over ones Wikipedia considers more reliable; and generally distorting our content relative to the body of published literature on a subject. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not too impressed with the "lol" style rudeness—Nableezy, you might want to give that a rest, whether here or elsewhere. Other than that, I largely agree with Vanamonde; I'd need to see more than somewhat inconsistent positions to support an accusation of sanctionable POV pushing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Seraph that the rudeness is offputting, Nableezy, but otherwise, I don't see that we can actually act on this. The second and third diffs are mostly reasonable paraphrases, if perhaps a bit less than what might be the "perfect" paraphrase - but that isn't ever really possible. The first is slightly more "worrisome" because it could be argued that the CNN source seems to come down on the side of saying that there is evidence of sexual abuse, but the source does not come out and baldly state that sexual abuse happened (they dance around it without outright coming out and saying it did happen) so the most that could be said is that perhaps a better paraphrase would have been "Hamas has repeatedly denied the claims of sexual abuse despite mounting evidence" or "Hamas has repeatedly denied the claims of sexual abuse despite mounting news reports that lend credence to the reports of abuse" or similar. But merely leaving out something is not distorting the source - it's just not providing all details. Given that the preceeding sentence at the time of the addition by Nableezy said "Israeli women and girls were reportedly raped, assaulted, and mutilated by Hamas militants." I'm not seeing how we can conclude that Nableezy was trying to remove the fact that such reports were made. BilledMammal - these types of reports, which try to get someone sanctioned for something that isn't actually against policy, are not helpful. They just add to the bad blood in the topic area. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should just refer this to Arbcom, as we did two and a half months ago. This type of case should be looked at by a committee, with many parties providing evidence and analysis. There's already the ARCA and the case request, do we really need more hands in this? AE is too small scale to address the depth of allegations of this sort. Also, Not too impressed with the "lol" style rudeness... I agree with Seraph that the rudeness is offputting while there's a section above with a rough consensus for another warning, and the history of warnings and sanctions. This will probably be the time they change their behavior, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, well, I've learned my lesson that no other admins feel that Nableezy's brusqueness rises to a level beyond a warning so I'm not sticking my neck out again on that particular situation. I've said my piece on where I think warnings should stop and sanctions should begin, but I appear to be out of step with the other admins that comment often here, so I didn't even bother. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the evidence, looking at User:BilledMammal/ARBPIA RM statistics provides, in my view, more than somewhat incosistent positions. I see, for instance it isnt even close on common name, attack is exponentially more commonly used than massacre, Only highly partisan or non-reliable sources use "massacre" as a title, which would only be allowed as POVTITLE if it were the WP:COMMONNAME, and several sources flat out say this is known as the Flour Massacre, it is the common name on one hand and per Talk:Netiv_HaAsara_massacre#Requested_move_10_October_2023 where editors successfully argued that the killing of a much smaller number of civilians meant that the article should be titled "massacre". Netiv HaAsara massacre had 22 people killed, here we have over five times the number of civilians killed. The idea that only when Israeli civilians are indiscriminately targeted and killed is what is a massacre is what is "far too POV". and Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024 June (the Engineer's Building airstrike section) on the other when arguing against COMMONNAME arguments.

The thing is, as my colleagues have said, it takes a lot to prove this type of NPOV editing, and this is all way beyond the limits of what we should be looking at here. There are 24 discussions linked to at the RM stats evidence page, and the claim evidence against Nableezy is another couple dozen diffs and a thousand words. That is way over the AE limit, and we're talking about needing to see more. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, WP:POINT applies if you're using criteria you disagree with to ask[ing] for systemic bias to be addressed, especially if you're challenging one move because another move was closed in a way you disagreed with. This is changing your normal argument in these discussions away from criteria in order to address a perceived POV issue. Unfortunately WP:OTHERSTUFF exists and closures that we disagree with are made. I agree that arguments not based in policy shouldn't be weighed in consensus discussions, and I've had many appeals of my closures because of down-weighting or disregarding non-policy compliant arguments, but saying "the other side did it there" is just making a point.

At Al Bureij killings you did suggest a move to killings after another editor did, and you also responded to a concern about the NPOV of the original title of massacre with And how would you describe the killing of ten civilians including three children?. At Flour massacre you supported per another editor who said With IDF statements acknowledging shooting at least 10 people on the scene, and multiple reports of dozens of gunshot wounds (with no other shooters alleged), I think we're in massacre territory even if the others killed turned out to have died in panic, from fearful truck drivers etc. Calling for parity in titles again is fine, but your argument was based on personal interpretation of what makes a massacre. Your other diffs are fine, or good. This is a reasonable compromise, although your first reply was fine remaining at massacre with no mention of COMMONNAME.

This is why this needs looking at in a different venue. As Ealdgyth says in a section above, I cannot see how even with quadrupled word and diff allowances AE could possibly begin to investigate such a nebulous thing as is alleged here. There's simply too much here. We can't, with our limited setup, determine how often you argue for commonname versus I think we're in massacre territory. That's why this report should be handled in the venue designed specifically for that. To be clear, I'm not saying that you're violating NPOV, merely that there's enough evidence to make it worth looking at and that this isn't the venue to look at it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, Every single regular editor in every single contentious area will be in trouble if you pick their edits apart under a microscope. That is why you have a committee elected to sort through and discuss such evidence and determine if there is a problem that needs solving, rather than leaving it up to the same 3-5 administrators at AE who have already told that committee that reports such as this are beyond what AE is set up to handle. Admins in this section have said they would need to see more evidence, but this report is already far over the permitted word and diff allotment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I saw Nableezy at AE pop up on my watchlist I figured this was going to be renewed attention to the long simmering report above. I am in general alignment with Vanamonde in both the fact that I haven't gone through this in detail and what NPOV means; if the sources are covering the two sides differently so should we. If the strongest evidence of Nableezy falling short on this stem from 10 or 11 months ago, I don't think there is anything for us to do in that regard. I'm a little more sympathetic to the "refer conduct that is at borderline warning level to ArbCom" (meaning conduct that just barely crosses, or doesn't, the line of conduct violation); on my mind is this finding of fact I largely wrote about AE enforcement in a similar topic area and where I expressed doubt that I would have done better as an AE admin when voting for it. That said I don't think in either this report or the one above we've just focused on the "easy" parts, I continue to find Nableezy not at all the worst offender - by a clear margin - in the previous report, and for me the conduct in this report we're all talking about is a "do better" outcome not even a "formal warning" outcome. But having guidance from ArbCom on how they want to see this enforced is why we have an elected ArbCom and so I suppose referring to them does make sense for this and the previous filing. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SEALIONING is incredibly tedious to prove -- it can easily take 20 diffs, and sometimes more to show that the issue is ongoing or widespread -- and even if you've brought those diffs here or to ANI, no one wants to assess them because that many diffs are daunting to go through. One almost has to be involved to get it. I don't know what the answer is to this. I don't know whether it's something AE can be expected to deal with. But it is a real and frustrating problem for well-intentioned editors working anywhere, much less at CTOPs, and as a project we need to find some way to handle this. Valereee (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier, maybe? It requires dedication, probably...but maybe we have enough of that in CTOPs, at least? Valereee (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gianluigi02

Page blocked for a week by ScottishFinnishRadish. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:37, 10 November 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 Gianluigi02

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Gianluigi02 (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

Engaged in edit-warring at November 2024 Amsterdam attack, violating WP:1RR and WP:3RR. Reverts include, but aren't limited to:

When asked to self-revert, instead promised to continue edit-warring.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 14:16, 15 July 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

13:55, 8 November 2024

Discussion concerning Gianluigi02

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 Gianluigi02

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gianluigi02

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

Blocked from the article for one week. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Butterscotch Beluga

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 Butterscotch Beluga

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Chess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Butterscotch Beluga (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:PIA4, specifically the implied ban on gaming edits to bypass the 500/30 rule.

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

2024-10-28 Makeandtoss (who I'm not accusing of anything) starts an RfC on the Jerusalem Post.
2024-10-28 On this date, Butterscotch Beluga has around two hundred edits (after creating their account in June)
2024-11-11 Butterscotch Beluga makes 500 edits in the span of two weeks. This uptick happens almost immediately after the RfC is posted.
2024-11-11 2024-11-11 Shows up to comment on an RfC calling the Jerusalem Post unreliable and defend CoolAndUniqueUsername.

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

Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 2024-11-04.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Also made their account within a day of CoolAndUniqueUsername.[117] [118]

@Butterscotch Beluga: You made over 250 edits in the week after the RfC was posted,[119] more than all of the edits you've made on your account prior to that date. Any non-RfC related reasons you decided you needed to rush EC? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Butterscotch Beluga CoolAndUniqueUsername

Discussion concerning Butterscotch Beluga

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 Butterscotch Beluga

I'll be honest, I didn't know this source was being discussed until I was checking sources for November 2024 Amsterdam attacks &, as I couldn't find the Jerusalem Post listed at perennial sources, I checked to see if there were discussion on it. I'll be clear that, no, I don't hold them in high regard as a source, but I did not think it'd be unreasonable for me to participate there. I guess I'm sorry for being a newer editor who wants to contribute to a topic I know about.

In regards to the accusation of gaming, I understand in hindsight why it looks sketchy, so apologies for that. I've honestly been wanting to go through & remove deprecated/unreliable sources & would actually like to get back to doing that, but I've recently discovered that every minor edit I make in this topic becomes surprisingly exhausting & time consuming.

I would like to note however that this is the second time Chess has accused (or implied in this case, if you want to be pedantic) an editor in that RFC of being a WP:SPA. I do understand this is a rather low-trust topic area (in a way, rightfully so), but I genuinely did not mean to rush towards extended confirmed. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I realize I should comment specifically on my defense of @CoolAndUniqueUsername . I like to read every comment before giving my opinion & saw a long tangent regarding accusations towards them.

Looking into it, I saw they were incorrect claims & wanted to set the record straight.

I can't vouch for @CoolAndUniqueUsername's intent or potential malfeasance as an editor, but the details brought against them were factually incorrect & I'm a stickler for details. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chess Again, I didn't intend to rush EC, but I did want to contribute to the wiki in some way. I'm a little too anxious to make large main space edits, so I thought I could help by sorting through & tagging deprecated sources because I didn't think anyone else would want to do it.

Recently I've been going through Rate Your Music citations as there's a boatload of them scattered across rather minor articles. Again, I'd like to apologize for accidently causing what seems to've become a scene.

@ScottishFinnishRadish Would it be considered a bad idea to continue tagging deprecated sources while this case is open or would it be ok for me to do that as long as it's unrelated to WP:PIA? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Butterscotch Beluga

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

I've looked into this before, and found that the totality of the edits has enough substance where I didn't take unilateral action. The lines around gaming are blurry, and there's no solid consensus to be found, so I'm interested in what other admins think of their rush to 500. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absent any further input, I'll be closing this as no action in the next day or so. The line for gaming EC and if simply rushing simple but constructive edits qualifies really needs to be clarified by the community before I'd be comfortable pulling permissions in edge cases like this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The work done was unique to each page but was also seemingly done to "qualify" for ECR despite what was written here. The charges of gaming would be less compelling if there was also some effort, at least some of the time, to remediate the problem rather htan just tag it. But, at least under current ArbCom guidance, I'm not sure I'm ready to call this gaming because there was time and attention paid to each edit made. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They also engaged at talk pages of other contentious articles, which ticks the experience box that ECR hopes to establish. It's pretty clear that there was a rush to get the permission, but absent community consensus on gaming we're at about the same place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While this certainly looks rather like a race to EC, I don't see these edits as trivial or pointless enough to meet the common definition of "gaming". I would also note that the user has continued such work even after gaining EC, which is another mark against being pure "gaming" to reach EC. Absent any evidence of actual misconduct, I would not support any sanction here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy

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 Nableezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nableezy (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:ARBPIA4

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

07:08, 12 November 2024 The text also presupposes Israel has a right to exist, another claim Wikipedia cannot make in its own voice.
12:29, 12 November 2024 Did you think Wikipedia is supposed to be putting contested claims in its own voice?

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

90 day topic ban for BATTLEGROUND, reduced to 30 on appeal

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

Made another editor aware of the CTOP

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am making this report as an uninvolved administrator to elicit the opinions of other administrators about the contents of the diffs presented. I will be putting my thoughts in the administrator's section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[120]

Discussion concerning Nableezy

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 Nableezy

Um, the idea that any state has a right to exist is a contested topic in international law. Wikipedia does not present contested views as though they were uncontested facts. We have an article on the topic, right to exist, largely written by Buidhe. This is utterly surreal. See also Rosguill's statement. Barkeep49, nobody discusses a German or US right to exist, that simply is not a topic that anybody in academia discusses. Because it isnt asserted, basically ever. States exist by virtue of existing. There is no inherent right of a state to exist. People have a right to exist, states exist when they have the power to assert their existence. See for example one United Nations special rapporteur discussing this. Objecting to a user inserting a partisan talking point, sourced to a partisan newspaper (a newspaper for an international law topic!), meriting this reaction is absurd. I have no idea how anybody can fault me for thinking that SFR has been fishing for a way to sanction me at this point. This is unreal. nableezy - 19:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SimonM223

I think this is rather surreal that, at this point, we have three separate arbitration enforcement requests against one user who appears not to have violated any wikipedia policy. Regardless of the connotations of the specific example the idea that any state has a right to exist is not a universally accepted one. And, frankly, the context in which the statement was made is one of an absurd inclusion in which a source is claiming that a bromine coloring book with pictures of Palestinian journalists, Nelson Mandela and Edward Said in it is calling for the elimination of Israel simply for using the phrase "From the River to the Sea." I hope that no action is taken here. And perhaps we could go a day without another attempt to get Nableezy kicked off the island. Simonm223 (talk) 18:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 I have read a lot of anarchist critique of politics. Such often include critiques of the state as a political form such as Society Against the State by Pierre Clastres, A Thousand Plateaus by Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, and Theses on the Terrible Community by the Tiqqun collective. As such my personal opinion is that the idea that any state has a right to exist, as a state, is a contested one that should not be positively asserted as fact by Wikipedia and should, instead, be attributed against reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 the sources I am using generally assert that no states have a positive right to exist and generally cast doubt on the idea that a state can, in fact, have rights as such. I would assert, if we take political philosophy seriously, then this critique can, and should, be applied against all states. Certainly including Germany and the United States. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

I agree that this is a surreal request, that appears to be motivated by a lack of familiarity with contemporary historical and philosophical literature. Outside of polemic declarations by nationalists of one side or the other in political discourse, historical literature typically challenges the idea that any state has an abstract right to exist. E.g. [121], [122], [123]. Note that none of these are anarchist publications: setting aside the question of whether we *should* have states, historians and philosophers generally approach the states that they study as historical fact, not as moral propositions, and only study the question of a state's "right to exist" when a political conflict has explicitly called the issue to question in those specific terms. The discourse of handwringing over a state's right to exist is thus largely unique to protracted conflicts of self-determination, and is by far the most prominent with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. Nableezy is well within the bounds of academic discourse to note that a state's "right to exist" is not something that should be casually asserted in wikivoice. The fact that this assertion was only tangentially related to the content at issue, makes the purpose of this AE report even less clear. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, while I do think it's possible to come to the conclusions Ivanvector identifies by reading right to exist, I think that article is somewhat lacking in its History section, which doesn't really document the phenomena I've identified here, although you can infer that something is missing by the fact that the entirety of said section being either a) prescriptive statements by 18th c. philosopher Thomas Paine and 19th c. philosopher Ernest Renan or b) a somewhat obscure citation to US mass market publication Living Age ca 1903, with no up-to-date academic citations or actual discussion of the history of the concept's use and development. I'll avoid improving the article until after this discussion has settled to avoid the impression of WP:POINT. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

I'd like to see SFR link three RS that say Israel has a right to exist. If the negation of that claim were WP:FRINGE, it should be trivially easy to do. Levivich (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

I'm not directly involved in this, I just came to see what absurdity resulted in there being three sections on Nableezy here. @Barkeep49: you linked to right to exist, but did you read it? The largest section in the article, #Israel/Palestine, describes in summary many of the historical arguments surrounding the question of Israel's right to exist, a question that has been debated since at least the end of the second world war, and indeed whether such a right exists at all for any state. I don't expect we are going to settle that debate on Wikipedia, but I do think that would be enough to reject outright Wikipedia taking an affirmative stance one way or the other in that longstanding debate. Or to put it another way, do we say in wikivoice that the United States or Germany have (or don't have) a right to exist? Or is this something that's only debated in the context of nationalist conflict? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill:: I'll be the first to admit that I'm no philosopher, unless we're talking about double-entry bookkeeping; I'm going by what is written on the page.

I think we maybe have missed the point: the content in question contains the text, "In June 2024, a report surfaced about a new coloring book published in South Africa, which called for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of its inhabitants." The text was later modified to include the supposed denial of Israel's right to exist, and to attribute the destruction and genocide claim (but not the claim of rights) to one of the sources which does not have its own article. That's an extraordinary factual statement to make in Wikipedia's voice based only on explicitly Jewish sources, one of which is so unabashedly biased as to call into question its general reliability for any subject. Whoever added this evidently didn't bother to look for contrary viewpoints such as that of the book's author or publisher, other Jewish advocacy groups, or any assuredly neutral coverage whatsoever. In a rather brief search I located sources such as these which seem to suggest that this is, in fact, a rather contested opinion, and as such the highlighted content is a subtle yet severe violation of WP:NPOV. So regarding Nableezy's edits: the text does presuppose in wikivoice that Israel has a right to exist that can be denied by a colouring book, an extraordinary claim lacking appropriate sourcing; and indeed Wikipedia is not supposed to be putting contested claims of this or any nature in its own voice; therefore both of Nableezy's comments are objectively correct. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS: that article is the one that SFR linked to in their opening statement, and which contained the text I highlighted above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

At the top of this page there is the text "Please use this page only to:" and four reasons are listed. "To get input from other administrators" on something doesn't seem to be in line with any of those reasons. Content disgareements are also explicity said to belong at other fora, though the filer here has stated this report is "about the diffs above that say Wikipedia cannot presuppose[s] Israel has a right to exist and that it is something that should not be put in wikivoice." And now admins appear to be discussing whether or not Israel has a right to exist, something which I believe is more of a propaganda/ideological point rather than an actual matter of international law. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC) (Edited significantly) 20:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:@Barkeep49, for what reason have you linked to the Wikipedia article Calls for the destruction of Israel? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)~~21:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra3

Countries exists -or not. That is a very different question to if it has a "right to exist". I don' think any country has the "right to exist", why should I? I grew up hearing "God gave Israel to the Jews" -but I have been an agnostic/atheist since my late teens (over half a century ago), and I no longer believe in any country's "God-given right to exist", how could I? If that's a bannable offence on Wikipedia, then you better ban me, too. And ban Noam Chomsky, who "has argued that no state has the right to exist, that the concept was invented in the 1970s" (to quote our Right to exist-article.) Or:

Why Israel Has No ‘Right to Exist’, Foreign Policy Journal
Israel has no ‘right to exist'—and neither does any other state, The Conversation
Shlomo Sand: Opinion The Twisted Logic of the Jewish ‘Historic Right’ to Israel, Haaretz

It is a question much debated, also in academic literature (see Rosguill refs), or just google "does Israel has a right to exist?" I don't think anyone has the right to ban this opinion, even if you disagree with it, (I certainly don't want to ban anyone because they think Israel has a God-given right to exist), Huldra (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nableezy

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

I've opened this report to get input from other administrators about the diffs above that say Wikipedia cannot presuppose[s] Israel has a right to exist and that it is something that should not be put in wikivoice. This is a diff showing the content at issue.
In as much as any nation has a right to exist, I think the very least we're looking at a WP:FRINGE viewpoint being used to argue content and against a provided source. I know that I've blocked editors for similar comments on both the existence of Palestine and Israel. I am interested in what other administrators think about these diffs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@‌Simonm223: in what other contexts are we saying that the right to exist is controversial enough that we can't say it in Wikivoice? For Simon, Nableezy, or anyone: how do the reliable sources on this topic, Calls for the destruction of Israel address the right to exist? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simonm223: you've provided sources that contest the right to exist. That perspective, but not only that perspective, is certainly represented at right to exist. But that wasn't my question. My question was in what other contexts are we saying that the right to exist is controversial enough that we can't say it in Wikivoice? I am unaware - for instance - of any controversey over saying in Wikivoice that the United States or Germany have rights to exist. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 12 November 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.

[a]

[b]

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