Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Historical elections (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Aug 2024 03 Sep 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) Motion none 26 July 2024
Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban none none 12 August 2024
Amendment request: German war effort Motion (orig. case) 13 August 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral) none none 17 August 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128

Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)

Initiated by Selfstudier at 13:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area of conflict"
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Selfstudier

To match WP:ECR (Idk if it is worth changing both to link to namespace 1).

@Barkeep49: @Zero0000: The discussion here refers (at the bottom)

@Zero0000: Not only. See Barkeep49 statement at the relevant AE complaint (still open) However, I will note that the contradiction between the "topic area" as defined and what areas ECR do not allow for is present. And so in a different scenario I would say this user shouldn't have to eat a block that could then be escalated if there are future transgressions. However, given that there was other conduct leading to a topic ban that factor doesn't seem to apply here. To be clear, my opinion is that ECR, being later, should take precedence but that's just me.Selfstudier (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now, the same technicality being referred to by another editor. Selfstudier (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: I am only "proposing" that this "technicality" which has not been identified by myself, be fixed up, I'm just initiating the paperwork, to the extent anyone thinks that it is required. What I want is that it not be available as a defense by non EC editors, currently two of them mentioning it, and I suspect more inbound if left unresolved. If there is another way to clean it up, I'm all ears. And @Doug Weller: has now raised the question indirectly as well https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&curid=21090546&diff=1237149351&oldid=1236465052#Why_does_ARPBIA_allow_userspace_as_an_exception? Selfstudier (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Kenneth Kho: Many thanks for clarifying my inept proposal. For me, though, ECR should function like a tban, "any edits that relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed) anywhere on Wikipedia" Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: Depends what you mean by edge case, if you mean that it isn't usually a problem, sure. However recently, I don't know quite how to put it, there has been a sort of assault on ECR, which you could, at a pinch, just call wikilawyering. See for example, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Emdosis and the comment by an admin there, "I wouldn't immediately understand "userspace" to apply to another user's talk page in this case – seems more like wikilawyering than anything else to say that this edit falls outside of the CT regime. We can drag this to ARCA if we have to, but just agreeing that the filer made a vexatious argument is easier." (I won't name them, since they don't want to be here, methinks). Selfstudier (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

There is a small mismatch between the area of scope and ECR and perhaps arbcom wants to fix that. Perhaps it doesn't. I'm not sure why I am involved in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Can we have this request actually explained, please?

I don't see any contradiction between "userspace" in "area of conflict" and "talkspace" at ECR. They serve different purposes.

One place says that the "area of conflict" does not extend to userspace (which implies that it does extend to talkspace). ECR indicates that talkspace has some differences in restrictions compared to article space. Both these make sense and can be true at the same time. We definitely do not want the "area of conflict" to exclude talkspace, because then the ECR restrictions on talkspace would not apply to it.

Or maybe I missed the point entirely. Zerotalk 15:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Selfstudier: So a messy argument on some user's talk page is what counts as an explanation?

As I see it, Definition of the "area of conflict" defines which pages and edits are subject to editing restrictions in ARBPIA, and WP:ARBECR says what those restrictions are. I don't see any contradiction there, and it seems to me that changing "userspace" to "talkspace" in the former would remove article talk pages from the area of conflict and disable all the restrictions there. Zerotalk 02:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Selfstudier: The contradiction you claim to exist actually does not exist. Let's start at ECR:

"The Committee may apply the "extended confirmed restriction" to specified topic areas." So now, we ask, what is the "topic area" in the case of ARBPIA? That sentence has a footnote:
"The current topic areas under this restriction are listed as having the "extended confirmed restriction" in the table of active Arbitration Committee sanctions." So we click on that link and find a big table. ARBPIA is near the end. It says:
"The entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted; edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace." (my emphasis) So in fact ECR agrees with WP:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area_of_conflict" that edits in userspace are not in the ARBPIA "topic area". Where is the contradiction?

I'll also repeat (please answer): You seem to be proposing that "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace" at WP:Contentious_topics/Arab–Israeli conflict#Definition of the "area_of_conflict" be changed to "edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of talkspace". Why does that make any sense? You want to remove talkspace from the topic area?? Zerotalk 11:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Selfstudier: If arbcom wish to undo the exclusion of userspace from the ARBPIA topic area, that's their decision, but your proposal does much more than that. Zerotalk 12:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a change to the status of userspace is to be considered, I suggest that arbcom consider all CT topics and not just ARBPIA. Personally I don't understand why an editor should be forbidden from mentioning the topic in their own user space (unless they are actively disruptive there). For example, an editor who is approaching 500 edits may develop some text in their sandbox for insertion into articles once EC is achieved — isn't that perfectly reasonable? An editor who abuses this allowance (say, by excessive pings) can be dealt with easily. Zerotalk 04:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Maybe this revert I did a couple of days ago is a useful test. Is the revert valid or invalid under the remedies? Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Kenneth Kho

This amendment request came to my attention after @Doug Weller: pointed it to me, I believe I can provide some clarity for the arbitrators.

I think there is an error in the request as pointed out by @Zero0000: the intended request is likely "remove exception of userspace" instead of "change userspace to talkspace" in WP:PIA, and the opposing side would be "add exception of userspace" to WP:ECR.

The answer would depend on whether arbitrators intended WP:ECR A(1) to overrule or uphold WP:PIA 4(B), if there is an answer, we are done.

If arbitrators did not consider it at all, the strongest argument for the initiating side would be WP:BROADLY, as the broadest possible thing would be no exception to userspace.

I'm arguing in favor of the opposing side, the strongest argument would be WP:UOWN, as userspace is traditionally given broad latitude too, it seems that WP:ECR and WP:UOWN should have their own jurisdiction, and on the balance WP:ECR should not be excessively broad.

@Selfstudier: nicely pointed to WP:TBAN in support of the initiating side, but it is worth noting that WP:TBAN is intended to "forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive", while WP:GS is intended to "improve the editing atmosphere of an article or topic area", which applies here as WP:GS specifically includes "Extended confirmed restriction". Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Callanecc

My understanding is that"

Unless thought through extensively, there is a potential contradiction between what is defined as related content:

The 'Definition of the "area of conflict"' decision says that related content is edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace (that is, not articles).
'General sanctions upon related content' says it applies to related content but then redefines this is (i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict) which I suspect is intended to mean things defined above as 'related content' (not what is actually says which is pages not covered at all in the definition).

There is also the potential that any restiction (e.g. topic ban or 0RR) imposed under contentious topics cannot apply in userspace or could an editor be restricted for an edit on a userpage or user talk page.

To avoid the confusion and contradiction created I suggest that:

  • "with the exception of userspace" is removed from the definition
  • "(i.e. pages not otherwise related to the area of conflict)" is replaced with "(see [[#Definition of the "area of conflict"]])".
  • Then either:
    • A decision is added to the index explicitly allowing CTOP restrictions to apply to edits made in relation to related content anywhere on Wikipedia to close the loophole currently exempting userspace completely. This would mean, however, that to be covered user talk pages would need to have the enforcement templates on them.
OR
  • An exemption is added so that the requirements of "General sanctions upon related content" are not applied to editor restrictions imposed under CTOP. This would be the closest to the current intent where editors could be restricted from related content based on and applying to all of their editing in the topic area regardless of whether pages have the enforcement templates on them or not.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: See discussion here regarding the exemption for userspace. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Premeditated Chaos might remember more about the discussion and thinking behind this and my statement in general too. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PMC

Callanecc, I'm afraid I don't recall in any greater depth than my comments at the workshop, sorry. The userspace exception was suggested by Huldra and Zero0000, who made some comments re: user talk pages that on review, look like reasonable concerns; whether or not they're still applicable I can't say. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

I think it would be easy to make it clear when mentioning talk space we meant user talk space and are not forbidding edit requests when the specific sanction allows them. Surely we don't want non-extended-confirmed-editors to be able add material to their own userspace they cannot added elsewhere. The purpose as I understand it of the 500 edits and 30 days is to enable them to learn our policies and guidelines and hopefully how to work constructively with others. I also think we don't want non-ecr users to use their talk space or the talk space of others to discuss the topic. Doug Weller talk 12:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather not name this but recently rsn into another edotor with the same issue, but others convinced him he was wrong, although apparently he was right. Doug Weller talk 18:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red-tailed hawk (Definition)

Is there a reason the proposed motion uses "broadly interpreted" instead of the standard "broadly construed"? Is there a difference in meaning we are supposed to infer, or are they one and the same for purposes of this motion? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b): Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b): Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC) (replace after each update)[reply]

Motion name Support Oppose Abstain Passing Support needed Notes
Motion: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b) 0 0 0 Currently not passing 5
Motion: Repealing primary articles/related content distinction 1 0 0 Currently not passing 4
Notes


Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b): Arbitrator views and discussion

  • At the moment, "userspace" (including user pages, user talk pages and subpages, "all of these pages") is (only) related content to the ARBPIA area as described at Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict § General sanctions upon related content. This leads to the following result, which is confusing to me:This should be changed in my opinion, and I am inclined to support the removal of the userspace exemption as edit requests should be sufficient to allow non-extended-confirmed editors to participate with minimal disruption in the area. The current state allows them to wait 30 days, make 500 purely ARBPIA-related edits to their sandbox and then move that to the mainspace. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to note that I am aware of and am watching this discussion, but I would like to look more into the reasoning/history behind the current wording before commenting further. - Aoidh (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any contradiction between what WP:ECR says and what WP:CT/A-I describes; the CT page describes what is and is not under the ECR restriction in a way that is entirely compatible with the wording of ECR. ECR covers the area of conflict, and userspace is not in area of conflict. However it can be as "technically correct" as possible, but if it's confusing or seemingly incompatible to reasonable editors (which seems to be the case) then it's not doing it's purpose and needs to be rewritten or amended for clarity. If we're going to be imposing these atypical rules for this topic area then they need to be accessible and easily understood. - Aoidh (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a real problem or an edge case? --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think one issue with this is that the "primary articles" and "related content" distinction has proven to be less useful with time. When the case was first decided, the extended confirmed restriction had not been established. (In fact, the ARBPIA 500/30 restriction is what eventually led to the adoption of WP:ARBECR.) Now, WP:ARBECR points A, B, and C establish the proper enforcement actions to be taken, without need for any reference to "primary articles" and "related content" — a distinction that few if any other cases maintain. I would therefore support a motion defining the "area of conflict" to simply be "the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted", and making conforming edits to the rest of the case. (We can keep the templates, but the definitions of primary articles and related content will no longer be necessary in defining the scope of the restrictions.) Doing so would resolve this request and simplify the language going forward. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Red-tailed hawk: I would assume the two terms should be viewed identically. Further thoughts forthcoming — currently discussing among ourselves. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)

For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion

Motion: Repealing primary articles/related content distinction

Remedy 4 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case ("Definition of the 'area of conflict'") is amended to read as follows: For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" is the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted.

Remedy 5 is amended by appending the following text: The {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli editnotice}} editnotice and the {{ArbCom Arab-Israeli enforcement}} talk page notice should be used on pages within the area of conflict. When only parts of a page fall within the area of conflict, if there is confusion about which content is considered related, the content in question may be marked in the wiki source with an invisible comment. Once added by any editor, any marking, template, or editnotice may be removed only by an uninvolved administrator.

Remedy 6, Remedy 7, and Remedy 8 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case are repealed.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
  • Posting for discussion, per internal disucssion with ToBeFree. The issue with the previous motion is that Remedy 6-8 rely on the "primary articles" and "related content" distinction, and establish some special rules that are not found in the rest of the CTOP/ARBECR world. This motion would retain some of the guidance on the templates but broadly eliminate the formal differences in enforcement rules.
    One other option is to bring some of the rules from ARBPIA into the broader arbitration enforcement procedures. I think there is some merit in that idea — currently, all WP:CTOP says about scoping is one sentence (Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic.) and one footnote (This procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces. When considering whether edits fall within the scope of a contentious topic, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.). If it would be useful to import some language from Remedy 6-8, that could be on the table. But there may not be much appetite for doing so, in which case we can just adopt the motion as drafted here. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do like this motion as is already! Thanks for creating it; I hadn't noticed the need for adjusting the other remedies as well. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban

Initiated by Lima Bean Farmer at 20:16, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Original topic ban made before switch to contentious topics
AE appeal that modified the topic ban

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Lima Bean Farmer

I need clarification on how I would properly appeal a topic ban. According to Wikipedia:Contentious topics, after a year a topic ban in contentious topics wouldn’t need community review. However, what makes this complicated is that the initial topic ban was imposed by one administrator but a later appeal was decided by AE consensus. It is not clear what level of appeal or how I would go about removing the topic ban and would appreciate any clarification. Thank you in advance!

Statement by Tamzin

Commenting as closer of the appeal. I see the logic that an appeal's denial at AE is tantamount to a consensus-of-AE-admins sanction. However, that would create a perverse incentive not to appeal in the first year of an individually imposed sanction. Why appeal to AE at 11 months if a decline would strip you of your right to appeal to an individual admin at 12 months?

I think the only way to avoid that paradox is to say that declines only count as AE-consensus sanctions if the AE admins a) explicitly assume the action as a consensus action, and/or b) impose new, stricter sanctions in the course of declining. (Here, I imposed a new sanction with Dreamy's consent and other admins' support, but it was narrower than Dreamy's original.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 07:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Red-tailed hawk (Lima Bean)

Is it correct to read WP:CTOP as saying that more or less any admin can unilaterally undo any unilateral CTOP action on appeal provided that 1 year has passed? If so, it would be nice it it were more clear. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dreamy Jazz

As far as I remember, this sanction is not subject to the 1 year rule because it was made before the switch to contentious topics. This is based on WP:CTOP#Continuity. As such, it needs to follow the rules as if it was a sanction made less than a year ago. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac, given the appeal and subsequent modification was held at AE after the switch to contentious topics, does the modification of the topic ban now prevent it from being seen as a topic ban that is exempt from the 1 year rule?
I would argue that the topic ban modification doesn't necessarily change the 1 year rule exemption (unless I've missed something that's said in the document).
Asking this to you specifically because you said this is now modifyable after a year and I don't know if this because you see the modification as removing the exemption to the 1 year rule or if the modification of the scope represents a entirely new sanction. I don't see this as a new sanction because in the WP:AELOG it is styled as a amendment of the scope and my original topic ban is not struck. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:11, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to whether an appeal should be granted from my point of view, I have not had a chance to review recent contributions so don't have an opinion at this time.
If my comment is desired on that, let me know and I should be able to do that next week. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided some thoughts at AE where an appeal has been filed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:05, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Appeal methods for Lima Bean Farmer topic ban: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Declining an appeal at AE is not imposing a sanction, so the "no appeals" language does not apply, unless per #Appeals and amendments A rough consensus of administrators ... may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals ... may be submitted. Per the procedural summary, then, it is appealable after a year and may be extended, but would not strictly require a consensus at AE to lift. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will have to re-review the issue; if the ban was in place before the switch to CTOP then it would probably fall under the old procedure but I will have to check. Primefac (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per other comments, declining an appeal should not reset the clock or change the methods of appeal, but a significant modification or positive reaffirmation should do so. In this particular case, I agree with Tamzin's proposal to not consider this either of the latter two options as it narrowed the topic ban; once could almost consider it to be a partial lift of the original sanction. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted to some of my colleagues recently, I miss ACDS sometimes (if I had to start somewhere, the cooler name ...). Anyways, my understanding of this is that as the AE topic ban (changing to post-1992) was carried out under the new contentious topics procedures, it superseded and replaced the old DS topic ban. As it was imposed at AE, the one-year rule does not apply and a formal appeal would need to be successful (ie consensuses at AE/AN or a motion here).
    On the broader policy question, I agree that declinations of appeals by themselves do not reset the clock, but since this appeal led to a new sanction being imposed, that is a material change in circumstances. @Red-tailed hawk: I feel like the procedure is relatively clear: only single-administrator sanctions and indefinite blocks can be undone in this manner (see Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Procedural summary too).
    I think that this status quo is okay, unless I've grievously misinterpreted things. There may be issues with interpreting whether something is narrower or broader than another sanction, which makes me think that changing it isn't necessary. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:31, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Red-tailed hawk: That is what the committee was trying to do, as someone who was very much in disagreement on this point. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tamzin: That is probably the most logical way to cut the knot --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would hold that appeals still need to go to AE/AN; i.e., that they cannot be heard by any single administrator (without Dreamy's consent). That's because the one-year rule does not apply to the original sanction (under Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Continuity), and I would hold that the AE appeal narrowed the original sanction rather than imposed a new sanction. @Dreamy Jazz: if you don't have time to review this on the merits, you can if you want consent to other administrators changing the sanction on their own, under Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be largely moot given that Lima Bean Farmer has appealed at AE. Does anyone (@Primefac and Guerillero: as folks who expressed a preference to possibly change the procedures) feel like we should keep this open to amend the procedures, in case this comes up again in the future? If not, I would suggest closing. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine closing, I have a feeling that the number of individuals sanctioned under DS who are unsuccessful and have their appeal modified at AE will be steadily decreasing over time. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: German war effort

Initiated by Cinderella157 at 03:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
German war effort arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort#Cinderella157 German history topic ban
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Statement by Cinderella157

I simply ask the community ArbCom to review whether this ban continues to serve any reasonable purpose consistent with the prevailing WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have learnt to discern that some things are difficult to substantiate and are therefore better left unsaid. I am not a project coordinator and have no foreseeable aspirations to become one. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree, the absence of K.e.coffman is news to me. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Sdrqaz

The sanction was imposed as a remedy for personal attacks against a particular editor. ArbCom determined that I could not substantiate particular allegations and that in consequence, these rose to being personal attacks. If I was inclined, I might have continued to make such attacks against the editor of record in areas unrelated to the Tban or despite the Tban. I have not. I submit, that ArbCom's determination that the editor of record had not engaged in misconduct was sufficient remedy to prevent further similar allegations/personal attacks.

As noted, I have been actively editing in several contentious topic areas, including the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Indo-Pakistani wars - areas known to foster editor misconduct an personal attacks. I have become more discerning in how I deal with perceived misconduct or whether I deal with it at all. Where I have had occasion to raise issues of conduct, I have been more discerning and circumspect as to how and where such matters are dealt with. My conduct in doing so has not been seen by the community as being personal attacks or otherwise inappropriate - certainly not rising to the level necessitating sanction. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Newyorkbrad

As some of the arbitrators have noted below, it is the ArbCom rather than the broader community that would consider whether to terminate or modify one of ArbCom's own remedies. Given that Cinderella157 filed his appeal request on this particular page, it is likely that he was aware of this fact, and that his use of the term "community" either was simply inartful, or perhaps was meant as a suggestion that non-arb community members might wish to comment on his request. In any event, if he wasn't already aware of the proper procedure, he is now.

What would be needed next is some explanation of why Cinderella157 believes the sanction no longer serves a reasonable purpose. Simply saying so without a word of explanation will certainly not succeed. In making his case, I suggest he should also bear in mind that when the German war effort case was decided six years ago, none of the current arbitrators were on the Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Euryalus

I was on the Committee during this case and this sanction has been bothering me somewhat. Some points:

  • The topic ban: It was proposed in case /Evidence that Cinderella157 could not edit WWII topics neutrally because they are an "apologist" for Nazi Germany (see this "Apologetics" section). This was a strong claim for which we should expect strong proofs. Unfortunately, very little evidence was then provided, with the principal diffs on topic neutrality being:
    • this disagreement re the qualifications of authors of a specific WWII history book;
    • this statement that historical re-enactment society volunteers might or might not all be sympathisers of the cause they re-enact; and
    • this evidence section by Cinderella157 which relevantly states: My position is that WP must find a middle ground in dealing with events of WW2 and particularly biographies IMO - that is, a position that does not glorify or apoligise (on the one hand) but which does not vilify without substance (in the case of individuals as opposed to the regime). I don't entirely agree with these sentiments but wouldn't describe them as worthy of a topic ban from WWII.
Perhaps reflecting the paucity of hard evidence, the Committee made no reference to these diffs in the Decision and no Finding of Fact regarding Cinderella157's neutrality in this topic.
  • Personal attacks: Separately, Cinderella157 make this comment during the case, which was correctly perceived as a personal attack on another editor. Evidence was also presented of a difficult relationship with that editor over a long period (see here and here. The Committee made a Finding of Fact on personal attacks here. I mention this because disruptive interpersonal relationships between editors in the same topic area can sometimes lead to disruption of the topic itself. However the normal responses to disruptive interpersonal relations or personal attacks are interaction bans or blocks. Neither was imposed in this case, and again given the passage of time it seems the issue has resolved. If a personal attack was made at some future point it would more appropriately be responded to with an i-ban or a block, rather than a topic ban from any specific set of articles.
  • Progress since the ban: Cinderella157 breached the topic ban once in 2019 and was blocked for 5 days. Since then have since made around 9,000 edits to military history articles, seemingly without issue. Their edit history and talkpages seem to suggest competent engagement with complex and controversial topics including the Russo-Ukrainian War, and no issues with apologetics or personal attacks.

Apologies if all this seems like a relitigation of the actual case. Fwiw I'm not an editor of WWII history and have never interacted with Cinderella157 or anyone else from this case in any other topic. I also don't doubt the sincerity of the editor who originally lodged this case, or their multiyear commitment to improving Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. Their evidence against some others, for example LargelyRecyclable was impeccable and justified the ban that we imposed.

The reason for posting the above re Cinderella157 is simply that this topic ban has stuck in my mind over several years as a sanction that probably didn't need to be made. So long as they didn't seem to care, neither did I. But now they've asked for it to be lifted it seemed reasonable to take a minute to support that request. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To somewhat clarify the above: the principal point I'm making is that the topic ban was adopted as a misplaced response to a personal attack. There was no real evidence that Cinderella157 was unable to edit this topic neutrally. There's also no evidence of ongoing personal attacks. On these bases I've always considered this topic ban unnecessary and this ARCA was a good opportunity to say so. :)
Beyond that, agree its up to Cinderella157 to provide a more substantial justification for its removal than they currently have. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sir Kenneth Kho

I would support waiting for Coffman's statement for two weeks, but the reason is simply to provide all sides fair opportunity to be heard. However, if there must be an answer as to whether the "timing of the appeal has anything to do with Coffman's absence", it can't be anything other than a resounding no per WP:AGF. Sir Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by K.e.coffman

I do not object to the T-ban being lifted with the conditions outlined in the motion. Perhaps Cinderella157 has indeed matured in their interactions. For background, I had limited contact with Cinderella157 prior to the Arbitration case, except for a few instances where they attacked me out of the blue: [2], or joined in LargelyRecyclable's arguments with me: Talk:World War II reenactment#Recent edit.

It was Cinderella157's behavior during and after the case that was more of a concern. As the case was concluding, Cinderella157 attempted to re-litigate the entire case on the PD's talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Proposed decision#Conduct of KEC -- in 11 subsections, all about my behavior. From there, they linked to a separate, 9-000 word document, with more diffs & links: User:Cinderella157/GWE evidence suppliment. That seemed overly obsessive and concerned me greatly at the time.

After the case, the issues included edit-warring against me at the same Waffen-SS reenactment page: 19 June 2019, 20 June 2019, 1 July 2019, and refusal to listen to advice from AE admins: [3]; Cinderella157's response: [4]. They also ignored a prior warning from another admin, Bishonen, pertaining to the topic area: March 2019.

Cinderella157 has demonstrated some poor conduct regarding their T-ban after it was instituted, but not as far as I know after 2019. I hope that's a good sign for the future. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

German war effort: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

German war effort: Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion: Cinderella157's topic ban suspended

Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") is suspended for a period of six months. During the period of suspension, this topic ban may be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator, as an arbitration enforcement action, should Cinderella157 (talk · contribs) fail to adhere to any normal editorial process or expectations in the topic area. Appeal of such a reinstatement would follow the normal arbitration enforcement appeals process. After six months from the date this motion is enacted, if the topic ban has not been reinstated or any reinstatements have been successfully appealed, the topic ban will automatically lapse.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Support
  1. Proposed based on a previous suspension motion that appears to have good language, as three arbitrators have expressed support for lifting or suspending the TBAN. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 14:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator discussion
  • ...

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)

Initiated by Red-tailed hawk at 17:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles and related AE thread.
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Pursuant to WP:CTOP#Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee, a recent Arbitration Enforcement thread has closed with instructions to refer the dispute to the full arbitration committee for final decision.


Lists of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Involved AE participants
Other editors whose behavior was directly mentioned in the AE thread
Referring administrators
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Throughout the discussion among administrators at AE, several sources of disruption were identified:
  1. Long-term slow-motion edit warring by a number of individuals within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
  2. Long-term tag-team edit warring by several groups of individuals with the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
  3. The widespread nature of edit warring, battleground mentality, and POV pushing within the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area.
  4. The ineffectiveness of previous warnings within the topic area to stop the disruption.
  5. The inability of the tools available at AE to adequately handle disruption that involves a large number of parties over long periods of time.
Several suggestions were floated by administrators during the discussion, including the issuance of warnings to multiple individuals, the imposition of 0RR restrictions on either select individuals, or 0RR restrictions on large numbers of individuals coupled with select IBANs, TBANs, individual anti-bludgeoning restrictions, and topic-wide restrictions on the length of posts people make in discussions within this topic area. However, because the discussion broadly turned into a set of complex and multi-party complaints regarding behavior of multiple editors over long periods of time, a consensus was reached among administrators to refer the broader dispute to the arbitration committee.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Red-tailed hawk (AE referral)

information Note: The arbitration amendment template limits how many individual I can initially add, so I will shortly be adding the rest of the admin and non-admin participants to the list above in their own section.

Additionally, as I can't find any prior examples of referrals by looking through the archive, I have tried to do my best here in light of the fact that this is a referral rather than a standard amendment request/appeal. Arbitrators should not hesitate to let me know if I have formatted this in an unexpected way.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: As should be more obvious now, it's everyone who contributed to the AE discussion. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: There's currently a discussion over at WT:Arbitration/Requests#Template for referrals from AE around that topic. For completeness's sake, I included everyone in this one. Going forward, there might be some norm/convention, but I figured that it was better to incorporate everyone rather than potentially leave someone relevant out. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do acknowledge that I left out several individuals whose behavior was directly mentioned, and I will fix that issue now. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: Please see my comment above, and my exchange with Levivich for an explanation as to why you are listed under the category of "Involved AE participants". — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 11:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@L235: Thank you for your comment. I think that a full case/case-like structure would be best, as that is the sort of thing that would allow for clear examination of the complex multi-party disputes that AE is not quite able to handle well. In my view, I don't think the topic-wide "please be brief in discussions" provision will be enough, as it isn't going to remedy the long-term edit warring/tag teaming, nor the civility issues that have driven away good faith editors from the topic area.
In the event that a full case is opened, I agree that it is most appropriate to only have the individuals whose behavior is under examination to be considered as parties. But, before that list is finalized, we might want to have some space for the community to identify that sort of behavior—perhaps the section for statements in this thread? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that it might be useful for some anti-bludgeoning sanction to incorporated into the discretionary sanctions available for administrators to dole out, but if so, I think it should look like one that the community has previously endorsed in a DS area. One such sanction is that which was imposed on NewImpartial, of no more than two comments per discussion per day, except replies (of reasonable length) to questions or very brief clarifications of their own comments.
I would hesitate to apply a 500 word limit in any discussion under 5000 words, and a 1000 word or 10% of the discussion limit, whichever is lower, on discussions over 5000 words topic-wide in a blanket fashion; I feel like this sort of thing would serve as a trap to good-faith newcomers who are verbose, and we needn't WP:BITE good-faith editors who are entering the topic more than already occurs. That being said, making it available as a discretionary sanction that could be applied by an admin would not cause the same issue with more or less auto-biting good-faith editors new to the area, and might be reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Looking at the list of parties, those who have been sanctioned in this topic area have not been disruptive since their sanction, AFAIK. Most of the list have never been sanctioned. If there are concerns regarding anyone's behavior in the topic area, a filing at AE, ANI, ANEW, or some other noticeboard, should happen first, before an arbcom case. An arbcom case should only happen when (1) there are editors who want to present evidence to arbcom, and (2) community options have first been tried and failed (unless there's private evidence involved). Because these criteria are not met, the case request should be declined.

Limiting everyone in the topic area to 500-1000 words is a terrible idea. This topic area has more sources (see here or here for an idea of how many academic books have been published just in the last five years), and more sources that contradict each other, than almost any other topic area. Discussions about sources can't happen in 500-1000 words; the very notion is ridiculous. More to the point, any kind of topic-wide restriction would be a horrible, counterproductive overreach. The vast, vast majority of editors are doing nothing wrong.

Removing appeals to the community is not something arbcom can do, as that would require a change to WP:BANPOL, which arbcom cannot do.

I don't think the AEs I filed are particularly "complex" or "multi-party". I think they're straightforward, and each one can be judged on its merits without considering the actions of other parties. Of the 5 I filed, 1 ended in sanctions, 2 in warnings, no problems with those. The PeleYoetz one is still open and they just made their first comment there recently. I don't see any reason admins can't review that as with any other filing. If arbs want to review that filing instead of admins, seems like overkill, but OK. האופה hasn't edited since I filed the AE 8 days ago, so while arbs could review it, I see it as moot, and I don't think reviewing it would be a good use of anyone's time at this point.

There is nothing for arbcom to do here. People who are concerned about disruption in the topic area should raise it at one of the community noticeboards. A sprawling, unfocused case with lots of parties, is a terrible idea, as has been proven multiple times by past arbcoms, and this is especially true in the absence of any showing that the community is unable to handle this. The only thing worse would be a topic-wide sanction; please don't do that, I fear it would trigger a "constitutional crisis" and waste more editor time. Levivich (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by האופה

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

  • There seems to be constant RFCs and threads about the reliability of sourcing in this area. I know the current arbitration request is about long term edit warring, but there is also long-term campaigns in talk spaces to remove usage of certain sourcing. See the downgrading of the ADL, the current RFC in WP:RSN about Al Jazeera, etc. The downgrading of the ADL, in particular, caused significant media coverage for barely much difference in the status quo of average Wikipedian (from my understanding, we already had significant warnings about using ADL with attribution only when speaking about Israel Palestine, the change in status quo hardly meant much more than a media circus). Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of reversion, the reversion limits are harder to understand in CTOP space, especially for more contentious arguments. A clarification of what the "base" article text is and what the contentious edit that is being reverted is would be useful. In my case on Genocide of indigenous peoples, there are still questions of how to apply WP:NOCONSENSUS vs WP:ONUS when a contentious edit (which probably should be removed by WP:ONUS) had been placed in text for long while (and therefore should remain by WP:NOCONSENSUS). Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional clarification on whether coordinated tag-team editwarring (i.e. WP:CANVASSED) or incidental tag-team editwarring should be treated similarly would be useful Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going off of the suggestion from ScottishFR, for the limit of 500-1000 words, some of these RFC discussions go long. Instead of absolute limits that could unfairly limit discussion among the most passionate editors of the topic, would it be possible to go with proportional limits (no more than 500 words or 10% of comments, whichever is greater?), or limits per week (500 words per week?) In addition, I have questions if such a limit would apply to single RFC threads, or to the whole topic at once. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think categorizing and various ontologies is also problematic and hard to determine, as is expected. See the issue with whether Israel is just accused of being an apartheid state, or also a Talk:Herrenvolk_democracy#Inclusion_of_Israel_in_imagebox. Allegations of just genocide or Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples. There are POV-fork type issues, but this is one of those topics where every time there is a question of how to categorize the conflict, it opens up the same exact battle lines of arguments in a million pages, even if they cover completely different aspects that may involve Israel/Palestine as one example. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TLDR; battleground fractures into dozens of talk pages that aren't necessarily pov-forks, same arguments pushed everywhere in each RFC. Better guidelines on how to be more succinct with RFCs on this topic, and how to discuss WP:ARBPIA topics on pages that aren't necessarily centered on ARBPIA would be wonderful too. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Number57's assessment, A further issue is that for most of the last two decades the two sides have been seriously mismatched in terms of numbers and one side has been consistently able to push their POV through weight of numbers, either by long-term tag teaming or by swinging poorly-attended discussions (and in my view the 30/500 restriction has actively worsened this situation by giving the long-term problematic editors an advantage). this seems disingenuous to suggest this, especially given the WP:NOTAVOTE rule. There are RFCs where arguments on either side are heavily favored by numbers before an admin/uninvolved closer throws away votes that have reasoning that is logically rebutted. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will also say the 30/500 restriction as a "worsening" of situation seems silly. I am not quite sure about the logical reasoning behind that assertion, though some other biased publications have attempted to use that to suggest that wikipedia "censors" certain viewpoints? [5][6][7] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like a few of folks are leaning towards massive topic bans against all participants... Regardless of how unlikely such a proposal is, I hate the idea of "cleaning the slate" and such a broad strokes approach is likely to cause more problems than it would theoretically solve:
    * There is benefits to having folks with bias on here, especially the most heaviest editors, doing major work. Bias is inherent to humanity and pretending otherwise is just an excuse to press the red ban button without considering consequences (or especially because they hate the current bias of Wikipedia compared to their preferred bias). The way to deal with bias is using the principles we have, rules we can apply even handedly, WP:WIKIVOICE to correctly attribute which side says what, etc.
    • Many topic areas have specialized folks who do important work (see Pareto rule). Seeing a list of highly motivated folks in this topic area is not a sign necessarily they are always hogging the attention, so much as they provide much of the energy to keep Wikipedia up to doate.
    • The precedent of massive topic bans without careful assessment of the reasoning why leads to dangerous precedents for other future content disputes.
    • The precedent of retroactive punishments for areas of conflict is a dangerous precedent
    • I am not sure the same cabal of pro-Palestine/pro-Israeli editors is necessarily "crowding" out other editors? There are folks who loudly complain about exiting ARBPIA areas, especially on this section, but that isn't quite the same as actual stats to back that up. I'm actually fairly new-ish to this topic area, and admins have been kind enough to help shepherd, provide useful guidance, and prevent my early exit (voluntary or involuntary).
  • I think pressing a mass TBAN on this topic area would be somewhat equivalent to doing WP:TNT on large sections of the editor community who specialize on here... Unless it is certain that all of the project is absolutely unsalvageable or ARBIPA is somehow all a failure, I ask arbitrators to avoid granting such a power. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sean.hoyland thanks for the numbers, they are really informative! I will say, it is fairly obvious a giant influx of editors to the topic area happened recently as a result of the conflict (myself included), though obviously the analysis of such a large dataset to confirm or deny toxicity by a core group would go beyond just numbers. I think the pure mass of folks in the topic area is just a lot harder to govern around and regulate, especially with the contentiousness of the topic area. And as the conflict spreads beyond obviously ARBPIA pages to tangentially related pages, the regulations get murkier. I think if PIA5 does happen, a key issue is just how to govern and regulate en masse, as well as on the individual editor/cabal level, and how to handle PIA content on pages that aren't just pure PIA (see the Herrenvolk_democracy talk page RFC for an example)? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ABHammad

I think we have arrived at a point where editing in this area is not just a battleground environment but an ex-territory of the project. I recognize that I, too, took part in this in the past, not out of desire but because I felt I had no choice when I saw the consistent POV pushing and disregard for policies and consensus. There’s probably a reason why Wikipedia is now maybe the only mainstream source to use terms such as Gaza genocide and Israeli apartheid (read the lead) with its own voice. Many disputed changes like this have been introduced through edit warring (check Zionism, now defined as looking for the “colonization of land outside Europe”), in spite of substantial opposition. The current situation both scares away potential great editors and destroys our credibility and neutrality.

The feeling is that a bunch of 5-10 experienced editors have taken dominance over the area. Much of their edit histories show a focus on promoting one side's POV and discarding the other. Although some problematic editing occurs on both sides, it should be noted that the extent of POV editing on articles about one side is only a fraction of what occurs on articles about the other. This situation is perpetuated as new good-faith editors trying to balance the content often face aggressive behavior such as strong CTOP messages from Selfstudier followed by inquiries how did they find this and that article, "previous accounts" questions from Nableezy, accusations of "gaming the system to achieve EC status" from Iskandar323 on noticeboards, and as we seen in the last month, unverified tag-teaming allegations from Levivich. Those who survive all of the above then find their user talk pages filled with allegations, insults and other kinds of personal attacks and aspersions. Even five edits in this topic area can provoke such reactions. WP:ONUS and WP:CONSENSUS are ignored - they are applied only to others. RfCs, AfDs, and RMs are manipulated through mass bludgeoning. They blame others for edit warring - but this is exactly what they are doing. Based on my experience with these editors over several months, I am afraid it would be naive to think that simply limiting word count in discussions would solve the problem. Looking over their logs, many of these editors already have a long history of warnings and short-term topic bans, so something else must be done this time. ABHammad (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

1.There is another relevant recent related AE thread, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive336#Nishidani. Many of the editors here, including myself and several of the uninvolved administrators, were participants and the case revolved around behavior (and content) at the Zionism article and this same subject matter is a part of the current case, 6 Levivich diffs refer (in the last two statements).Selfstudier (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2.This one as well (PeleYoetz). Editors named here continue to respond there. Although procedurally a separate AE case, it was filed contemporaneously with and is part and parcel of the related AE thread. Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3.In the interim, avoiding this sort of thing or this would be as well. Selfstudier (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4.Several editors suggest that editors are scared off by a toxic environment. this example for the Zionism article (Sean.hoyland), shows the contrary, an influx of new editors in recent times. Difficult to be certain without more data but my sense is that the pattern will hold up for other articles as well. It is of course possible that both things are true. Selfstudier (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: it'd be ludicrous to say that the temperature in this area is lower than it was the day before the war began. I'm not saying that, I'm saying that there has been an influx of new editors regardless of the temperature.Selfstudier (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5.@Nishidani: Where is the empirical evidence for these outrageous spluttering caricatures of a very complex environment +1, I would indeed like to see the data. Selfstudier (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by fiveby

I don't think the referral of this particular case and the inclusion of the first two items listed as identified disruption dealing with edit warring necessarily means that AE can't deal with such or didn't in this instance. Just because the experiment blew up the lab does not mean it was a bad thing to try. Seemed like a reasonable request and a result of you need more evidence to demonstrate tag team editing seems reasonable, which everyone could have and maybe should have accepted and walked away from. fiveby(zero) 17:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I tend to agree with Ravpapa's assessment that we have probably "exceeded the limits of the possible with a cooperative open editing model, and we need to think of some other way to approach articles in this area". I have no idea what that would look like.

I would like to know the answer to the following question

  • Why would a person on a righteous mission hand over control of which rules they have to follow to people hostile to their cause when they can simply use disposable accounts and pick and choose which rules to follow without having to concern themselves with the consequences of non-compliance?

Answers like "It's against the rules", "It's dishonest", "It's hypocritical", "They will be discovered and blocked" are wrong answers. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a perceived "established/multi-topic interested Wikipedian" vs "less-established more and/or more singularly focused Wikipedian" divide, I'm not sure this tells you anything very useful. There is already training material teaching people how to resemble a multi-topic interested Wikipedian. This is good advice because there is utility in diluting POV edits, edit war participation etc. A few strategic edit warring edits in a sea of multi-topic edits will likely be treated differently than a few strategic edit warring edits by an account that resembles an SPA, even though they are the same. It may also devalue article intersection evidence between accounts and reduce the chance of a checkuser being approved. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A plea for humility

This is for all the people making sweeping statements.

  • It might be better to assign low credence, by default, to the accuracy of assessments of the state of the 'topic area', a complex system with thousands of moving parts.
  • This is a small part of the structure you are talking about. What is the likelihood that sweeping statements are accurate?
  • Here are some numbers and some questions.
    • I don't know what the 'topic area' is exactly, but thousands of article talk pages have one of the various topic area related templates informing people about the special rules. So, we can look at those and pretend it's the 'topic area' or thereabouts.
    • This table lists the number of different editors and the number of revisions for talk pages in this 'topic area' for the last ten years or so. The number of revisions provides an upper limit on the number of editor interactions on talk pages. Obviously, the actual number of interactions will be much less, but at least there are some numbers rather than stories and feelings.
    • Questions:
      • How many of these talk page interactions are consistent with the sweeping negative assessments of the state of the topic area and how many are not?
      • How many comply with policy and guidelines and how many do not?
      • How many are hostile, toxic, combative, tendentiousness, condescending, bludgeoning, hypocritical, bullying, glaringly dishonest etc. and how many are not?
year actor_count talk_revisions
0 2013 2096 17754
1 2014 2483 23773
2 2015 2167 23195
3 2016 1848 18541
4 2017 2091 21463
5 2018 2184 23643
6 2019 1907 15812
7 2020 2110 14908
8 2021 2755 21711
9 2022 2464 19716
10 2023 6778 52636
11 2024 6287 59678

Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

Statement by Dan Murphy

The "dispute" as defined here is "accounts on Wikipedia disagree about various things." In my case I have recently disagreed with a number of accounts about the history of Zionism. On the one hand, early zionists and historians of zionism describe it as a colonial project of settlement. On the other hand, some wikipedia accounts really don't want the article here to describe it as such. Many of those accounts have turned out to be sockpuppets of previous accounts long banned from this area. I'd be shocked if the Peleyoetz account named in this report isn't one, too [8]. The abuse of sockpuppets is a powerful advantage at Wikipedia, and wooden enforcement of teh rulz about conduct, ignorant of content and context, a powerful disincentive to being honest and straightforward.

No matter. This unfocused, throw everything at the wall and see what sticks request, is a bad idea.Dan Murphy (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

My view is that if this is to be an arbitration case that it should be pretty wide, and not just the four editors Barkeep named. The tendentious editing, including obvious examples of canvassing and off-wiki coordination, in this topic area stretches well beyond those four names, and I don’t think looking at four editors in a vacuum in this, or any other topic where the temperature in the real world is beyond mildly warm, is all that productive. I’m well aware of the committees past rulings on standards of behavior, but I for one am unable to understand how anybody can think a topic like this, where the real world conflict it is covering contains accusations of ongoing crimes against humanity up to and including rape as a weapon of war, mass indiscriminate killings, and genocide is going to remain calm cool and collected. nableezy - 01:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems highly likely that this is going to be accepted as a full case, but I do want to push back on some of the claims being bandied about here. There is this misconception that there are "pro-Israel" editors vs "pro-Palestinian" editors, and that is both not true and has never been true. Once upon a time, in a land far away, there was a similar argument, where one "side" was claimed to be the pro-Palestinian side, and the other the pro-Israel side. But that, like most of these disputes, was not true. One side was indeed pushing an identifiably nationalistic narrative identified with one "side" in the geopolitical conflict, the other was not. The two "sides" here have never been symmetrical here. As far as BilledMammal's highly subjective understanding of bludgeoning, he lists me as having bludgeoned Talk:Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing#MEMRI quote, but a, that isnt a formal discussion, and b. that is a back and forth with a handful of users. That isnt bludgeoning by any reasonable definition. They also somehow neglected to add Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gaza Health Ministry qualifier, where BM has some 73 comments there. I dont think that subpage is accurate either in its definition or its counting, and Id caution that evidence by editors who are highly involved not simply be accepted as accurate.

Also, regarding AirshipJungleman29 reading of my initial comment, I dont mean to say that civility does not matter, of course it does. But I also think people need to keep in mind that human beings are emotional creatures and that this is a topic that anybody who is involved in the real world is going to have moments where those emotions overtake their willingness to pretend that everybody here is editing in the best of faith and we're all one big happy community. And beyond that, as far as I am aware civility on Wikipedia has never meant not swearing. And I personally find insulting my intelligence through making specious arguments to be much more uncivil than a "bullshit" said in exasperation. But I was not saying WP:CIV should not count in this topic area, Im just saying if somebody is being realistic about how editing between people who are involved in a conflict in which accusations of rape and genocide are happening in the real world they should understand it is not always going to be roses and butterflies. nableezy - 16:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont want to get too caught up in what I think are opinions of people uninformed on both the actual editing in this topic area as well as being generally uninformed on what the sources actually support in this topic area. Ill just restate that this is not "pro-Israel" vs "pro-Palestinian" POV pushing, it is editors who edit according to the best available sources and editors who edit on emotion and time-wasting tactics. And those things should not be treated as though they are opposing camps. Those editing according to our content policies against those editing contrary to them is not a POV-pushing battle. Number 57's complaints about this, as somebody who is informed on how editing goes here, have to my ears always rang hollow. Consensus was against their position on things like including language on the illegality of Israeli settlements in their articles, and so he has openly called those who supported including such a thing, including me, POV pushers. Im sorry he feels that way, Ive never really been aware of what I could do to ameliorate that impression of his, but Ill just state I disagree with the premise of his claim that there is a core group of 10-15 editors in this topic area (many of whom have been with us for well over a decade) who are primarily on Wikipedia to push their POV. Since I know he means me, Ill just state that I do not edit Wikipedia to push a POV. I edit Wikipedia to try to make it so that article in this topic area are based on the balance of the best sources available. And if somebody does not like what the sources actually say about this topic, thats their problem, not mine. Im aware of my reputation on certain websites, but in my entire time here my purpose has always been to bring the best sources I can find to an article and to base the content I write and the arguments I make on those sources. nableezy - 23:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what I meant Number 57, you objected to the consensus developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues/Archive. Legality of Israeli settlements about including that information in each article. And since then, you have repeatedly called myself and others POV-pushers for reasons I have not yet figured out. And you have, again, that entire time played up that a couple of pro-Israel users opposed your RFA. I dont know what is disingenuous about my statement, I didnt even say anything about you besides that you have repeatedly called me a POV pusher since then. nableezy - 23:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien that was a well advertised and well attended RFC a baker's dozen years ago. What level of consensus it was really has no bearing on anything at this point. nableezy - 23:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could collapse this section and point to Rosguill's instead. nableezy - 16:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

There are a significant number of issues in this topic area that it is likely only ARBCOM can address, including:

  1. POV pushing
    Including both editors switching their stance to conform to their POV (for example, supporting using massacre as a descriptive term only when Israelis were targeted, or only when Palestinians were targeted) and editors misrepresenting sources.
  2. Stealth canvassing
  3. Incivility
    Occasional lapses are forgivable, but it has become common for editors to ignore the fourth pillar. This drives editors away from the topic area, worsening issues with POV pushing and stealth canvassing.
    The only way the topic area can be fixed is by fixing this.
  4. Bludgeoning
    See Bludgeoning statistics for an assessment of the extent of the problem. For technical reasons, it is currently limited to discussions on article talk pages and at RSN.

BilledMammal (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ScottishFinnishRadish's word limit proposal, I don't think that will have the desired result. Editors are often required to review a wide array of sources, such as when attempting to determining if a viewpoint is in the majority or what the WP:COMMONNAME is, and a word limit will impede this. This will in turn worsen one of the other issues in the topic area, POV pushing.
Instead, I think a comment limit - perhaps ten comments per discussion - will be more effective at preventing the back-and-forth and repetition of points that causes discussions to expand unproductively. BilledMammal (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: My aim was to review a representative sample of discussions in the topic space, rather than providing a sample biased towards discussions that I was aware of. To do this, I limited the discussions to two clearly defined areas; talk pages in both the Israel and Palestine Wikiprojects, and RSN.
This does mean I missed at least one discussion that I am aware of where I was too enthusiastic, but it also means I missed discussions where you were too enthusiastic - it balances out.
I am also aware, and prominently state in the analysis, that it is only an approximation - while most examples listed will be bludgeoning, exceptions will exist, including possibly the discussion you mention.
Finally, as I said on the analysis page, I am willing to rerun it with different configurations, including an expanded list of discussions. I am also working to implement the recommendations on the talk page, to make the data more accurate and useful. BilledMammal (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

I object to being listed here. I did nothing that should cause it, but RTH refused to remove me. But now that I'm here, I'll say that I don't see any suggestions so far that would make an improvement to the I/P area. Here are some points:

  • If any restrictions are imposed on the area, they should apply to everyone and not to some arbitrary list like this one. One of the notable things about the I/P area in the past several months is the remarkable number of new and revived accounts that have joined in, mostly on one side of the equation and many with scant knowledge of the subject. Quite a lot of the disputes arise because of them, not because of the people likely to comment at AE.
  • Imposing a limit on contributions that consists of a word limit or edit limit will cause delight to the tag teams, who will take full advantage of their combined greater limit.
  • Some types of discussion such as a negotiation between two editors should not have a limit at all. Also, in general there is no way to define "a discussion" except in the case of formal discussions like RfCs. The main points of dispute are brought up repeatedly and don't have clear boundaries. This means that a limit on "discussions" will just produce a lot of arguments over whether something was part of the same discussion or part of a different discussion.
  • Bludgeoning does not mean making a lot of edits. Replying to everyone who makes a contrary comment is bludgeoning, but repeatedly bringing new reliable sources is called good editing.

Here is something that will improve the atmosphere of formal discussions (RMs, RfCs, AfDs, etc): Require everyone to stick to their own statement, regardless of how many times they add to it (like at AE). This will eliminate 90% of bludgeoning right away. For RfCs: one statement in the !votes section and one statement in the Discussion section. Zerotalk 09:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: Yes, I already saw your excuse. For the information of others, my sole contribution to the AE case was to ask a participant for clarification, without stating any opinion or being mentioned by anyone else. You think this makes me an "involved AE participant" but I don't. Zerotalk 11:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

There is a broad array of disruptive editing, POV pushing, long term edit wars, bludgeoning, incivility, and it all basically comes down to WP:BATTLEGROUND. I've done my best to take care of all of the obvious cases that won't have to set aside a dozen hours of time to deal with, but much of the behavior is by editors with numerous prior warnings and sanctions but that topic banning, interaction banning, and blocking is not a simple matter. Most AE reports in the topic area involve behavior that is widespread among many parties, and picking out a single party for sanctioning and allowing other editors to continue the behavior isn't how enforcement should be working.

If Arbcom does wish to avoid a full case or "punt", as Barkeep puts it, there are a couple actions they can take to help out in the interim.

  • As a sanction across the topic area, or added to the standard set of CTOP enforcement mechanisms available to administrators on a per editor or per discussion sanction, a 500 word limit in any discussion under 5000 words, and a 1000 word or 10% of the discussion limit, whichever is lower, on discussions over 5000 words. This should be done immediately, even if a case is accepted.
  • Any appeals of sanctions by editors previously warned or sanctioned in ARBPIA should be handled by Arbcom to take pressure off individual administrators. Arbcom discussions have clerks to handle word limits, aspersions, and other disruptive editing. Arbcom can simply vote on if the sanction was a reasonable exercise of administrator discretion. This would hopefully cut down significantly on 0.3 tomats discussions at appeals, and put those decisions in the hands of the people the community elected to make them. (Hat tip to Red-tailed hawk, who came up with this.)

As for a party list, anyone who has made, been the subject of, or commented at any ARBPIA AE report since October 2023. The problem is widespread, and I think that is probably the most efficient way to generate a party list. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, that part of BANPOL is just quoting Arbitration procedure, it can be changed by Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

Re:L25: I didn't support moving this here because I was looking for an ArbCom only remedy as I felt we had whatever options we wanted on the table per the Contentious topic procedures A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set and any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. (emphasis added) I supported coming here because I think AE is ill-suited to a multi-party sprawling request like this. I actually think האופה is the least important party here in most ways and if the thread had stayed constrained to them a rough consensus would have been found. Instead, the discussion ballooned to potential misconduct by multiple other editors. For me the editors whose conduct needs examining would be BilledMammal, Iskandar323, Nableezy, and Selfstudier and I think ArbCom should review, and hopefully endorse, the work SFR has been doing as an uninvolved administrator given the concerns at least one of the parties (Nableezy) has raised about that work. Additionally, I think Levivich has been promoting, in this and some other recent AE reports, claims of misconduct based on tagteaming/edit warring that I personally don't find convincing (even if the same conduct does show other misconduct I do find convincing, namely a battleground mentality) but which ArbCom is better positioned to examine both because it can do so comprehensively, rather than in a series of one-off AE requests, and because of the authority ArbCom has to interpret existing policy and guidelines, [and] recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should add one thing. If this ArbCom can't do the review of editor conduct well, and given that this is the committee with the biggest issues with activity among arbs of any 15-member arbcom in at least a decade it may decide it doesn't have the capacity to do this well, I'd suggest it find a way to "punt" that decision, instead focusing on whether or not it agrees with Levivich's interpetation of tag-teaming/edit warring. I say this based on comments members of the 2019 committee (a 13-member committee which is the only one to have a bigger activity problem than this committee) have made around their inability to give PIA4 and Antisemitism the full attention they deserved. In the latter case this then blew up into a much bigger case (WP:HJP). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 your "magical incantation" comment confuses me. Where did SFR say it was confusing how to refer? I've raised the issue that the mechanics of referring need work, but I don't think AE admins need to be told to bold vote something in order to find consensus to refer. All 4 uninvolved admins - with 4 uninvolved admins being a lot of admins these days - agreed to refer, and all 4 were (as best as I can tell) clear about what each other thought as opinions evolved, so it's not like it was a puzzle what was happening to the uninvolved admins and since other commenters gave feedback on whether or not to refer I don't think it was a puzzle to anyone else either. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 so you're saying the answer I gave is incorrect? If so mark me as surprised but glad for your clarification. I will eagerly await to see if a rough consensus of other arbitrators agree with you and presuming they do adjust my actions accordingly. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 thanks for that clarification. I want to understand this second parth. Am I correct that you're saying that if the 4 uninvolved administrators had all bolded refer to Arbcom no further action would have been needed as ArbCom (arbs/clerks) would do the rest of the steps? If so that is definitely easier than the answer I gave (close with a rough consensus to refer by an uninvolved admin, uninvolved admin files a case request here, and notifies all interested editors) and so I will happily take advantage of it going forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Levivich's statement: even beyond what SFR pointed out (BANPOL is quoting Arbitration Procedures), I think Levivich operates under a fundamental misconception about AE. Levivich seems to view AE as a community forum, where as I feel it is, as the name of Arbitration Enforcment suggests an Arbitration Committee forum. Further, the sanctions being handed out are being done under Arbitration Committee authority, not community authority. As such under the Arbitration and Consensus policies, the Committee can do what it feels best including mandating that all appeals in this topic area are heard by it rather than AE.
As to the substance of the SFR's suggestions, I'm not sure the committee wants to hear all appeals, but if it thinks SFR's idea is a good one I would suggest it limit itself to either or both of: appeals of recent sanctions (<3 or <6 months) and appeals stemming from an AE report (regardless of whether it is actioned by an inidivudal administrator or a rough consensus). I think giving uninvolved administrators the ability to use the tools available in Iranian politics to moderate discussions (not just RfCs) may or may not work, but would feel like something that could potentially be productive to stem issues without doing a full case and thus is perhaps worth trying. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree with the observations made by both Trypto and Nableezy that the "sides" here don't neatly align on pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian. Beyond the nuances they both have offered, I have seen a definite "established/multi-topic interested Wikipedian" vs "less-established more and/or more singularly focused Wikipedian" divide (for instance SFR has pointed out that Levivich's definition of tag-teaming could apply to some of former group but is only being applied against the latter group). This complexity is why I repeat my concern about ArbCom accepting a case unless it feels it truly has the capacity/ability to do it just because a lot of people (me included) are saying the status quo isn't working. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Theleekycauldron

@L235: I agree with Barkeep that this should be a full case. But Red-tailed hawk is right on his list of parties – this is a sprawling case where basically all of the regulars in the topic area have worked together to create a hostile battleground that AE hasn't been able to resolve. Not because of a lack of authority, but because of the complexity of the case combined with the standard unblockables problem. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: i think it's pretty clear looking at the chart that the number of new editors spiked because of the war (given that it spiked last october). i don't think you can claim from that chart alone what the impact of the regulars has been; it'd be ludicrous to say that the temperature in this area is lower than it was the day before the war began. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PeleYoetz

Statement by TarnishedPath

I understand that the list of participants is everyone who was involved in a particular AE discussion or who was mentioned in that discussion. My editing in the topic area is limited, with a limited number of articles on my watchlist. I don't intend on following this closely. If my participation is desired at any point please ping me, presuming the case goes ahead. TarnishedPathtalk 22:28, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nishidani

I object to being hauled into this artificial mess (caused by an innovation in reading that defines all reverts as identical behaviourally irrespective of contexts, so if I revert an unfactual or unsourced piece of WP:OR, I immediately am, like the abusive, often new, editor, engaged in a revert war and, if the abusive editor persists, anyone else who restores the accurate text is tagteaming with me. Crazy). I have been repeatedly reported over the last year, and invariably the cases were dismissed. They were frivolous, but ‘there is no smoke without fire’ psychological atmosphere created by this repetitive questioning of my policy-adherence and good faith, indeed, precisely because AE rejected these piddling reports, the claim emerges that editors like me are ‘untouchable’ (Occam's razor. When a theory fails, those convinced of it invent another theory (Untouchables here) to account for why it was not accepted, etc.). The result here is a series of intemperate variations of a boilerplate meme chanted about the I/P area, which I have heard for a dozen years used of individual editors but now used of a group, first targeted by several off-wiki sites and now pushed as a reality which slipped past our monitoring for 20 years. And it is just an unsubstantiated opinion, esp. from editors I’ve almost never seen here, and, surprisingly seems to be getting some traction.

  • theleekycauldron this is a sprawling case where basically all of the regulars in the topic area have worked together to create a hostile battleground that AE hasn't been able to resolve
  • Tryptofish the editing environment disturbingly toxic, . . it felt like a fairly large number of experienced editors, together, were acting in a way inconsistent with a CTOP subject.' (See this note)
  • AirshipJungleman29:a large number of experienced editors . . turning the entire topic into even more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND than it needs to be, but also negatively affects the experiences and habits of newer editors who follow the combative, actively hostile methods of those they look up to.
  • Swatjester;The tendentiousness, bludgeoning, and sealioning behavior from these battleground editors makes it exhausting and frustrating for non-battleground editors to participate. In any event, I see the "usual suspects" attempting to downplay or deny that there's any dispute
  • Number 57: there is a core group of 10-15 editors in this topic area (many of whom have been with us for well over a decade) who are primarily on Wikipedia to push their POV . . for most of the last two decades the two sides have been seriously mismatched in terms of numbers and one side has been consistently able to push their POV through weight of numbers, either by long-term tag teaming or by swinging poorly-attended discussions
  • The Kip: This pivot was due to the absurd levels of incivility, condescension, POV-pushing, bludgeoning, edit-warring, hypocrisy, and virtually every other type of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing humanly possible, from a core group of editors that perennially show up to scream at each other in every discussion; there's a level of toxicity that just makes me want to ignore the area entirely. This BATTLEGROUND issue is only compounded by the fact that virtually all of the culprits are WP:UNBLOCKABLE . . - I openly endorse nuking the topic area's userbase via mass TBANs.
  • Zanahary: It’s a small group of editors making this topic area hell for editors and a headache (I’d imagine) for administrators. I used to involve myself heavily in this topic area, and it’s the only such area where I’ve witnessed personal attacks, bullying, glaring dishonesty and hypocrisy in defense of violation of WP policy.
  • Domeditrix there is a culture of bludgeoning, tag teaming and tendentious editing, particularly of the Righting Great Wrongs variety. , , , editors here incredibly experienced, incredibly knowledgeable of processes, , , enable(s) Wikilawyering on a scale that I've frankly not encountered anywhere else on Wikipedia in my history of making active edits. . topic area where, as @ABHammad observes, Wikipedia is out-of-step with a large number of the reliable sources that we rely on for other topics . . I find myself aligning with @The_Kip's suggestion of nuking the topic area with mass topic bans. This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND
  • Thebiguglyalien the entrenched editors . . . their behavior is the worst of any topic area on Wikipedia. Everyone here knows which users I'm talking about and which sides they fall on . . This will always be a contentious topic, but it is possible to prioritize the sources over your own beliefs when editing in contentious topics. The current regulars have forced out anyone who might be willing to do this. . .
  • xDanielx: the two sides have been seriously mismatched in terms of numbers.

Where is the empirical evidence for these outrageous spluttering caricatures of a very complex environment (The IP area is notorious for the huge academic industry of explanation that has grown up around it, and unless you read this material, and put aside using newspaper current events sourcing as the default RS, you are not going to grasp anything there for encyclopedic ends). There is no evidence here, none, as far as I can see, but no doubt some will think, ‘ah, but they’ll find the missing proof for these claims when Arbcom gets to work’. And why should it work on such an outburst of unproven grievances? As I noted on my page, there is a very simple test to find evidence for this hypothesis of a conspiracy (against Israel, that is the tacit innuendo in those complaints above)/bullishly dominating control over IP articles by a 'pro-Palestinian' faction that has putatively consolidated itself as the power to reckon with in the area. Use your wiki tools and elicit confirmation of this bias by examining the list of 100 new IP articles created since 7 October (SFR's starting point). Of the hundreds of editors active over them, show that a handful of the 'regulars' has bludgeoned, intimated, harassed, been uncivil across the board, and secured their 'pro-Pal POV'. If you can't then, all we have here is the appearance of blathering highly personalized grudges. Nishidani (talk) 10:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DMH223344

Can someone explain to me what this is all about? Specifically, how is this AE related to the previously closed one? And what am I being asked to do here?

Statement by M.Bitton

Statement by Buidhe

I really don't want to be involved in this business, but while there is a lot of suboptimal behavior in this topic area, it amazes me some of what can be described as an "edit war" or sanctionable conduct. If these standards were enforced across the board to all editors regardless of their content contributions and all topic areas, I'm quite convinced that there would not be much of an encyclopedia. I realize that Arbcom tries to clinically separate content and conduct, but IMO one should not lose sight of the goal of the entire project. And while productive, good faith editors can be driven away from contributing due to battleground behavior and general nastiness, it's also true that they can be driven away by excessive rules and (the fear of) overzealous ban-hammers. I do believe that editors who actually work on creating an encyclopedia should be distinguished from people who just show up to revert or argue on talk pages. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I saw several reports at AE that mentioned tag-teaming as a concern. I did not find anything actionable in the ones I investigated, but I agree with BK49 above that AE is less well-placed to investigate a sprawling multi-party dispute where the behavior of multiple editors may be of concern, than the behavior of a single editor. So I believe ARBCOM should look into this. In doing so, however, I encourage ARBCOM not to narrowly constrain which editors' behavior will be considered. AE is able to deal with the behavior of single editors. What ARBCOM needs to look at is whether the outcome of editors working together is actionably disruptive where any individual's actions in isolation may not be. I also encourage ARBCOM not to take a narrow view of what constitutes conduct. Mis-representing a source is, in my view, just as bad - and possibly worse for Wikipedia's long-term credibility - than any civility issue. It shouldn't be ignored just because it is easier to police language, though I am in no way suggesting that the expectations for collegial language be ignored. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • If this weren't very clear from my statement above, I don't think this ought to be handled by motion. The issues here aren't simple; they need to be disentangled with care. If civility and edit-warring were the only problems, we wouldn't need ARBCOM. We need an evidence phase, and for ARBCOM to dig into whether editors are editing within all the PAGs, not just the ones easy to assess. I also think it would be a mistake for ARBCOM to handle all the appeals. We shouldn't be spending the limited resource that is ARBCOM's time on appeals that aren't complicated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I generally avoid editing in this topic area, and my involvement in it has been fairly minimal. But the one instance when I did get involved with it ([9]), led me to find the editing environment disturbingly toxic, and not due to some simple problem with a small number of easily identified editors. Rather, it felt like a fairly large number of experienced editors, together, were acting in a way inconsistent with a CTOP subject. That strikes me as something that AE is poorly equipped to deal with. And it fits exactly with the concept that ArbCom should accept cases where the community has tried, but been unsuccessful, to resolve. So I recommend that ArbCom accept this case, and do so with a large number of named parties. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Added after some other editors have kindly said that they agree with me; I don't know if they will agree with what follows.) ArbCom should know that the problems with "the usual suspects" that cannot be handled by AE generally do not fall along the expected POV fault-lines of Israeli versus Palestinian POVs, or antisemitism or Islamophobia. (I'm sure there are POV pushers like that, but they can be handled at AE.) If anything, there's a divide between different lines of Jewish thought, with the most problematic editors favoring WP:RS-compliant scholarly work by largely-Jewish academics, but doing so with a massive-scale disregard for the ArbCom principle of WP:BRIE, and some other editors (sometimes more crudely) finding such source material to be contrary to popular political opinion. In my experience, getting caught in the middle of that can be quite unpleasant. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AirshipJungleman29

I echo the comments of Tryptofish, Vanamonde93 and SFR. The topic area features a large number of experienced editors who have, whether consciously or not, decided to ignore CTOP protocols. This not only has the effect of turning the entire topic into even more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND than it needs to be, but also negatively affects the experiences and habits of newer editors who follow the combative, actively hostile methods of those they look up to. Editors of all sides appear to have an unspoken agreement that civility shouldn't really matter when discussing such controversial subject matter (e.g. nableezy's statement above). This is unacceptable. I strongly endorse implementing the actions outlined by SFR as immediate remedies. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani, while I don't particularly appreciate being snidely labelled a pro-Israel complainer, I do appreciate an immediate example of "experienced editors . . turning the entire topic into even more of a WP:BATTLEGROUND than it needs to be". So—on balance, notwithstanding its intention—I thank you for your statement! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

I do urge ArbCom to particularly investigate the accusations of misrepresenting sources (an extremely serious one that takes time and effort to get to the bottom of) and of people taking inconsistent policy positions (a key component mentioned in WP:CIVILPOV, which is rarely enforced) as well as the battleground / aspersion / WP:AGF issues mentioned above. The edit-warring is important and is easy to see (hence why so many cases focus on it), but if that was enough to resolve this then we wouldn't be at ArbCom. The root cause is battleground mentalities and civil POV-pushing; misrepresenting sources and taking inconsistent policy positions point much more directly to that problem. (And, of course, I also urge people to present evidence to those things in the evidence phase, if it gets to that point, because ArbCom needs that - my past experience with cases like these is that both editors and ArbCom tend to focus on the "easy" aspects of WP:CIVIL and WP:EW, ignoring the underlying causes or more complex aspects.) --Aquillion (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to second Loki's statement below that much of the problem is drive-by new editors or SPAs with few edits elsewhere - a lot of the other comments here have basically said "this is all about a few bad editors"; I don't think that's correct. In topic areas like this, where the disputes here reflect serious real-world divides, new / inexperienced users and blatant new SPAs are going to constantly flow into the topic area and require experienced editors who are willing to take the time and effort to keep an eye on a vast number of pages in order to maintain some semblance of balance or even just basic compliance with policy. We aren't going to solve the underlying A/I conflict on Wikipedia; the topic area is always going to be fraught. And the simple fact is that distinguishing between an experienced editor who eg. frequently reverts in a particular way because they're doing the necessary gruntwork of dealing with an endless tide of SPAs trying to blatantly add a particular bias an article, and an experienced editor who is performing WP:CIVILPOV-pushing themselves while WP:BITE-ing innocent new editors, is often not obvious. Part of the reason an ArbCom case is needed is because the community and AE aren't equipped for that; but this also means it's important to approach the case with an eye towards the drive-by / SPA problem, at least as context for the behavior of parties to the case, and not just "who are the bad people we can make go away in order to solve this." --Aquillion (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swatjester

Tryptofish's experience here echoes mine. The tendentiousness, bludgeoning, and sealioning behavior from these battleground editors makes it exhausting and frustrating for non-battleground editors to participate. In any event, I see the "usual suspects" attempting to downplay or deny that there's any dispute, in contrast to the uninvolved parties saying, essentially: "It's you: you're the problem." I think that's rather telling. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:53, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Number 57

I edit around the edge of this topic area, focussing on Israeli politics and civil society, and have had the misfortune over the years to have ended up in disputes with editors pushing both anti-Israel and pro-Israel POV on articles where our paths corss. I very much welcome the suggestion that long-term tag-teaming, POV pushing and the ineffectiveness of current tools to stop this should be looked at. From my nearly 20 years' experience, the main issue has always been that there is a core group of 10-15 editors in this topic area (many of whom have been with us for well over a decade) who are primarily on Wikipedia to push their POV – anyone can look at their contribution histories and see that their contributions are primarily adding things that make their side look good/the other look bad and deleting information to the contrary; in discussions such as RMs, RfCs or AfDs, their stances are easily predicted based on their editing history. A further issue is that for most of the last two decades the two sides have been seriously mismatched in terms of numbers and one side has been consistently able to push their POV through weight of numbers, either by long-term tag teaming or by swinging poorly-attended discussions (and in my view the 30/500 restriction has actively worsened this situation by giving the long-term problematic editors an advantage). Number 57 19:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re LokiTheLiar's comment below that "a lot of the worst behavior is from new-ish users", I would say that is only partially correct. These users tend to be the worst in terms of edit warring and other more flagrant violations of Wikipedia rules. However, IMO the real issue here is the fact that the topic area is dominated by a relatively small number of long-term editors who rarely break rules such as 3RR etc, but (as said above) are purely here to push their POV and support other members of their group in doing so. They have been allowed to do this for years – the question is whether the community sees this as perfectly fine, or whether it wants to do something about it (which IO think can only be achieved by a mass handout of topic bans). Number 57 19:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A response to Bluethricecreamman's comments: NOTAVOTE (an essay, not a rule) is not really relevant; closes against the majority of views expressed only tend to occur when there is a clear right/wrong (e.g. alignment with a certain policy or guideline). In this topic area, most things are arguable, and therefore the number of attendees do swing discussion outcomes – while this isn't an issue as a one-off, when it is many discussions over many years, it is a problem.
Re my views on 30/500 – my concern is that it is a deterrent to new editors entering the topic sphere, which is one of the issues preventing an equalisation in the number of POV pushers on each side (as I've said above, I would rather they were all topic banned, but if Wikipedia is going to tolerate POV pushers in contentious topic areas, at least allow them to contribute in roughly equal numbers). I've been here nearly 20 years and the dominant personalities in this topic sphere have barely changed in the last ten. Number 57 20:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And re Nableezy's comment about me – disingenuous at best. For context, what I objected to was including the same paragraph of text about the legal status of Israeli settlements in the introduction of every single article on a settlement – my view was that everyone knows they are illegal and simply saying it is an Israeli settlement makes that clear. And for those who have been here long enough to remember, my RfA was disrupted by canvassing by pro-Israel editors who considered me to be a problem because I was doing things like removing articles on settlements from "in Israel" categories. Number 57 23:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, I had been calling people in the topic area POV pushers for years before the discussion you reference and my issues with you also started well before then as well. While I have been accused of bias, it has come from both sides, and that gives me reassurance that I must be doing something right. I was once even accused of being a friend of Nishidani, which I'm not sure either of us would agree is the case. Number 57 00:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Kip

Not to sound repetitive, but I'll echo the comments of Tryptofish, AirshipJungleman29, and Swatjester. I dabbled in editing within the topic area some months back, but quickly opted to mostly stay away - since December or so, my related editing has only been in the Current Events portal/ITNC and various admin/arbitration noticeboards. This pivot was due to the absurd levels of incivility, condescension, POV-pushing, bludgeoning, edit-warring, hypocrisy, and virtually every other type of WP:BATTLEGROUND editing humanly possible, from a core group of editors that perennially show up to scream at each other in every discussion; there's a level of toxicity that just makes me want to ignore the area entirely. This BATTLEGROUND issue is only compounded by the fact that virtually all of the culprits are WP:UNBLOCKABLE - they wholly disregard WP policies and prior warnings/sanctions, as most ARBPIA sanctions for experienced editors have effectively amounted to slaps on the wrist. I'd also like to specifically emphasize the point made by Swatjester of I see the "usual suspects" attempting to downplay or deny that there's any dispute, as from both sides of the POV-war, there's a near-constant attitude of "my side is doing nothing wrong, if we just sanctioned the [pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian] POV-pushers everything would be fine," rather than any introspection on the absolutely toxic environment created by nearly all participants.

In short, I strongly endorse both an Arbcom case and SFR's suggested remedies. I will openly disclose that I openly endorse nuking the topic area's userbase via mass TBANs, as I don't think starting from scratch could make things any worse than they currently are - that said, I understand that's a rather draconian/heavy-handed solution. The Kip (contribs) 22:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • With regards to the core group/"usual suspects" claim, I'd also like to link this chart gathered by @Thebiguglyalien: some months ago for a different arb case. Some of the more active users noted on that chart are now TBANned, but it still serves as a solid chunk of data for the mass-scale POV-warring in the area. The Kip (contribs) 22:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also like to say I politely disagree with Tryptofish's assessment of the main area of conflict; while that is a dispute in the area, and as they say, a particularly nasty one, I think the main issue is indeed the Israeli vs Palestinian POV-warring. While AE could in theory deal with that, in practice it's been reluctant to for one reason or another - many of the experienced editors in question often straddle a line of problematic behavior that AE has seemed unwilling to definitively bring down the hammer on (hence my WP:UNBLOCKABLE concerns mentioned above), and that Arbcom may be more open to conclusively dealing with. As a result of AE's apparent higher threshold needed for experienced editors, things like civil POV-pushing, bludgeoning, weaponization of process, less "blatant" incivility, and so on are difficult to definitively sanction - you have to badly cross multiple lines to receive anything more than a logged warning that is almost always disregarded by the receiver in the long run.
That's not even to mention the specific reasons why this case was primarily brought here (in my understanding), that being AE is mainly intended to be an A reporting B case forum. When the issue at hand is tag-teaming, multi-party edit warring, multi-party incivility, etc, AE's not too well-equipped to deal with a case where A and B want to report C, D, and E, except A and B have also been engaging in the reported behavior themselves, and F probably was too but wasn't brought to the case until later due to a variety of reasons. The Kip (contribs) 00:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar the problem is those new-ish users are fairly easily dealt with via AE, if they haven't already violated ECR. On the contrary, AE has shown itself to be reluctant to heavily sanction any heavily-experienced, long-term editors - see how some of those named in this case pretty much receive only logged warnings and/or minor things such as revert restrictions for substantial incivility, abuse of AE process, edit-warring, etc that would've gotten a newer user swiftly blocked. The Kip (contribs) 18:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After further reading of comments here from multiple users on either side of the POV-war they either deny exists or insist it's mainly/only the other side that's toxic, I'd like to reiterate:
from both sides of the POV-war, there's a near-constant attitude of "my side is doing nothing wrong, if we just sanctioned the [pro-Israeli/pro-Palestinian] POV-pushers everything would be fine," rather than any introspection on the absolutely toxic environment created by nearly all participants.
WP:RGW, WP:BRIE, et al. This complete lack of introspection/acknowledgement that "hey, maybe I'm part of the problem too" is exactly why many in the area, if not all its experienced users, deserve sanctions. The Kip (contribs) 18:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zanahary

It’s a small group of editors making this topic area hell for editors and a headache (I’d imagine) for administrators. I used to involve myself heavily in this topic area, and it’s the only such area where I’ve witnessed personal attacks, bullying, glaring dishonesty and hypocrisy in defense of violation of WP policy, and an apparent policy of assuming bad faith from anyone whom you believe you’ve sussed out to disagree with you go totally unpunished and be downright normalized—and it’s mostly coming from a handful of dominant editors. Something’s gotta give, and if that’s a rain of topic bans, then so be it. I see a few names listed that I believe do little more here than worsen the project. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ravpapa

Once an active editor in this topic area, I have for the last few years assiduously eschewed any involvement. But I would like, nonetheless to add this comment:

I think we are all looking at the wrong thing. We are discussing editor behavior, but we should be looking at the quality of the articles in the topic area. And, I think we can all agree, the articles are abysmal. They are bloated with polemics, they magnify ephemeral new items into international crises that change the course of history, they are often so full or quotes and counterquotes that they are practically unintelligible.

Will massive topic bans make the articles better? I doubt it. With the Middle East conflict, we have exceeded the limits of the possible with a cooperative open editing model, and we need to think of some other way to approach articles in this area. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SashiRolls

ArbCom should be aware that the table BilledMammal has offered as evidence above (Bludgeoning statistics) is deeply flawed. Efforts to encourage him to include a disclaimer noting that his "methodology" does not control for the presence of bludgeoning sockpuppets in discussions (for example) were rebuffed. As a single example, Kentucky Rain24 made about 48 comments on Talk:Zionism#Colonial project? enticing several editors into responding.

Prior to my comments on the talk page there was no methodology section. Now, BM has added some clarifications, but as a quick roll-over of that link shows, he is controlling what page visitors are aware of.

I very rarely edit in this topic area and only looked into this table due to past experience with Billed Mammal and Kentucky Rain24 (NoCal100) working in concert here. This is also why I learned that 18% of BilledMammal's edits to mainspace have been reverted, which might be worth looking into. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 11:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Domedtrix

I am relatively new to this topic area on Wikipedia, though I have read around the topic offline over a number of years.

I would like to echo the points of many editors above, that there is a culture of bludgeoning, tag teaming and tendentious editing, particularly of the Righting Great Wrongs variety. @BilledMammal illustrated this excellently here, though that is not to say the same behavious doesn't occur across more than the two editors singled out in that diff. Though I have seen tendentious editing multiple times, I am very reticent to call it out, in part because such accusations add more fuel to the fire.

What makes this topic particularly tricky to deal with, however, is not that editors in this space are typically new to the site (although as I know from editing in the WP:FOOTBALL space, any current event will draw large crowds), as is often the case when we see these types of issues. Instead, editors here are often incredibly experienced, incredibly knowledgeable of processes, and thus how to make a contentious change stick. This enables Wikilawyering on a scale that I've frankly not encountered anywhere else on Wikipedia in my history of making active edits, though I accept I am far below the median in this discussion by this metric. This, in combination with a format for resolving disputes that often seems to favour the most mobilised side, despite WP:VOTE expressly stating this shouldn't be a factor, has resulted in a topic area where, as @ABHammad observes, Wikipedia is out-of-step with a large number of the reliable sources that we rely on for other topics across Wikipedia. In my view, this amounts to an abuse of Wikipedia's voice for political ends.

The consensus process has broken down because too many experienced editors seem to have no interest in finding any consensus. I agree with @Zanahary that Badgering and Wikilawyering particularly scares off many that would like to approach the topic, so we're left with the same faces over and over again, and also the same problems. It is very rare in these interminable discussions that I see people give an iota. There is no end in sight, because it seems the desired state of the articles in the topic area from one (or each) 'side' of this conflict will likely not be content until 'perfection' is achieved.

We have been too slow to act here. It has been public knowledge for some time that Discord servers are being used to WP:CANVAS people with specific viewpoints. As this is done off-site, it is hard to know the scale of the impact, but that should not prevent the implementation of measures to guard against this risk.

The more I read in this topic area, the more disheartened I become by the state of our collective actions as editors, and the more I find myself aligning with @The_Kip's suggestion of nuking the topic area with mass topic bans. This is a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and it's hard to imagine whatever fills this void being worse than what is already here. As @Ravpapa stated, it's not like we're protecting much of value here - this process has resulted in articles of fairly poor quality, a result of incessent pointscoring within articles. --Domeditrix (talk) 11:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LokiTheLiar

As an occasional participant in this topic area, I'd like to second Zero's suggestion that mass topic bans are not likely to be useful because a lot of the worst behavior is from new-ish users. ArbCom already got a taste of this earlier this year when it banned a bunch of pro-Israel meatpuppets.

Speaking of which, I'd also like to encourage ArbCom that, when it looks at editor behavior, to actually look at the behavior of every individual involved and not assume "both sides are at fault" without evidence. Loki (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to say that my assessment of the behavior of established editors is notably less negative than many other people here. I basically agree with nableezy: it's inherently a contentious topic area and so disagreements are common and will always be common. It's also unsurprising that many editors take editorial lines that lean towards one side or the other of the conflict: editors aren't required to have no POV, only articles are. None of this is that surprising to me for editing in a contentious topic area and I don't think that any of this per se is a problem.
I do think it's a problem when editors edit war, or cross the bounds of civility, or bludgeon discussions, or bring your opponents to drama boards to try to get them removed from the topic area, or try to push a POV over what reliable sources support. And definitely some of that has been happening here, and I encourage ArbCom to look at the behavior of individual editors in this topic area. But I don't think this stuff coming from established editors is a systemic issue over and above the inherent fact that the Israel/Palestine conflict just is a contentious topic. It's fine to not want to edit in a contentious topic area but I don't think that a topic area being intimidating to edit in is by itself an issue. Loki (talk) 19:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

Given the pushback from regulars in this area, I'll add one more voice from someone who's only edited at the edge of the topic area and have felt dissuaded from contributing further. I can't say it better than Swatjester: "'It's you: you're the problem'". Whatever excuses the entrenched editors might have, their behavior is the worst of any topic area on Wikipedia. Everyone here knows which users I'm talking about and which sides they fall on, but we have to pretend we don't so as not to be accused of casting aspersions. I see an Arbcom case as the only way to turn this years-old "open secret" into something actionable.

The habit of always !voting in a way that benefits the same nation is a problem, and it becomes obvious when someone uses one reasoning to come to one conclusion but then uses the opposite reasoning when it's the other side up for discussion. This is commonly answered with the contradictory ideas that "they're the POV pushers, our side is just correct" and that "users are allowed to have their own POV", with the latter suggesting that it's okay to let POV dictate editing and !voting instead of following policies and sources. Call it battleground, tag-teaming, CPUSH, whatever you like, but in my opinion it should be a major focus when considering whether the editors in this area are here to build a neutral encyclopedia.

Contrary to what other statements here are arguing, I believe there are legitimate issues about editors who are only here to edit PIA. This is a strong indicator of WP:ACTIVIST/WP:SPA/WP:NOTHERE style editing, even when they have high edit counts or several years of experience. This will always be a contentious topic, but it is possible to prioritize the sources over your own beliefs when editing in contentious topics. The current regulars have forced out anyone who might be willing to do this.

  • I like ScottishFinnishRaddish's suggestion that everyone who participated in an ARBPIA AE discussion since last October be considered involved.
  • I agree with Ravpapa's points about low article quality, but these issues plague most current events articles (another area that could use cleanup, but it's not analogous to PIA).
  • BilledMammal's list does produce some of the most active editors, and while there's plausibly a strong correlation, it doesn't prove bludgeoning on its own.
  • Not only do I agree with The Kip and Zanahary that a significant number of topic bans should be on the table, but such bans are the bare minimum of what's necessary. At this point, topic bans aren't a drastic last resort. They're the first step of a slow, painful remedy.

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the link provided by Nableezy: a reminder that WikiProjects cannot enforce their local consensus on articles. Conclusions reached by a WikiProject are recognized as essays. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by xDanielx

Number 57's point gets at the heart of the issue: the two sides have been seriously mismatched in terms of numbers. This often leads to situations where there's an apparent consensus which goes against (the natural or customary interpretation of) our content policies. The result is passionate edit warring, with one side righteously enforcing consensus, and the other righteously enforcing content policies.

The Zionism edit war covered at AE is one example - there's an apparent consensus to state in wikivoice, in the first sentence, that Zionism is colonization. It's frankly very hard to see how such an unequivocal statement could comply with NPOV, given the long list of scholars who take issue with the characterization. But it's difficult to enforce policies against a majority, and four editors have been brought to AE for attempts to do, with another threatened.

Another example is Gaza genocide. If that isn't a WP:POVNAME, I don't know what is. Some editors argued that titles do not imply statements, effectively saying that POV names do not exist. Such arguments tend to be invoked selectively. The move received significant press ([10], [11], [12], [13], etc), damaging Wikipedia's credibility.

I don't think word count limits would help. A bright-line rule against bludgeoning might help avoid lengthy discussions filled with redundancies, but that isn't the core issue. Enforcing behavioral policies more rigorously might help attract a few more neutral editors. The real solution would be to warn or sanction editors who repeatedly promote unreasonable or inconsistent interpretations of content policies, but of course that's difficult since such policy matters aren't black and white. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for Radical Change by Ravpapa

So long as we remain in the realm of editor behavioral change, we will get nowhere. What is required is structural change. In this topic area, we need to abandon the open consensual editing model that has been at the heart of Wikipedia since its inception. Here is what I propose that we do:

We recruit a committee of five to ten senior editors, who have never edited in the topic area, who have no identifiable bias, and who are equally unacceptable to both sides. Only members of this committee will be allowed to edit in the topic area.

The committee will be charged with reviewing the entire corpus of Middle East articles, and making any editorial and structural changes that they see fit, including:

  • deleting duplicate articles about the same topic, or merging articles closely related.
  • drastically trimming down articles of marginal importance that have become bloated with polemics.
  • rewriting main articles to present conflicting views in a concise and intelligible way.

The committee should look not only at individual articles, but at the corpus in its entirety, thinking creatively about the best way to present information. I give examples and suggest such structural changes in my essay User:Ravpapa/The Politicization of Wikipedia, which I wrote 15 years ago but is just as relevant today as then.

The committee will have the power to delete, merge and rename articles by consensus within their own group, without having to go through the regular article deletion. merge or rename processes. Anyone can, of course, comment on the talk page and make suggestions. But only the committee can actually edit. This proposal preserves the heart of the consensual editing model (though not strictly open), but eliminates the possibility for contentious editing.

It is a huge task. I am not volunteering. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:12, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

A PIA5 case has the possibility to go completely FUBAR if it attempts to litigate the entirety of the topic area and regular editors in those areas. This is a stupidly contentious topic and I suspect if we looked at the complete records of every regular editor a well-meaning member of ArbCom could probably go all Portals on us and find a spurious reason to ban them. No, my idea would be to concentrate on the three areas which appear to causing the most issues at the moment.

  • Sub-5000-edit accounts which are basically SPAs on the PIA area, some of which will inevitably be socks but even if they're not are equally disruptive
  • Those attempting to weaponise AE by bringing multiple threads against ideological enemies
  • Those holding up progress by causing endless circular arguments on talk pages (I'm not going to say "bludgeoning" because people may look at BilledMammal's subpage which IMO has a wildly flawed methodology for assessing this). A lot of these people are, again, new-ish accounts.

Also, per Rosguill below. That particular shambles of an RfC is quite revealing. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

Based on my vantage point of having only really participated in I/P topics by way of RSN and AE discussions, I am perplexed by various assertions made in this clarification request. Reading through discussions like the recent ADL RfC, the recent Al-Jazeera RfC, a recent discussion of +972 a recent discussion of general Israeli sources, there is a consistent group of editors that repeatedly accuse a list of sources they have deemed to be "anti-Israel" while also defending-ad-bludgeon advocacy sources like the ADL and categorically defining Israeli news media as reliable. These discussions do not display the converse: there is no bloc of editors that rejects Israeli sources out of hand while categorically insisting that pro-Palestinian sources are reliable (for further evidence, see the recent Electronic Intifada RfC). We do occasionally see editors pop up who reject Israeli sources out of hand on talk pages (usually alongside US and potentially even European sources), but I don't see anyone named in this report that exhibits this behavior. Such editors are shown the door. signed, Rosguill talk 14:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Huldra

  • PROBLEM: the cat-herding admins cannot manage herding all the cats
  • Solution: slaughter all the cats
  • Problem solved
  • alterntive solution: better cat-herders, or better cat-herding rules, are apparently not on the table, Huldra (talk) 18:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral): Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral): Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Thank you to the AE admins for submitting this referral. As a procedural note I would suggest that we limit the parties to this request to האופה and other users whose behavior is under consideration here (perhaps the editors listed under "Other editors whose behavior was directly mentioned in the AE thread", though even that list may be too long).
    @האופה: It would be quite helpful to have your perspective here. I would also appreciate hearing further from the uninvolved admins as to what you'd like ArbCom to do — I see two buckets of possibilities: (1) Hold a full case or case-like structure to resolve the complex multiparty questions here, and/or (2) Remedies that only ArbCom can impose (e.g. Maybe even everyone is limited to 500-1000 words in any ARBPIA discussion. as ScottishFinnishRadish suggests). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the AE thread and the above statements, I think ArbCom will need to take some sort of action. I agree with L235 that I would like admins, both those involved in the AE and those that were not, to comment on whether it should be a full case or, if we are to resolve by motion, describe what ArbCom should enact to help admin find solutions to editor conduct issues. In response to how to refer a case to AE: instead of a magical incantation suggested by SFR, an admin can use a bolded vote at the beginning of a statement (something like "Refer to ArbCom", in bold) or as was done here, an uninvolved admin can determine that action as the consensus of the admin conversation. Z1720 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that action from ArbCom is necessary, and having reviewed everything over the past couple of days, looks like it may need to be a full case based on the complexity of the issue. - Aoidh (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was hoping when I first joined ArbCom that we would not need to hold WP:PIA5, but it is starting to sound inevitable. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We probably need to hold PIA5. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Requests for 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
Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338

KlayCax

KlayCax (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from post-1992 United States politics, broadly construed. KlayCax is also warned that their conduct in the area of infoboxes has fallen short of community expectations. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning KlayCax

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:CTOP
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. August 9th, 2024 Added RFKJR to infobox without consensus.
  2. July 21st, 2024 Discussion attempt to add RFKJR to infobox.
  3. June 18th, 2024 Added Cornell West to infobox without consensus.
  4. May 16th, 2024 Discussion attempt to add RFKJR to infobox.
  5. May 13th, 2024 Added RFKJR to infobox without consensus.
  6. March 6th, 2024 Added RFKJR to infobox without consensus.
  7. February 27th, 2024 Discussion attempt to add RFKJR to the infobox.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. December 15th, 2023 Block for edit-warring on Joe Biden article/arbitration decision enforced.
  2. October 7th, 2023 Partial block for edit-warring.
  3. November 4th, 2023 Blocked for edit-warring.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on July 27th, 2022 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KlayCax has started several different discussions and made actual edits pushing for third-party candidates (especially RFKJR) to be added to the infobox. The July 21st discussion was started while discussions on the matter were already ongoing ([14][15]). They’ve continuously been trying to add Kennedy to the infobox, even though the matter has already been resolved [16][17]. The addition of Cornell West went against the ballot access and polling criteria spelled out in the consensus for state infoboxes. We shouldn’t have to have a discussion with KlayCax every month explaining that there’s no consensus for adding Kennedy at this stage. Prcc27 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response @KlayCax: This isn’t an RfC (you claimed it was). We came up with a consensus for state infoboxes at the main article’s talk page: 5%+ polling average and ballot access. Cornell West has never had a polling average of 5%+ in Michigan. The main issue regarding you adding West to the infobox is you added someone that isn’t even on the ballot in Michigan and is polling poorly. This has nothing to do with polling consistency; West has consistently polled below 5%. Prcc27 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response @KlayCax: Wrong again. Your May 13th edit was made after this RfC was closed on May 12th. Nevertheless, it was clear even before that RfC that consensus was against inclusion. Prcc27 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response @Red-tailed hawk: I believe David O. Johnson was the user that was initially planning on reporting KlayCax. But since that user appears to be busy, I offered to take over and make the report in their place. (Please see: [18][19]). Prcc27 (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regarding sanctions, I think KlayCax should either be topic banned, or given KlayCax’s disruptive actions are not isolated to only one topic, a ban that is more broad may be in order. Prcc27 (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to admins (@ScottishFinnishRadish: @Red-tailed hawk:): I just wanted to let you both know that I added yet another diff of @KlayCax:’s disruptive behavior pushing third party candidates into the infoboxes. A few minutes ago, KlayCax added RFKJR. to the Texas infobox, even though RFKJR. has not appeared in any Harris v. Trump v. Kennedy state polls. Clearly Kennedy fails the polling criterion per consensus. KlayCax is still ignoring WP:CAREFUL, even after I already explained to them that WP:BOLD has limits. Prcc27 (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response @Super Goku V: The context of my statement was to use the same criteria: polling and ballot access. Nationwide polling for the national infobox; statewide polling for state infoboxes. Never said qualifying for national infobox = qualifying for every single state infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response @KlayCax: Why would we use polls that have the wrong Democratic nominee, especially when we know RFKJR does worse in polls with the correct nominee..? You may not have broken policy (this time) per se, but it is best to err on the side of caution on articles with discretionary sanctions. And I’m disappointed you decided to ignore my advice. Prcc27 (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response @XavierGreen: Before a few days ago, it was quite clear RFKJR failed the RfC criteria. Kennedy possibly now meeting the criteria is irrelevant to KlayCax’s past disruptions. Prcc27 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[20]

Discussion concerning KlayCax

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

Statement by KlayCax

Response to Prcc27's initial AE:

To summarize:

  • Prcc27 is wrong to claim that my opinions violate the principle of WP: POV or that I'm pushing candidates into the infobox. On article after article, including most recently in the 2024 United Kingdom general election (I supported Sinn Féin, Reform UK, Democratic Unionist Party, and other parties being added) I have consistently have been an advocate of broadly displaying the candidates within election articles within the infobox. Differences of opinions among editors is normal. Particularly when it involves controversial subject matter such as the 2024 United States presidential election. Talk page discussion in these instances is a good thing. A look at the edits in question shows it was a good faith attempt to reach consensus. Not an attempt to overturn the RFC.
  • Furthermore, I was not "attempting" to overturn an "already... resolved [manner]". At no point did I ever even attempt to overturn the RFC. It should be clear by the context that I was polling editors on whether the requirements of the RFC has been made. (As the criteria laid out has been noted by multiple editors as being heavily ambiguous and reliant on contradicting sources.) Because of this, I was clearly pinging involved editors to state that it appears that Kennedy Jr. has either met or was about to immediately meet the requirements of the RFC: being certified in a total amount of states that exceed 270 electoral votes and polling above 5%. The goal of the discussion was to see whether there was now a consensus to add.
  • Both Jill Stein and Cornell West are/were polling above 5% and had either reported by WP: RS or confirmed certified ballot access at the time the June 18th edit was made, it was a self-proclaimed WP: BOLD edit, and it was on the 2024 United States presidential election in Michigan article, not the 2024 United States presidential election article. Prcc27 favored a "three poll criteria + 5%" but there was nothing in the linked source to say that this was a consensus of editors. (Even under WP: ONUS) He then removed it, it was not reverted, and I don't feel particularly strong either way or another about West or Stein being in the infobox.
  • The Lukt64 and Sendpls user edits had nothing to do with discussions on whether the RFC was resolved. Rather, they were just requests to add RFK into the article, so this was not simply "spamming the same thing three times" as argued.

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

Response to Prcc27's reply:

The RFC was this.

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

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

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

Response to third Prcc27:

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

Response to Muboshgu:

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

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

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

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

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

Response to SashiRolls:

Edits in question.

The June 12, 2024 edit was in regards to political parties rather than coalitions. Listing New Popular Front or its constituent parties would have been WP: CRYSTAL at the time due to the notorious fragmentation of the French left. The Deccan Herald source in question states: In France, currently there are two major parties in the running, among others. The first is the ruling party, Renaissance(RE), or En Marche! as it was earlier known. The hold the majority in the National Assembly, France's lower house and the Senate... In opposition is Marine Le Pen and her party, National Rally, a.k.a. Rassemblement National(RN). RN is a right wing populist party that recently gained a large number of seats in the 2024 EU elections.
The February 26, 2024 edit was in reference to this article, which starts off by saying: In the often contentious and acrimonious debates over... (in regards to historians/political scientists over the matter.) What was being cited there wasn't the author's opinion on the matter. What was being referred was his meta-analysis of the the state of the literature as of 2023.
The October 1, 2023 edit is sourced to an online survey. That is true. However, telephone surveys have become increasingly inaccurate in recent years due to low-response rates/other factors, with the differences between online/telephone survey accuracy sharply decreasing. Partisan polling is fine as long as it comes from a WP: RS. (See WP:LDS/RS for Deseret News) I also later replaced it with this higher-quality source seen here.

Sourcing in question.

The April 21, 2024 edit sourced The Spectator (WP:SPECTATOR), a WP:MREL, and followed the guidelines for a WP:RSOPINION right-wing view, attributing the view exclusively to Jeff Fynn-Paul.
The September 20, 2023 edit doesn't make the claim. It states that the claim has been widely believed among sociologists. Those are two different claims with two very different meanings.

Final concluding notes:

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

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

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

Final concluding notes: Part II

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Qutlook

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

This has already been stated in the head, please disregard. Qutlooker (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Response to Left guide's first statement) Yes, I did do that complaint. HOWEVER, I did not have the diffs of which people were talking about. So I did not open a case. Qutlooker (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Response to Super Goku V’s second statement) Maybe it would be best to clarify that I was told if I wanted disciplinary action against KlayCax I would need to open an AE. Though, as stated, I did not have the diffs that would be needed to properly open an AE request. Qutlooker (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean has everyone said what they have wanted to say. Qutlooker (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Response to KlayCax's bulletpoint No. 5) An outlier poll does not, and WOULD NOT argue enough for an inclusion into the infobox, nor does a party "claiming" to have ballot access mean anything until it is fact-checked and proven by factual sources. Qutlooker (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Response to Prcc27’s comment) May it be considered that an indefinite block be done considering you have said that it is not only one topic they interact with. Qutlooker (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Response to KlayCax) The max word limit you were told to be under was 1000 words. Not 1500. Qutlooker (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reckon everyone here has made up their minds on KlayCax have we? Qutlooker (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David A

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

Statement by Left guide

It's worth noting that less than a week ago, an apparently similar complaint was lodged at an admin's talk page by a user different from the filer of this request. Left guide (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ran KlayCax's section into the word count tool and the result was 1241 words, more than double the 500 limit. Left guide (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Muboshgu

KlayCax has made disruptive POV edits at the 2024 US presidential election page as discussed. They have also been disruptive on other articles related to the election, including JD Vance, edit warring over some obscure political views. See Talk:JD Vance#Should there be a summary of Vance's ideology in the lead? for discussion they started after they were reverted. Also they made accusations of vandalism when a user removed information that should have been removed, and "apparent accident deletion/vandalism from WP: SPA. (?)". They also tried to add to Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris that Donald Harris was involved in Marxism, which fails verification and is a significant POV term used by the right wing in today's US political situation.[21][22] See Talk:Kamala Harris#Removal of Shyamala Gopalan and Donald J. Harris from the lead for more of that discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the editor who was editing against the consensus of that RfC.[23] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GreatCaesarsGhost

I agree with David A that KlayCax is mostly harmless but deserves some sanction. My concern is they are not adhering to WP:RECKLESS. KlayCax is being too bold in making major edits that they know will be subject to revert or controversy. As I noted here[24] they will sometimes act against established consensus due to evolving events that they deem have negated that consensus (when most others disagree). I do wish that they would acknowledge and reflect that criticism of their edits is coming from many editors. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my prior advocacy for leniency. I have limited engagement with KC, and am thus not in a position to comment on their overall behavior. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Super Goku V

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

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

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

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

Not sure what you mean. If you are referring to your earlier indefinite block comment, then I don't agree on that. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. For myself, I think that it should be noted that there was a single false SOCKPUPPET accusation, not multiple. Other than that, I think that either ScottishFinnishRadish's or Prcc27's suggested remedies would work. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Statement by SashiRolls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 June: The source KCx added didn't support their claim that the RN was one of two major political parties in France in any way. The Deccan Herald article found later is talking about one election. For context, the RN has three out of 348 senators (<1%).
21 April: the second line of the lede says "Remini... states" something. KCx's "marginally reliable" source does not mention Remini even once. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 16:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
% of KCx's edits to mainspace reverted: 12% -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 22:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XavierGreen

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

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

Statement by Dan Murphy

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

Statement by Scorpions1325

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

Result concerning KlayCax

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Please keep the word limits in mind and only comment in your own sections. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not terribly impressed with the response to frequent warnings and blocks for edit warring being badgering and bludgeoning. This seems to be their general behavior whenever there is disagreement rather than isolated to one article or topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    KlayCax, I suggest you condense down what you have already. I can tell you I don't find Marxian/Marxist economists see capitalism as being inherently tied to class conflict (albeit this can be repressed in their views through false consciousness) and subsequent exploitation. Many American conservatives do use it as an insult against those who hold left-wing economic positions. This is however clearly not what my edits were. It is an uncontroversial and demonstrable fact that Donald J. Harris is considered an economist in the post-Keynesian and Marxian schools of thought. His primary influences are Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx, he's been described as a post-Keynesian and Marxian economist by multiple sources, and it's not POV-pushing to mention it in the article. It certainly does not "fail verification" and I can provide over a dozen sources on the matter. Furthermore, you left out that I also added at the same time a statement that, which undercuts the idea that Donald J. Harris influenced Kamala to any significant extent. (Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris are notoriously not close and differ widely on politics.) The diff of the edit can be seen here. Are you under the assumption that Marxists are fans of the Democratic Party? No, of course not.194 words, or 2/5 of the word limit particularly useful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No other admins have any input? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things:
    1. @Prcc27: Can you explain why this was filed one week after the most recent edit that you've placed in the diff list?
    2. @KlayCax: If you would like an extension, please request one at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. But otherwise, please condense down the comment a bit.
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They asked for an extension on my talk page, and I told them to try and keep it under 1000 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had missed that. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KlayCax: You're still over the word limit extension by ~500 words. Please condense it, or hat intricate details. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 10:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red-tailed hawk, have you had a chance to look this over yet? With their history of edit warring, and moving on to this IDHT/bludgeoning I'm thinking six month topic ban from the 2024 American presidential election might be the ticket. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken my chance to fully read through all the diffs yet, no. I don't think I will in the next 24 hours, either, so please do not wait on me if you have already found some narrowly tailored approach here that you believe will work. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 13:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still up in the air between a narrow topic ban here, or something broader. Considering the issues with edit warring that have led to multiple blocks and a final warning before an indef leading in to this recent behavior I'm not certain that a tightly tailored topic ban is sufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm very concerned that the WP:IDHT attitude seems to have carried over from previous cases where sanctions were levied. I feel an AP2 TBAN is needed, and - given that they seem to be raising issues of candidates in infoboxes that nobody else cares about on other pages as well - possibly an infobox TBAN as well, but at the moment I'm not able to find evidence that they are aware of the infobox DS/CT regime. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see an infobox notice, so AP2 topic ban and a logged warning on infobox editing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O.maximov

O.maximov (talk · contribs) is warned against inserting content without appropriate sources in support in contravention of policies on no original research and verifiability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning O.maximov

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

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

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

Other similar issues:

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

alert, response

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re Vanamonde93's question about talk page edits:

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

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

PeleYoetz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (CTOP alert Jun 21) has repeated the "O.maximov Aug 3 edit 1" diff'd at the beginning of this report. This is their first edit to the article, no edits to the talk page. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BK49: That book does not say that the Israeli lobby in the UK is a conspiracy theory, it gives examples of conspiracy theories involving the Israeli lobby in the UK, which doesn't mean that the lobby itself is a conspiracy theory, i.e., that the lobby doesn't actually exist. By analogy, there are lots of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry, that doesn't mean the Freemasonry is a conspiracy theory, or that they don't actually exist.
We would not tolerate someone changing the short description for the Freemasonry article to Alternatively a conspiracy theory or group of fraternal organizations, but that is what O.max did at the Israeli lobby article in this edit.
The Freemasonry article mentions conspiracy theories in the last lead paragraph, it does not mention conspiracy theories as the first thing in the lead sentence. But O.max changed the lead of the Israeli lobby article from this:

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

to this:

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

These edits are, if not POV-pushing, at least a serious misapplication of WP:DUE. Levivich (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BK: I agree that "The idea of an Israel lobby in the United Kingdom has been used to raise conspire theories" is not, in and of itself, a conduct problem. And if that was all there was, I wouldn't have brought it up. But when you put that change -- putting the "been used to raise conspiracy theories" right up front -- together with the short description edit ("Alternatively a conspiracy theory or [a lobby]"), and then the comment here in this AE ("Many sources use the word conspiracy also ... Others say Israel has a big and powerful lobby ... I wanted to show both sides ... The body had both ideas. I think there is an Israel lobby ... Sources also say that this can be exagerated into a conspiracy theory. Therefore, both need to be in lead."), this shows, I think quite clearly, that he thinks there are two views of the Israel lobby: (1) it's a conspiracy theory, it doesn't exist, and (2) it's a real thing that exists. That is not a content dispute, that is -- take your pick -- POV pushing to suggest that there isn't such a thing as an Israel lobby (that would be a moon-is-made-of-cheese level falsehood), a reading comprehension problem (because no source questions whether the Israel lobby exists, and no source says that its existence is, itself, a conspiracy theory), or a total lack of understanding of WP:DUE (because the fact that the lobby has been used to raise conspiracy theories is, by no means, the very first thing that should be said in the article, under any reasonable application of WP:DUE, even an incorrect, but reasonable, application would not arrive here).
So this isn't a good-faith content dispute, it's either POV pushing or CIR, both are conduct problems. The end result is that they changed the article to question whether the Israel lobby actually exists -- that's a major problem, in my view. It's disinformation, not just misinformation. It's an attempt to cover up the very existence of the Israel lobby, to cast doubt on it. If it comes from a genuine belief that maybe the lobby isn't real, it's CIR; otherwise, it's POV-pushing.
Combine that with the other edits, and I think it's pretty clear. Look at my examples, from the top, they are:
  • Aug 3: changing the text from the Nakba was caused by Israel to the Nakba was caused by "various causes"
  • Aug 3: removing content about Israel and media that makes Israel look bad or second to an Arab country, while adding content that makes the Arab media look bad instead
  • Jul 24: eliminating content that says Israel continues to expand settlements
  • Jun 24: a bunch of changes, but including changing "expelled or fled" to "fled or expelled," removing a line about Palestinian right to resist; adding attribution of Palestinian justifications to Norman Finkelstein (a particularly controversial figure, but by far not the only person who has said what is attributed to him), while expanding Israeli justifications in wikivoice
  • Jun 11 and Jul 3: removing "colonization" from the lead of Zionism
  • removing mention of Israel of the indigenous genocides article
  • on the campus protest article, changing "some" to "numerous," and removing violence by pro-Israelis but adding violence by pro-Palestinians
  • Recasting the Israeli lobby in the UK article to say it's maybe a conspiracy theory, and doubling down on that interpretation at AE
Anybody got an example of O.max making a pro-Palestinian edit? I suppose YMMV but it's pretty clear to me. Levivich (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Special:Diff/1238598820

Discussion concerning O.maximov

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

Statement by O.maximov

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

@Vanamonde93: the Israel lobby is viewed by some as a conspiracy to say there is a Jewish plot to control the UK, the British media… Many sources use the word conspiracy also:
Others say Israel has a big and powerful lobby that influences UK politics like other countries which other sources indicate. The body had a big problem of synth and no sources to back stuff. I fixed it (it is back to the same because of the rv). The body said many things and the lead didn’t. I wanted to show both sides. It’s also what I edited in the short description. If the page is only supposed to show the real lobby I am sorry, I thought it was neutral to show both sides. O.maximov (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93, ScottishFinnishRadish, Barkeep49
The article talks also about British Politics, MPs and their remarks in the body. [25] [26], [27], [28] , [29] , [30], [31] , [32], [33] The article also talks about Jewish community being scared of what some say is a conspiracy theory. [34]. Here sources talk about Israel/Zionist lobby as exaggerated as a conspiracy theory. [35],
[36] the “The Power of the Zionist Lobby” subsection under the “United Kingdom” section as well as the sentence on “engaging in conspiracies about Israel’s power that draw on anti-Semitic tropes”.,
[37] , page 1,7,8
[38] talks directly about Israel lobby being used as a conspiracy and explains why,
[39] “Conspiracist antisemitism is found across the political spectrum. For every left-winger who believes there is a well-funded Zionist lobby inventing fake smears of antisemitism to prevent a socialist government, you will find a comparable right-winger who holds George Soros responsible for immigration”. ,
[40] , page 110 - 112, all relevant, specific sentence also relevant “The conspiracist element of ‘new antisemitism’ is most obvious in discussions about the existence and the machinations of what has become known as the Israel/Zionist/Jewish lobby. A common assumption of left-wing anti-Zionist critique is that Israel commits its fiendish acts with the unwavering political, military and financial support from America and to a lesser extent Britain, whose governments are in the grip of the menacing and all powerful pro-Israel lobby”. , [41] “A more recent example of how such ideas can appear in mainstream media coverage of Jews, Zionism and Israel was found in the 2009 dispatches documentary by the British journalist Peter Oborne, entitled “Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby” … This misses the point that using such a framework to explain Jewish or Zionist political activism relies, however unwittingly, on ideas and common understandings drawn from preexisting antisemitic conspiracy theories in order to make sense to its audience. At the very least, it was inevitable that antisemites would, and did, interpret it as an endorsement of their own conspiracy theories about Jews”. , [42], [43] pg 60, 65,66, [44] page 31 to 32 from “Within Labour” to “modern Labour politics” [45] “Labour MPs were found to have used “anti-Semitic tropes and suggesting that the complaints of anti-Semitism were fakes or smears.” A case cited in the report involved former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who said “the Israel Lobby,” which aimed “to undermine Corbyn’s leadership,” was responsible for allegations of anti-Semitism against fellow Labour MP Naz Shah. Livingstone later resigned from the party. The EHRC found a further 18 “borderline cases” involving local councillors, election candidates, and branch officials. It also noted several incidents of political interference by the Leader of the Opposition’s Office in addressing complaints of anti-Semitism. ”. My mistake was not to attribute to Haaretz in the lead. I am sorry about it. I know about WP:NOR and WP:V but I thought that it was established enough without written attribution in the lead. O.maximov (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No Vanamonde93, my opinion is irrelevant. Like fiveby said, the body existed before. The body had both ideas. I think there is an Israel lobby, just like every country has a lobby. Sources also say that this can be exagerated into a conspiracy theory. Therefore, both need to be in lead. That is why the body and the page before me, speaks of both Groups and individuals who seek to influence policy and alternatively a conspiracy theory. That is what sources say and that is what I wrote. O.maximov (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49
There exists groups and individuals who want to advance Israeli interests in the UK, they are called by some the Israel Lobby.
My description is: The Israel lobby is a term used to refer to groups or individuals who advance Israeli interests in the UK or alternatively to a conspiracy theory that exagerates Israeli/Zionist influence in the UK.
I am open to other ideas. O.maximov (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49 Yes I am taking this seriously. Thank you for the understanding. O.maximov (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

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

@ScottishFinnishRadish Talk:Israel/Archive 80#new paragraph on conflict for lead nableezy - 12:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Israel/Archive 102#Clarify details about explusion in lead. nableezy - 13:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I wouldn't call the bit on violence in protests some fairly straightforward partisan editing, that is blatantly tendentious. Either you think a single instance does not belong or you think it does, but O.maximov apparently changes what they think based on whose violence is being discussed. Violence by pro-Israeli protestors, oh dear not we cant have that, violence by pro-Palestinian protestors must be included and expanded. That is, to my mind, textbook tendentious editing. The bit on the seizure of the AP equipment, an event that resulted in the US demanding its return and was covered extremely widely, is likewise textbook tendentious editing. Same for this diff with its easter egg wikilinks and the fact that the source it cites for supposed reasoning leads with "The government will not make public the details of position papers submitted by the security services saying that Al Jazeera has harmed Israeli security, following a cabinet decision on Monday to temporarily shut down the Qatari news network." They are not simply politely pushing a POV, which itself is banned. There are users that are not engaging in attempting to productively discuss content disputes with the aim of coming to some agreement or consensus on what to include, they are simply acting as roadblocks. This is one of them. nableezy - 14:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Checkusers should be run on O.maximov and ABHammad.

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

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

Statement by ABHammad

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

Statement by FortunateSons

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

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

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

Statement by fiveby

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

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

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

Statement by xDanielx

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

Result concerning O.maximov

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Nableezy, which material are you talking about? The Nakba in the lead of Israel?
    I'm seeing some fairly straightforward partisan editing, but not anything severely out of the norm in the topic. Although that is a bit concerning, I'm more interested in where their editing has violated established consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Vanamonde93 about those most recent diffs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fiveby, unilaterally changing the topic of an article from lobbying efforts by a country in another country to a conspiracy theory or groups and individuals seeking to influence UK foreign policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still parsing some of this; to me the distinction between tendentiousness partisanship is at least partly determined by whether the user is justifying edits on the talk page and/or otherwise engaging in discussion; I'm less happy with reverts or substantive changes in the absence of consensus without accompanying substantive talk page engagement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am still struggling to wade through the morass of talk page discussions. But Levivich's recent diffs are extremely concerning, these two in particular: [46], [47]. I would consider a TBAN for those edits alone. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A unilateral POV change would be concerning, per SFR, but to me it's more than that; it's a unilateral change to the lead and framing, without supporting sources and without an equally substantive change to the body. The statement justifying it here at AE is bordering on a competence issue. This source (the 9th O.maximov provided, the first I clicked on) speaks of a single British MP, who claimed Tony Blair was being influenced by a coterie of Jewish advisors, and who was roundly criticized for saying so. It has no bearing at all on the claim that the Israeli lobby is a conspiracy theory, or otherwise; because there is no substantive analysis of the phenomenon in the source at all. I have no opinion on the existence or otherwise of an Israeli lobby; but if someone writes that it is a conspiracy theory, I expect that claim to be backed up by multiple heavyweight sources explicitly supporting that. O.maximov needs to show they can comply with WP:NOR and WP:V before they are allowed to mess around in a contentious topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your errors go a lot further than that, O. maximov. There is a profound difference between "Criticisms of UK policy toward Israel have veered into anti-semitic conspiracy theories" (which your sources support) and "The claim that an Israeli lobby exists in the UK is a conspiracy theory", which is effectively what you wrote. You appear to be unable to separate that nuance, which to me shows you have gotten too close to the material you're trying to edit. Further argument here isn't going to fix that; you need to show that you can edit within the bounds of policy, outside the CTOP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't investigated this, but presuming what Vanamonde writes is true (and I do) conflating anti-semetic conspiracy theories and Israeli lobby is a conspiracy theory is more than just a failed nuance. It is, in my mind, POVPUSHING. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So I have now examined many (but not all) of the sources presented. I do find there to be support to the idea of the Israel Lobby being called a conspiracy in the UK. I think this is most clearly seen on p.10 of Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Not all the sources I looked at make the grade, but enough of them do that I feel more comfortable saying that we're in content, rather than conduct, territory with that particular piece. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Levivich (cc fiveby): I agree with That book does not say that the Israeli lobby in the UK is a conspiracy theory, it gives examples of conspiracy theories involving the Israeli lobby in the UK, which doesn't mean that the lobby itself is a conspiracy theory and your subsequent freemason comparison is a good one. But in the diff you then cite it says The idea of an Israel lobby in the United Kingdom has been used to raise conspire theories (emphasis added). I think you're focused on the italics part where as I think the bolded part is drawing that distinction - though the italics part would need to be reworded to avoid the problem you're seeing. I'm not sure this line should be in there at all, but all of this strikes me as with-in the bounds of a content discussion. Someone can be wrong/out of consensus on content in a contentious topic, even with regularity, and not, for me, cross the line into a conduct problem. To return to the first comment I made in this thread (below as it so happens), I AGF that a non-native English speaker can imperfectly walk the line of "There are conspiracies about the Israel Lobby in the UK" versus "The idea that there is an Israel Lobby is a conspiracy theory". I would expect, however, O.maximov to be a lot more careful about this distinction going forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: My concern with this isn't with the content in sources dug up post-facto: whether or not an alternative description of the Israeli lobby exists in one or more of those sources is, I agree, a content matter outside our jurisdiction. My problem is that O. maximov introduced that framing into the article without any supporting source material, and then when confronted with this, produced a lot of sources that do not support his thesis either. It doesn't matter to me that one or more of the sources partially verify the thesis; the fact remains he claimed a lot of others did, when they did not. If the matter was solely a failure of attribution he should have been able to produce substantive sourcing; instead what he's produced looks very much like a list of sources talking about broader Jewish concern about people in government mentioning anti-semitic conspiracy theories. I am willing to allow that perhaps there wasn't a problem of intent here, but if that's the case then there was a problem of competence. Either way, to me a sanction is indicated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure when/if I will have time to look into the merits of the complaint here as it seems like a lot of background reading is required. However, I know enough to say that I find the calls for CU as unconvincing as I do the call for a boomerang on BM. Assume good faith matters just as much, if not more, in contentious topics. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @O.maximov does the Israel Lobby exist? Whether or not it does what would your description of it be? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ScottishFinnishRadish and Barkeep49: It does not look to me as though we are getting more input here, and discussion has died down somewhat. If I am reading correctly, SFR and I are in support of a TBAN (by default, an ARBIPA TBAN); BK49 is hesitant. BK49, if my final argument above does not persuade you, is there a lesser option we can come to agreement on? Or are you opposed to a sanction altogether? I hesitate to impose something on a 2:1 margin. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm willing to assume a touch of good faith that they were making a good faith attempt to summarize some of the conspiracy theory material in the article, so I'm also comfortable with a lesser sanction or just a warning. Most of the diffs I view in the same way I'm discussing down in #האופה. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What would you propose? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh geez, who knows? There's really nothing between warning and topic ban for battleground/sourcing issues, so a severe finger wagging not to do that again and be careful in the future is about all we can do if not topic banning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be much more amenable to a logged warning if O.maximov is willing to acknowledge that those edits were not compliant with WP:V and WP:NOR. At the moment I'm seeing no acknowledgement that they've done anything wrong. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did rethink things after yours and Levivich's comments, which is why I asked the question above . I find O.maximov's answer good enough, though not excellent, and so I think I'd be opposed to anything harsher than a logged warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the interest of putting this to bed I will support a logged warning, but I will note for the record that without a sharper sanction I believe issues will recur. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @O.maximov I hope you take this warning seriously; it would not take much for me to support a topic ban should you repeat some of the mistakes that led to the filing of this thread. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Astropulse

Astropulse (talk · contribs)'s appeal of the seven-day partial block from Hamas that was imposed by ScottishFinnishRadish is declined. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

Appealing user
Astropulse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Astropulse (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction being appealed
7 day block on article Hammas

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

Administrator imposing the sanction
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#appealing

Statement by Astropulse

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

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

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

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

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

f) I'm not convinced i violated 1RR -> I removed a tag on the page [[48]] -> this was being counted as a revert. But i think it is just a edit because that tag was not needed anymore. No one re-added the tag - after i removed it. I dont know what is the problem. The only revert was this [[49]] because another editor reverted two people edits here [[50]] which itself i believe is a violation of 1RR Astropulse (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk first and third edit you quoted aren't reverts. these are changes to long standing lead. if you are calling it as revert, most change's on wiki will be a revert. As per WP:ONUS im entitled to make than change. second is questionable. i have good reasons to do it. No one added it back after i removed it. So there is no conflict or disagreement on that one. Astropulse (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk @Newyorkbrad @Vanamonde93
WP:3RR recommends a 24hr block for first time offenders. You also have to look at if there was disruption to wiki. I dont think there was. Like i said many times. Most of my changes still stand to this day. No one has reverted it fully. You are all punishing me for attempting to edit on good faith. I think this is against admins role and expectations
I still think this block is punitive instead of preventative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals
If there was disruption, a block might be okay for Deterrence.
It also article says "For eg. Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved."
I think, Refusal to revert is not indication of likelihood of repetition in this case.
I already said many times - issue were resolved by the time i was asked to revert and there were growing consensus on the article talk page. Editor who i reverted said, they are fine to remove the NPOV tag after the recent changes. I also think you have to balance your actions with other policies. Wikipedia:Mistakes are allowed Wikipedia:Assume good faith Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers
WP:AMENDLOG says "Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating." Astropulse (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
cc @Barkeep49 Astropulse (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk two admins have indicated they wouldn't have put a p block - but warning instead. Why is it that you still wish to decline the appeal ? Astropulse (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish You said "but I don't like what it said before I changed it" - This was never my defense. Its something you are making it up. You decided to place a 7 day block - after i owned up to my mistake and explaining all the context. (Everyone can read my last reply in original enforcement request.)
You are now claiming that the some text i removed as per Wikipedia:ONUS which was written weeks or months ago is a revert. I didn't even know this is the case. Astropulse (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

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

Red-tailed hawk, first revert, second, and third.
Newyorkbrad, a warning is fine if they remedy their violation, which is how I normally handle this. When there is a refusal to remedy a blatant violation and the behavior is confined to a single areticle I generally start with a one week pblock, which you can see in the report immediately before theirs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, I am sensitive to the position of someone who would otherwise be willing to self-revert an isolated 1RR violation, but does not want to be associated with an edit in their name that they feel would reintroduce bias or misinformation into the contentious article. That is what almost every edit war in the topic area is about. One side thinks NPOV is violated, and the other feels it is violated if the prose is changed. That is why "but I don't like what it said before I changed it" isn't an acceptable edit warring defense. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AstroPulse

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

Statement by The Kip

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Astropulse

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @ScottishFinnishRadish: For posterity's sake, can you link to the diffs that violated the 1RR? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that. I do see a clear violation of WP:1RR there. The user was aware that this is a contentious topics area. This looks like an extremely ordinary case, where a warning or reminder would have been sufficient had the appellant self-reverted after being asked, but the appellant refused to do so.
    Restrictions like WP:1RR require editors to limit their own editing behavior, as there is no technical mechanism to enforce them directly. As such, they require an editor to acknowledge them and choose to abide by them, even if this does not generate a content outcome that they desire. If they do not choose to abide by these restrictions, such as by blowing through 1RR and also refusing to self-revert, then that justifies the use of more restrictive measures (such as partial blocks). A partial block of one week is reasonable in this circumstance (though one of 72 hours probably would have been equally so).
    As such, I think that the sanction is reasonable in light of the appellant's refusal to abide by 1RR, and I would decline this appeal. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sensitive to the position of someone who would otherwise be willing to self-revert an isolated 1RR violation, but does not want to be associated with an edit in their name that they feel would reintroduce bias or misinformation into the contentious article. If this is indeed a "first offense," I would probably have warned rather than p-blocked, and certainly would not have p-blocked for a full week. A block (of any reasonable length) from just a single article is not a severe sanction in and of itself, but it can have a stigmatizing effect and will also be invoked if this user's comes to be scrutinized again. In short, I am somewhat troubled, but I am not sure my disagreement rises to the level of !voting to overturn the sanction. Looking forward to other admins' thoughts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I also don't think I'd have p blocked in this instance. However, I think it was with-in the range of admin discretion given the facts in play here - if at the very upper end. As such I don't think the standard to repeal has been met and so I also am in favor of declining this appeal. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps a shorter p-block could have done the job, but before p-blocks were rolled out a site-wide block would have been considered quite normal for a 1RR violation. This is far from the most severe block we could have handed out. And loath as I am to disagree with Newyorkbrad, I agree with SFR's assessment above; every single edit-war in this topic has participants who believe they are the ones correcting an egregious NPOV violation. That is not, in my view, reasonable grounds for leniency. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point was not that an editor's strong belief in the correctness of their edit is ground for an extra revert. It is that such a belief can sometimes explain what might otherwise seem to be a pig-headed refusal to self-revert an identified violation, which would put their own name on the content they strongly disagree with. Here, the editor's declining to self-revert seems to have made the sole difference between a warning and a weeklong p-block. I understand the value of offering an opportunity to self-revert as an alternative to blocking immediately, but especially given that the offense seem isolated and has not been repeated, I remain somewhat troubled by this scenario. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      "I recognize what I did was wrong, will fix it, and make promises to not do it again" does suggest to me that the preventive need is less than for someone who refuses to make amends. In this case the editor refuses to even acknowledge that they violated 1RR and so I don't really get to weighing the legitimacy of the reasons they give for not wanting to revert. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absent any substantial change among responses by admins here, I will be closing this in ~18 hours as declined. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Astropulse: Merely on a bean count, we have multiple admins that have affirmatively said that they would not overturn this, including me and Barkeep49 (I also am in favor of declining this appeal). For the other two: there's one who appears to be somewhat sympathetic to the appeal but expressed they were on the fence on whether or not to accept or deny the appeal (Newyorkbrad), and one who hasn't explicitly stated that they would accept or decline but seems to argue that they don't think that NYB's arguments are in any way mitigating and that they agree with the sanctioning admin in that regard (Vanamonde93). For sake of argument, even assuming that none of the arguments here are so strongly out-of-policy that the would be downgraded when looking at their strength when viewed in light of policy, I do not know how one would close this any other way; the relevant guidance for overturning an appeal is a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE to accept an appeal and overturn a sanction, but we appear to have a rough consensus of administrators that lean towards affirming the partial block.
    Since there were comments from uninvolved admins today, I'll wait another 18 hours before closing this with the appeal not being accepted. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Astropulse: I think the partial block is/was preventative because you don't acknowledge you violated 1RR. The 3RR guidance was written before partial blocks became possible and so likely needs ot be revised to reflect modern practice. Short blocks was referring to very short blocks - like minutes or hours - which were once a thing some admin did. While I wouldn't have chosen this particular sanction myself, I think it is one with-in admin discrestion for contentious topics. WP:CTOP advises that When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and here we are. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3E1I5S8B9RF7

3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs) is warned against violating WP:NOTFORUM in their talk page comments. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
No blocks or CTLOG entries, some warnings on the UTP
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Special:Diff/1239002016
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

I find 3E1's comment here Levivich's argument is that I need to provide sources that only civilians are victims of genocide; my argument is that sources currently only mention a total death toll of the Israel-Hamas War, but not a death toll of Gaza genocide in itself and xDanielx's comment here Levivich's view is that the casualty figure is properly sourced, but this isn't entirely clear ... the available sources don't explicitly give a casualty figure for Gaza genocide to be very puzzling, considering Talk:Gaza genocide#Death toll, the thread I started, begins with The sources used for the death toll in the article aren't all specifically about the Gaza genocide ... and ends with Here are some sources ... followed by quotes from 5 sources that give a death toll of the Gaza genocide itself. They're both raising the same talking point, but the entire purpose of the thread I started is to address that exact point. I don't understand how two editors both missed this? Levivich (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just got this ping, which speaks for itself. Levivich (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re SFR: not sure why you picked those two particular quotes to compare and not others (you should be comparing the entirety of what both editors have written), but in any case, the first quote is about opinion and the second is about RS, which is why the first quote is a FORUM violation and the second isn't. Levivich (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SFR: sure if it was a one time thing. I'm looking at their contribs and I see 16 out of the last 17 are this foruming. In three separate threads on the article talk page and in this AE and then back on the talk page even while this AE is going. Are we supposed to just let them continue like this forever, or at some point do they have to make reference to RS? Levivich (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Surely "Levivich and Selfstudier exposed their utter bias and inability to remain neutral, objective and rational regarding this issue.", which is in the 16th edition, is not kosher? Levivich (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Special:Diff/1239171553

Discussion concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7

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

Statement by 3E1I5S8B9RF7

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

So you do agree that my original question is reasonable here? How would you anwser this question then?
The purpose of the talk page is to discuss contentious issues of an article. If users cannot pose questions revealing contradictions of some articles, then Wikipedia should abolish talk pages. Levivich's argument is that I need to provide sources that only civilians are victims of genocide; my argument is that sources currently only mention a total death toll of the Israel-Hamas War, but not a death toll of Gaza genocide in itself, a term which is not universally accepted yet.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Logged warning for what, exactly? This can and should be used to improve the article by pointing out the glaring contradiction (and fallacy) in it. Are Hamas militants who perpetrated the Re'im music festival massacre, and who were later killed for it, victims of genocide? Are terrorists victims of a genocide? My crime is that I pose this question. And I think it should be posed for clarification. Feel free to answer it, or if this question is forbidden, then just say it.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by xDanielx

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

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

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

@Levivich: you provided five sources, but none of them actually provide a count of genocide victims, as BilledMammal pointed out on the talk page. A statement that X people were killed in a war, and a separate statement that a genocide is occurring, does not amount to a statement that X people were victims of a genocide. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: your argument seems to be that WP:NOR was violated, not WP:NOTFORUM. "Patently false" is not an argument, and it's hard to see how flagging a perceived issue in an article could be NOTFORUM territory.
Regarding NOR, the policy does not apply to talk pages. At worst one could say that 3E1I5S8B9RF7 was suggesting a change which would have been OR had it been enacted. A NOR violation would require actually enacting the change.
It also seem impossible to keep any count of genocide victims without bending NOR, since we don't have any reliable sources providing an explicit count of genocide victims. If we're going to enforce NOR to the letter here, we'll have to remove the victim count. — xDanielx T/C\R 01:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

XDanielx,

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

Statement by BilledMammal

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

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

@Selfstudier:, when used that way the template links to the talk page section, which at the time was titled "Is Mohammed Deif a victim of genocide?". That section was soon after closed and archived by an involved editor, which is why the link stopped working. BilledMammal (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how that discussion has now proceeded, it would be manifestly unfair to warn 3E1I5S8B9RF7 but not other editors involved in that discussion.
For example, Selfstudier and Buidhe are now engaging in discussions about who is a protected person, arguing that Hamas members are protected. This is no different to 3E1I5S8B9RF7 arguing that they are not - neither argument is relevant, as they aren’t based on direct statements from reliable sources about how many victims there are. BilledMammal (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: And if the discussion was not about the death toll they might be appropriate. However, it is, and so divergences into who a protected person is are no more appropriate when the argument is that Hamas members are protected than it is when the argument is that they are not. BilledMammal (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buidhe

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7

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

Bluethricecreamman

Everyone should stop edit warring, long term and otherwise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Bluethricecreamman

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

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

  1. 17:49, 24 June 2024
  2. 20:28, 5 August 2024
  3. 13:21, 6 August 2024 (self-reverted 13:51, 6 August 2024 following talk page request)
  4. 12:44, 7 August 2024

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any


If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:29, 19 January 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

23:42, 8 August 2024


Discussion concerning Bluethricecreamman

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

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

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

Statement by ABHammad

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

  • Genocide of indigenous peoples: beside Bluethericecreamman, the disputed content was also restored by others following the RFC closure as no consensus: [52], [53].
  • Palestinians, where a new description as native/indigenous was introduced through edit warring: [54] [55] [56]
  • Israeli allegations against UNRWA, where a scope change in all but name was introduced through edit warring, [57], [58], while a RM to move to "UNRWA and Israel" is now ongoing.
  • Similar dynamics can be found also at Zionism. This is how its primary description as a "movement that ... aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside of Europe." was introduced, despite many reverts and substantial talk disagreement.

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

Statement by Left guide

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

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

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

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

Statement by Selfstudier

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

Result concerning Bluethricecreamman

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

Bajaria

Blocked by Theleekycauldron for two days for violating ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Bajaria

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
ARBPIA ECR
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

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

  1. 07:42 4 August
  2. 07:43 4 August

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

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

  1. 06:31 9 August
  2. 08:09 9 August
  3. 21:44 9 August
  4. 01:16 10 August

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

  1. 12:05 10 August
  2. 12:07 10 August
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)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

"The unfortunate thing is that their edits don't seem to be disruptive..." you mean I am not being disruptive enough? Do tell me, how can I be more of a disruptive entity to your service? Bajaria (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bajaria I meant that as more of a compliment to you actually, as in you’re not the NOTHERE disruptive type that usually gets slapped with ARBPIA ECR-related sanctions - your edits, for the most part, seem constructive. The problem is that you’re simply not allowed to be making them until you’re extended-confirmed. The Kip (contribs) 02:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bajaria To make it clear as possible:
  • I am not encouraging disruption.
  • I was complimenting you; I meant that it's unfortunate that this case had to be filed, because your edits seem far more constructive than those of many others who've violated ECR in this topic.
  • It had to be filed, however, because you did not respond to, if not outright disregarded, the warnings that you're simply not allowed to edit in the topic as you are not extended confirmed.
The Kip (contribs) 07:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified at time of report.

Discussion concerning Bajaria

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

Statement by Bajaria

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bajaria

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

PeleYoetz

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

Request concerning PeleYoetz

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
July 21
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Though PeleYoetz continued editing after I filed this report, they haven't edited since Van asked for their comment four days ago. FWIW I'm fine for this to be closed as moot if admins want to; if there is future disruption, I or someone else can ask for admin intervention if needed. Levivich (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Special:Diff/1239832259

Discussion concerning PeleYoetz

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

Statement by PeleYoetz

Hello everyone,

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

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

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

Statement by Selfstudier

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

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

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

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

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


Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning PeleYoetz

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I don't see what action I could reasonably take here. The ideal approach to a content dispute is for all parties to engage substantively on the talk page until it's sorted, via RfC and outside input if needed. Across the ARBPIA conflict, editors don't do this; instead are slow-moving multi-party edit-wars, and considerable stonewalling on talk pages. When this behavior becomes egregious I'm open to sanctioning anyone and everyone involved, but I don't see anything here rising to that level. A lot of users could stand to engage better on the talk page(s). Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be interested to hear from PeleYoetz in light of the most recent diffs. As I've said elsewhere, agreement between parties heavily invested in the topic is to be expected; a similar pattern from editors not substantively engaged implies off-wiki coordination. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm generally addressing this at #האופה since it's basically the same report, but these types of patterns are wildly easy to find looking at anyone who is involved in the topic area. In less than ten minutes I found more damning "evidence" for two other editors active in the topic. As I said there, if we're going to sanction based on these patterns it would have to be evenly enforced and boy howdy it would be a mess. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think tag-team edit-warring is disruptive. If regulars aren't willing to not be disruptive, then yeah, they've kind of forced our hand. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Close with no action, hopefully addressed at Arbcom? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting no action is the appropriate outcome or are you suggesting that refer to arbcom is the right outcome but since we're already there nothing more needs to be done? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The latter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

האופה

There is a consensus among uninvolved administrators to refer this whole thread to the whole Arbitration Committee. I will file the request for amendment shortly. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning האופה

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Original report and prior replies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

We continue with the same edit wars:

  • Zionism - removals of "colonization" and similar (partial list: editors who have been sanctioned recently or have pending reports at AE), this time with edit summaries:
    • Kentucky Rain24 (KR) June 6 per מתיאל's edit summary
    • האופה June 7 reverting politicized and inflammatory recent addition to lgf
    • KR June 8 there's an active discussion about this, don;t change a long standing version until it is revolved
    • ABHammad June 10 Restoring last good version before recent POV edit. This is under discussion, no consensus has been reached, and anyway this source definitely cannot be used with wiki voice; another Removing this recent addition from the lead due to its editorialized and synthesized nature, which relies on problematic sources: Morris, who does not mention settler-colonialism; Jabotinsky, a primary source from a century ago used anachronistically; and Finkelstein, known for fringe views.
    • O.maximov June 11 in this edit you have reinserted extremely controversial content (the use of "colonization" and statements by fringe scholars) that has been reverted before. Please don't edit war, and instead refer to WP:ONUS
    • האופה June 12 yes, this content is sourced, but WP:ONUS says that While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included, it requires consensus, and the responibility for achieving it is on those seeking to include disputed content.
    • ABHammad July 2 it's in the 4th prgrph
    • O.maximov July 3 clearly no consensus for colonization at this stage (per WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS), and re-establishement is a fact (see History of ancient Israel and Judah)
    • האופה July 4 Restoring previous lead, undoing changes there were FORCIBLY introduced, with no consensus ever reached on the matter and in violation of WP:ONUS. At least 7 editors clearly oppose this framing
    • Icebear244 July 4 The next to restore this disputed version, against consensus and every possible wiki policy, will be reported for edit warring and disruptive editing.
    • [fully-protected July 11-14]
    • ABHammad July 21 as we all know this framing never achieved consensus for inclusion (predicate edit for #ABHammad report)
    • PeleYoetz Aug 11 Reverted to the last stable version of the first paragraph before disputed changes sparked a two-month-long edit war. Consensus was never reached despite extensive discussions, so any further changes will likely require an RFC (predicate edit for #PeleYoetz report)
    • האופה Aug 11 undoing disruptive restoration of disputed content. Please start an RfC
    • 25 talk page edits: [59]
  • Israel

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

Re SFR: I wasn't counting warnings as sanctions and I'm not aware of Blue being involved in the Zionism edit war. When you say "there is no consensus," are you counting the views of the 3 blocked compromised accounts, the editor with a TBAN, and the editor with 0rr? If you remove these sleeper/new accounts that are tag-team edit warring, there are only like 2 editors who actually object to including "colonization". There is consensus to include it in the lead. That's what separates one side of the edit war from the other. Levivich (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of all possible admin responses, including totally ignoring this, the most dangerous one is saying there is no consensus because a group of new/sleeper accounts has suddenly appeared to question mainstream views. "No consensus to include" is the goal of the bad faith actors. Levivich (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More @SFR: I think you're looking at this superficially. The complaint isn't "someone reinstated a prior edit!" If that were true, if all we did was count reverts and award a point for each one, then yeah, there's plenty of points to go around. As an example, look at the "various causes" edit war. Jeppiz 1 and Alaexis 2 also reinstated that content in the middle of an RFC, just like PeleYoetz and האופה. But I didn't include Jeppiz and Alaexis in this report or file any AE against them. Why? Because Jeppiz and Alaexis aren't going around reinstating each other's edits across multiple articles. They didn't start editing at the same time and jump into the same discussions and edit wars on the same side on articles they never edited before. Yes, all four editors made the same edit; but only two of them show a long-term pattern of this style of editing (actually short-term since the two haven't been editing in this topic area very long). PeleYoetz and האופה are significantly disruptive; Jeppiz and Alaexis (and the editors you mentioned) are not. I don't believe anyone can put together a "diff train" for Jeppiz or Alaexis or Selfstudier or anyone else like these diff trains that I've been posting at AE; this pattern is unique, and rather obvious to me. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SFR: those are 4 examples over 2 years. Can you find 7 examples within the 3 months? Or within the first 3 months of either account starting editing? This isn't just about one person reinstating another person's edits; I beg of you to make your analysis deeper. Consider more variables, make comparisons more specific. Levivich (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of those variables is the content. If I filed a report showing new editors tag teaming to say that Obama wasn't born in the US, I doubt anyone would respond with "but other editors edit war, too." If other people are tag teaming right now, let a report be filed, and let's examine the edits. Levivich (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Test your theory. Set the start date on the EIA to 4/1/24 (or any three month period) and see if you can find 7 examples of tag teaming on 7 different articles between Isk and Self. And if you do, see if what they're edit warring over is true or not. And even if you want to ignore the content, look at the other variables. Like can you find 7 examples where they've never edited the article before or since, where the only contribution is to back each other up? Because what I'm showing you goes far beyond people reinstating each others' edits. Levivich (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@SFR: sure but I need to give AE an opportunity to address this before it's taken up at any other noticeboards (I'd probably go to ANI before arbcom; SPI is also an option; we may also at some point have an appeal at AN).
I see you understand the difference but don't seem to care about them. I'd appreciate it if you explicitly addressed the differences though: why does "never edited the article before" and "policy compliant vs policy violations" not matter to you?
Btw: I count 28 diffs in my original report, 12 of which are just repeating the Zionism diffs for convenience so folks don't have to go clicking around, so I think I'm ok there; your diffs don't count toward my diff limit. Also, it's a lot of edit warring to demonstrate, that can't be helped. I am over the word limit but there's no way to have this discussion in under 500 words. Levivich (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it would be a mistake to send this to arbcom, or take any action, without first hearing from the reported editors.
And if there are concerns about other editors, step one would be to file an AE case against those other editors. It'll be hard to show that the community can't resolve something when no effort has been made yet. Levivich (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me: "It'll be hard to show that the community can't resolve this."
The community: "Hold my beer."
HaOfa hasn't edited since I filed this report five days ago. That hasn't stopped the rest of us from filling up most of this page, and now we've somehow gotten to the point where either BM and Nabs are sanctioned or this goes to arbcom. I've tried and failed to bring this back on track.
It took me a while to write both versions of this report. And I get that we're all volunteers, and if people don't want to read it, that's fine. Or if they read it and they don't think it amounts to much, that's fine, too. But please don't use it as a springboard to air pre-existing grievances about other editors. To everyone: if you have a problem with another editor, please file your own report (at AE, ARCA, RFAR, ANI, or wherever). Don't use my report as an opportunity to bring attention to an unrelated grievance between other people. Please respect the time I put into this. Unless it's about me, or HaOfa, it doesn't really belong in this thread, it belongs in a new one. That is, after all, what I was told when I brought up HaOfa's and others' conduct in the Nishidani thread (Further action related to anything here will need a separate report.). So I wrote a separate report.
And I ask again that we focus on that, and not on the sideshows (and my thanks to those who did focus on the report). HaOfa hasn't edited since I filed this report, which means there is no disruption ongoing right now, regardless of what people think about the diffs. So one available option is that this can be closed as moot; should disruption continue, I or someone else can ask for admin intervention again. And then other people can go write their own reports if they want to. Levivich (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Apr 17

Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Special:Diff/1239832951


Discussion concerning האופה

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

Statement by האופה

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

See also participation in this edit war [61] (same one as the case involving me above) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ABHammad

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

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

Statement by Selfstudier

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

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

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

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Those discussions have been going on for months including prior to that and that is why there is also an RM in process to give effect to them. I am sincerely displeased that one editor has filed a complaint against two others and yet it seems that I am being put on trial by selective diff as a result.Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: You haven't reached this one as yet in your "content review". Look now at the developments with the UNRWA allegations article edits. The RM that I said was in progress has concluded as I wished it and the 2 reverts by these editors look now completely left field as both Levivich and myself initially pointed out. No need for an admin to decide any content issue, it has been decided.Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: If sanctions need to be spread more widely then so be it, but the totality needs to be examined not just selected parts of it. That my name would show up at these articles is hardly a surprise, I would be surprised if it didn't, as I have been attending these articles for years, not months. As I have specifically commented at the other related case, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Who was I tag teaming with, please? Did you mean PeleYoetz 07:38, 11 August 2024 and Haofa 09:10, 11 August 2024? Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Let me just parse that. The edits on the 10th are about different material than the edits on the 11th. Of the four edits on the 11th, I restored along with Tarnished Path while the actual reported editors here claimed to be restoring an earlier consensus version. It was my one and only edit for a month or more, so the answer to my question must be that I tag teamed with Tarnished Path, who I don't know from Adam. Are there any other examples of my tag teaming with Tarnished Path? Let me now go back to June/July. I made one edit in July, on the second, tag teaming with no-one, instead I was tag teamed by Vegan (now Tbanned) and Hammad (now 0RR). So nothing there. Let's have a look at June. On 6 June I presumably tagteamed with Unbandito against KentuckyRain(indeffed) and HaOfa (reported here). That's it, 3 edits. How on earth are those 3 edits construed as tag teaming edit warring??? Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: A simplification at least, no tag teaming. Except that now it is said that because I participated on the talk pages I must have been aware of earlier edit warring and that my revert therefore constituted a continuation of that edit warring (which I did not participate in) over a period of two months prior. I concede that I was aware of the prior edit warring, at least in general terms, but this construction strikes me as novel, to say the least.
Should I have not reverted and instead started an RFC myself? Well, I don't think so, not in the circumstances, which can be adduced quite straightforwardly at the relevant talk page section, per my contemporaneous comments on 11 August at Talk:Zionism#Recent additions done against consensus, and request to get collaborative. As yet, of those calling for an RFC none has attempted to start one.Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Seriously?? 3 totally unconnected diffs from 2022??? And a diff pointing to my opening an AFD in February this year? I really do need to get this straight. Levivich files a complaint against a couple editors for tag teaming and provides a bunch of diffs as evidence of that. I add a couple more. Then I am firstly accused of tag teaming with zero diffs/evidence of that based on a single revert that I made (my one and only edit to the article in over a month, followed up immediately on the talk page). Now, how does that work, exactly? Grateful for any coherent explanation. To reiterate, if someone wants to bring a case against me for tag teaming or for anything else, then they can do that, but not that a judge turned defense attorney attempts to find me guilty of I don't know what exactly, via selective historical diffs. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Statement by fiveby

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

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

I can add this quite balatant POV-push edit [62] where HaOfa unilaterally removed the Israel Defense Forces from the infobox of Sabra and Shatila massacre. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

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

Statement by Iskandar323

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

@ScottishFinnishRadish: It appears that you have opened Pandora's box with your examples and now BilledMammal thinks it fit to post laundry lists of complaints. I'm not really party to this AE proceeding, so I would rather appreciate it if all of these off-topic shenanigans could cease and order be re-imposed. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: On the nitty gritty, since we're getting into this, I also only argued against the geographical rescoping on the Al-Awda talk, so that's a mischaracterisation. I simply didn't engage with any other aspect. Aside from that, you mention 8 discussions where I'm in line with the community consensus and 4 not – so a 2/3 super majority of me being in line with the community consensus. You basically have beef with me on the engineer's building, where my argument was coloured by the specific HRW finding of the event as being an standout war crime case study. Differences of opinion on the relevance of that are allowed. We must agree to disagree. You have also mischaracterised the first set of edits that you have presented from myself and Self as "restores", when they are quite clearly different edits, even if overlapping. They are nothing so simple as restores, however. You would also be better to strike the error pointed out by Zero, since merely editing the table once it has been referred to is probably going to make this back and forth more troublesome to understand for the admins (without them looking at the page history). Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: Similar edits aren't "restores" in the conventionally understood sense, and blandly stating that it is is misleading. As for your accusations of POV pushing, there are serious conversations to be had about language use in the conflict, as RS have highlighted, but that purpose isn't served by your reductive analysis. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dan Murphy

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

Statement by Nableezy

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

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

So restoring the pre-RFC content is somehow continuing the edit-war that the RFC is supposed to resolve but editors are changing during the RFC. Makes sense. nableezy - 17:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, ScottishFinnishRadish, because being frustrated by an admin who has repeatedly attempted to put in place unjustified sanctions and who appears unwilling to look at past discussions or anything beyond the math of reverts is "about as battleground as it gets". And for the record, there was consensus on how to include the expulsions in the lead, see for example the discussion at Talk:Israel/Archive 96#3rd lead paragraph (March 25). But all this is avoiding the point here. If an editor were to write "Poland lost the majority of its Jewish population due to various causes" nobody would be talking about how there are two sides battlegrounding or edit-warring or any of the other superficial things you have as your sole focus. Youd call them a Nazi and kick them to the curb, and you would be right for doing so. But here, oh no, it's "battlegrounding". And oh of course I cant take off my blinders to see how one group of editors is so obviously editing in bad faith, that they are propagandizing in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. And let me be frank, I am not under any misimpression that I will be able to convince you, or that I am lessening the chances of you finally getting to impose the sanction you have been itching to put in place on me. But this is bullshit, you have editors engaged in utterly bad faith actions, and all you can say is "both teams played hard". nableezy - 19:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

In my most decorous way, let me state that I continue to find SFR's complaints about me to be misinformed, and I cannot explain why he thinks I am the subject of this request. After he raised an edit of mine here, without pinging me or notifying me, he has then repeatedly focused on me here. While ignoring that, for example, BilledMammal has multiple times in this request made untrue statements, eg that Iskandar supported "massacre" at Al-Awda school attack when all they opposed was BilledMammal's attempt to obfuscate the target of the bombing by removing the school that was attacked from the title, or at a discussion they opened (WP:RFC/G) where he cautioned four editors for bludgeoning when one of those editors, again BilledMammal had nearly twice as many comments as another, me. And then BM presents, yet again, an inaccurate portrayal of what occurred after that cautioning, when he said I had made four comments compared to his 2, when mine were either in response to the caution or questioning why BM's continued arguing was being ignored. I cant say why SFR has this seemingly uneven focus on me, at least without once again falling afoul of the decorum requirements here. Maybe its because I dared to appeal a sanction of his, who knows, but I dont know why he keeps bringing me up. Especially when the subject of this report has not even deigned to respond to it. I am unaware of when I engag[ed] over behavior on talk pages since that warning. This is the forum for bringing complaints to uninvolved administrators, so it is curious to then complain about my doing so instead of engaging over behavior on talk pages when that was the warning. nableezy - 14:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero evidence of battlegrounding on my part, and I don’t see how my objection to how an administrator is acting here is in any way related to battleground behavior in the topic area. As far as tone, after having been silently accused of edit warring without notification, I spoke harshly but I also collapsed that section once Barkeep raised it. My raiding untrue statements by another editor is likewise not grounds for an Iban. SFR has repeatedly attempted to impose sanctions on me on shaky grounds, and this just continues here. I’m barely even involved in the request and I’m the one being proposed for a topic ban lol. If SFR wants a thread about me he should open it or he should do what he did previously and ban me on spurious grounds and I can appeal it. nableezy - 16:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
my requesting that you actually treat people fairly, and not allow the one user who actually was bludgeoning that discussion to continue doing so, and my asking you if you felt an objectively dishonest portrayal of what occurred was in fact dishonest is not engaging in behavior on talk pages or battlegrounding. I was curious as to if you actually thought that comment was honest. But if we’re raising emails I’d be happy to discuss the ones you’ve sent me including the unprompted one that started with "If you want to talk outside of the restrictions and worry of Wikipedia and without the peanut gallery of WPO, I'm more than willing". For the record, my email to SFR said "just out of curiosity, do you think an edit like this is honest? you think that is a good faith portrayal of fact there?", linking to the same comment by BM I linked to here. That’s his definition of battlegrounding I guess. nableezy - 16:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by BilledMammal

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

  1. 09:12, 2 August 2024 Selfstudier added content to the lede
  2. 17:45, 2 August 2024 Iskandar323 restored it
  3. 13:59, 4 August 2024 Selfstudier restored it

Golan Heights:

  1. 11:30, 31 July 2024 Selfstudier removed content from the lede
  2. 14:33, 1 August 2024 Selfstudier removed it
  3. 15:02, 1 August 2024 Iskandar323 removed it

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

  • S means they supported the use of massacre
  • O means they opposed the use of massacre
  • N means they participated but didn't express a position on the use of massacre
  • Green background means the article covers attacks on Palestinians
  • Blue background means the article covers attacks on Israelis
Article Selfstudier Iskandar323
Al-Awda school attack N S
Al-Tabaeen school attack S -
Engineer's Building airstrike - S
Flour massacre (first RM) S S
Flour massacre (second RM) - S
Attack on Holit O O
Kissufim massacre - O
Nahal Oz attack O O
Netiv HaAsara massacre - O
Nir Oz attack O O
Nir Yitzhak attack - O
Nirim attack - O
Tel al-Sultan attack - S
Yeshivat Beit Yisrael bombing O O

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

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

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

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

@Zero0000: Oh, I see what I did - I initially wrongly listed Iskandar323 as having supported and Selfstudier having not participated. I then realized I'd missed Selfstudier and corrected it, but didn't realize Iskandar323 had not actually participated. Corrected, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323: At Anti-Defamation League, all three edits added something along the lines of It is known for and received criticism for its pro-Israel advocacy to the lede.
Regarding the massacre discussions, applying different standards - POV pushing - is disruptive even when you end up aligned with consensus. Arguably, it is even more so in those cases, as the question becomes whether POV pushing changed the result. BilledMammal (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Regarding your proposals:
  1. As previously mentioned, I would support an IBAN - while I would prefer a voluntary one that expires at the end of the war, obviously the first half isn’t an option with Nableezy rejecting it.
  2. I think a comment restriction would be more effective than a word restriction. This is because the latter would limit the amount of evidence an editor can post, and sometimes it is necessary and productive to conduct systematic reviews of sources or similar - for example, while I summarized it in about one hundred words, in a recent non-PIA topic area RFC I posted 750,000 words of evidence (in my user space), so that editors could verify my claims rather than needing to take them on faith.

    Because bludgeoning is such an issue in the topic area - many editors engage in it, and problematically I'm probably not even the worst - if this went to ArbCom I was planning to suggest a topic-wide anti-bludgeoning restriction. Specifically, that editors are limited to ten (or five, although at lower numbers issues start to occur with multi-question RFC's) comments per discussion. I would suggest/request than any anti-bludgeoning restriction imposed here use this form.

    Alternatively, the standard anti-bludgeoning restriction imposed at ANI is to limit editors to two comments per discussion per day. I’m not a huge fan of this form, as in theory it still allows slow-bludgeoning, but it does seem to have worked for some editors, so perhaps the enforced delay is sufficient to control the behavior.

  3. I think some consideration of Iskandar’s POV pushing is also needed.
BilledMammal (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning האופה

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I don't find this, or the report above, terribly convincing. There are two sides involved in these disputes, and both are doing the same thing.
  1. Genocide of indigenous peoples - Bluethricecreamman (currently open AE), Selfstudier (warned for aspersions), Bluethriceceamman again, M. Bitton (no talk page messages), Bluethriceceamman again.
  2. Zionism - Selfstudier, TarnishedPath, Nishidani, DMH223344, DMH223344 again, Dan Murphy and more going back.
  3. Israeli allegations against UNRWA - Selfstudier added, Iskander323, Selfstudier reverted.
  • This doesn't actually prove anything except there is no consensus for a lot of these changes, and both sides engage in long-term edit wars for their preferred versions. We can tally up warnings and first times having edited an article, but that doesn't actually prove anything. Editors will show up at articles they have not yet edited, in fact every article that everyone has edited they had previously not edited, and huge numbers of editors have warnings and sanctions related to the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was getting at Levivich's noting a partial list: editors who have been sanctioned recently or have pending reports at AE. I recently warned you and BM. Nish has a logged warning, Bluethricecreamman has an open report. Just because editors agree with someone who has been sanctioned or has a pending report at AE doesn't mean their position on content is a problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion at Talk:Israeli allegations against UNRWA#Article development, I assume, where you, Makeandtoss, Iskander323, Nishidani and Kashmiri discussed it? I am not at all surprised that when it was noticed by an editor from the other side of the battleground that they reverted. You were still part of the edit war there, but I'll adjust my statement a bit to make it more clear how events flowed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Selfstudier, I'm not trying to put you on trial, but your name came up when I looked at a few of the articles in these reports so you got used as an example. What I'm trying to communicate is that the types of diffs presented by Levivich are not uncommon, and when we're dealing with relatively small groups of editors the same names are going to show up next to each other a lot. You're not on the hook for that, and I'm saying that other editors aren't either unless there is some evidence of malfeasance or bad faith editing. If we're going to start sanctioning these patterns the sanctions are going to end up widespread if applied even-handedly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to be clear to Selfstudier and Iskandar323 that I'm not proposing sanctions, this is just to illustrate my point.
    1. Selfstudier - Iskandar323's first talk page edit
    2. Iskandar323 contesting CSD on article they had just created - - Selfstudier also contesting the CSD ~20 minutes after article creation, their first edit to talk page
    3. Selfstudier - Iskander323 10 hours later to support, never edited article, first talk page edit
    4. Selfstudier nominates for deletion - 35 minutes late, first !vote in AFD is Iskandar323 supporting Selfstudier, first edit to talk page of article was an hour earlier supporting Selfstudier
    That was after a few minutes of looking. When people are active in the same topics this kind of thing is incredibly common. If we're going to ABF for these patterns then there is a lot of this going on and it should be evenly enforced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Selfstudier, again, not saying you're doing anything wrong, just demonstrating that if we're using the threshold of "edited the same page in support of each other without having first edited the page" than it's going to be an enormous problem.
    Levivich, those were picked at random from the editor interaction analyzer. I'm sure you'll find hundreds more examples like that, as 20% of Iskandar's 46,500 edits are to pages also edited by Selfstudier, and 60% of Selfstudier's 37,800 edits are to pages also edited by Iskandar323. People who edit in this topic area edit the same pages, and people with similar views support each other. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. The UNRWA edit above
    2. A B
    3. B A
    4. A B (part of the same dispute on settler colonialism)
    5. A B
    6. A B
    7. A B
    8. A B
    That is without looking particularly hard. So do we want to start sanctioning for tag-team editing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, you were already over the diff limit with your initial statement, and now we've gone far beyond that. I think the venue you're looking for to judge when AGF isn't necessary, how many edits to an article insulates you from tag-teaming, if newly EC editors are allowed the same privileges as established editors, what amount of poor content or content one side disagrees with justifies tag team editing, if someone who made an edit was sanctioned does that mean reverting them isn't reverting, and if there is off-site coordination among new editors in the topic, isn't AE.
    If you have to provide ~35 diffs and links in your initial report and it still needs back and forth with deeper analysis it probably needs to be seen by a committee of some sort, maybe of diverse views and elected by the community to deeply analyze a wide body of evidence provided by editors addressing complex, long-running conflicts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Luckily, while this AE report is opened in part to look at edit warring at Israel no one is continuing the long term edit war. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nableezy, I didn't ping you because I was more concerned with showing that this edit war was still on-going to communicate the point that the editors reported here are not doing anything that is unusual or unexpected, and if we're going to sanction it there will be a lot of those sanctions going around.
    As far as your edit not being part of the long-term edit war, and instead just being a restoration of consensus, there is currently an RFC waiting closure on that point, and there has been a large number of versions of the Nakba/expulsion sentence in the lead. The version you restored is not a consensus version.
Some versions of that sentence back to May 10th chosen at random
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • 13 Aug The majority of the Palestinians were expelled or made to flee, by paramilitaries and the IDF, an explusion known as the Nakba.
    • 9 Aug Over both phases of the war, a majority of Palestinian Arabs were expelled or fled for various reasons
    • 21 July The next day, armies of neighboring Arab states invaded, starting the First Arab–Israeli War. A majority of Palestinians were expelled or fled due to various causes.
    • 23 June The Palestinians were expelled or made to flee by militias and the military, a core component of the Nakba.
    • Pre-RFC start 7 June During the war, the Palestinian population was expelled or made to flee by paramilitaries and the IDF, known as the Nakba.
    • 3 June The war saw the expulsion and flight of most of Mandatory Palestine's predominantly Arab population, known as the Nakba. A minority remained and became Arab citizens of Israel.
    • Also June 3 Primarily as a consequence of the war, there was an influx of Jews, previously living in the North Africa and the Middle East, who were expelled or fled, beginning a near total exodus of Jews living in the Muslim world.
    • 21 MayPrimarily as a consequence of the war, from 1948 to 1951, 260,000 Jews migrated, fled, or were expelled from Muslim-majority countries throughout North Africa and the Middle East beginning a near total exodus of the more than 850,000 Jews living in the Muslim world, and whose descendants today constitute the largest Jewish ethnic identity group in Israel.
    • 10 May The 1949 Armistice Agreements saw Israel's borders established over most of the former Mandate territory. The rest, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, were taken by Jordan and Egypt respectively.

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

  • If the issue is that a certain group of editors is tag-teaming to get around 1RR, or that people like to engage in long-term edit wars to get the article to look their own preferred way by force, wouldn't imposing individual WP:0RR restrictions be a way to stop that? Can't really edit war if you can't revert. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note that I am not generally a fan of imposing 0RR, as there is some natural back-and-forth to Wikipedia's editing that is often healthy. But if there are individuals in this area who:
    1. Write decent quality articles from the ground up;
    2. Engage in talk page discussions productively; and
    3. Nonetheless, have a habit of engaging in long-term edit warring in the topic area's established articles;
    Then, we may have a case that a 0RR would work. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 15:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warn HaOfa and Selfstudier for the tag-team editing at Zionism. Being the fourth and fifth reverts, respectively, is beyond reason, and HaOfa actually participated in an edit war over the same exact content two months ago. Enough already. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why this and not for edit warring? Barkeep49 (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49: Sorry, i meant tag-team edit warring. If there are instances of them unilaterally edit-warring, I'd be happy to lump those in. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Selfstudier: No, I mean you. I thought you'd know that I'm referring to the edits to Zionism on August 10 and 11 where KlayCax removes some text, Nishidani restores it, PeleYoetz removes it, TarnishedPath restores it, HaOfa removes it, and you restore it. Looks like tag-team edit-warring to me, and not the first instance, but the third recent instance given that there were outbreaks of it in June/July. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ABHammad: I'm not even sure how to begin to engage with "my team's edit-warring is more justified because my team was doing it in the name of stability". Edit warring is destabilizing. Next time, ask an admin to lock down the page and start an RfC instead of doing that. Also, no, the last stable revisions were the ones before you made your edit to the page on June 10/before KlayCax made their edit on August 10. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [M]y team was doing it in the name of stability is right up there with "they've edited the page before" in terms of justification. Add a dollop of "one of them is blocked for unrelated copyright violations" and we're cruising right along. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Selfstudier: in which case this is a continuation of the edit war over the lead sentence that began in June and has basically continued on-and-off since then. Given the extent of your participation on the talk page and at these AE threads, you were certainly aware that that edit war happened. In that case, your diff is still intentional edit-warring. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Levivich: I'm not sure I need to give AE an opportunity to address this before it's taken up at any other noticeboard is true. You could, instead, just go to the community, or, truthfully, go to ArbCom (perhaps via ARCA) since this is an area that ArbCom already has "jurisidiction" with. I will say that I think AE is pretty ill served to your desire to consider multiple editors' behaviors in relation to each other. I think both ANI and ArbCom do that better. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Along those lines, that seems like we may want to refer this to the ArbCom. After all, if there is another process that would handle this exact sort of dispute better, and if AE is ill served to review this evidence, why would we not just have the better process handle this? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I've been saying in the past few complicated reports. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support – is the scope of the case the edit warring on the one page, or more broadly the battleground behavior? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The edit warring is just a symptom of the battleground behavior, so battleground behavior more broadly. We literally have, here at AE, an editor Pinging Nableezy saying If you want to even pretend to give a shit about the things that matter here, like not making things up in articles, that would be great. for an admin me pointing out that they were continuing an edit war, and they've already been sanctioned for battleground editing. That's about as battleground as it gets. If no one but me is interested in sanctioning for that type of behavior then Arbcom is the route to take. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there are three other admins in the thread interested in curbing it (i proposed a small warning above), but i do feel that ArbCom is better at breaking down long-term behavior like this. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not opposed to referring this to ArbCom; the only thing holding me back from being 100% supportive is Levivich's statement that he's prefer not ArbCom. Now we as uninvolved administrators can certainly reach a different consensus - especially given the way some non-parties have come in hot to this discussion (see my comment below) but want to note this thought before we send it along. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will note that I find Levivich's new presentation of the material more compact and thus more helpful to reaching some conclusion here. I've looked through about half of it and I'd say only about half of what I've examined concerns me and virtually none of it is edit warring, but if those ratios carry through it will add up to a pattern of problems worth a sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the amended report, I don't find the two edits to Palestinians and two to Talk:Palestinians overly concerning. In the article the break is over indigenous to Palestine, being descended from the various inhabitants of the region over the millennia, that are culturally and linguistically Arab. and descending from peoples who have inhabited the region of Palestine over the millennia, and who today are culturally and linguistically Arab., so the sticking point was using indigenous or native. There are sources provided in the talk page discussion that are from peer reviewed papers challenging the applicability of native or indigenous. It seems consensus has been formed, however, and the edits in this case were about two months ago.
    The three edits to the lead of Israel aren't great. Long term edit warring is a problem, especially as all three edits are while there is an active RFC on the topic. Linking to an article that says scholarly consensus today is that violent expulsions were the main factor rather provided that detail does appear to be intentionally burying the lead.
    The sources in Golan Heights that discuss annexation also use the phrasing extending Israeli administration over the Golan, and the article says On 14 December 1981, Israel passed the Golan Heights Law, that extended Israeli "laws, jurisdiction and administration" to the Golan Heights. Although the law effectively annexed the territory to Israel, it did not explicitly spell out a formal annexation. It obviously changes the framing, and the annexation phrasing looks to have been pretty stable. All that said, per the edit summary of the prior edit and their edit, it looks to have been a revert about US recognition in the lead, Rv, US view doesnt belong in lead, its elswhere in article followed by the world's leading superpower, I think it is worth a mention. Obviously, everyone is responsible for the full content of their edits and effects of their reverts, but this was a single edit and it appears to not have been the main thrust of the edit.
    As for Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though under international law East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel. versus Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally., it should be summarizing the content in article, The Golan Heights and East Jerusalem have been fully incorporated into Israel under Israeli law, but not under international law. Israel has applied civilian law to both areas and granted their inhabitants permanent residency status and the ability to apply for citizenship. The UN Security Council has declared the annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem to be "null and void" and continues to view the territories as occupied. The status of East Jerusalem in any future peace settlement has at times been a difficult issue in negotiations between Israeli governments and representatives of the Palestinians.
    For the settlement issue, Israel has established settlements across the occupied territories, which is deemed illegal under international law, and has annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which is largely unrecognized internationally. remains the the lead. A partially duplicative paragraph, Israel has established and continues to expand settlements across the occupied territories, which is deemed illegal under international law, and has annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which is largely unrecognized internationally. Since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt, returning the Sinai Peninsula, and Jordan, and into the 2020s has normalized relations with several Arab countries. However, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded. Israel has been internationally criticised for its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, and been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinians by human rights organizations and UN officials. was removed from the lead. The only information on the settlements that changed was the and continues to expand language. Was that an issue with removing duplicate information from the lead and overlooking moving those four words to the earlier use of the same prose, or an intentional whitewashing? This was also a single edit.
    On the apartheid edit, this has been a long running issue that was being actively discussed again at an RFC that ended with no consensus to include. Is the issue editors removing something that never had consensus, or repeatedly adding it?
    That's all I got in me for now, except to say that it certainly looks like we're asking admins at AE to decide which content is right. I'm not seeing black and white NPOV violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Selfstudier, link fixed. I formatted it like a wikilink and not an external link. :/ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich: the community has already shown it is unable to handle this topic area. That is why there have been four arbcom cases already. AE is not some community venue. It is instead an Arbitration Committee venue where ArbCom has delegated some of its powers to others - in this case uninvolved administrators. Those administrators saying "actually we are unable to handle this with the powers you've delegated" is not an unreasonable outcome (if not one I'd like to see yet). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nableezy, it's all bad, that's why I'm calling the entire thing an edit war. You said I am restoring material that already had consensus, despite there never having been a consensus for that. It was the phrasing edit warred in right as the RFC started, but that doesn't give it some special status, and especially doesn't make it consensus. Everyone should stop edit warring, but acting like the four edits to Israel in the original report are the real problem doesn't pass muster. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nableezy I find your decorum here to be below what is expected of editors. I suggest you review the expectations, consider striking any statements you've made that do not meet those expectations, and adjust how you respond going forward. My understanding of why you're frustrated is what has stopped me for exercising one of the options presented there to uninvolved administrators. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Nableezy for your actions here. I'm trying to give what little time I currently have to things like this, but it's inadequate to doing a full job. And so that prevents me from having too many opinions at the moment; I hope if I spend more time I don't reach the conclusion that you need to be removed from the topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barkeep49, what mystical incantation do we need to etch in runes on this page to refer this to arbcom? Do we just light some candles and repeat Arbcom, Arbcom, please take heed! More diffs and words and context we need! Restrained and ill attended is this place! Please heed us Arbcom, TAKE THE CASE! three times? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Selfstudier, it's not that tag teaming is hard to pin down, it's that it is so widespread between the two sides that it doesn't make sense to treat reports in a vacuum. Also, you're not requesting a case, we admins are saying that these reports are all related and need to be handled in a venue suited to looking at an entire topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Close it with that rough consensus and then fill out the paperwork at WP:ARCA. I will note I haven't given up all hope here though. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How would you like to move forward here? In my eyes there is POV pushing, battleground editing, and tag teaming, but it is coming from both sides. So we can a) do nothing, b) give out more stern finger waggings which are generally ineffective, c) start evenhandedly sanctioning for the reported behavior, d) kick it to the group designed to handle large, complex, multiparty disputes. In this section we have multiple editors who've already racked up warnings and sanctions but continue with the same behavior, so I don't see a or b as solutions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I will close this with rough consensus to send to ArbCom in around 12 hours. I understand that Barkeep has not given up all hope here, but all other admins here appear to see ArbCom as the best venue given the complexity of issues in this area, and I do see a rough consensus for such a close at this point. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 14:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What is your rush RTH? I think you closing this when at least 2 of the four admins are still trying to find consensus with each other is a mistake. It's not like I'm 1 against 6 or 7 admins here. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that this is now a struck comment, as the objection was withdrawn, but your criticism is fair. I will try to keep this in mind going forward. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My goal, since becoming re-involved at AE, has been to do C. Now you and I might disagree about what sanctions are appropriate; I think formal warnings are a sanction whereas it seems like you're characterizing it as stern finger wagging. I am not opposed to d if we get there but I would love to truly exhaust our ability to do c. I thought we had gotten there with this coupling of reports but now wonder if maybe it's not true. I'm hopeful I'll have some more time to reply to your evidence analysis today or tomorrow. And if taht doesn't happen then I'd have no objections to the referral. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I call the warnings generally ineffective because, as an example, Nableezy has been racking up warnings for years, agreed to a reduction in sanctions with an assurance from Nableezy that they will moderate their tone and bring concerns about editor behavior to an uninvolved administrator or AE rather than engaging over behavior on talk pages.[63] and here we are again with you saying I find your decorum here to be below what is expected of editors. I suggest you review the expectations, consider striking any statements you've made that do not meet those expectations, and adjust how you respond going forward. Surely this is the time it won't be ineffective finger wagging. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I with draw my objection to sending this to ArbCom. Nableezy's latest comment shows the complexity and the multiple editors involved (including perhaps SFR though I don't find those accusations all that convincing) in just this complaint. Multi-party complaints (as opposed to the serial/sequential complaints Levivich has been trying) and complaints of Administrator problems enforcing conduct in the topic area are poorly served at AE and so yes this should just go to ArbCom. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see this as either Arbcom or:
    • I-Ban between Nableezy and BilledMammal
    • Topic ban Nableezy for continued battleground/civility/tone issues
    • BilledMammal restricted to 500 words in any ARBPIA discussion
      • Probably a few other editors too. This isn't a standard remedy so it can't be placed by an individual administrator unless we dress it up as a topic ban from any arbpia discussion where you have already used 500 words. Just look how smooth this RFC went without the normal bludgeoners bludgeoning and opponents arguing.
      • Maybe even everyone is limited to 500-1000 words in any ARBPIA discussion. Probably need to request that at ARCA for blanket application, but we can do this at AE for pages or discussions
    • 0RR for pretty much anyone who has taken part in any of these long-term edit wars (including the subject of this report), which is going to be a lot of editors.
    I guess the benefit is we can do this without the huge time sink of arbcom with just a rough consensus. Do we want to try to do something drastic, or do we want to kick it up to Arbcom? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I stand by my statement above that I do not think AE is well equipped to handle multi-party complaints like this. As a procedural matter now that sanctions are being considered against BM and Nableezy I will formally notify them (though obviously both are already paying attention). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nableezy, you said I am unaware of when I engag[ed] over behavior on talk pages since that warning. immediately after talking about making multiple comments about editor behavior at an ARBPIA RFC, and as far as battleground editing you returned to that RFC to complain that they got the same "please disengage" as you did and made two additional comments, then emailed me about their correcting saying one reply to two replies. And that's just today. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that assessment, and I think ArbCom would be the better route. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Lima Bean Farmer

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

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

Appealing user
Lima Bean Farmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction being appealed
Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2020 § c-Dreamy Jazz-2020-12-19T12:38:00.000Z-American politics 2
Administrator imposing the sanction
Dreamy Jazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
[64]

Statement by Lima Bean Farmer

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

I am not sure if it is appropriate to reply here, but I would like to address that the reason I was indefinitely blocked was for socking. I do acknowledge that using an alternative account most times, but especially to evade a ban or block is wrong. I can assure it won’t happen again and I can assure that it hasn’t happened in the past 3+ years. Please let me know if this addresses your concern. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I already spoke on the part of editing (please let me know if you’d like me to further clarify), but the indefinite ban was due to socking. I will avoid this issue by never editing with another account, especially to evade or bypass a block or ban. I can assure that I haven’t done this in the past 3+ years since the ban and can assure you that I won’t do it again in the future. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ScottishFinnishRadish, I had to go back and check but it was a 3 month ban for “disruptive editing”. I believe this was due to a high volume of editing in this topics at that time and my edits/experience not being up to par. A mix of things caused this I believe, including edit warring/not using talk pages appropriately, not using edit summaries regularly, and adding unsourced content. All of these are things I have demonstrated at least some level of proficiency in over the past 3 years (although I am most definitely still learning a lot here) and have shown a commitment to becoming a better more productive editor. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dreamy Jazz

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

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

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

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

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Lima Bean Farmer

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Lima Bean Farmer

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

Lemabeta

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

Request concerning Lemabeta

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 15 August 2024: Reverts to their original POV WP:OR. The problem with these are: “Armeno-Georgian” or Mamikonian roots is supported by the sources in the article (including 3 in the lede), yet the user removes the “Armeno” part and adds doubt to Mamkionian roots for no reason (second time now), engaging in WP:TE and WP:OR.
  2. 10 June 2024: Removes content based on “outdated” source Brosset, 1849. FYI, it's the same source that's used for Georgian origins [65]; apparently it's outdated for one thing, but can stay for another.
  3. 10 June 2024: Adds “cn” templates to existing sources and adds unexplained doubt.
  4. 15 August 2024: Removes material that's in the body; this after being specifically called out for selective POV-pushing in the previous edits and shown an additional modern WP:RS in the same comment (which was added to the article), RS that literally supported the info they removed.
  5. 24 July 2024: Another WP:TE and WP:OR push by changing sourced material under the guise of “WP:NEUTRALITY violation”. If you read the book's page, it literally says; “These three men, Davit Soslan, Zakare and Ivane Mkhargrdzeli restored the kingdom to a position of conquest”.
  6. 13 August 2024: undue Georgian POV with an “Agritourism guide” book despite the lede already having 2 sources, including a far better book from Oxford University that specializes in cheeses and states (including with a quote already in the ref); “Twisted string cheese, chechil panir, husats, or tel cheese are Armenian pasta filata cheeses,…”.
  7. 15 August 2024: Reverts to their undue POV now with WP:PRIMARY Georgian government source; this comes after they were shown the quote from the better secondary source that’s in the lede already which doesn’t support their POV.
  8. 29 June 2024: WP:OR removes any mention of Armenian from 1st paragraph and adds unexplained doubt, with OR opinionated summary “Armenocentric article”.
  9. 5 July: Removes any mention of Armenian and adds WP:OR doubt, no explanation.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on March 8, 2024
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Makes personal attacks during AE; "If you could read, you would see that...".
Adds more unexplained WP:OR doubt [66] to a WP:RS during AE.
Response to [67]: I don't think saying the user seemed eager to be blocked was a threat as the user was edit-warring [68], [69] during AE despite not having consensus for changing stable version or adding weaker sources that were directly challenged on talk, thus violating WP:ONUS.
I believe this comment is content related which is intended for talk pages.
Lemabeta claims "I simply didn't look at the sources of other sentences...", but they literally put "cn" tags on everything in this section (even when mostly sourced) excluding the Georgian origins paragraph which had the most outdated source; funny how the only paragraph they "didn't look" suits their POV. And even after, when I added better (modern/expert) source and told them about it [70], they still removed content sourced by it [71] and then put doubt on it [72]. Vanezi (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[73]


Discussion concerning Lemabeta

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

Statement by Lemabeta

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

2-3-4)The Pro-Armenian POV pushing is visible from the 2nd reference link he inserted---> [74] as you can see the he wrote that the "The Albano-Armenian theory is mostly accepted today, Adarnase being the first independent sovereign of Hereti, which was most likely an Armenian territory beforehand and followed the Monophysitism of Albanians and Armenians instead of the Christian Orthodoxy of the Bagrationis" meanwhile adding a source of Brosset, Marie-Félicité who lived in 19th century, by what standards is this considered as a "modern historians" - plural. Moreover, theory of Brosset is denounced today as he wasn't aware of the medieval works of historians attributing Adarnase of Hereti to Chosroid dynasty of Caucasus, which i inserted in the newer changes, which was completely deleted by the individual reporting me.therefore theory that isn't accepted by most, shouldn't be in the leading.

While Heretian Georgians are still presentHeretians or Ingiloys descendants of a legendary Heros, he keeps changing the Kingdom of Hereti ethnic affiliation to "South Caucasian" to a broader term than Georgian is. Meanwhile in modern historiography Kingdom of Hereti is considered as a Georgian monarchy 5) reference which he inserted [75] --- Since when is NPOV wording of a sentence considered as Armenophobia? But he wants to make it look like Armenian and Alan were the only reason of success of Kingdom of Georgia.

6)-7) Now let's talk about the deletion of sourced material by the individual reporting me. [76] Whole sourced etymology section was removed, because it didn't fit the pro-Armenian narrative he's pushing. Moreover, on Chechili geographical indication is registered in Georgia, protecting the origins of Chechili, which i wrote according to the articles such as Champagne. Chechili origins and GI are protected in more than 30 countries.

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

9)Wikipedia:No personal attacks violation by him "So you have nothing else to do but to edit war again after posting a ridiculous WP:OR rant on a clear scholar"[77] also violations are seen here by using offensive language[78]

"if you could read" isn't an insult. It's same as "If you may" or to politely ask someone. Lemabeta (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lemabeta (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[79] also the threatening to get me blocked "Seems like you're just eager to get blocked ot topic-banned" Lemabeta (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to Rosguill's initial comment I simply didn't look at the sources of other sentences due to the busy schedule involving my masters degree exams. Now that i am aware of the poorly written article, i will take my part in and contribute to the richening of Adarnase Sumbatashvili page, especially because i am a direct descendant of his paternal line. Lemabeta (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to Rosguill's comment So it's better to have an unargumentative and a provocational claim stated as an absolute fact in an article than to delete it? It should have been discussed in a talk page if there was something wrong with my edit instead of accusing me and reporting me of anything firstly.

Moreover, in the talk page [[80]] he had a problem over Kingdom of Hereti being refered to as a Georgian kingdom, thats where the problem lies, thats why he was writing King as "South Caucasian" and Kingdom as "South Caucasian" kingdom. If you want to topic ban me, do it. But my honor in front of god is clean and you can not change that--Lemabeta (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

Statement by Spinney Hill

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Lemabeta

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

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

  • While at first blush I was tempted to say that this was just a content dispute and should be resolved via RfC, I am concerned by Lemabeta's responses. With regard to point 2 in particular, this is the state of the article as of when Lemabeta began to edit it. While it's valid to contest the validity of a 19th century source, it is glaring that this source already comprises 2/3 of the citations in the article, including, as noted in the initial report, the specific claims of Bagratoni/Georgian heritage. It's hard to assume good faith of the objections to the sourcing of other claims to these same sources. I'm also dissatisfied with Lemabeta's response listed as "6-7", as, irrespective of the merits of the underlying edits, in this context Lemabeta's addition of content could be taken as the continuation of an edit war for a matter actively, so accusing Vanezi of deletion of sourced material seems a bit off base--at this juncture, adding the material was not appropriate: it should have been discussed, and potentially resolved via RfC if a consensus could not be reached between the two of you and other editors watching the article. signed, Rosguill talk 16:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lemabeta, at AE replies are not threaded (except occasionally between admins); new comments should be placed in your own section (I have moved the substantive portion of yours already as a courtesy). You're also a bit over your word limit--rather than request that you retract or rephrase, I'm just going to issue Vanezi Astghik a commensurable 50-word extension so that you're both allowed the same amount. Please do not reply further in this case unless addressed directly for comment signed, Rosguill talk 22:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Having now actually reviewed the content of Lemabeta's response, I don't find this explanation persuasive at all given the length of the article at the time and the position of the content edited vs other content that had previously been the crux of the dispute. And even if it were persuasive, it would still be a violation of the WP:CTOP instruction to edit carefully--if you're so rushed that you overlook such an obvious issue with your edit, you shouldn't be editing this topic. I'd appreciate other admins' input, but am currently leaning toward a topic ban on history of the Caucasus, including the history of its cultural heritage, broadly construed. signed, Rosguill talk 22:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, although possibly only an article-space topic ban, leaving them an allowance to engage on talk pages, as there is no evidence of talk page disruption given. That said, bespoke sanctions of that sort seldom work, and create more work for the others in the topic area, so I'm also fine with the standard topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just based on the diffs coming since the awareness notice, I'm seeing actionable POV-pushing. The legalese OR at places like Talk:Chechil#Georgian origins of the cheese is disruptive enough that I'd favor a standard topic ban, though I'm happy to see it kept as narrow as Rosguill's suggestion. It is reflective of the problem that Lemabeta has worsened their word limit violation despite the direct instructions from myself and Rosguill. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers, @ScottishFinnishRadish, I’m not sure we’re interpreting my proposal the same way. My thinking was that the scope needs to be “Caucasus”, rather than Georgia or Armenia, because the pattern of editing suggests to me that if banned from those topics, they would likely continue similar disruption by editing to remove the claims of other neighboring culture groups that compete with Georgia’s. I included the extra clause about “history of its cultural heritage” as I anticipate that without such a stipulation we’ll see a breaching attempt at an article like Chechil with the argument that it’s “not history”. While of course such a move could be sanctioned (although in my experience more likely than not it would result in just a final stern warning), getting ahead of it now would save us some wikilawyering. signed, Rosguill talk 12:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I interpreted it. I'd prefer that over an article-only ban. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bajaria - 2

Blocked by me for one week for ECR violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Second request concerning Bajaria

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
ARBPIA ECR, again
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

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

  1. 16:36 16 August
  2. 16:57 16 August
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Blocked 48 hours on 11 August by @Theleekycauldron: for ARBPIA ECR violations, covered in the aforementioned/above case.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Copied from above:

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified at time of report.

Discussion concerning Bajaria

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

Statement by Bajaria

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bajaria

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

Peckedagain

Peckedagain is indefinitely topic banned from gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Peckedagain

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

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 09:34, 13 August 2024 Edit-warring with continuous POV pushing as warned by User:Licks-rocks on their talk page
  2. 11:45, 16 August 2024 More POV pushing and completely changing the prose of the lead making it appear as if it is contentious beyond just the UK. Reverted by User:Crossroads [81]
  3. 12:20, 17 August 2024 and then they just reverted it again, placing their POV there
  4. 16:01, 17 August 2024 more edit-warring of previously reverted content by User:Snokalok
  5. 11:13, 13 August 2024 insertion of the very same editorialized edits they were warring over on the other article above, again POV pushing
  6. 13:32, 17 August 2024 Deletion of large swaths of well supported RS
  7. 21:04, 17 August 2024 Adding undue content trying to whitewash Conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy, violating NPOV, UNDUE
  8. 21:57, 17 August 2024‎ Again, reversion against consensus of adding coatrack NPOV of prior undo from another user, reverted by User:Flounder fillet
  9. 00:47, 18 August 2024 And now pushing their POV on another article without discussion, after having been warned about it on the other article's talk page and having responded to the AE here.
  10. 21:00, 19 August 2024 - The user has now started WP:CANVASSing people who may share their views to this AE discussion
  11. 23:15, 19 August 2024 NPA accusation without the receipts, the lead of Cass Review clearly supports the statement that it was commissioned for policies of the country
  12. 23:40, 19 August 2024 BLP vio, defamation (was REVDEL'd)
  13. 21:14, 20 August 2024 More POV pushing, it's getting pretty wild - can we strike a lot of this after enforcement?
  14. 00:31, 21 August 2024 Second time making the same BLP vio on defamation (WP:REVDEL by admin)
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

22:23, 17 August 2024‎


Discussion concerning Peckedagain

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

Statement by Peckedagain

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

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

Re the points:

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

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

In reply to new points:
  • 8 - Ralidic also reverted positive work I did on the page - [Talk]
  • But regards the James Esses case, I am at fault: I now realise it was inappropriate for the Cass page, even though the UKCP statement referred to Cass in their opening line.
  • 9 - Yes I am at fault: I didn't read carefully enough that I was being invited to use the Talk page, not the page. I have now done that.
  • 10: as the diff shows -the bulk of my comment was praising editors of all persuasions and invited them to help on another page.
Is Raladic coming with clean hands to this issue? In the Talk page, they yesterday stated a view that has been many times in Talk shown to be misleading, to be wrongly undermining of what Cass actually is: "The government of one nation has issued a review for use of policies in that country. That is the purpose of the Cass Review, not more, not less." That seems to be a rut they are in, where they are at odds with the consensus of the cass page editors.
Because the Cass review included all worldwide evidence: although it was commissioned by one country, its scientific findings on PB evidence is valid to all.
Is Nosferattus coming with clean hands? - they are being criticized by others for 'completely wrong' statements, and by me for digging up resolved, dead questions

Statement by DanielRigal

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

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

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

Statement by CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath

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

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

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

Statement by Licks-rocks

Since I've been mentioned here twice now, I'll inform the court that I have seen this. Not much to add, besides that I concur this is a CIR issue and that I have advised Pecked on their talkpage to edit in other areas of the wiki to build some experience. There's definitely some IDHT-symptoms here as well. [82] --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (LunaHasArrived)

I wasn't going to comment here because I thought everything I would say has been said but I think this users reaction to being bought to ae has increased their more problematic editing. As well as this one particular pov pushing diff #[83] caught my attention and was the main reason to comment. I really think the diff speaks for itself. I truly think pecked can be a productive editor and they have been praised for good editing previously. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nosferattus

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Peckedagain

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The edit warring is almost enough for a topic ban on its own, and the POV pushing found here with extensive quotation certainly isn't a good look. I think some experience in general editing before they're allowed to continue in GENSEX is probably a good idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190"