Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

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

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

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

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Monopoly31121993(2)

Latest comment: 7 days ago15 comments9 people in discussion

Monopoly31121993(2) is indefinitely topic banned from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:30, 28 June 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 Monopoly31121993(2)

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Monopoly31121993(2) (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 4

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

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)

15:26, 19 November 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

6 April 2024 Further evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Here

Discussion concerning Monopoly31121993(2)

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 Monopoly31121993(2)

I apologize if I offended anyone. summary of events: In this specific case, I saw that a wikipedia page for Gaza Genocide was about to be created (via a renaming process) and thought that was revisionist to an extreme. I mentioned that this was similar to when editors (some of whom are involved again now) declared the Gaza Stripe Famine several months ago. I saw that this article name change was being done despite having failed multiple time in the past after months of attempts and that this latest attempt began by pinging a certain list of editors (who they were, I don't know). I responded by pinging editors who had recently contributed to discussion about deleting or merging another Israel-Palestine article. I didn't discriminate or cherry-pick editors, I just pinged 50 of the most recent editors to see if they wanted to contribute.

I also made a statement, that I am very concerned that Wikipedia's neutrality is rapidly evaporating on the topic of Israel-Palestine. Instead I saw and see activism, attempts to promote specific narratives about this conflict appearing in the editors remarks and actions. Calls to change page names to "massacres, genocides and famines" when such words are not commonplace but instead ubiquitous in a certain narrative's framing of this conflict but not in the mainstream. I said that I thought Putin, Xi and Islamists, who share Putin and Xi's totalitarian ethos, would be delighted to see that Wikipedia, which is viewed as factual in the Free World, could be altered to fit one specific narrative framing so easily. If I worked for their propaganda departments I would be studying these talk pages very carefully.

And with that action by me this arbitration was called.

After having been an editor on Wikipedia for something like a decade now I can't recall reading the WP:BATTLEGROUND page but now that I have I can say I feel better knowing that we have a process for dealing with the kinds of comments I have seen thrown around, especially recently on Israel-Palestine pages. From now on I will report any perceived uncivilly, insults, intimidation. Again, I apologize to any editor who feels I have been uncivil towards them.

Seraphimblade, ScottishFinnishRadish and Euryalus, Will I have a chance to respond to you before you impose a decision? As I'm reading this it seems the discussion has moved far beyond what was originally mentioned into something of a review of all edits that I have made on Israel-Palestine articles over the past few months with Euryalus providing both prosecutorial evidence against me and judgement. That same new evidence outside of the original discussion is then picked up by Seraphimblade and ScottishFinnishRadish and a topical ban on my editing is suggested.

That seems totally unfair considering that many remarks have been made by editors on this topic which, by this logic, would also require them to be Topic Banned. Instead, I have said here that I had never heard of "Battleground" until now and now having learned of it, after something like 10 years of editing, I think I should receive a warning given that I said I will take steps to avoid this behavior going forward.

Also, for the record, I don't recall ever saying anyone worked for Putin or Xi. I said, those leaders would be happy with edits that portray the war as one of mass genocidal massacres by an American ally. That clearly plays well with their narratives that the US is just evil, etc. But I never said that those editors were Russian or Chinese trolls or anything like that so please don't say that I did because I didn't and don't think they are. I think those editors are extremely passionate about this topic which is attested to by the fact that many of them post that they member of groups related to it and many edit pages on this topic far far more than I do. The fact that my perspective often differs from theirs, in a way that I believe is often more neutral (e.g. not referring to a gaza genocide or a gaza famine when most English news sources don't do this) I think is exactly what editing Wikipedia is all about. I think if you look at my contributions on this topic you will see that I have done just that by trying to keep things factual and in this case, pinging interested editors to help Wikipedia remain factual and not promote what in this case (a Gaza genocide) is still a fringe categorization in English language reliable sources.

I never said that anyone was editing on behalf of anyone. Please link to when I said that if you think that I did. What I said, was that Putin and Xi would be happy to see some Wikipedians promoting a narrative that is similar to their own. Those are totally different things. One is accusing editors of being paid propagandists (in which case they should be banned from Wikipedia) the other is stating my opinion about what narrative Putin and Xi would like promoted. I stated this already above but I saw you posted your comment after I had posted that so I would like restate that. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Comment moved to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I've never had to defend myself in this way before so I'm not sure where to do it and it seems rather pointless since all editors have already stated that they want me banned from the topic. I think that goes way too far considering I wasn't even issued a warning, I have a long history of constructive editing and no previous bans.

I guess I simple summary is the best I can put forward so here goes:

Several editors have been trying to rename Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza into Gaza Genocide for months now (the page is currently redirected). I saw on the talk page that the latest attempt to get the page renamed Gaza Genocide was ongoing and I pinged a random sample of editors of another Gaza related page to make them aware of the discussion. A case was filed against me with Arbitration for my action.

The initial finding was that Canvassing was not an issue since I clearly didn't intend to steer the conversation but instead just get interested editors to participate (True). A battleground allegation got added to the claim against me, likely since wrote that I had found a disturbing pattern in the renaming of multiple recent Israel-Palestine conflict articles in a way that they would fit a certain framing of the conflict (e.g. an article titled Gaza famine long before any "famine" had ever been declared, Gaza Genocide, again before any declaration had been made, multiple requests to delete or merge 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation into Nuseirat refugee camp massacre, etc.). A larger investigation into my edits over the last 6-12 months (?) has now uncovered that I have engaged with other editors in "battleground" language and should be banned from ever editing an article (or talk page even?) about the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I think this goes way too far, doesn't take me at my word and assume good faith that I mean what I say when I say I won't repeat similar things in the future and doesn't appreciate the fact that I have actually attempted to keep Wikipedia neutral and factual instead of allowing fringe narratives, at least in the English speaking world, to become facts on Wikipedia. I would like the judges here to reconsider the ban. I imagine that's unlikely but I think I have grounds for leniency. Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Wafflefrites

I am one of the editors that Monolopy "canvassed". Here is the response I posted in the canvassed thread (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAllegations_of_genocide_in_the_2023_Israeli_attack_on_Gaza&diff=1230684460&oldid=1230680601):

"I will say that the list of people that Monopoly31121993(2) pinged in response is a wider net then the original poster's, and the list of people actually reflects a good variety of opinions/voting. Per WP:CANVASS "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." So Monopoly's intent does not seem to be to sway the discussion a particular way, but to increase the sample size of participants in the discussion to be more representative of the larger Wikipedia population and less skewed.

In terms of battleground behavior, the I-P topic area does seem to have a lot of this behavior from both the "Pro-Israel"/"Pro-Palestinian" sides. I haven't been able tell which side Monopoly31121993(2) is on in the past, but I think he should probably take a break from Wikipedia and try to conduct himself more professionally based on the 20:11, 23 June 2024 diff. Also his comment on Xi re-writing Wikipedia is inaccurate because Wikipedia is blocked in China unless you are using a VPN.

Not sure what an Arbpia 4 sanction is. Wafflefrites (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Iskandar323

@User:Wafflefrites: As I have since responded in the relevant thread, the canvassing instance here is not of a form permitted or advocated for per WP:APPNOTE. Mass pinging of this nature is typically only done to call back editors from the same discussion or previous related discussions on the same talk page to review a development in a dispute. Appropriate alerts to garner more viewpoints should take the form of neutral messages on public forums or the talk pages of directly related articles, etc. Here, it cannot be readily ruled out that Monopoly saw an audience in an entirely separate discussion that he thought potentially sympathetic to a certain POV and pinged them on that basis. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by FortunateSons

I don’t love the way the notifications were done (and then repeated) by any of those involved, but I think those deserve trouts at most, not warnings, as it’s closer to a good faith mistake than genuine harm, particularly as all seemed to have been made in an attempt to attract a larger but neutral audience. Not best practice, but not horrible either.

The statements about the motives of others are an actual problem, but also a general problem in this topic area. While it would have been better to go their talk page first, I think that an admin-issued warning to AGF might do some good to cut down on this sort of behaviour in this and other areas. FortunateSons (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Monopoly31121993(2)

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

Suggestion of canvassing is a bit thin. More substance to the battleground claim including here, here, here and some overly pointy edits like this. Keen to hear from Monopoly31121993, particularly on the second paragraph of WP:BATTLE. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Monopoly31121993(2): Mildly, it's entirely normal for administrators to conduct at least a brief review of an editor's edits when evaluating an allegation against them. In this specific case it's suggested your ARBPIA editing has breached policies on battleground conduct, canvassing and aspersions. To resolve those claims its necessary to look at your ARBPIA edits.

I'm a bit surprised that someone with 10+ years experience has never heard of wp:battle, but will take you at your word. As you're now aware of it: my concern is the tenor of statements like Drop the hate, the claim that other editors are advancing a disgusting narrative, that they are follow(ing) Hamas' PR campaign and that they should refrain from editing pages related to this topic because you don't personally agree with their views. This is textbook "battleground" stuff and is pretty unnecessary in discussions over article content. There is no reason to personalise content disputes like this, and certainly no reason to imply that other editors are supporters of terrorist messaging. It has also occurred over several months and is clearly not just heat of the moment stuff.

The question is what to do about it? On the positive side you say you'll avoid this behaviour in future, you have a (mostly) clean block log and a history of productive editing outside this topic. That's all to the good, and might steer the outcome toward a warning. On the other hand you do seem to have very strong views on this specific topic area. If so that's understandable: so do many editors. However this is why its a contentious topic with stricter rules over editing. Topic bans are fairly freely applied in ARBPIA to encourage editors with very strong views to work elsewhere in Wikipedia if their views are disruptive to a collaborative environment. It shouldn't be seen as a personal condemnation, just an enforced redirection towards the other 6.5 million articles. The question is whether your assurance of no future battleground conduct outweigh the risk of this occurring. That's the point of this entire thread. Your edit history and responses in this thread are important in reaching consensus on this question, and of course there's time for any further comments you or anyone else wishes to make before a decision is made. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Yeah, support a topic ban. @Monopoly31121993(2): thanks for the replies. I appreciate this isn't the outcome you were looking for but there's evidence of a battleground approach over several months. An editor of your experience should be aware that statements like those listed above aren't acceptable, even if you had indeed never read the policy on it. As above, this is an area where many editors have strong feelings, and where topic bans are frequently applied to maintain a collaborative environment. Hopefully you'll see this in the spirit it is meant and continue your productive editing among the thousands of other Wikipedia topics which need work. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think there's enough plain battleground conduct here for a TBAN. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looks like we're settled on a topic ban at this point? Any objections before it's closed that way? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I don't love this recent habit of mass-pinging everyone who's ever had their name on a talk page when starting an RfC, but to my knowledge there's no policy prohibiting it so long as the people who are pinged aren't cherry-picked to support one position or the other, and I don't see any evidence of that here. I'm a lot more concerned with the BATTLEGROUND conduct. This is a fraught enough area without raising the temperature even more; it's entirely possible to disagree with someone without insinuating that they're working for some dictator or another, and all comments like that do is needlessly inflame the situation. The article edit brought up above by SFR is, similarly, needlessly inflammatory and POINTy. Absent some very convincing reason not to, I would TBAN from the topic area based upon this conduct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have read the response, and am unconvinced. I did not say, Monopoly31121993, that you flat out said others were working for dictators, but that you insinuated it. "$DICTATOR would sure love what you're writing here" is exactly such an insinuation, and is a completely inappropriate aspersion. There was no other reason to even bring them up at all; they weren't relevant to the articles or edits in question. The rest seems either wikilawyering (yes, of course we consider an editor's behavior in general when deciding on AE actions), WP:NOTTHEM, or to essentially state in a very conclusory way "My way is right, so I did whatever needed to be done to get my way, because, well, it's right." I don't see any of this as compatible with editing in the ARBPIA area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support topic ban Any editor who goes around claiming that another editor is editing on behalf of Ghengis Khan or George III, or V.I. Lenin or Francisco Franco or Mao Tse Tung or Idi Amin or Robert Mugabe or any other despot in the long sad cruel history of human beings ought to be blocked. The only exception should be when irrefutable evidence of that specific connection has been presented. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Peleio Aquiles

Latest comment: 3 days ago17 comments8 people in discussion

By consensus of administrators at this AE thread, Peleio Aquiles (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:54, 2 July 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 Peleio Aquiles

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: XDanielx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

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

WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, and WP:BATTLE issues:

27 June 2024: "Bad faith editing"
27 June 2024: "you have no concerns for objectivity or accuracy; you're implementing a pro-Israel agenda"
8 June 2024: "You try hard to sound like you're worried about nothing but the application of Wikipolicy"
28 May 2024: various incivility
26 May 2024: "It's astonishing. It's not clear to me if you're truly this oblivious as a reader or if you're intentionally trying to intimidate other editors"

Incivil edit summaries:

27 June 2024: "shamelessly sophistic"
27 June 2024: "he wants to remove information he dislikes"
27 June 2024: "removing facts just because they don't help the narrative he wants to push"
16 June 2024: "POV-pushing"
8 June 2024: "obvious pro-Israel POV edit warring"
28 April 2024: "what an absurd excuse to push your POV"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None that I'm aware of.

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 12 June 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have some other concerns here, mostly relating to WP:OWN, but they would be difficult to articulate without getting into some details of the topic and its edit history. I can elaborate if it would be useful, but I figured the civility issues are more clear-cut, and might suffice to warrant action of some kind.

There have been a few comments about my editing history. If admins feel that it's relevant, let me know and I'll address it more fully. Otherwise, I'll keep this brief to minimize distractions.

Regarding my tag of Al Jazeera's live blog, WP:ALJAZEERA calls it a WP:NEWSBLOG following a recent RSP workshop. In any case, I think it's generally understood that live update feeds aren't good sources for factual information, and others have not questioned the tag.

The other controversy Selfstudier mentioned, relating to the Flour massacre, is a bit more nuanced. If admins feel it's relevant, this was the most recent talk thread about it. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

27 June 2024

Discussion concerning Peleio Aquiles

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 Peleio Aquiles

My explanation is that @XDanielx is a serial POV-pusher who abuses and distorts Wikipedia's rules to remove content that he dislikes (ie, content contradicting Israeli PR) as I showed in the arbitration request that I opened and was eventually reverted. I won’t revisit the argument again -- I'm on my phone, which would make too much effort for all this. I might be digging my grave but my conscience is clean as to my edits. For all my difficulty to hold back from obvious POV-pushers I vouch for the substance of my contributions which were made in a good faith effort to represent what sources say. Daniel is the opposite of me, someone who complies with Wiki etiquette but only to wreak havoc in the entries with mass deletion of well-sourced content and tendentious interpretation of the souces. He should be topic-banned from contributing on Israel-Palestine topics. If Wikipedia decides otherwise, banning me in lieu of him, turning a blind eye to his obvious agenda-driven editing since he's much more adept at moving around here than me, that’s your choice. I'm not good at adhering to Wikipedia's ritual formalities, and I'm aware that this defense is proof, but that's all I have to say, and giving something different would, I repeat, be too much effort for this. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Selfstudier

Well, on the face of it, defendant should take a break, I would like to hear more about this. Selfstudier (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just for clarity, live coverage of breaking news is not what is meant by WP:NEWSBLOG, that refers to blogs that are hosted by news sites, not the same thing at all. Fwiw, I have taken a closer look at the content disputes that led to the outbursts of 27 June and I have restored restructured versions of material that was removed on 28 June by another editor of the same persuasion as complainant. I can see why defendant was upset, nevertheless, there are other editors who might also have weighed in on the subject matter and it would have been much better not to have overreacted at that point.Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I have a question. Regarding "If, as respondent says in their reply above, filer is a serial POV-pusher who abuses and distorts Wikipedia's rules to remove content that he dislikes, then respondent needs to provide diffs supporting this. To do otherwise is naked casting of aspersions, and that sort of thing is caustic in contentious topic areas." The filer has provided 11 diffs that show WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, and WP:BATTLE issues. This is treated as enough information to make a decision. Are 11 diffs also enough to demonstrate that someone is "a serial POV-pusher who abuses and distorts Wikipedia's rules to remove content that he dislikes", assuming the diffs were consistent with the claim? Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for responding Red-tailed hawk. I asked because it seems possible that both the filer and the respondent may take the view that the other party is not fully complying with the Universal Code of Conduct's prohibition against "Systematically manipulating content to favor specific interpretations of facts or points of view", but neither party has filed a case on that basis with sufficient evidence to demonstrate something like that, and I'm not sure I can even remember seeing a PIA related AE case like that. Even if it is not the case here, it is a common situation in PIA, and it's not entirely clear why cases about bias are not filed. I'm not sure anyone even knows how to do it, hence my question. It's tempting to think it is because it involves too much work to compile the evidence, but people often submit a substantial amount of evidence to support their theories for SPI cases and often spend a lot of time explaining their views on talk pages. As recent PIA topic bans seem to show, this means that AE is largely limiting itself to handling speech rule violations, which are symptoms, rather than dealing with common causes like (mis)perceptions of bias, (mis)perceptions of agenda driven editing etc. And this creates asymmetries where what an editor says becomes more important to their ability to edit in the topic area than their impact on content, where speech becomes more important than a bias, where "manipulating content to favor specific interpretations of facts or points of view" has become normalized and is rarely, if ever, sanctioned. Sometimes article content ends up sort of vibrating between states as we all think we are fixing someone else's bias. This doesn't seem ideal. It would be good if it were as easy to address (mis)perceptions of biased editing here at AE as it is to address speech related violations. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Longhornsg

Plenty more examples of unhelpful WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior of the defendant, including claiming conspiracies on WP, removing sourced material because " it's irrelevant and of concern merely to pro-Israel propagandists", dismissing RS claiming they are "Israeli propaganda", and the list goes on. Longhornsg (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Result concerning Peleio Aquiles

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

Going to start off with a note that I warned Peleio Aquiles for the personalized commentary before this AE report was opened. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Selfstudier, I expect that'll be coming when they format the report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ScottishFinnishRadish: are you OK with a TBAN here? If so, I will close the thread as such. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm fine with that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
These edits are certainly concerning, and look to me like this editor needs to be excused from this topic. Peleio Aquiles, if you've got any explanation or have anything to say, I would suggest sooner rather than later. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I will note this 3rrn thread from a ways back, in which Peleio Aquiles was quite clearly edit warring within this topic area. User behavior does not seem to have improved over the years.
On 27 June, the respondent opened up a conduct thread accusing another editor of misconduct on an article talk page rather than at any proper venue. Respondent stated then I may get banned for saying what I'm saying here, which to me acknowledges that the respondent was aware that the edit broke civility rules. If, as respondent says in their reply above, filer is a serial POV-pusher who abuses and distorts Wikipedia's rules to remove content that he dislikes, then respondent needs to provide diffs supporting this. To do otherwise is naked casting of aspersions, and that sort of thing is caustic in contentious topic areas. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sean.hoyland:
I have read this attempt to file an AE report by respondent, which has all of one diff in it. And I sincerely struggle to see how that diff (which fixed phrasing and appropriately tagged an Al-Jazeera liveblog for an improvement in line with WP:NEWSBLOG's guidance to use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process) is in some way POV pushing. Respondent tried to frame that as some sort of bad faith action, but I am not seeing anything that approaches serial POV pushing based on what I'm able to find.
I understand that serial POV pushing (particularly when civil) can be a bit harder to identify using diffs than flagrant incivility (which is alleged by filer here). It might require over a dozen diffs to demonstrate it well, but it also could just as easily require much less—it really depends on how obvious and concrete the POV pushing be. But I would expect something concrete to provided when making sweeping claims about another editor being here in bad faith, rather than merely asserting it so (or, in the one case a diff is provided, providing us something that is totally non-dispositive).

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Sean.hoyland: Long-term POV pushing within the Arbcom-designated contentious topic areas is within the scope of this board. With respect to [i]t's tempting to think it is because it involves too much work to compile the evidence, but people often submit a substantial amount of evidence to support their theories for SPI cases and often spend a lot of time explaining their views on talk pages, one difference I can think of is that we have a somewhat hard cap of 20 diffs and 500 words per person. It's possible to ask for an extension, but I imagine that this point of friction might dissuade people and/or be a weakness in this area—particularly since dealing with POV pushing from an admin side may well require getting quite familiar with the relevant sources in an area. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Shinadamina

Latest comment: 1 day ago12 comments4 people in discussion

This matter is a content dispute. If parties cannot come to agreement, they are advised to utilize dispute resolution processes. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:27, 3 July 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 Shinadamina

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Aredoros87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Shinadamina (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

29 April Deletes 4 out of 8 sources, that mentions Putin's relationship with Vardanyan, under the edit summary wp:refbomb all these references are not needed
29 April 5 minutes later deletes the content itself saying any such claims should have multiple sources
30 April Gets reverted and introduced to AA. Then I asked admins to make the article protected because exact same sentence was being deleted by newly registered users 3rd time already.

After doing random edits to reach 500 edit threshold (WP:GS/AA requirement), started doing an edit war. The user thrice removed official charges against Vardanyan, and replaced it with POV claims of him being a "political prisoner" with non-RS sources (state-owned channel).

8 June 1st removal
24 June 2nd removal
28 June 3rd removal
28 June Misinterpreted the source: represents senator Markey's statement as the statement of US congress

The user doesn't seem to be following WP:CIVIL as well. Moreover, when I complained about his secret content removal, he/she just ignored it.[1]

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 29 April (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Shinadamina claims that their 3 reverts are not a violation, however according to WP:CYCLE, he/she was supposed take it to talk page, after his/her edits being reverted. Morover, he/she keep misintreperting the sources. Neither US Congress, nor UK Parliament called Vardanyan a "political prisoner". A public speech by individuals is not statement by the entire organization.

After being reported for misusing the sources, Shinadamina still keep doing it. Here[1], he/she added completely random link as a source.

I feel that here we have a pro-Azeri / pro-Turkish editor Shinadamina keeps doing personal attack even in this filing. This's the 2nd time already[2]

Seraphimblade, please not that, the user misused the sources 2nd time after being reported.[1]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification diff

Discussion concerning Shinadamina

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 Shinadamina

Actually action should be taken against @Aredoros87 because based on his edit history it is obvious that he is making biased edits to Azeri and Turkish subjects and negative edits to Armenian subjects. Please check the talk page of Ruben Vardanyan for the details. My edits have all been explained and proper sourcing used. Shinadamina (talk) 01:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

All the edits I have made were done according to wiki policies. Let me respond to each concern:

Edit 1) 29 April violation of WP:REFBOMB. There were excessive references. I removed 4 out of 8. All remaining references still support the content.

Edit 2) 29 April Article called the subject "Puttin's Wallet." As this represents the subjects in a negative way, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL we need multiple high quality sources for such claims. Even the references that I deleted were not enough or reliable to support this.

Edit 3) 30 April I did not do any random edits to get to 500. I did normal and productive edits and not for the purposes of getting to 500. I have not violated any policies in any of my edits. If you see any low quality edits in my history, feel free to bring it up.

Edit 4) 8 June - this content was removed by user:Aredoros87 and I brought it back. He did not have a proper reason for removal of highly relevant content.

Edit 5) 24 June - accusations of "financing terrorism, creating illegal armed formations and illegally crossing a state border," puts the subject in a negative light and is a violation of WP:NPV. Calling him a "Political Prisoner" as many supporting articles have stated is more neutral.

Edit 6) 28 June - proper edits made and new content added, that were later removed by @Aredoros87

Edit 7) 28 June Technically I made an error here, but it is a minor error. I went ahead and fixed it, so it now says " In a discussion at US Congress it was stated that he and several others have been illegally detained in violation of international laws"

In addition, here are some other edits I made, which user:Aredoros87 has not mentioned

Edit 8) June 24 removed inaccurate information. According to citations Major General Vitaly Balasanyan was former head of Russian Security Council, not Vardnayan. Someone tried to insert false negative info about Vardanyan here. @Aredoros87 did not raise any issues with this one.

In conclusion, all the edits I have made were done according to policies. I feel that here we have a pro-Azeri / pro-Turkish editor (@user:Aredoros87) who is accusing me of being biased, while himself is biased. All his edits have been to display the subject in a Negative light, which does not represent a Neutral Point of View. I think it is him who should be warned and not allowed to make further edits to this page. I also would like to Ping other active editors who made recent edits to this page to see what they think @user:Bager Drukit @user:Vanezi Astghik @user:Charles Essie @user:Timb1976 @user:Grandmaster

Thanks. Shinadamina (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure how the random link was added. But obviously it was an oversight and a copy/paste error. I have fixed it now. There were 10 other relevant sources, and I meant to add 2, but one was copied incorrectly. Shinadamina (talk) 05:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also, regarding WP:CIVIL all I said was that his edits seemed to be biased. I have not been disrespectful to him at all. There were no personal attacks of any kind. Shinadamina (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please also note: user:Aredoros87 previously had a 3-month ban per arbitration and blocked from editing any Azeri/Armenian related pages. Shinadamina (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

In response to @Grandmaster: We are all entitled to our opinions, and wiki policies can be interpreted in different ways. Such matters should be discussed on the subject's talk page. I will follow the majority consensus. This issue doesn't belong in this enforcement forum. I believe user Aredoros87 has ulterior motives, attempting to prevent me from editing the subject's page. He previously had a 3-month ban per arbitration and blocked from editing any Azeri related pages. [See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aredoros87/Archive_1] His history shows a bias toward Turkish and Azeri subjects, which likely explains his opposition to my edits.

Regarding the political prisoner status, multiple sources, including the members of US Congress and UK Parliament, have stated this. Let's resolve this on the talk page and adhere to WP policies for neutrality.

BTW, 2 of the reversals were done by Aredoros87 and one by you. So obviously this can hardly be considered a violation. Typically when an edit is reverted more than 3 times, then it is considered an edit war and must be discussed in the talk page. Again there is no need to open an arbitration here and let's continue civil discussion in the talk page and come up with consensus. Shinadamina (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC) Moved comment to own section. Please place all comments only in this section; threaded discussion is not allowed at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Reply

Statement by Grandmaster

Since I was pinged here, I will comment. Shinadamina, you removed multiple times official charges against Vardanyan. Whether those charges are right or wrong, or present the subject of the article in a negative light is beside the point. We cannot remove information just because it presents a person in a negative light. It is verifiable information, and the position of prosecution must be presented accurately, with attribution. Stating that Vardanyan is a political prisoner is not in line with WP:NPOV, it is the opinion of defense and certain other individuals. Opinions cannot be presented in a wiki voice, they must be properly attributed to the people that expressed them. You removed 3 times charges against Vardanyan, despite other users objecting. It is not acceptable. You need to discuss and reach consensus at talk first. Also, making personal comments about other users' motives is not acceptable per WP:AGF and WP:Civil. Grandmaster 13:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

3 rvs were made by you. You removed the information about official charges that were made against that person, and replaced them with a claim that he is a political prisoner, citing the opinion of his attorneys and a US congressman. That is not in line with WP:NPOV. One of the sources that you included is not even about Vardanyan. [2] And even here you keep insisting that the US Congress and UK Parliament call Vardanyan a political prisoner, after you were told that those were opinions of a single US congressman/UK MP. You either do not understand what the source is, or deliberately misrepresent it. It is tendentious editing. Grandmaster 08:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Result concerning Shinadamina

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

This looks primarily like a content dispute, which we can't and don't resolve here. I don't like to see things like the source misrepresentation on the US Congress edit, but as long as that's a one-time error, I wouldn't be prepared to sanction for that beyond an informal warning to take more care in representing sources, especially primary ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this with no action as a content dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Deadman137

Latest comment: 6 days ago10 comments5 people in discussion

This is outside the scope of AE. General behavioral complaints not within the scope of a given contentious topic should be, if necessary, raised at WP:ANI. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:43, 29 June 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 Deadman137

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Alex9234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Deadman137 (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/Warning

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

28 June - User is committing vandalism against editors who add content to NHL-related articles and falsely accusing them of disruptive behavior. Mass deletion of information added to 2009 Stanley Cup playoffs article without a proper explanation.
28 June

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

8 May One user recently filed a complaint against this user for deleting edits without explanation.

The user doesn't seem to be following WP:CIVIL as well and his behavior is close to WP:OWN. When I complained about his warning and his vandalism, he just ignored it.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Date (see the system log linked to above).
Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm afraid I don't follow. I'm trying to report a user who is committing vandalism and is harassing me. Can you point me in the right direction? Alex9234 (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I added the offending diffs. Another user, User:Philipnelson99 also filed a complaint against this user and complained on his talk page for vandalizing his edits. Alex9234 (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

How does a legitimate edit violate WP:MOS? That's not a valid reason for reverting an edit and accusing a user of disruptive behavior, and in fact is the opposite of assuming good faith. This kind of behavior is extremely close to WP:OWN. If you think a change is unhelpful, that doesn't give you license to revert without explanation. Alex9234 (talk) 00:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Deadman137

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 Deadman137

The only thing I did was warn an editor that was making multiple edits that violate WP:MOS. Deadman137 (talk) 00:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Philipnelson99

I just want to comment here that I don't think AE is the best place for this. I was reverted by Deadman137 a while back and I was confused why because they didn't explain but I asked on their page and they pointed out I made a mistake. Not sure why it's necessary to bring an editor to AE for that or why I was brought up here. Philipnelson99 (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Result concerning Deadman137

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

I'm inclined to decline this as malformed. @Alex9234: Would you please add the allegedly offending diffs in the correct slot above, and would you please specifically cite which arbitration case makes this dispute warrant arbitration enforcement? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Alex9234:
This noticeboard is for arbitration enforcement. Arbitration enforcement is a particular type of conduct dispute resolution, and it is only authorized within certain contentious topic areas. If you believe that this dispute is within a particular contentious topic area, please tell me which one it is. Otherwise, this noticeboard cannot process your request.
If you believe that the user is being disruptive and that this is a user conduct dispute, but the dispute does not fall within a designated contentious topic area, the noticeboards you want to go to is WP:ANI (or WP:AIV if this is pure WP:VANDALISM, which this doesn't quite appear to be). But, before you consider doing that, I will note: if the objection is simply to this edit, you probably want to just open up a discussion on the article talk page about what content is worth including. That sort of editing is a normal part of the bold-revert-discuss process, and it doesn't appear to rise to the level of a noticeboard report.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, please note the text above, This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. If you wish to make a reply, please make it in the section for your own comments, rather than directly replying down here or in someone else's section. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Safetystuff

Latest comment: 1 day ago28 comments7 people in discussion

Safetystuff is topic banned from the subject of alternative medicine, broadly construed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 3 July 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 Safetystuff

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPS and WP:ARBCAM

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

[3] 29 June 2024—2012 review by Vickers c.s., it has been found wanting in the past and deleted from the article; smacks of WP:PROFRINGE
[4] 29 June 2024—smacks of WP:PROFRINGE
[5] 29 June 2024—smacks of WP:PROFRINGE
[6] 30 June 2024—violates WP:NPA, postulates a conspiracy theory, and is rife with non sequiturs (who cares about the "democratic way" when we discuss the positive results of medical science? See WP:DEM.)
[7] 30 June 2024—writing such opinion just after being warned of WP:AE smacks of WP:RGW and seem to postulate a conspiracy theory; they claim to have a PhD
~~[8] 30 June 2024—see explanation below~~
[9] 30 June 2024—see explanation below
[10] 30 June 2024—DARVO

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 [11] 23 June 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think that a formal warning would work better than at topic ban in this early stage. A topic ban might be required if they persist in error. I am aware that their mistakes are not so gross as to deserve a topic ban, but prevention works better than banning them. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Some of their edits might be formally (literally) correct, but severely downplay that vast amount of evidence that acupuncture is bunk. A case of WP:GEVAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
And, yup, my conclusion is that they did persist in error. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Replied with science dissemination breaking down political or racist bias just after arguing at [12] that the Wikipedia article is colonialist and ethnocentric. That promises nothing good. Namely they try to paint us and the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia as racist. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I have learned thanks to the positive feedback received by good people editing Wikipedia. Is that the language of someone having a PhD? WP:NOTKINDERGARTEN. Speaking of good people editing Wikipedia is infantilizing. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
They speak of personal insults, but my observations that they are postulating conspiracy theories and using infantilizing language are not my own fault, but statements of fact. Don't shoot the messenger. If they think that postulating conspiracy theories and using infantilizing language are that bad, they should not have performed such edits. I'm am aware of WP:BOOMERANG: there is no immunity for the person who reports the mistakes of others (real or alleged). Rational, evidence-based criticism is not personal insults. If my claims are not supported by evidence, it would be easy to point out that. Mere handwaving cannot show that. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi, Walsh90210. What you ignore is that they have an agenda. Their agenda is pretty clearly described at [13]. Of course, they could repent of having such agenda, but this usually does not happen in a matter of days. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Walsh90210, thank you for pointing out they are different accounts. It is however baffling that Safetystuff did not point out that themself. It were a very easy way to prove me wrong. I'm not suggesting they are the same people, since although ChallengingAnthropocentrism claims to be much lower in academic degree, their English looks much more professional and academic than Safetystuff's. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Safetystuff: As Valjean wrote, Far too many problems to be worth keeping. Improper use of non_MEDRS. Attempts to shoehorn effectiveness using studies that say it's not better than any other method. Generally poor addition. Only one source was used correctly, the one about subsidy in USA. And that's because Valjean had to be very brief (an edit summary does not allow too many words). tgeorgescu (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14] 30 June 2024

Discussion concerning Safetystuff

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 Safetystuff

This matter has been raised after editing the acupuncture page and the Chinese medicine one. I don't have any conflict of interest on the topic and I have access to scientific papers being an academic as such I did my best to provide the broader view on these subjects and many more.

I don't have anyone paying for my activity on Wikipedia. My interest is on science dissemination breaking down political or racist bias.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetystuff (talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have done mistakes (I am human) but I have learned thanks to the positive feedback received by good people editing Wikipedia.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetystuff (talk • contribs) 00:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added Note: I hope some editors can moderate the personal insults that have been made against me. I am not replying back to these comments as I am not here to get into social media fights. Thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetystuff (talk • contribs) 02:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note 2: Thanks to Walsh90210 for acknowledging the overreaction in this event. I felt like retaliation for editing the acupuncture page.

I provided solid references on the acupuncture topic. Meta analysis are among the best statistical tools to assess the effect sizes of interventions (in this case acupuncture). I use them quiet often to merge data from different experiments as well as I teach stats and effect size too. As such, I know how to read the results from the papers I used as references. Regardless providing results from several published meta analysises, all the proposed changes, which were moderate by other editors, are now deleted without a strong argument. Further , in NZ, acupuncture can be used under ACC. You can very yourself just googling it. Many health insurance all around the world allow it use. Please google it.

Now it seems I will be banned from editing the acupuncture page. Can someone please explain to me in plain English what I did wrong? I do not see the logic of what is happening here. Many thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Safetystuff (talk • contribs) 05:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Walsh90210

The diffs provided are extremely weak evidence for the need for sanctions. An AE thread in response to (approximately) one edit feels like an extreme over-reaction; I cannot blame Safetystuff for jumping to the (inaccurate) conclusion that "moneyed interests" might be behind it.

However, the editing history does suggest that Safetystuff is a new user who might benefit from editing in other topic areas a bit longer. Without considering concerns related to the stigma of sanctions, a one-month page-ban from Acupuncture (which would require affirmative consensus on the talk-page for any changes) would likely be helpful. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Tgeorgescu: The diff 1231388113 is from a different editor. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Valjean

I reverted all of Safetystuff's edits as there were far too many problems to be worth keeping. There was also a strong WP:PROFRINGE bent to them. I saw attempts to shoehorn effectiveness into the article based on studies long ago rejected or whose conclusions said that acupuncture was not better than any other method, that last part being ignored by Safetystuff. One source (Edzard Ernst was one author), criticized acupuncture. It said that acupuncture seemed to have an effect on low-back pain, but was no better than other methods. (Those of us who are medical professionals know that LBP often has a strong psychological factor.) That critical meta-analysis was then used to make acupuncture seem to be really effective, when that was not the main message. That's an improper use of a source.

Many of the sources were poor websites. That doesn't mean they were awful, but personal websites that were not official. Few of the claimed meta-analyses were actually that, but were instead peer-reviewed research or other studies that do not meet our MEDRS guideline standards. MEDRS requires much better than individual studies, even if they are of the highest quality.

The fact that private insurance often pays for acupuncture, and other alternative medicine, treatments says nothing about effectiveness, but more about how insurance companies cater to customers' wishes and can make money off the deal. One reference, about such subsidy in the USA, was actually a good and official source!

We are all volunteers, so drop the aspersions and conspiratorial thinking. The appeal to personal authority and PhD education status means nothing here. Many editors are highly educated, very intelligent, professors, authors, researchers, Nobel Prize laureates, etc. I know of the president of a national medical society who edits here. Even one Nobel Prize laureate is blocked from editing here, so status means nothing, except as a proven subject matter expert. The spelling and grammatical errors are fixable.

Safetystuff should approach this differently by making smaller edits and discussing any that are rejected. They will have more success. The idea of a "one-month page-ban from Acupuncture" is a good idea. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

The issue of a COI and using multiple accounts may not be completely resolved. See the overlap of edits with Carolineding (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the article history of Ruggiero Lovreglio. There might be other issues. Safetystuff has been warned about COI editing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I share Tryptofish's view about Seraphimblade's suggestion of a topic ban for alternative medicine, and that would be the usual "broadly construed". -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Tryptofish

I have serious concerns about whether Safetystuff is a net positive in the topic area. I came here from seeing the notice on their talk page, just after posting this: [15], at Talk:Acupuncture. The tl;dr of what I said there, with diffs, is that this editor repeatedly misrepresented sources that actually say mixed things about acupuncture, as saying that acupuncture has significant medical benefits, and cited a source about a primary study of acupuncture as supporting a statement that the Brazilian government pays for acupuncture. Some of this seems like not understanding what the sources say, and some really seems like POV-pushing. I also found pervasive problems with inept writing, although that might perhaps be an issue of not being a native English language speaker. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just saw above that Safetystuff said here: "Further , in NZ, acupuncture can be used under ACC. You can very yourself just googling it." (I assume "very"="verify", of course.) This is something that I commented about at the article talk. Here is one of two sources that Safetystuff added to support adding such a statement to the page: [16]. Here is a prominent part of what that source actually says: "Traditional Chinese acupuncture is not regulated in New Zealand. Be careful when reading acupuncture websites and advertising... It's not recommended that you have acupuncture as a sole treatment for your health problem." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Replying to Seraphimblade, I agree that alternative medicine is the right choice. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Result concerning Safetystuff

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

@Safetystuff: Is it correct that your previous account was Carolineding? If so, why did you choose to create a new account? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Respondent answered this question on their user talk page, claiming that they are unable to reply here due to a lack of a reply button, and attributing the account to a former roommate. Given their multiple replies here already, which each would have required the use of the source editor, I find their explanation regarding why they chose to reply on talk a bit hard to believe. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would note that Safetystuff has continued editing since the question by Red-tailed hawk, but has not replied to it, so I think we can presume that there is some reason they do not want to answer that. Given the behavior by these two accounts, I think a topic ban is in order, but the question would be broadness. Would we be looking at acupuncture, alternative medicine, or pseudoscience in general? I would lean towards the second of those options, but would welcome more input. Safetystuff has contributed positively outside those areas, so I hope they would continue to do that going forward. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd also add that I am not impressed by the vague allegation of "political or racist bias" without any substantiation at all. That's a pretty serious accusation, even if not directed at anyone in particular, and I would expect to see evidence presented if it's going to be thrown around. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, and the response is pretty clear WP:BROTHER in any case. I don't think this editor needs to continue editing in this area, given that. Unless any uninvolved admin objects in the next day or so, I will close this with a topic ban from alternative medicine. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trilletrollet

Latest comment: 1 day ago18 comments9 people in discussion

Trilletrollet is issued a logged warning to observe the requirements of civility and avoiding personal attacks especially strictly in contentious areas, and that further failure to do so is likely to result in sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:53, 4 July 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 Trilletrollet

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Chess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality

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

2024-06-30 Edit summary for a !vote on whether The Telegraph is a reliable source for transgender topics is unsurprising that the same shit heads who support the Gaza genocide would also support transphobia
2024-06-15 The term "Khamas terrorists" makes fun of the accent Hebrew speakers pronounce "Hamas" with.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

2023-10-19 Editor has been previously warned (by a non-admin) for incivility in the Israel-Palestine topic area.

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

2024-06-25 Reverted someone citing WP:ARBPIA restrictions by name.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Trilletrollet does not view their behaviour as incivil. After BilledMammal brought this up on Trilletrollet's talk page, Trilletrollet's response was At least I'm on the right side of history [17] and a promise to disengage from the Israel-Palestine topic area. [18] The last time 2023-10-22 Trilletrollet was confronted about alleged bad behaviour in the Israel-Palestine topic area, they said Just wanna say that I'm taking an indefinite break from this topic area.

A formal warning from an uninvolved admin would make it clear to Trilletrollet that comments like these are unacceptable, and make it easier to take action in the future if this becomes a larger problem. Since Trilletrollet acknowledges a wish to avoid the Israel-Palestine conflict area but is unable to do that on their own [19], a voluntary topic-ban may help as well.

Trilletrollet does not believe the edit summary is a personal attack because It wasn't meant as an attack on any particular editors, just a general observation. [20] Is this an accurate interpretation of WP:NPA?

@Red-tailed hawk: I notified BilledMammal (the editor you mention) of this discussion so they can provide greater input. As far as I can see, creating redirects [21] [22] or disputing the usage of "Hamas-run health ministry" is not inherently disruptive. The issue I chose to focus on is that Trilletrollet often uses disruptive edit summaries or makes her point in an aggressive way e.g. posts on her userpage that Zionism is a cult of death. [23]. This extends to other areas she feels strongly about (e.g. this chain of edit summaries with a later-blocked IP editor fuck off [24] it's infested by you [25] look in the mirror bitch [26]). To answer your question, a single re-revert on Nakba denial isn't WP:TAGTEAM to my knowledge, and the only other interaction Trilletrollet has with Iskandar323 is in this thread. I define WP:POVPUSH as disregard for our content policies to advance one's point of view, and based on the diffs I see, that isn't the main issue.

A t-ban could allow for Trilletrollet to edit again when tensions surrounding the current Israel-Hamas war are less. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can't add more w/o breaking wordcount, but I agree with BilledMammal & Sean.Hoyland. If nothing else, a warning should identify what behaviour is problematic, so it isn't disputed later. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Iskandar323: While the initial comment was ambiguous, Trilletrollet clarified in a follow-up that she meant to call out other editors. [27] Reddit, a common source for memes, describes the term "Khamas" as making fun of an Israeli accent.[28] [29] I don't buy that it's ok because it's just a meme and not "directed incivility"; is your standard that I can post memes making fun of a group's stereotypical accents onwiki as long as I am not directing the memes at specific editors? If not, when is making fun of a group's accent not acceptable onwiki and why doesn't "Khamas" meet that standard? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2024-06-30

Discussion concerning Trilletrollet

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 Trilletrollet

Just to clarify, I don't have any inherent problem with Israelis, Azeris, the British or any other national groups, but I do have a problem with ethnic cleansing, genocide and similar things. And it makes me kinda angry when people constantly try to downplay or deny such crimes. It just comes off as incredibly heartless, as if some human lives don't even matter. I've never tried to downplay the 7th of October attacks, because I actually have moral principles that I try to follow.

But I agree that some of my comments have broken our civility rules, and that's what matters in the end. I really have no interest in doing more edits to this topic area at the moment anyways. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Iskandar323

There isn't a clear civility issue in the diffs provided, which both outline general statements not directed at any editor or anyone in particular other than broad institutions. The first is directed at the Telegraph, which for sure is a race-baiting rag that well merits all sorts of colourful language being thrown at it, even if throwing colourful language at it on Wikipedia is somewhat needless. The second is directed at Israel through reference to what is now a very widespread meme. Neither really amounts to any form of directed incivility: if others take offense by proxy then it is more of an eye-of-the-beholder-type situation. The "s" word is generally best avoided, as with any other expletives, but beyond this, I'm not sure what there actually is to sanction here. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chess, @BilledMammal: A couple of points. The Telegraph diffs relate to the trans topic area discussion, and the subsequent responses are likewise more about that topic area. Then the IP-related diffs from Chess and some of the other examples from BilledMammal appear to be related to Azeri-Armenian content. So that's already quite a lot of non-Arbpia content that suggests this is more of a general behavioural complaint about inappropriate edit summaries more suited to ANI than AE. With regards to the "kh" meme, "khamas" with a "kh" means "violence" in biblical Hebrew, so the pronunciation is a widely understood wordplay,[30] much as Arabic speakers prefer "daesh" as a term for Isis due to its pejorative connotations. Since I doubt that you have any reliable sources stating that there is nothing political about the choice to use the "kh", even though people in Israel have little issue saying other foreign "h" words like "hi", I would be very careful about raising the spectre of prejudice over other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Given that Trilletrollet said 'Ok, I'm terribly, terribly sorry about my actions.', information that was not included in the AE report, it seems likely that their views are more complicated than not viewing their behaviour as "incivil". I would argue that thinking some people are shitheads who support genocide is not a good reason to avoid the PIA topic area. It shouldn't matter if the editor can follow the policies and guidelines. On the other hand, thinking there is a legitimate reason (in Wikipedia's terms) to say things like that to specific people, a 'reason to be "incivil"' to editors, is probably a good reason to avoid the PIA topic area. I would encourage Trilletrollet to try to stick around in the topic area if they think they can cope with the content and behavioral constraints and the occasional intrusive thoughts because of their personal views. For me, question #1 for access to the topic area should be, is this editor using deception i.e. are they a sock? Honesty is probably grossly undervalued in the topic area given that it is an essential requirement for building an encyclopedia. And every time we lose an honest person, regardless of what we think of their personal views, we increase the proportion of dishonest editors who use deception via sockpuppetry. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the diff #2 cited by BilledMammal as a civility issue.

16 November 2023 - This move request is just a callous attempt to discredit the opinion that Israel's actions constitute genocide by cloaking it in 'both sides' language.

Some interesting context. What truly motivated the editor who requested the move is unknown. What is known is that they were subsequently topic banned as part of the ArbCom canvassing case - "Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that Homerethegreat most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor." (canvassing that is evidently ongoing). So, another way of describing the statement could be that it was unnecessarily speculative. I wonder if the statement would appear different if Trilletrollet had made exactly the same comment after the ArbCom case and topic ban rather than before. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by BilledMammal

FYI, they have declared awareness of ARBPIA prior to this month, such as on 21 October 2023.

Iskandar323, if someone made a comment mocking the way Indians speak, we would probably interpret it as a personal attack against Indian editors, and might even ban them for racism. Why would mocking the way Israeli's speak be treated any differently? Regarding the first diff that Chess provided, this comment by Trilletrollet seems to make it clear they are referring to editors participating in the RfC, not to the Telegraph.

Red-tailed hawk, although I would agree that they suggest there is an issue beyond civility, I actually rose those primarily as civility issues. By saying that it is "Hasbara" or "Zionist propaganda" to refer to the Gaza Health Ministry as "Hamas-run" or similar, despite the designation being common in reliable sources and endorsed in multiple RfCs, is to suggest that editors who have added that designation or supported it in RfCs are Hasbara or pushing "Zionist propaganda".

Civility issues are also quite common for them. Examples in addition to the ones provided by Chess include:

1 July 2024 - Off-topic ranting, the whole thing is a disgrace to our encyclopedia
16 November 2023 - This move request is just a callous attempt to discredit the opinion that Israel's actions constitute genocide by cloaking it in 'both sides' language.
16 November 2023 - Asked JM2023 Do you agree that Palestinian lives matter, and when JM2023 did not respond removed the comment, saying apparently not.
8 November 2023 - Describes editors raising issues with their user page as literally 1984
4 October 2023 - How will the Azeri pov-pushers explain this? (This one supports Chess' point that this extends to other areas they feel strongly about, as it is within Armenia-Azerbaijan)
13 April 2023 - you're trying to whitewash such a bigoted extremist group

Note that while some of these diffs are old, they are very recent in terms of the number of edits. For example, 13 April is their 100th most recent edit to talk space, and 16 November is their 54th most recent edit to project space. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Iskandar, it mocks how Israelis speak - since when have we tolerated editors mocking cultural characteristics like accents, even when accompanied by the justification "I thought it was intentional"?

As for whether it is intentional, a few Twitter posts etc might claim that it is, but given those Twitter posts talk about Jewish "trickery" and invoke antisemitic passages from the Quran as evidence, and given that in Hebrew the closest transliteration of the first letter in Hamas is ח‎ (khet or chet), which naturally causes the mispronunciation, I think we need to reject that theory.

I think AE is the right location for this, as those are all contentious topics; WP:ARBAA, WP:GENSEX, WP:ARBPIA, with the issues being most common in the last. I also think you’ve misunderstood the Telegraph diffs; they apply to both GENSEX and ARBPIA. BilledMammal (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Dtobias

Looking at this user's contributions, I see they are mostly regarding adjusting categories of prehistoric animals. This is, I presume, tedious but useful work at making the encyclopedia better in that area, so good for you. However, whenever the subject matter turns to something more contentious such as Israel/Palestine or gender, things get rougher, and this user starts arrogantly proclaiming "the right side of history" and using playground-bully style namecalling. Perhaps this user would be better off sticking to prehistoric animals. *Dan T.* (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Aaron Liu

Please, let's all chill down here. TT (sorry bud I dunno what short name to call you) crossed a line here, yes. But this was a single incident that she didn't back down for a bit about that she has since apologized for. Otherwise, I see incredibly and invariably sporadic incidences cited here, with only two incidences (incl. the aforementioned) picking up in the past weeks, the evidence seemingly compiled overall for civility instead of a single topic notwithstanding. As argued in WP:PUNITIVE, sanctions should be preventative and not punitive. The editor has expressed willingness to disengage, so I believe at most, a big warning would be enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Trilletrollet

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

WP:ENFORCEMENT notes that when an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors will warn the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, though editors will resort to more forceful means if the behavior continues. In general, if an editor cannot conduct themselves within a topic area in a civil manner, even after being warned, then more forceful means (such as topic bans) become reasonable. But I'm not quite sure we're merely dealing with a civility issue here.
I am also noticing regarding respondent's conduct within WP:ARBPIA is that an editor left a note on respondent's talk page regarding several edit summaries that appear to principally be objected to for reasons other than civility: 10:48, 15 June 2024; 09:06, 23 June 2024; 09:16, 23 June 2024; and 09:18, 23 June 2024. Filer refers to an ANI archive from 2023 where concerns about tag-teaming/POV-pushing were brought up, and respondent said they would stay away from the topic area indefinitely.
Keeping that in mind, @Chess: are you explicitly concerned about long-term POV pushing from this user more broadly? And, if so, do you have additional diffs that you would like to present? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
What I am seeing more than anything isolated to a specific topic area is that the respondent has had general issues with civility (particularly in edit summaries) across a few, including Armenia-Azerbaijan and the Arab-Israeli conflict. If the issue is not that the editor is misbehaved in one particular area, but has general civility problems across a bunch, a topic ban doesn't quite work.

We're left with two options to address the civility issues: blocking the user outright or warning the user to knock it off and be civil. I am not going to indef the user at this point, and I don't think a time-limited block issued now would be better at preventing future disruption than a warning. So, I'm leaning towards a logged warning to remain civil in contentious topics areas, particularly with respect to AA2 and ARBPIA. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would agree to a logged warning for civility in CTOP areas, with the clear understanding that the least future sanction if that does not happen would be a TBAN. If the type of behavior this editor has engaged in continues to take place across multiple areas, the remedy would likely be an indefinite block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That seems reasonable to me. No objection if you'd like to close this out. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorabino

Latest comment: 23 hours ago35 comments10 people in discussion

The article Duchy of Saint Sava is placed indefinitely under a "consensus required" restriction as follows: Prior to taking any of the actions of moving, merging and redirecting, or blanking and redirecting the article, consensus must be established for such an action. That consensus may be established by any normal process, including request for comment and requested move. If there is any dispute over whether such a discussion establishes consensus, formal closure of the discussion by an uninvolved editor must be sought. Edits or moves covered by this restriction made without establishing such a consensus may result in sanction, and may be reverted by any editor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:32, 4 July 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 Sorabino

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Joy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Sorabino (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:ARBMAC

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

Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava#Improper merge

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, for example User talk:Sorabino#Zachlumia is covered by discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I am an involved administrator here so I can't formally warn or otherwise sanction this user myself, so I'm requesting help from others.

This user has been furthering a content dispute at this article for many years now, on a question of how much due weight should be given to describing a medieval title and in turn a polity. This relatively minor historiographical issue has clearly been escalated into a modern-day political talking point, as a separate article gives some sort of prominence to the Serb nature of the place at the time. Multiple other editors have gone through multiple rounds of explaining that the justification for having a standalone article is insufficient, and it's not commensurate to what the consensus of reliable sources say about it.

This last flared up in 2021 at Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2, and it flared up again this year.

We should stop endlessly tolerating this kind of advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle and abide by our own rules against it.

This isn't as severe as the case of Antidiskriminator, but it's close.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[31]

Responses to questions

Seraphimblade The pattern of behavior is the problem, not the individual edits. I can go and copy&paste you a slew of individual diff links, and they're still going to be on the whole too long and/or too subtle. The trick is to see through the forest, realize how the endless wikilawyering on the Talk page is not accompanied with producing properly referenced content, or indeed actually building consensus, and that it's a pattern of behavior going back multiple years. --Joy (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Seraphimblade JFTR I'm not telling anyone to read everything, I'm just saying I already read everything, yet my hands are tied because I tried to reason with them already. If this is not the right forum where admins can get assistance on arbitration enforcement, perhaps we need a better one. --Joy (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Red-tailed hawk Okay, let me try it like this, I'll summarize with dates and outcomes so you can observe the bludgeoning:

March 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 1#Duke of Saint Sava Makes extraordinary claims based on a 1923 book with explicit quotes around that title in a section title, and a single cursory mention of that in a 1953 encyclopedia article about that. These assertions are immediately disputed. Appeals to authority, no discussion about the quality of this, no real answer.
March 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 1#Discussion re-start More assertions, no proof whatsoever in several comments. Discussion mentions numerous historian works, Sorabino zeros in on a Vego 1953 book where there's a nuanced discussion of the terms Herzegovina and whatnot, but Sorabino ignores the nuance and just uses this mention as justification to keep pounding his party line. He pastes the phrase Službeno se zemlja zvala Ducatus Sancti Sabbae no less than three times in the same thread. After some more back and forth, Sorabino finally posts a bunch of links to articles in support of their claim, which are immediately panned by Santasa99, and a cursory examination shows why - it's a bunch of cursory mentions, some in footnotes, some under double quotes, in papers that don't always focus on the topic area but something related. There's actually maybe proper single mention in a 2019 paper about the same noble family, as well as a link I can't follow any more, and a Google Books search that doesn't show up any more but the search string says it's just an alternate name for the name Herzegovina (defeating the point of the argument). This is the aspect that reminds me of Antidiskriminator - mindless pasting of Google search results with no real analysis, which doesn't stand up to elementary scrutiny.
April 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2#Common name and official contemporary name: explicitly re-posts the three claims made in the previous section. No new sources or anything of actual substance. User DeCausa joins to say the same thing, is met by more walls of text. Finally, we go "back to the sources", and then a 2005 article is cited as if it's in support, but it's actually a nuanced discussion by a historian about how the nobility used this title just like the nobility next door ('Herzog of Split' Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić). Repeats the citations again in the same thread, and Santasa99 tells them - no followup to that. Then another mention of the term in Ćirković 1989, again zero context, disputed, no response.
April 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2#Three-layered subject of the article: another unsourced rant, and at this point I start explicitly warning against this. No new contribution that would resolve the issue.
January 2023 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2#reference to Miller 1923: I point out the double quotes in the 1923 book (first item mentioned above). Zero response from Sorabino, other users argue a bit.

April 2024 the latter thread is briefly revived, but we see no improvement (another user requires a rehashing of the Herzog of Split comparison too). I recommend a merge, Santasa99 implements it.

June 2024 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 28#Duchy_of_Saint_Sava Sorabino notices and starts claiming improper merge, repeats claims about the 2019 source, creates Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava#Improper merge, repeats more extraordinary claims about that source.

Since I filed this, there's been more discussion at the latter link, but it's more of the same. Now I noticed there's a 2020 German paper mentioned, which has a couple of cursory mentions of these terms likewise. Sorabino is still desperately trying to construct a narrative for a standalone article based on obviously flimsy sourcing. That is simply not what the standard of contributions in this contentious topic area is supposed to be. When this kind of a thing is done once, twice, three times, fine, let's not bash the newbie. But after so many years, we need to stop spending valuable volunteer time on nonsense.

--Joy (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Seraphimblade Sorabino is not acting upon a content dispute using reasons based in policy, sources, or common sense (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS), he's instead misinterpreting sources to advocate for policy violations. The problem here is not a content dispute, but persistent misconduct. --Joy (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Levivich the fact that the title existed during the time of one ruler is immaterial to the matter of how to properly describe this polity. The term Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation probably existed for many many more years, but we don't have a WP:SOAPBOX article specifically about it. That's the disruptive part, the excessive insistence that a single fancy title is worth making a point about over the course of so many years. --Joy (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Levivich also, if you want to cast aspersions like that I'm the one gaming the system here, while admitting you do not know enough about the Balkans to understand the POV implications of all of this, well, let's just say that I don't understand how you think that is the right way to approach this WP:ARBMAC issue. If this whole series of events, and the quality of these discussions and source evaluations from the side advocating for "Duchy of Saint Sava" have been enough to convince you that all is well with the multi-year campaign to maintain this sham of a separate article, maybe you need to actually learn something about the Balkans topics on Wikipedia, for example by reading the stories of Antidiskriminator and Sadko to see how all of this actually works. I can't say I appreciate the fact that my multiple decades of working on keeping all these various nationalist POV pushers at bay and learning the way they operate and abuse Wikipedia and trying to address it through the proper forums can be so casually dismissed and in turn claimed to be abusive. If one wanted a way to alienate and demotivate the scarcely few volunteer admins in a difficult topic area, this would be it. --Joy (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Amanuensis Balkanicus there is nothing unilateral about this other than the process by which Sorabino has persistently disrupted consensus-building about this topic. In general, I will remind of the discussion about Sadko, where you and I already had a disagreement about what constitutes proper behavior in the Balkan topic area - what you claim is mere "expressing views" about a topic is what I see as slow-burn nationalist POV pushing and gaming the system. We've seen it with Antidiskriminator, we've seen it with Sadko, it's not novelty by any means. --Joy (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Discussion concerning Sorabino

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 Sorabino

Thank you for the notification. For now, I will abstain from commenting, since my accuser is yet to provide particular edits or some other evidence that would demonstrate my allegedly inappropriate behavior. Sorabino (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Several factual errors and misrepresentations have been posted here by my accuser. Starting from the top, he claims that I have been furthering a content dispute at this article for many years now. That is unfair and untrue, at least. My previous involvement in those discussions occurred only once, back in 2021, during the debates that lasted from march to may. Those debates ended with no consensus, and the article was kept, with its long standing scope and title, and that was the only proper outcome. During the following years, some users tried to reopen the debate, but no additional sources were presented that would justify abolition or merger of that article. I did not take part in those debates at all, as they also ended without consensus, and the article was kept unchanged. After more than a year of total silence on the talk page, discussions were renewed on 25 April 2024. Within a day, on 26 April, an involved administrator Joy (my accuser here) proposed to another specific user to merge this article, and that was executed on the same day! So, it was done only a day after the discussions were reopened, in spite of long standing disputes and without any notification to opposing users. To make it worse, the "merge" was used to abolish the very essence of this article, and then another radical step was made, on 28 June (here), when the remaining redirect was proposed for deletion, thus leading to the possible deletion of the entire history of those disputes. At that point, it was obvious that some questions should be raised in regard to recent actions and only then, three years after my first and only participation in 2021 debates, I decided to return to the talk page in order to raise the question of an improper merge. This is my first response, and the rest will follow. Sorabino (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The claim of my accuser that in 2024 debates I repeated some sources (repeats claims about the 2019 source) is not true and might be an oversight from their part. None of the sources that I introduced in 2024 were ever mentioned in previous discussions. Thus, there were no repetitions, on my part. All newly introduced sources are scholarly papers from non-Serbian experts on medieval history (Croatian, Hungarian, German). Those papers are clearly showing that in scholarly circles there is no doubt regarding the historicity of the title in question (Duke of Saint Sava) and the existence of the late medieval feudal polity (Duchy of Saint Sava, 1448-1482). Articles on that very subject exist on 13 (thirteen) other Wikipedia projects, under the same title. Regarding some repetitions in 2021 debates, there indeed are some, but not in a copy-past mode, since the context of the debate was such that some sources were disputed, and therefore some source quotes were repeated, by various users. There are several other aspects of this entire debate, but lets hope that it is obvious by now now that this is in essence a content dispute. Sorabino (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since responses of my accuser already exceed 1000 words, please would you allow me just another post here? Several users have raised questions related to citing and sources, but 500 word limitations are preventing me from answering. If allowed, that would also be my final post here (just by re-posting my attempted post). Sorabino (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

I have a procedural concern as an uninvolved observer. If this is going to be challenged on insufficient evidence, then it would help if there's a clarification on what standard of evidence is expected. Would several diffs showing editing that favors one side be enough to justify a sanction on its own, or would these diffs need to demonstrate something beyond simply favoring a POV? And in turn, what would be expected of the accused in their defense if these diffs are produced? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Amanuensis Balkanicus

I was notified to this dispute because I have the page in question on my watchlist. Santasa99 is being disruptive here, not Sorabino, and I'm puzzled how anyone can come to a different conclusion.

Back in April, Santasa and Joy agreed between the two of them to merge the Duchy of Saint Sava article to Herzegovina#Medieval period without inviting the wider community to discuss what was (as I think is now very clear) a highly contentious move. [32] [33] [34] Perhaps, instead of unilaterally deciding to merge the article, had Santasa or Joy initiated an RfC then about its future, an editor like myself may have chimed in and provided them the reliable secondary sources for which they were asking which attest to the Duchy's existence, notability and naming as such. Instead, it has come to this.

Santasa's effective destruction of the Duchy article back in April, and their attempts to get over half-a-dozen redirects deleted (!) for completely spurious reasons are themselves extremely tendentious. The peddling of outright falsehoods is also deeply unsettling. Take, for example, the claim that "These redirect titles are misnomers; it does not exist in scholarship on the subject in this form." [35] This is completely untrue, as I demonstrated in my comment at the ongoing redirect discussion by providing eight academic sources (one published as recently as last year) which do discuss the Duchy and verify the historicity of its existence. [36]

In contrast to the picture painted by Joy of a user prone to tendentious editing, Sorabino reacted to Santasa and Joy's recent actions by starting a discussion on the TP. [37] Thus, Sorabino is effectively being reported for holding a discussion and in that discussion expressing views that Joy does not agree with (in a content dispute Joy is involved in). Joy, expressing views about an article's title that differ from your own is not an ARBMAC violation, and continuing to hold those views for many years does not constitute a "pattern of disruptive behavior". Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Santasa99

Following could be a crucial point, these two (three) moments in 4 years long discussion:

after one of their many such scrapings around Internet for phrases I asked Sorabino to read the paper they ref and come and explain to me "what this "duchy" labeling means, how is that feudalna entity a "duchy", why is "duchy" and not something else, who calls it that way, when, in what context." They never even tried to explain; (on 1 July 2024)
and following DeCausa's two head-on tackles:

1) "Should this article exist? There’s virtually nothing about this Duchy in the text of this article. It seems to be merely a vehicle to acknowledge the existence of the title. it’s almost entirely about Stjepan Vukčić Kosača with a little on Vladislav Hercegović both of which already have articles." (on 4 April 2021);

and 2) "Sorabino, for years (literally) merging has been discussed and you have been the only editor that was against it. You responded by claiming the article could be saved by improving the existing and adding new contents, referenced by scholarly sources, that are abundant for the subjects in question, particularly in modern regional historiographies. So, I said Sorabino, just do it in a sandbox and post the link here. But you never did and you never did a thing to improve the article and justify its existence. This is the diff showing the state of the article when I posted that in April 2021 compared to what it was four years later when it was merged. Nothing's been done - not a thing - to improve it and address the point I made. I conclude there is nothing in the sources that justifies it as an article and I fully support the merger that has happened." (on 30 June 2024) --౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I posted this just to add depth to @Joy's discussion regarding bludgeoning, because Sorabino never responded to concrete inquires and questions, they would go and add new walls of text recycling the same arguments with eventual addition of more scraping from Internet. DeCausa was, to say the least, flabbergasted, and i am simply exhausted. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have following questions for User:Levivich, now that they shifted the blame on Joy and me:

who are those editors who were against moving article to redirect;
who are editors who supported moving article to redirect;
and, now that you support claim that RS exists, I would like to hear what in those sources warrants another article on the same subject - we have four: Herzegovina, Zachlumia, Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, and small article on Kosača noble family - I would like to hear the usual WP: DUE WEIGHT arguments that give those sources enough wight for creation of an article with a dubious title and scope. I would like that editors who claim RS support arguments for creation of an article, explain what is in them that will give me an explanations and proper description of that articles subject ?

(I suppose you can explain this last on the article's TP, not here)

You, of course, can't answer why Sorabino never answered on these kind of questions, asked countless times over the years, by Joy, Mikola, Mhare, Tezwoo, Surticna, DeCausa, and myself, but you dug through those discussions in Archives, and you should have noticed how Sorabino never produced an answer to a specific inquiry and concrete question. And let's not forget, you also can't make edits and rv's based on your opinion that "duchy is a polity ruled by duke", because sometimes it is and sometimes it is not, let alone that "Duke Levivich" means "Duchy of Levivich" exists.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 02:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Funny how easily, from the position of righteousness and knowhow, you are spreading aspersions, @Levivich: Only "flat lie" is your justification for revert in the middle of two board discussions, and it include, list of names I asked you to name (who was pro and who was against) where someone who was digging through that discussion like you did could list Mhare and Thhhommmasss as ambiguous because "you couldn't tell from their posts" - their posts are everything but ambiguous, especially Mhare who said that what Sorabino was doing is a "dirty trick"; and your misdirecting answer to my direct question to explain how sources support argument for the existence of article - your answer and flat-out accusation of me lying, are more in line with Sorabino's bludgeoning and misdirection - as the discussion you were digging through testifies. Instead of ~~using~~ accusing me of lying (I guess in attempt to draw attention on me in another round of shifting the blame) and Joy gaming the system, you should provide us with diff's where Sorabion answers directly and explains how, why and what, on many inquireies by Joy, DeCausa, Mhare, Mikola, and myself - like one I already linked above but here's again (this is but one of such unanswered/unexplained inquiries). And the last but not the least, the only support for article and Sorabinos argument came from blocked and locked IP abuser Great Khan, who received it for abusing that very discussion.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Levivich

I got curious after reading this and started digging, which led to me to reverse the bold redirection of the article and vote at the related RFD. Here's a summary of the history as I understand it:

For those who aren't familiar, a duchy is the territory or polity ruled by a duke. So if there exists a "Duke of Levivich," that means there exists a "Duchy of Levivich" and vice versa.
The content dispute at issue has the typical Balkans undertones of whether a particular piece of land is Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian/etc. The Duchy of St. Sava may have encompassed land that is in modern-day Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, and/or Serbia. A Bosnian named Stjepan Vukčić Kosača held the title "Duke of St. Sava" (at least according to a 1982 book written by historian Marko Vego, p. 48, cited in the related articles and talk page discussions). Saint Sava was Serbian. "Duchy" is an English word of course; Kosača took the title "Herceg of St. Sava"; "Herceg" comes from the German "Herzog," which means "duchy," and it's where the word Herzegovina comes from. So it's a Balkans content dispute.
The article apparently started in 2007 as Duchy of Herzegovina. I have a hard time following page/move logs, especially with history merges, but some series of moves happened in February/March 2011 involving the pages Duchy of Herzegovina, Dukedom of Saint Sava, and Duchy of Saint Sava. Joy apparently did a history merge in March 2011. A move/edit war ensued between "Duchy of Herzegovina" and "Duchy of Saint Sava". Joy posted what looks to be the first talk page message, including: "...the editor(s) with a Serb nationalist slant place too much emphasis on the Serb qualities of this domain..." (full thread in Archive 1). "Duchy of Saint Sava" 'wins' the edit war around April 1, 2011.
Ten years later (because this is Wikipedia) in February 2021, Santasa99 starts a discussion about the page title. Santasa moved the page from "Duchy of Saint Sava" to "Dukedom of Hum" and restyled it as the "Duchy of Hum". Sorabino reverts and objects on the talk page and points to some sources, and later, more sources. Hard to follow the histories but there is some kind of move/edit warring involving Duchy of Saint Sava, Dukedom of Hum, Duchy of Hum, Humska zemlja, and probably some other titles. Socks and IPs disrupt the proceedings. This all peters out around May 2021, and takes up Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 1 and Archive 2.
Almost 2 years pass, and in January 2024, Joy posts about the title again on the talk page, which Santasa responds to in March; some discussion ensues (full thread).
In April, Joy writes:
@Santasa99 can you just merge the remaining few relevant paragraphs from this article into Herzegovina#Medieval period, and redirect this there? Nothing of substance seems to have happened since the 2021 discussion where Sorabino was promising a rewrite, and it's 2024 now.
It doesn't look like anyone pinged Sorabino to the discussion.
Santasa does as Joy suggests, redirecting the article to Herzegovina
On June 28, Santasa nominates at RFD "Duchy of Saint Sava," "Duchy of Herzegovina," and a bunch of related redirects
On June 29, Sorabino objected to the move and voted keep at the RFC. Joy's response was aggressive, and I think may have been ~~her~~ his first message to Sorabino about this in two years (I could be wrong about that). (full thread on talk page)
On July 1, Joy opened this AE.

I don't know enough about the Balkans to understand the POV implications of having an article about a Bosnian's Duchy named after a Serbian saint (except by process of elimination, I assume Croatia might object), but I would be shocked--shocked!--to learn that one or more editors' motivations was nationalist POV pushing. I am even more shocked that nobody at any point apparently opened up a proper WP:MERGE discussion or started an WP:AFD and voted "redirect." Joy is an admin with an account that's 22 years old; Santasa99 has an account that is 16 years old; Sorabino's account is 8 years old. The claims on the talk page, RFD page, and here, that either the "Duchy of Saint Sava" did not exist, does not appear in RSes, or that Sorabino has not posted RSes, are patently false as evidenced by the talk page archives and the sources discussed therein (by Sorabino and others, including Vego 1982 but also several from the 21st century). Joy's and Santasa's posts at this AE do not accurately convey the relevant facts. This looks like WP:GAMING and "weaponizing AE," and these editors should know how to properly resolve this content dispute vs. improperly. Joy's and Santasa's actions here were improper, and should be addressed.

Sorry this is over 500 words; I don't plan to add anything unless there are questions. Levivich (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Re Santasa99's questions:

I can't tell from their posts what the ultimate opinions on merger are of User:Thhhommmasss 1 ("I somewhat agree that this article should perhaps be part of the Hum or Herzegovina articles, but then again..."), 2 ("It's true that a quick google revealed few recent sources referencing the Duchy. Yet ... On the other hand, ...") or User:Mhare 1, 2 ("... I'm not entirely sure ..."), 3. Same with the IPs User:31.223.145.207 example and User:185.125.122.60 example. User:DeCausa removed some of those IP comments here citing "Long-standing socking," I don't know if that was correct; there are some blocked sock accounts who commented on the talk page, but I don't see any blocks in the block log of those IPs.
In favor of redirecting are (apparently) Joy, Santasa99, User:Tezwoo, and DeCausa. I don't know who "Surticna" is; I can't find a user with the username or that word in the talk page archives.
Whether the sources "warrant" an stand-alone article about the subject is a content dispute; AE is not the place to discuss that.
"Sorabino never produced an answer to a specific inquiry and concrete question" is a flat lie; the article talk page archives are filled with Sorabino answering questions, providing sources, quotes from sources, etc. Other editors have also provided sources, quotes, etc. on the article talk page and at the RFD.

Levivich (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@admins: I don't think anything more is needed to resolve the content dispute beyond somebody starting a proper WP:MERGE or WP:AFD discussion, either of which is likely to result in a consensus (based on my reading of the talk page archives). Neither RFC nor DRN is the right tool for this job, nor is consensus-required or any other page restriction necessary. Levivich (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by DeCausa

I was pinged by Levivich - which is the only reason why I'm posting. It seems to be about why I removed some IP posts based on socking. The article and talk page has been plagued by socking, particularly by banned user Great Khaan. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Great Khaan/Archive. They have a very distinctive style and regularly posted on the page: WP:DUCK for the IP. I also noticed Levivich asking who "Surticna" is. This is Surtsicna a well known editor in multiple history topics. Although I've no interest in getting involved in this, since I'm posting here i'll make one comment. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Levivich has got completely the wrong end of the stick. I got "accidentally" involved in this in 2021. I don't know how exactly the underlying nationalist POVs play out in this. What I do know is that Sorobino (plus assorted Great Khaan socks) have pushed to maintain this article for many years with no other support. If you read the article it's apparent that there is very little in it about a "Duchy of St Sava". It was a title that may or may not (but probably was) used by a Grand Duke of Bosnia for a little over a decade or so. That's why the article is mainly about that individual. The sources that Sorabino claim (which I looked at in 2021) are just passing references (as you would expect from an adjunct title). So this has been gone over and over multiple times in the talk pages. I've lost track of the number of times I've said to Sorabino: produce a draft article from these sources that gives a substantive account of the history of a "Duch of st Sava". He's failed to do that every time. I conclude because it's not possible. FWIW, i think Sorabino's contribution has been WP:TENDENTIOUS and both Sorabino and Santasa have an inability to avoid WALLOFTEXT and won't drop the stick. If they are both PBLOCK'ed from the article and talk page it would be a net positive. (347 words) DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just to focus in on my last 2 sentences above, I notice the comments that this is a content dispute and RfC/AfD etc is thataway. I'm sure that's right. But you only need scan the current talk page and the talk archive to see how Sorabino and Santasa have WP:BLUDGEONed the discussion for years. It's literally gone round in circles for a decade or more. Now I happen to think that Sorabino has the edge on tendentiousness amongst that, but even leaving that aside if the two of them participate in an RfC/AfD or similar it will just be a mess. Some conduct imposition would help greatly. (now 456 words) DeCausa (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Result concerning Sorabino

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

Joy, this report seems to be alleging a pattern of tendentious editing over time. That could be valid grounds for a sanction, but no diffs are provided, just a link to a discussion started a few days ago. Could you please provide actual diffs of particular edits which you believe demonstrate this pattern? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
As the filer of this request is unwilling to provide any evidence besides "Just go read everything and you'll see what I mean", I am inclined to close this with no action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Joy, this is certainly the place for help with arbitration enforcement, but you have to do your part of it. None of us can read your mind; you need to specify particular edits that you think are demonstrative of the problem. (It need not even be exhaustive, just representative.) I can't know what anyone is referring to unless they're willing to say, and equally importantly, the editor being accused of such misbehavior needs the opportunity to respond to specific things and give their explanation for it. If you're not willing to do that, we can't proceed, because there is nothing with which to proceed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thebiguglyalien, the answer is that there isn't an easy answer to that. AE (and admins in general) can't make binding decisions on content, only conduct, so of course we always have to be very careful not to step over the line of saying what position someone "should" be supporting in terms of content. The question, then, is when "advocating for your position" crosses the line into "disruptive behavior in general". If I ever find an easy answer to that, I sure won't keep it hidden, but I don't think there really is one. We can say that making a hundred longwinded talk page posts in a day is almost certainly disruptive, and making one civilly worded one almost certainly is not, but there's a lot of grey area in between those extremes. So, evidence should go to show that the editor has gone beyond just advocating for what they think, and is engaging in disruptive behavior. How exactly you do that depends on how exactly you think they've crossed that line, so I don't have a "one size fits all" answer to that and I doubt one even exists. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking at the material now provided, this seems to be a longstanding content dispute about how best to interpret sources. That's outside the scope of AE, and AE does not make binding determinations on what content should be. Has there ever been any use of dispute resolution such as a request for comment to gain input from the wider community on the proper interpretation of these sources? I think that would be a lot more productive than an AE filing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Joy: In lieu of diffs to explain the general scenario from start to finish, are you able to provide something like a set of diffs that demonstrates bludgeoning? If the user is repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion, we should be able to point to specific diffs/comments where they are repeating themself over and over, or be able to get some rough count on how many times they are participating in a particular discussion (with some explanation as to why that would be bludgeoning). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Unless any uninvolved admin objects in the next day or so, I will close this with no action. This is clearly a content dispute, and should be getting resolved by RfC, not AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Nihil obstat. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. WP:DRN may be more fruitful than WP:RFC though given the complexity of the issues; WP:RSN may also help for certain elements. Secondly, I think a ""consensus required" restriction for moving, BLARing, or merging the Duchy of Saint Sava article would be a good idea given the messy article history. Abecedare (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
By RfC, I more mean dispute resolution in general, though I don't share your optimism that DRN would be fruitful, especially since all parties must voluntarily participate. I do think it's an excellent idea to put the brakes on those things with the article; maybe that will help lead to a better discussion on what should be done with it rather than fights over it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would give a general reminder that it can and will happen that editors receive sanctions based upon their conduct at an AE thread. Many editors are over 500 words; if you need an extension please ask, but further posts without extension for those who have exceeded the limit will likely be removed. Extensions may be granted if you have additional useful evidence, but not just to fight over it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Salfanto

Latest comment: 18 hours ago6 comments4 people in discussion

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 Salfanto

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TylerBurden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Salfanto (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:ARBEE

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

12 June 2024 Adds in WP:WIKIVOICE that the perpetrators of a missile strike on civilians were the Armed Forces of Ukraine, complete violation of WP:DUE.
27 June 2024 Uses Twitter/X and other non WP:RS to claim the deaths of volunteers in Ukrainian military unit.
18 June 2024 Uses Facebook to reference another death on the same article as above
13 June 2024 Uses butchered Facebook reference to name commander of Ukrainian military unit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

21 February Blocked by El C for persistent addition of unsourced content.

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 3 April 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Salfanto appears to have chronic issues with the WP:VERIFY, WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH policies. Aside from the above cited diffs, their edits on Human wave attack where they persistently inserted content about Ukraine using human wave attacks using Russian state media sources and synthesis of other references (such as in this diff) showcase their disregard to policy in favour to I suppose WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about them percieving that content about Russia is not ″neutral″.

The eagerness to continue using poor sources like social media to claim the deaths of individuals even after receiving a block is not only disturbing but to me indicates that this editor should not be editing in this topic, if at all about living people in general.

In response to JDiala: After editing for over two years and recieving countless notices about these policies, I don't think the ″new editor″ excuse flies anymore. We're all new at some point, but you're still expected to start following guidelines when they have been pointed out to you. Not even a block got the point across in this case, so either there is an inability or unwillingess to edit in line with policy. Your second point seems like a bit of a tangent, we're here to discuss the editor being reported, not about project-wide issues, both inexperienced and experienced editors can face consequences when engaging in POV pushing, which I would think you would know given that you have a topic ban. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2 July 2024

Discussion concerning Salfanto

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 Salfanto

Statement by JDiala

It is indisputable that Salfanto's sourcing does not meet our standards. It should be noted however that Salfanto is a rather new editor, with the overwhelming majority of his edits having taken place in the last eight months. Salfanto's conduct strikes me as trout-worthy and a learning experience for him, and a glance at his edit history indicates that notwithstanding some mistakes he is here to build an encyclopedia.

The topic area suffers from more serious issues like persistent low-level POV pushing. I think there's a structural problem in that low-level POV pushing by established editors is far harder to identify and prosecute than comparatively minor mistakes by inexperienced editors like ocassional 1RR or RS violations. The former is ultimately more pernicious to the project. JDiala (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@TylerBurden: Your last comment in the reply appears to be a violation of WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED. The fact that I am topic banned in another area is not germane to the current discussion or the points I have brought up. JDiala (talk) 20:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Result concerning Salfanto

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

Salfanto, I'd be interested to hear from you here. I see you were blocked on 15 May for consistently using poor sources or not citing any at all. Here, we have the first edit citing no sources (and which seems to contradict what the article said at the time), and three more edits citing Facebook or Twitter. If the block didn't get the point across, I'm not sure what else to do here, but I think it's pretty clear we need to do something. I certainly don't think this editor needs to continue editing in the ARBEE area, but I'm not convinced a topic ban there will do anything more than move the problem elsewhere. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've already been told about the Facebook sourcing and have since stopped using Facebook as a source. It would help if Wikipedia puts them on the depreciated sources list. Salfanto (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aredoros87

Latest comment: 9 hours ago3 comments1 person in discussion

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 Aredoros87

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanezi Astghik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Aredoros87 (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

16 June 2024 Re-adding contentious content that was previously reverted and never reply to the talk discussion
24 June 2024 Removes the development projects for being "unsourced" when there are in fact multiple sources (see Philanthropy and social entrepreneurship section, which Aredoros87 also edited in [38])
22 June 2024 During an AFD likely to be redirected (which happened two days later), Aredoros87 heavily expands the article and says they will add the content elsewhere if the article is redirected
24 June 2024 Moves the AFD article content to this article, with a number of WP:NPOV violations, such as using the word "occupation" for a town (Shushi/Shusha) that wasn't part of the occupied regions
30 June 2024 Further POV pushing use of "occupation" for Shushi, with partisan low-quality sources

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

29 December 2023 Arbitration enforcement sanctions, including temporary AA ban and an indefinite restriction requiring to obtain consensus to readd any content that has reverted in any article related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed.

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 29 December 2023 by Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Despite still having an indefinite restriction requiring to obtain consensus to readd any content that has been reverted in AA or related conflict articles, Aredoros87 has violated it. In addition, they've been POV pushing and removing sourced content. Vanezi (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That cannot be "false" when there was never any consensus to include the contentious content. If Aredoros had discussed the sources on the talk page, instead of reverting in violation of their sanction and adding “3 new sources”, I would've pointed out that 2 of those sources are both by Fahrettin Kırzıoğlu who "probably never before has a single person in Turkey falsified history so massively".
Err, no, we don't have to. Citations in the lead are usually redundant because it's a summary of information in the body. Aredoros just removed cited information they didn't like. And it wasn’t added by a "random non-EC" user [39].
Aredoros clearly didn't just add sources, they added POV pushing.
Ditto, POV pushing with obviously partisan sources.
Again, if Aredoros adds the Shushi "occupation" POV pushing to the article after it already has a strong consensus to redirect, then copies that to another article after, then it's not just moving content. Vanezi (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[40]

Discussion concerning Aredoros87

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 Aredoros87

False. When the content was removed by Vanezi, I started a discussion on talk page.[41] He said "more sources would be needed"[42]. And I added 3 new sources for that specific content under the edit summary "added Kökçe version with extra sources per discussion".[43]
I removed an unsourced claim. Even if there is information in the body of the article, we still need to have references for the statements in the intro. This could have been restored with a proper reference. Deleting unsourced claims is not a violation.
That particular page is being edited by a number of random non-EC, newly registered users. Even I had to request for protection[44]. This edit was also done by a person that I reported here[45]. Just one day after it's being closed, Vanezi made this report.
Not correct. The page was proposed to be deleted or redirected just because it was unsourced and duplicate as mentioned by the nominator.[46]. I added sources and left a comment saying: "I added sources and pics to all items in the list...Technically speaking, I would support redirecting,..If the consensus will be "Redirect", I will move the content as well. Otherwise, I will extend the article."[47]. In the end article was redirected, and I moved the content there.[48]
The result of the AFD was to redirect. That doesn't mean the sourced content cannot be reused in the redirected article.
I simply moved content from the deleted article, without checking the wording. If there's problem with the wording, Talk Page is the place Vanezi should discuss first.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Aredoros87

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

Nishidani

Latest comment: 23 minutes ago42 comments21 people in discussion

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 Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Icebear244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nishidani (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:General_sanctions

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

[49] Restoration of an extremely contested, recently added content, despite lacking consensus and ongoing discussions. Commented "revert patent abuse by barely qualified IP editors" (all editors involved appear adequately qualified).
[50] Repeated restoration of the same controversial content.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

On February, warned against using unconstructive or unnecessarily inflammatory language in the topic area, for using highly inflammatory language ("dumb goyim beware") [51]
Week-long block for personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: [52],
Day-long block for violating the consensus required sanction [53]
Day-long block for personal attacks or harassment [54]
Week-long block for personal attacks or harassment [55]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nishidani and other editors persistently and forcibly and disruptively push a much-disputed definition of "Zionism" as colonization, despite ongoing discussions aimed at consensus. There is significant opposition to the proposed changes (at least 7 editors) evident on both the talk page and through repeated restorations of the last stable version. I read on their talk page [56] that just yesterday another editor asked them to withdraw their uncivil commentary and self-revert but they declined to do so. They declined my request too. [57] Such behavior discourages participation and unfairly dismisses contributors as "unqualified," yet upon checking, each one of them has made substantial contributions over a significant amount of time on Wikipedia. It is concerning that experienced editors, who should set an example for newer ones, appear to not only misunderstand the concept of consensus but also resort to attacking editors attempting to reach consensus and uphold neutrality. From their block log, it appears that Nishidani has received multiple sanctions in the past related to both personal attacks and consensus issues, which are the same issues under consideration currently. Icebear244 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Nishidani, let me correct you. You seem to have overlooked @האופה, who also opposed using the term in the discussion, and it appears @Vegan416 did too. My count shows it's nine, which calls for further discussion before any disruptive editing, edit-counting, or uncivil commentary continues. This diff, by the way, is also worth reviewing [58], as attributing views to others appears to be another issue. Icebear244 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Red-tailed hawk sure. I did some browsing and was surprised to see that we define Zionism, in WP:VOICE, as colonization. I wondered how there could be a consensus for this and checked the edit history. It quickly became clear that there is no real consensus, but rather a forceful imposition of a controversial view by multiple experienced editors, with Nishidani being especially aggressive. Then I noticed that Selfstudier, who has just written to me on my talk page, is no less severe, constantly using intimidation and edit warring to force their views while discussions and even RFCs are ongoing. These editors are acting together and defending each other even in this discussion, which highlights how serious the problem is.

Despite being aware of the potential WP:BOOMERANGs and the risks involved, what I saw was so dire in my opinion that I would not mind receiving sanctions, as long as it finally prompts someone to take action (@ScottishFinnishRadish, even if a topic ban is totally unfair after just one possibly problematic edit and edit summary, as opposed to decades of unsanctioned violations discussed here). Banning me honestly won't solve the problem, since I have made just a few edits in this topic area. In fact, it might make the problem worse by driving neutral people away, who won't report violations now seeing the consequences. I hope the admins here won't turn a blind eye this time. This is the time to act. Icebear244 (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[59]

Discussion concerning Nishidani

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 Nishidani

Red-tailed hawk. 12 editors were in favour of the contested word (User:Unbandito, User:Dan Murphy,User:Iskandar323,User:Selfstudier,User:Zero0000, User:Nableezy, User:IOHANNVSVERVS,User:Makeandtoss, User:DMH223344, User:Skitash, User:Nishidani,User:Levivich). Their collective editing over decades consists of 357,426 contributions to Wikipedia.

The 7 editors (User:Oleg Yunakov,User: מתיאל, User:Galamore, User:O.maximov, User:ABHammad, Kentucky Rain2, User:Icebear244) who contest the word have a total of 8,569 edits collectively to their account, three or more registered within the last several months. My remark reflects this awareness.

According to the plaintiff, the consensus was formed by the last named 7, while the majority of 12 was against that consensus- This reminds me that while the Mensheviks actually constituted the majority in many debates, the minority called themselves the majority (Bolsheviks) and labelled the real majority a minority (Mensheviks) Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Icebear244. No, no mistake. I made my tally of the figures analysing the edit history of the article. User:האופה ( 1,262 edits, registered just after 7 October 2023) made a brief off the top of the head talk page comment. Vegan is the only one identifiable with the position of the 7 who, quite properly, abstained from reverting the passage he contests on the talk page.

The essence of what happened is that 19 editors over a month engaged, mostly, with one revert each (with notable exceptions, Unbandito made several and מתיאל made five. I followed the page but, apart from providing several sources when a cn note was posted, did not intervene. I made one revert whenI reverted O’maximov (1,010 edits in 5 months). Note that he was reverting Zero0000, who is perhaps the most meticulously knowledgeable student of the scholarship on Zionism we have). I'd made my revert, and left it at that.

Some days later out of the blue you (Icebear244) joined the six other editors who reverted to the minority-supported version with the following, plainly false edit summary about the state of the consensus'The next to restore this disputed version, against consensus and every possible wiki policy, will be reported for edit warring and disruptive editing'.

I would accept that from an administrator (while noting on their page that they had restored the version that had less support), but we peons are not allowed to join one or another side in a dispute, in a blatantly partisan manner, and dictate a ukase, forbidding any challenge under pain of an AE sanction. And in singling out me, you ignored all the evidence that several of those whose reverts you favoured were multiple reverters, not, like myself, engaged until then in a single revert. That was such an outrageous assumption of authority, the use of threat language to support a minority view and make it the default text, that, well, if I see intimidation, I don't buckle. I undid it, particularly because you never made any comment on the talk page in support of the minority but just barged in. Note that in your complaint all of the behavioural defects you cite could be applied equally, at the least, to editors on the side you joined.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apropos Black Kite's comment. I did think of jotting a note to the effect that this is the third of three AE complaints against me since February jist this year. And that in the context of a further two cases involving the incidence on wikipedia of outside interference in the way we edit these articles ((4) 4th (5)5th). But I decided not to make the point BK just made, preferring to drop the temptation, and go to bed and read a novel. It would have sounded like whingeing, a pathetic intimation that I deserve some immunity- No one can expect extraordinary sanctuary here or special rights. Still, I do 'worry', to the degree that I 'worry' about such gossip (I don't), that the 'no-smoke-without-fire' psychological syndrome will kick in against me if this barrage persists. Nishidani (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Red-taled hawk. True, if you trawl through the dozens of AE complaints emerging from reactions to my 96,000 edits over 18 years, you will get a score or two of remonstrative cracks expressive of the frustration at finding that the several hundred book and scholarly article sources which it is my main interest in supplying to wikipedia are often reverted or disputed by a handful of editors who prefer talkpage challenges which, in my view do not reflect the ideal I cited in your citation of the Tamzim thread ('the self-conscious, deliberative use of reason as an instrument for the strategic pursuit of truth.'Josiah Ober, The Greeks and the Rational:The Discovery of Practical Reason, University of California Press 2022 ISBN 978-0-520-38017-2 p.1.') So yes, I should be perfect, and bear up. And when dragged into extensive threads where complaining editors show little knowledge of the subject (they do not cite any scholarship in rebuffing the data culled from it, but have decided views of what can or cannot be said) I should keep my nose to the happy grindstone and not react. But every now and again, it would be refreshing if these endless plaintiffs' records were examined to see if they add useful scholarly sources regularly or, as it strikes me, spend an inordinate amount of time singularly on talk pages, at ANI/AE or tweaks/reverts of what others add. Nishidani (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Selfstudier

I call WP:BOOMERANG for this WP:POINTy waste of editorial time over a content dispute where the current consensus is roughly 2:1 against. Editor appeared out of the blue to make This edit with edit summary "The next to restore this disputed version, against consensus and every possible wiki policy, will be reported for edit warring and disruptive editing." and about which I was moved to comment directly their talk page and was duly ignored. This is an ill motivated request about which it is quite difficult to AGF.Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The other editors, all of them that are involved in the discussion, should be named and notified. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fascinating how a content dispute is leveraged into a civility issue for purposes here.Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Red-tailed hawk: Complainant received standard awareness notice on 9 May following edits to the Rafah offensive article. 03:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

There is a clear consensus on the talk page for this edit, a talk page the filer is notably absent from. In what world is an editor completely unengaged on the talk page making as their very first edit to an article a revert and claiming that anybody who reverts them is being disruptive? That’s absurd, and if Icebear244 feels that the material should not be in the article they should feel welcome to make that argument on the talk page, not make a revert with an edit summary claiming the power to enforce the removal of what has consensus, a consensus they have not participated in working on or overcoming at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by nableezy (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the comment by Thebiguglyalien, this isn’t the first time an editor has mistaken their own views for those of the community, but at a certain point the repeated claims of disruptive editing against others users without evidence constitutes casting aspersions and should be dealt with appropriately. nableezy - 02:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Sean.hoyland

I would be interested to know the background to Icebear244's involvement and decisions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

re: The Kip's "I sincerely do think mass topic bans would ultimately result in improvement to ARBPIA content". In my view, this is a faith-based belief rather than an evidence-based belief. I think there is a good chance that it would not ultimately result in improvement to ARBPIA content, nor do I think there is any basis to believe that it would. The PIA 'landscape' would likely be rapidly recolonized by the wiki-editor equivalent of pioneer species. A critical factor is that Wikipedia's remedies/sanctions etc. are only effective on honest individuals. Individuals who employ deception are not impacted by topic bans, blocks etc. They can regenerate themselves and live many wiki-lives. The history of the article in question, Zionism, is a good example of the important role editor-reincarnation plays in PIA. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by 916crdshn

I've been following the ARBPIA topic area from my hospital bed, and in all honesty, I'm surprised by the number of infractions committed by experienced editors. They consistently disregard consensus-building and stubbornly restoring their preferred edits, even while discussions are still ongoing. I also saw this behavior from Nishidani and attempted to persuade him to revert his edit yesterday. Selfstudier, who responded to this complaint, unfortunately exemplifies this issue. I've observed similar actions from them as those of Nishidani. For instance, they've reintroduced disputed content still under discussion [60], [61]. In this case, they and others removed a POV tag while discussion is still ongoing [62]. In this case, they even restored a controversial edit while RFC was ongoing on its inclusion [63]. However, this one surprised me the most: [64]. In this case, you can see how they, along with another editor, bombarded a user's talk page with accusations of 'tag teaming' and oh so many diffs "for whatever whoever wants to use it for", while in fact, all these editors were doing was to restore the last stable version while discussions were ongoing. I also see Selfstudier just spamming every new editor with the strongly worded version of the 'contentious topics' alert. I think this just scares away good editors. In all honesty, there appears to be a pattern of established users employing bullying tactics to stifle the influence of other contributors. Where do we draw the line? 916crdshn (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by BilledMammal

Nishidani does appear to have a habit of personalizing comments. A few that I remembered, or found by quickly glancing through some of their more active talk pages, includes "Don't reply. Read several good books on the facts of history", saying a user "lack even an elementary understanding" of how to closely parse texts, describing a talk page discussion as an "index of what many editors do not know about the subject", and suggesting editors of the article Calls for the destruction of Israel are "the hasbara bandwagon".

A few other examples are:

3 July, in a discussion about the intent of Zionism:
Has anyone objecting here ever read the founding documents of Zionism? I have the eerie impression this is like discussing the origins of Christianity with people who haven't read the New Testament.
18 June, criticized editors for rejecting a source as unreliable, and then focused on their grammar:
So you've read as far as the title. And 'it's' is not how the possessive 'its' is written. It means 'it is' and as you spell it, it produces an ungrammatical sentence:'it is reliability'.
They also doubled down when an admin told them to knock it off.
21 May Wrote a long comment, starting with The editing of this zealous article is too incompetent to be reliable, to which the primary author's response concluded with As for the rest of your argument here I'll reply at length tomorrow. Nishidani's reply was:
Don't worry about replying at length, because I already find the article itself, which will prove briefer than the threads, unreadable. I had to force myself to read it once, and noting the constant misuse of sources. I haven't the time to waste on it.
1 May, in response to an editor questioning the use of Counterpunch:
That lazy approach means editors do not need to read carefully and evaluate the quality of any piece: all they need do is look at the publisher, note wiki editors have suggested caution, and jump at that pretext to hold anything at all from such sources to hostage.

"Here's eight specific diffs with commentary stretching all the way back to November I just, you know, causally glanced at in the hour and a half since this filing was posted" is ridiculous.

It is ridiculous. It shouldn’t be this easy to find examples of them attacking editors rather than focusing on content, and the fact it is suggests there is a real issue here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by (IOHANNVSVERVS)

Here is the most recent and ongoing discussion regarding this content dispute [65], and note that this was also discussed recently in this discussion here [66]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Vegan416

Although my name was dragged into this discussion here, I wish to stress that I don't want to have any part in this fight and I oppose this Arbitration Request against Nishidani, at least as it concerns my own encounters with Nishidani. I can deal with Nishidani on my own, both on the content level and the personal level, and I don't need external protection. Of course, I cannot speak for others on this regard. I also oppose Nishidani's opinion on the contested term in its current place, but the way to win this debate is to write a strong policy-based argument based on many reliable sources. Which is what I am doing now, and will be ready next week. Vegan416 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Dan Murphy

The complaining cohort is wrong on the underlying content, and wrong on whose behavior is a problem here. This Icebear account has under 2,000 edits to Wikipedia, fewer than 80 since 2020, one edit ever to the Zionism article (the edit today), and zero to that article's talk page. Thanks to today's flurry of activity, over 13% of Icebear's activity since 2020 has been trying to supervote an ahistorical "consensus" into the Zionism article and/or getting Nishidani banned. This bit of chutzpah (Icebear's edit summary) salivating over the arb enforcement wars to come, should guarantee blowback on that account: "The next to restore this disputed version, against consensus and every possible wiki policy, will be reported for edit warring and disruptive editing." Must have just stumbled across all this. Oh, the BilledMammal account is here. How surprising.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Unbandito

The content restored by Nishidani was the latest version in an ongoing content dispute over the inclusion of a mention of colonization/colonialism in the article lead. A mention of colonialism is broadly supported by the relevant scholarship, as a number of editors have demonstrated in the relevant talk page discussions.

To broadly summarize the dispute, a slight majority of editors support the inclusion of a mention of colonialism in the lead while a minority oppose any mention of it. In my reading of the edit history of the dispute, the editors in favor of an inclusion of colonialism have advanced several versions of the proposed content, compromising when their edits were reverted and supporting their edits on the talk page, while editors opposed to the new changes have reverted all attempts to add language and sourcing which mentions colonialism, with little support for these actions on the talk page.

This dispute began when Iskandar's edit was reverted on 6 June. As the dispute continued, several revised additions were also reverted. Editors opposed to the inclusion of a mention of colonialism have made their own changes to the lead, so the claim that one "side" is adding disputed material and the other is not doesn't stand up to scrutiny. When the most recent version of the proposed changes was reverted, Nishidani added several high quality sources. Those edits were reverted regardless of the substantive changes in sourcing, and Icebear issued a blanket threat to report anyone who restored the contested content. At the time of Nishidani's edit, I was working on this compromise, but I was edit conflicted and decided to return to the article later. If I had finished my edit more quickly, it seems that I would have been dragged in front of this noticeboard even though my edit is substantially different since, according to Icebear's edit summary, anyone restoring the disputed version would be reported. The simple truth of this content dispute is that a number of editors, who are in the minority, are being very inflexible about any mention of colonialism in the lead despite strong support in the literature and among editors for these changes. In my opinion the lead is improving, however chaotically and contentiously. There's no need for administrative involvement here. Nishidani has been recognized many times over the years for their work defending scholarship and scholarly sources on Wikipedia. They are doing more of that good work on the Zionism page.

Unbandito (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Parabolist

One of the most suspect lead ups to an AE filing I've ever seen. And BilledMammal's "Here's eight specific diffs with commentary stretching all the way back to November I just, you know, causally glanced at in the hour and a half since this filing was posted" is ridiculous. How many times can one editor be warned about weaponizing AE against their opponents before someone actually recognizes the pattern? This is becoming farcical. Parabolist (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Icebear bravely posting that they'll happily take a ban as long as an admin gives the same one to the more senior and established editor is practically giving the game away. Come on. Parabolist (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

My thoughts in no order:

Nishidani is a long-time agitator in this area, where their enforcement of a pro-Palestine point of view through battleground behavior and hostility outweighs any improvement to the encyclopedia.
Most of the users responding here frequently show up to defend their pro-Palestine wikifriends or attack their pro-Palestine enemies whenever they see the chance, and vise versa. I'd like if this would be considered evidence of disruptive battleground behavior. If it is, I'll start collecting diffs.
As 916crdshn indicated, many experienced users are problems in this topic area. I would gladly see more of them reported and sanctioned here, and I'd do it myself if AE wasn't so toothless against users with large-edit-count-privilege.
Black Kite you're not the only person who feels that way. The rest of us are really getting fed up with the disruption it causes sitewide. The root of the problem is when administrators reviewing these issues end up playing dumb and pretending this disruption doesn't exist, resulting in no action against the most entrenched battleground users.
Topic banning any or all of these disruptive users would improve the ability of other editors to improve articles in this area. I will endorse any such action and support any admin involved in carrying it out. The worst thing we can do right now is nothing.

To the administrators, I ask two questions that I'd like to have answered as part of the decision here. First, what are the red lines? If it's disruption, we're well past that. If it's the community getting sick of it, we're well past that. I don't know what further lines can be crossed. Second, how often is a fear of blowback from a banned user and their wikifriends a factor in these decisions? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

ScottishFinnishRadish Checking past AE posts for battleground-style alignments is actually something that crossed my mind for that sort of evidence. I did something similar for an arb motion and the results were unsurprising for the few editors who happened to participate in the majority of those specific discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by The Kip

Just jumping in here to effectively second everything TBUA said above. The AE filer themselves is suspect in their editing, and there’s a good argument for a BOOMERANG punishment here; that said, that doesn’t absolve Nishidani of valid incivility complaints and other issues regarding ARBPIA that’ve gone on for years. Sanctions for both would be ideal.

This whole case and its votes are, in my opinion, emblematic of the shortcomings of the ARBPIA area and its editors, who consistently defend/attack others at this board and other places on Wikipedia almost solely based on ideological alignment. I sincerely do think mass topic bans would ultimately result in improvement to ARBPIA content; this attitude towards experienced editors of “well, they contribute a lot despite their [ WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct/POV-pushing/weaponizing of AE/etc] can’t be the long-term solution.

Anyhow, that’s the end of my soapbox. The Kip ^(contribs) 04:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Levivich (Nishidani)

Nishidani mentioned 7 editors who opposed describing Zionism as colonialism. I recognize those names (and others).

My previously complaints about: tag-team edit warring (recent example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5), both-siding WP:ONUS, and bludgeoning

A group of editors have been arguing, and edit warring, a bunch of Nakba denial myths, such as:

That Palestinians are not native to Palestine 1 2 3 4 5
That all of Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem) is part of Israel Talk:Israel#Tel Aviv (contrary to WP:RFC/J, continuing scholarly consensus, and reality)
That the idea of Zionism as colonialism is WP:FRINGE 1. This is such a common myth, Ilan Pappe's Ten Myths About Israel has a chapter about it.
- User:916crdshn, who comments above (and has more deleted edits than non-deleted edits per xtools for whatever reason), has one and only one (non-deleted) article talk page comment--guess what it's about?
- The filing editor's only edit to Zionism is about this. Also, note the edit on this list that is different than all the others.
That Zionism as settler colonialism is WP:FRINGE 1 2 3 4
That Nur Masalha, and New Historians like Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim are WP:FRINGE 1
The long-debunked (since 1980s) "endorsement of flight" theory 1 2

User:מתיאל ("HaOfa") was a disclosed paid editing account in 2021 1 2 3; the disclosure was removed from their userpage in April 2024. They made about 50 (non-deleted) edits between Sep 2021 and Mar 2024 (xtools). Top edited pages for User:ABHammad [67] and User:O.maximov [68], aside from Israel/Palestine, are articles about businesses. User:Galamore: Jan 2024 UPE ANI (blocked, unblocked); May AE "Galamore cautioned against continuing long term edit wars, especially when those edit wars have been the target of sockpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing."; May ANI for gaming 500.

Seems pretty obvious to me that somebody bought/rented/expanded a UPEfarm and is using it to push far-right-Israeli propaganda, and I think deliberately provoke uncivil responses from the regular editors of the topic area is part of the strategy. Not a new trick. Colleagues: try not to take the bait, and I'll do the same. Admins: please clear this new farm from the topic area, thank you. If nobody wants to volunteer to do it -- I don't blame them -- let's ask the WMF to spend some money investigating and cleaning up this most-recent infiltration. Levivich (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Galamore

I was tagged here by Levivich (I couldn't really understand his message, a concentration of accusations and confusion between users). Some time ago, I was asked not to participate in edit wars, and since then, I have been trying to edit relatively neutral topics. Levivich's accusation is out of place. Shabbat shalom and have a great weekend!Galamore (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Zero0000

This report is entirely about an editor trying to win an edit war by means of noticeboard report. An editor whose total contribution is one massive revert and not a single talk page comment. It should be dismissed out of hand. Zero^talk 15:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by JM2023

Going off of what BilledMammal said, from the sole interaction with Nishidani that I can recall, this was my experience. This was in January. After I commented on another user's talk page, Nishidani appeared and removed my comment, saying You had your say. Go away [69]. I believed it was a violation of talk page guidelines, so I took it to Nishidani's talk page, resulting these instances:

I see you are very young, so perhaps you are not quite familiar with good manners and accused me of speaking to the watchlist [70].
So, there's a good laddie. Off you go. [71]
Edit summary: Please desist from the soporific cant on this page [72]

Feel free to read through my own comments there. This is, as far as I can recall, my first and only interaction with said editor. If this is their conduct with others as well, then... not a positive editing environment. I agree with TBUA that specific users always showing up to defend each other, in a way very closely correlating with whether or not they agree on one specific issue, should be a cause for concern. I left the topic area completely, and mostly retired from editing entirely, over what I've seen in the I-P space. JM (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Result concerning Nishidani

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

@Nishidani: Can you clarify specifically who you are referring to with barely qualified IP editors? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
With respect to sanction history, filer seems to have a few holes. I will note that the block from 2009 brought up by filer was not actually a week long due to ensuing community discussion after it was issued. There are also additional sanctions given to respondent at AE that filer did not include:
1. 2023, warned for battleground behavior at Zionism, race, and genetics.
2. 2019, indefinitely banned from creating or making comments in AE reports related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except if they are the editor against whom enforcement is requested, per AE. Sanctioning admin notes that this was for the user misusing Wikipedia as a battleground and casting aspersions on others in the thread.
3. 2017, 1-month TBAN from Arab-Israeli conflict after banning admin observed that the user personalize[s] disputes rather than focusing on the content.
4. 2012, 1-month long TBAN the Israel-Palestine area after violating 1RR.
5. 2009 ArbCom-imposed topic ban, which was later successfully appealed in 2011
Problems with your civility have date back to 2009, when the ArbCom found that you had engaged in incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. I don't think it appropriate to refer to other editors as barely qualified IP editors when they are not IP editors. At a baseline, it is not civil, and it comes off as a personal attack. You were already warned against using against using unconstructive or unnecessarily inflammatory language in the topic area earlier this year, and this sort of thing is another example of that.

If you are going to stay in this topic area, you need to remain civil. This is a core pillar of Wikipedia. If warnings are not doing the job, and civility issues are not improving despite all this time, then more restrictive sanctions become the only option to solve the problem. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Thebiguglyalien: With respect to... Most of the users responding here frequently show up to defend their pro-Palestine wikifriends or attack their pro-Palestine enemies whenever they see the chance, and vise versa. I'd like if this would be considered evidence of disruptive battleground behavior. If it is, I'll start collecting diffs, if people are attempting to abuse the AE system in order to unjustifiably purge people along ideological lines, I think that would be something worth considering. But that sort of material would be so complex that an Arbitration case might be the better venue. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can't be the only person that is getting bored with these semi-regular editors queueing up to report Nishidani (to be honest, I'm getting really bored with a significant number of editors that are trying to weaponise AE, RSN and other venues). If I was assuming bad faith I'd think there's almost off-wiki co-ordination going on. So just to be clear, the filer made this edit note the edit summary, which was their first edit for three weeks, and then came here to complain about it? Sorry, no. Nableezy's comment is relevant. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would also like to know how Icebear244 became involved here. I have gone through their contributions, and I found that had never edited the Zionism article until they made this edit, which more or less kicked off this thread. I also don't see all that much prior editing of related topics; I could only find a ~~sole~~ edit to a related talk page (though I could be wrong, since that's a bit harder to catch by scanning through contribs). (Upon further review, there are edits to Antisemitism and higher education in the United States which might be somewhat related that I had missed on my initial go-through) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Along those lines, @Icebear244: Can you explain how you came to the make the revert on Zionism? Were you alerted to the page somehow, or did you naturally encounter it? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thebiguglyalien, it's not fear, it's the enormous opportunity cost. There are several actions I would take if I had the dozens of hours necessary to implement and defend them.
Are we okay with battleground editing making the topic area toxic and making it less likely that anyone without a strongly held POV will want to get involved leading to an even more entrenched battleground? I say (only partially in jest that we look at the last dozen or two ARBPIA AE reports and start looking at who shows up more often than not to rep their colors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oh, and Icebear244 should be topic banned. Clear POV pushing, added a section called Islamist Terrorism citing a source that did not say Islamist or terrorism, but did say a group they'd never heard of said, In a statement, the group described Mr Kipper as an Israeli agent and said his killing was in retaliation for what it called massacres in Gaza and Israel's seizure of the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, which also happened on Tuesday. Add that to the change of the prose about the humanitarian toll and it's pretty clear. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'd concur with you here on the topic ban for the filer. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I even wonder if an account that goes from pretty much exclusively editing cartoon articles for years, straight to various hot-button topics such as AP and Russian/Chinese disinformation, might not be compromised (or has been handed over to someone else)? Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Or went from high school to college? Or watched the news? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, possibly, which is why I'm wondering about it rather than stating it. It just seemed like a very abrupt change. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

78.147.140.112

Latest comment: 21 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 78.147.140.112

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

User against whom enforcement is requested: 78.147.140.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

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

17:35, July 4, 2024 First revert to restore unsourced and factually incorrect version of the article, claiming "Reverting to stable version until consensus can be reached". No policy based objection has been made, and it is diffuclt to imagine how any could be made to retain an innaccurate and unsourced version
19:52, July 4, 2024 Second revert several hours after the first, removing even more properly sourced details and corrections, including the correct date of death per both book sources they removed
00:34, June 24, 2024 Denial by 92.30.6.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) of being the same editor as 82.16.150.34. After I pointed out their shared use of the phrase "bizarre mental gymnastics", they ceased their denials.
19:34, December 30, 2023 Adds biased unsourced commentary of "refusing to accept the moral responsibility for the consequences of its actions and refusing to admit its warning was inadequate", amongst other disruptive changes
22:24, December 30, 2023 Repeats previous edit
02:07, January 3, 2024 Repeats previous edit
06:17, December 31, 2023 "A certain politically motivated sector of the userbase seem intent on attempting to abuse concepts...Politically motivated negationism intended to minimize the responsibility of a group for its own behaviour is not acceptable in an encyclopaedia"
16:25, December 31, 2023 "Your interest seems to be in whitewashing and not in documenting fact...Judging by your edits you are an Irish republican, and thus consider this to be an ideological struggle to whitewash groups you like...You do not care about the subject except as a vehicle for propaganda"
18:32, December 31, 2023 "I thought that would bait you. It appears you are confirming your biases, which are that you advocate for a violent non-state actor which claims to be a government; a claim nobody but their already convinced supporters believe. I can see it is of no utility arguing with you because you are already of a certain mindset, one that is unfalsifiable and automatically rejects any argument against it"

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)

Notified at previous IP, including 1RR notification on December 31, 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor is a barrier to article improvement, reverting basic factual corrections demanding supposed consensus be obtained to replace inaccurate unsourced material with accurate sourced material. Given their comment of ""Your interest seems to be in whitewashing and not in documenting fact" on December 31, 2023, it is impossible to understand their repeated deletion of properly sourced content without adequate explanation.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning 78.147.140.112

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 78.147.140.112

I have attempted to engage in constructive discussion but the above user has thus far been displaying very frustrating biases and expressing strange, bordering nonsensical, positions. I have sought to seek consensus for changes. 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)78.147.140.112 (talk)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 78.147.140.112

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ustadeditor2011

Latest comment: 7 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: Ustadeditor2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Block from the page Amaravati with an expiration time of 02:06, 20 September 2024

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

Notification of that administrator: [73]

Statement by Ustadeditor2011

I would like to improve the lead section of the article with appropriate grammar and syntax. I would like to update the article with new references.

Ustadeditor2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statement by Daniel Case

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ustadeditor2011

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 Ustadeditor2011

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

Add topic

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

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

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