Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

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

Leechjoel9

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 Leechjoel9

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Boud (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:51, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Leechjoel9 (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/Horn of Africa

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

1. 14:33, 13 May 2021 reverting a tidying up of the result of the Demographics of Eritrea RfC (and reverting unrelated edits by other people than me)
2. 14:36, 13 May 2021 violation of the spirit of the result of the Demographics of Eritrea RfC on the Eritrea page (e.g. removing "three and a half ... million")
3. 15:00, 13 May 2021 repeat violation of the result of the spirit of the RfC, on Eritrea

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• alerted about DS/Horn on 28 January 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Leechjoel9 seems to be trying to interpret the RfC on the population of Eritrea in a pedantic way and to prevent edits improving the referencing quality. I see no sign that the closing summary of the RfC described an intention to disallow the use of precise referencing with full, complete references. Pedantically speaking, the RfC did not specifically mention edits of the main Eritrea article, and it's true that in principle, an editorial consensus on one article does not imply a consensus for another related article. However, common sense in this case says that if the Eritrean population needs NPOVing on the main article on the topic of the Eritrean population, then there should also be an NPOV on the discussion of population on the article Eritrea itself. The RfC result does not oppose adding UN DESA 2019's explanation of its change. All three of Leechjoel9's above three edits remove the reference ref name="UNDESA2019_release_notes" that explains the surprising change in population estimates. The RfC favours NPOV. Leechjoel9's three edits oppose NPOV. (Explanatory notes by other sources would be valid to add for NPOV, but the sources are not demographic sources, so they don't publish explanations, they just provide raw "believe me, it's true" numbers.) Boud (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Response to Leechjoel9 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC) Due weight does not mean that "believe-me-it's-true" sources prevent explanations by demographic research "we-calculated-things-this-way-from-these-sources" sources from being mentioned. Ordinary reasoning about sourcing should not need wikilawyering and another month or so of effort for making an edit in the spirit of the result of an RfC. The risk of this editor's behaviour is to discourage editors who lack the stamina needed to argue at length for making changes that are normally uncontroversial in Wikipedia. (Side note: the {{UN Population}} template does not appear to be controversial; for Eritrea, it gives 3,620,312.) Boud (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
• False statement by Leechjoel9: "Bouds edit [136], the user removed the line which explains that various sources disagrees ... editing by BubbaJoe123456 [137]." I added detail to BubbaJoe123456's edit, making the statement more precise and carefully referenced; I did not remove the population disagreement; I did not remove the statement on no official census (source: name="PHS2010_full"). Moreover, Leechjoel misleadingly pointed to my revert, instead of my real edits.
  @Rosguill: "Not engaging in discussion"? I made a huge effort in the RfC engaging in rational, structured discussion fully supported by specific sources rather than undated, unarchived sources. I responded patiently to Leechjoel9's repeatedly false and misleading statements and reluctance to use non-ambiguous language. Engaging in discussion with a user who discusses this way and rejects Wikipedia policy (NPOV) would imply that this user gets to veto editing by editors with less patience than me. My recommendation is that the community should refuse Leechjoel9's use of these techniques to own Eritrea-related articles. Boud (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• @Johnuniq: See my 22:38, 12 May 2021 edits for more disputed content; however, the main problem is the irrationality of discussion by the user. Boud (talk) 19:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
• @Johnuniq: I assume that you have authorised extending beyond the 500-word limit, since otherwise I cannot answer. The dispute is not only about the infobox. My 22:38, 12 May 2021 edits include:
  1. fixing the infobox;
  2. fixing the old statement Eritrea is a multi-ethnic country ... in its population of around six and a half million which I changed to ... three and a half<ref name="UNDESA_WPP_2019_total_population" /> to six and a half<ref name="COMESA_ERpop_2019" /> million;
  3. fixing the old statement Eritrea's population increased from 3.2 million to approximately 5,755,124 ... between 1990 and 2020 for which none of the old references provide any estimate for 1990;
  4. adding the clarification to the reader "and revised down<ref name="UNDESA2019_release_notes" />" from the only one of the sources that gives sources, methods and explanations, and explicitly states why it revised down its population estimate by 1.8 million.
• My guess is that your statement "I will repeat my concern regarding Leechjoel9: insisting on 6 million as the only figure in the infobox given the result of that RfC would be disruptive (sanctionable)" is likely to be a strong enough result of this ARE to resolve the first three issues (I'm assuming good faith). I cannot predict Leechjoel9's reaction on the fourth point. So far, it seems that s/he rejects the normally uncontroversial idea that a sourced explanation for the disagreement in numbers is better than no explanation at all; pedantically, it is not a formal result from the RfC. Boud (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• @Rosguill: Re: "having read Leechjoel9's explanations here": scroll up to see the false statement by Leechjoel9 of 06:11+06:15, 18 May 2021 here at A/R/E; a false statement about my editing is not an "explanation" and it is not evidence of a post-RfC change of behaviour. Boud (talk) 07:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
• [Word count estimates of comments excluding this line: Leechjoel9: 717; Boud: 816] Boud (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

15:51, 13 May 2021

Discussion concerning Leechjoel9

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 Leechjoel9

Boud is ignoring and violating the reached consensus and proceeds doing changes without discussion. I have addressed the matter in the talk page of Demographics of Eritrea, and I have urged the user to participate in that discussion. Repeatedly filing for AE and ANI as soon someone disagrees is not a way forward, this is time consuming for everyone involved and a behaviour possibly breaching with Wikipedia policy. This can easily be resolved by discussion which Boud don’t want too, see [1].

The reason for restoring the Eritrea article was that this newly added content goes beyond the reached consensus and has yet been agreed upon. Consensus had been reached for estimates in the Demographics of Eritrea and BubbaJoe123456 did update this article with info that the population of Eritrea is estimated between 3,5- 6,7 Million. This was presented fairly, mentioning the range of estimates but also that majority views supports ~6M est, see [2]. Now a month later Boud decided to update the Eritrea article with new estimates in the info box and in the lead in the Eritrea article, see [3]. The user has done own interpretations of the consensus and did not propose any suggestions on how this should be implemented in the Eritrea article. The consensus did not reach beyond the Demographics of Eritrea article, however a change in the demographics article would affect the Eritrea article. So, there is several issue that needs to be taken in consideration when adding this content to the Eritrea article.

Unlike BubbaJoe123456, user Boud did not mention that all sources besides UN DESA supports estimates in the 6M. In the changes made to Eritrea article the user do not even bother to mention that the broad majority view and sources supports estimate in the 6M. Sources that consist of CIA (2021), Eritrea Ministry of Information (2020), African development bank(2017) and more. By doing this the user presents the UN DESA estimate (single- minority view) source as it has the equal weight of the all of the other sources (majority view), this is giving undue weight to the minority view per WP:RSUW. This is not acting neutral and what the consensus says. The consensus however says both estimates should be presented, which nobody including myself are not objecting to. The objecting comes on how it is should be presented and formulated. This has been discussed before and I have urged that we find a solution on how to implement the consensus also in the Eritrea article.

The Eritrea article is not constructed as the Demographics article. For instance it has an info box unlike the Demographics article. In the early days of the dispute there was an discussion regarding which section that should be affected by these changes (I.e lead, info box, body). That discussion is also not closed, and should also be discussed before implementing. There is currently no dispute about the Demographics of Eritrea article. I would again suggested that the user keep the discussion in the talk page. Leechjoel9 (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• [Reply to Rosgquill, moved from admin-only section] Clearly Boud lacked support implementing the changes without discussing with involved parties on how the consensus was going to be implemented. I restored it because of that and since there are minor issue to the article, I still feel there are issue on the Demographics article that should be resolved. I could of restored it again, I however refrained from restoring current version since the Demographics edits also were less minor compared to the changes to the Eritrea article, I proceeded with discussing the matter in the talk page instead. Leechjoel9 (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

If you look at Bouds edit [4], the user removed the line which explains that various sources disagrees to current estimates of Eritrea and that there haven’t been an official census in the country, removing the constructive editing by BubbaJoe123456 [5].That was the reason, and I also noticed Boud only proceeded with adding and citing the UN DESA source which is this users favoured source. Boud edits also lacked sources, citing and explanation of the sources supporting estimates in the 6M which is the majority view, the consensus reached in the RFC said that these should be presented. Leechjoel9 (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I have given proper explanation on the matter, in my replies above. Could you please clarify what it is you want me to further explain? In this case I don’t don’t see a need for a ban for anybody, the overall behaviour of the other parties should also be reviewed, since content has been added without reaching final agreements on how the consensus was going to be implemented (not in the talk pages or the RFC concluded this). But also since we are in the final stages of resolving the matter by discussion. I proposed in the discussion thread in the Eritrea article that there is a need of rephrasing the sentence, yet still including UN DESA and all the other sources. Leechjoel9 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Statement by BubbaJoe123456

I was involved in the discussion on Talk:Demographics of Eritrea about how to best represent what sources say about the population of Eritrea, and contributed to the RFC as well. Overall, the concerns that Boud has expressed here are justified. Leechjoel9 contributions on this topic have all been very focused on having the article have as high a population figure as possible. I don't know what motivates this, but it does appear to be POV-driven. Just to be clear, the available data sources have population estimates ranging from under 4M to nearly 7M, as is reflected (now) in the lede of the Demographics of Eritrea article. Grudgingly, after the RFC, Leechjoel9 acceded to the current wording. We've just had a lengthy RFC that came to the conclusion that the most NPOV way to describe Eritrea's population is to (a) show the range of estimates, and (b) note that no official census has ever been conducted. I see no reason why, after all of that, the main Eritrea article's infobox should continue to only show a single estimate from a single source, an approach that was clearly rejected in the Demographics article RFC. Bottom line, I'm concerned that Leechjoel9 doesn't come to topics around Eritrea with a NPOV approach. As another example, they argued for the removal of a clearly notable person from the list of notable people from Asmara, on the grounds that the person no longer held Eritrean citizenship. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Leechjoel9

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

• This is particularly difficult for admin resolution. I might say more later but my primary concern is always what is in the article and I have to say that it is not satisfactory to put population = 6,081,196 in the infobox at Eritrea given reliable sources with estimates from 3.6 to 6.7 million. I see a comment that the issue is extremely contentious—apparently a small number implies a certain political outcome while a large number implies some other real-world consequence. Unless there is a knock-out argument that I can't see, editors have no basis to decide which RS should be chosen for the infobox number. The problem cannot be solved by the walls of text in Talk:Eritrea/Archive and throughout Talk:Demographics of Eritrea. The approach at Demographics of Eritrea is better where there is no simple factoid—it starts with "Sources disagree as to the current population of Eritrea, with some proposing numbers as low as 3.6 million and others as high as 6.7 million." Question to participants: is there a dispute relevant to this report about text in the article apart from the number in the infobox? If yes, please succinctly identify it. If not, I'm afraid this issue might have to go back to article talk with a focus (that I couldn't see) on exactly what to put in the infobox (one suggestion would be to put nothing there). Johnuniq (talk) 07:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Boud: Is there an answer to my "Question to participants"? It appears from recent posts above that the main issue is the number in the infobox, summed up by this 15:00, 13 May 2021 revert by Leechjoel9 which asserted that the RfC did not apply to the infobox and that the UN DESA report was a "minority" view. I'm inclined to close this as no action with an informal recommendation that participants digest my above comment. The demographics RfC is not sufficient to say what should be in the Eritrea infobox but I will repeat my concern regarding Leechjoel9: insisting on 6 million as the only figure in the infobox given the result of that RfC would be disruptive (sanctionable). Editors should stop talking about the past and who is to blame. Focus on what should be in the infobox. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
• Leechjoel9, could you explain why you performed the edit at Demographics of Eritrea linked to in the first diff provided by Boud in this report? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:26, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

  sorry Leechjoel9, but I was hoping for a bit more detail. Could you please clarify what your specific objection was that motivated you to perform the first revert on May 13. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  thank you Leechjoel9 for the clarification. My perspective at this time is that Leechjoel9's objections were reasonable, and I don't see anything that immediately warrants a sanction. I find some fault with Boud for not attempting to engage in a discussion about what Leechjoel9's objection was before coming here, which may warrant a warning. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

  Boud, my comment was meant with respect to the post-RfC dispute alone. Generally speaking you have been engaging in constructive discussion, but having read Leechjoel9's explanations here, I believe that you could have settled this new issue (or at least sufficiently defined the point of dispute to allow for 3rd parties to weigh in and build a consensus) without coming to AE. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

  Boud, on review I think I may have misread the edit you made which was identified by Leechjoel9 when I commented earlier ([6]). Reviewing it now, while formatting of the citations was changed, all of the citations appear to have been preserved; content about the range of estimates was reworded, but Sources disagree as to the current population of Eritrea, with UN DESA proposing a low estimate of 3.6 million for 2021 and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa proposing a high estimate of 6.7 million for 2019. Eritrea has never conducted an official government census seems to still adequately present the information. Leechjoel9, do you stand by your prior assessment regarding this edit? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  I was hoping to get a further reply from Leechjoel9 before pushing for a close, as I still have unanswered questions about editors' explanations for their behavior. If we don't see a satisfactory reply soon, however, I think that a short tban for Leechjoel9 may be appropriate. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

  Leechjoel9, the issue is that your original explanation given here of the edit at Demographics of Eritrea was that Boud had removed sources in that edit, and you reverted, but they did not actually remove any sources in said edit. If this was simply a misunderstanding then I don't think we have any problems at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

To prevent archivation--Ymblanter (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

أمين

مين is restricted to using sources in English in the areas of ARBPIA so that other editors can verify —valereee (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
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 أمين User who is submitting this request for enforcement ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:25, 14 May 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested أمين (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 18:26, 14 May 2021 Removal of sourced information to RS: On 14 May, four Palestinians were killed, including one said to have attempted to stab a soldier and more than 100 people injured. There have been daily demonstrations since the escalation in Gaza. Replacement with: On 14 May 2021, the Israeli army and Israeli settlers killed 10 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank who were in peaceful demonstrations and others while they were in their homes. (issues w/ this explained below) Addition of In Iskaka village near Salfit, Israeli settlers under the protection of the Israeli occupation army, attacked Palestinian homes, and they killed a young man and shot 10 young men.[7] I can only read the source via Google translate, but it appears to say nothing that sounds like under the protection of the Israeli occupation army. It doesn't seem to say anything about settlers attacking Palestinian homes either. 18:49, 14 May 2021 On 14 May 2021, the Israeli army and Israeli settlers killed 10 (according to the Palestinian Health Ministry) Palestinian civilians in the West Bank who were in peaceful demonstrations and others while they were in their homes.[8] Misuse of Al Jazeera (RSP entry), noted as a partisan source in Arab–Israeli conflict. Original research and POV issues. Even Al Jazeera doesn't say what the editor is trying to say. It says nothing about people being shot for peaceful protest or for being in their homes. This is what the source says (entire article): The number of Palestinians killed by Israeli fire during confrontations in the occupied West Bank has risen to 10, the Palestinian health ministry has said. 500 people were injured in different parts of the West Bank. Violent protests erupted across the territory, with mainly young Palestinians hurling stones, Molotov cocktails and other projectiles at Israeli forces who have responded with tear gas, rubber bullet and live rounds, multiple sources said. Another entry on Al Jazeera[9] directly says otherwise, writing: The Palestinian health ministry said nine Palestinians were killed by Israeli forces during protests across the occupied West Bank on Friday, and a sixth was killed during an attempt to stab an Israeli soldier near an illegal Israeli settlement in Yabad near Jenin. According to other sources: Five were killed after protesters started throwing stones at Israeli troops, while the sixth was shot after ramming his car into a military post and then trying to stab a soldier, officials said. 20:46, 10 May 2021 On its own, probably fine. Along with the rest, appears like POV pushing. 20:45, 10 May 2021 Ditto Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 30 December 2018 Violating 500/30 to edit ARBPIA. 4 January 2019 Block for violation following unblock 25 January 2019 Block for gaming extended confirmed If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Report updated slightly in [10]. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Whether Al Jazeera is biased or not is not key to this report. The issue is that it appears the editor made all this up. The edits claim that Israeli armed forces shot Palestinian civilians in the West Bank while they were in their homes, and for peaceful protests, and that "the occupation army" protected Israeli settlers as they attacked Palestinian homes. Simultaneously removing actually verifiable information e.g. about the knife, also contained in the same source the editor used. Both Al Jazeera and Ma'an, as well as other HQRS, contradict what the editor wrote. (Unless it's me who can't read sources today?) Surely the editors below don't think that the report is about a numbers issue of 10 killed vs 6 killed on a current events topic... The edits are a complete fabrication. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC) e: 19:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC) The assertion that the sources have changed their portrayal completely and that the edits were based on an old version of the source is difficult to believe. The archive here, from an earlier count, says Palestinian health officials say six Palestinians have been killed by Israeli army fire in the occupied West Bank. The officials say five were killed in stone-throwing clashes with Israeli forces in several locations, and a sixth was killed during an attempt to stab an Israeli soldier. This is before the figure was updated to 10. So are we seriously saying that Al Jazeera updated from "6 killed -> 5 throwing stones and a 6th trying to stab a soldier" to "10 killed -> they were all peacefully protesting and/or in their homes" and then reverted back to the original statement with the new count (without any notice of amendment)? Similar for the other source - Ma'an - which allegedly said that the IDF was protecting settlers as they attacked Palestinian homes, and then deleted that statement from their article? Incidentally, I read this source between the user's two edits, and it didn't say anything of the sort at that time either. Again, whereas the tone and phrasing are secondary POV concerns, the primary one is persistent addition of statements that are nowhere to be seen in the sources. This unverifiable statement remains in the current article's revision. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [11] Discussion concerning أمين 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 أمين You have included text supported by two sources but you claim to be biased. How is it biased? Is it because I said the occupation army? I put two sources, but you retrieved my amendment, because I settled with one. By blocking a lot of amendments, you are biased toward the Israeli side You could also create a discussion to guide me about the sources and how to choose them, not start blocking me just because I am an Arab. أمين (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Al-Jazeera appears to have modified the text it published, because it removed some words such as settlers and homes. this is not my fault. أمين (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I will be more careful in using sources next time. أمين (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I had been banned before, but it was for not knowing the encyclopedia's policies and being new. Now you are trying to block me. I wrote a text and placed two sources, one in Arabic, the another in English. It seems that Al-Jazeera has modified its text so that it becomes inconsistent with its text, and this created a problem. The goodwill I have in the amendment relieves me of these accusations and I am ready to improve my performance as I will hear advice from users below. Thanks. أمين (talk) 19:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC) I will do my best only to use English language sources in articles. thanks. أمين (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2021 (UTC) I will follow the advice you have put. أمين (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by selfstudier For the sake of clarity, the first line of AJ entry says "Al Jazeera is considered a generally reliable news organization." That there are "some editors" who think it is biased for the IP area is not relevant. The discrepancy in the figures above is because this is a fast moving current event and the casualty count has apparently been rising all day, it was reported as 4, then 6, 9 and now 10 and reports are frequently changed.Selfstudier (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I have updated the article with the latest report (11 fatalities now) and removed material not in the current source.Selfstudier (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy What WP:RSP says is Some editors say that Al Jazeera, particularly its Arabic-language media, is a partisan source with respect to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Not that there is any consensus that al-Jazeera is anything other than a RS. In fact, the actual consensus position is summed up in the green check mark showing generally reliable. Disliking an editors edits is not an arbitration violation and misusing this board to remove an opponent because they used a generally reliable, per consensus, source merits a boomerang in my opinion. Including what numerous reliable sources discuss about the fatalities (that they included nine children) is likewise not a violation of an arbitration decision, and reporting it here merits a boomerang in my opinion. nableezy - 19:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I will say that Ameen should take care not to import the POV of the sources here. The source uses "Israeli occupation forces", but we should be using "Israeli army" or "IDF" or some such thing. nableezy - 19:02, 14 May 2021 (UTC) ProcrastinatingReader, the Maan source does indeed call them the occupation forces, which is what I said Ameen should be careful in importing the POV of his sources. As far as the al-Jazeera piece, it's a live link thats constantly changing. Best to avoid using such links and find a stable url, but what it currently says is According to the Palestinian health ministry, 10 Palestinians were killed by Israeli fire, nine of them during confrontations. The Israeli army said that one of them was killed after he tried to attack Israeli settlers. nableezy - 19:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC) I dont see where the source support that the deaths were of people peacefully protesting or in their homes, and that is indeed concerning. I mostly object to the way that this was presented as though using al-Jazeera is an offense when it is a perfectly reliable source. Or the addition of the number of children killed which is well sourced to a number of places being some sort of POV violation. nableezy - 22:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning أمين This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Content related to ongoing armed conflict is something we must get right. Ameen's edits don't seem to properly represent the sources, so even if made in good faith this pattern needs to stop. Given previous blocks, I would recommend a topic ban from ARBPIA for at least 6 months. I'm assuming I shouldn't take unilateral action at AE, so I'm leaving this open for more comments. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:18, 17 May 2021 (UTC) To be fair, some of the previous blocks were possibly misunderstandings. Ameen was blocked for violating 500/30 twice, and they appear to have then made a whole bunch of edits to get themselves over the 500 requirement, perhaps not realizing that this would be considered gaming the system. However, using sources available only in Arabic makes it very difficult for editors who don't read Arabic to verify, so mistating even slightly, even inadvertently, what those sources say is extremely concerning. I hate to topic ban from ARBPIA yet, though. I'm not sure there's that level of disruption? Wugapodes, how would you feel about requiring Ameen to use only English sources in that topic? —valereee (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC) I'm reluctant to let this archive unresolved, but I've never closed an AE request before. —valereee (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Valereee, if you need some help with the closing procedures, please feel free to ask me. It's great to see some new names here. That said, I'm concerned with the proposed resolution of just using English-language sources. I think if an editor cannot be trusted to appropriately represent sources used in this area, they need to be removed from the area entirely. I would more tend to agree with Wugapodes' suggestion of a topic ban, though I'm not much of a fan of timed topic bans, rather leaving it up to the editor if and when to ask for restrictions to be lifted but requiring that they do actually make such a request. I've seen far too many editors "wait out" timed topic bans and get right back up to the same old not long after they expire. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC) @Seraphimblade, sorry, been out of pocket. Thanks, I appreciate the offer! I figured I'd read/watch/comment for a while before trying to do any closes. Re: this editor...the reason I thought maybe requiring only-English sources was that I'm wondering if this is more a case of mild/unintentional POV-pushing rather than actual intentional misrepresentation. What I mean is that أمين may "know" these were peaceful protests the same way many US conservatives "know" January 6th started out as a peaceful protest so that's what they write, even if when source doesn't actually call it that. Which is easily discovered when everyone at the talk can read the source in the original language, and easy to correct as long as the mild POV pushing is unintentional. But if Ameer is using sources most enwiki editors can't read, it's hard to verify what that source is actually saying. Allowing them to continue editing using only English sources lets us figure whether this is a chronic/intentional/more than mild issue. If we instead topic-ban, even indef, we miss the chance to determine whether this is something they can learn to stop doing. So in six months or a year, when they ask to have their restrictions lifted -- assuming they manage to avoid the trap of editing too closely, which for someone whose first language is Arabic is a pretty big trap -- we still won't know if they can edit productively in that area. Sorry for the wall of text. —valereee (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC) I'm having a hard time making sense of this. I've been looking at this Al Jezeera source [12] that was used in one of the edits, and it looks like one of those "live updates" pages that posts updates every hour as more news comes in. That makes me more inclined to believe أمين when they say the page changed after they edited. And from what I can tell the sources say that many Palestinians were killed by Israelis during protests and that Israelis have been shelling Palestinian homes. So the edit [13] saying "On 14 May 2021, the Israeli army and Israeli settlers killed 10 Palestinian civilians in the West Bank who were in peaceful demonstrations and others while they were in their homes." may be accurate. But I can't find support for the word "peaceful" in "peaceful demonstrations". (There was mention of violent protests though.) On time-limited vs. indefinite topic bans, I'm ok doing time-limited for the first, and then if the user just waits it out and goes back to problematic editing, it's easier to justify an indef. Given the "gaming" issue mentioned earlier, it might not hurt to give the user some extra time to gain more editing experience outside the most contentious area on Wikipedia. ~Awilley (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC) @Awilley, I do think it's possible, based on Ameer's responses here, that this is a well-intentioned new editor who simply has a point of view they believe is clearly correct. Like you, I'd recommend to all new editors that editing in contentious areas is a terrible idea until you're much more experienced. My advice to أمين would be that even if you don't end up topic-banned, go edit in areas that aren't contentious while you learn to edit, as you can get in huge trouble in those areas simply from ignorance. If you have questions about that, feel free to ping me to your user talk. —valereee (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC) That makes sense. I'm really fine with whatever you do in closing, including the English-only restriction you suggested above. ~Awilley (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Arminden

withdrawn —valereee (talk) 23:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
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 Arminden User who is submitting this request for enforcement Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Arminden (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 22:40, 3 June 2021 changing "Palestinian" to "Arab" for the description of the depopulated village of Al-Birwa Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 21 May 2015 Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alert, 18:02, 20 May 2021 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Calling the villages depopulated by Israel in 1948 for "Arab" or "Palestinian" has been a hotly contested area, which was resolved with this RfC: Talk:Kfar Ahim#RfC: Arab vs. Palestinian?: we shall call them "Palestinian". I was therefor disappointed with the above edit by Arminden, and when I asked him to revert link, he replies "I don't care about those tonnes of blabla. I won't revert whatever you do. Enjoy your crusade." link My 2 cents: editors in the IP area needs to follow the rules, also the rules that they do not agree with, Huldra (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Ok, if the present version of the article will stand (ie, Arminden (or anyone else) will not change it); then I withdraw this report. And I realise that reporting this might seem draconian to outsiders, but the IP area is one area where the attitude My way or the highway is really extremely unhelpful. Nobody is "above" the rules (Or: that "blabla"). cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning Arminden 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 Arminden Bad English (mine). Wrote that before going to sleep. Followed up on it now: "(ping) Huldra, I've written quite clearly: you can do as you like, I'm out of there, it's all yours. I've removed the star from that article, not getting any more notice when it's being changed." Do whatever you want = exactly that. I won't revert = I'm out, not interested in warring. I've stated what I think of it, don't care for more. Not the first time I'm doing this. Seriously sick of I/P crusaders of both camps and their dodged pitched battles. Not for me, life too short. Now I'm out of here, too. Do as you like. Statement by Shrike @Valereee: And why he should revert? he didn't broke any policy. There was a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on one page. That doesn't apply to all pages on Wikipedia --Shrike (talk) Statement by Nableezy The RFC question said This issue concerns all the Palestinian villages depopulated in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, and all the Israeli settlements which were built on their lands after 1948. ... Should these villages be called "Arab" or "Palestinian"? Or perhaps "Arab Palestinian"? I have argued that they should be called "Palestinian", as that is what their source say, and that is what is most unambiguous. Another editor (Number 57) has argued that ""Palestinian" is not a helpful term here because it does not clarify to the reader whether it was a Jewish or Arab village." Saying this was related to one specific article is specious. Arminden, I think most of us here respect your editing, but if youd like to challenge a settled consensus the method you should choose is a new RFC, not the take my ball and go home if your edit against the consensus of the current RFC is opposed. Just self-revert and engage on the talk page, I dont think most of us root for your uninvolving yourself in any article. nableezy - 21:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Whatever, I made a tweak that satisfies both concerns here. nableezy - 21:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Arminden This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Arminden, I think what you're saying here is that you won't revert your edit, but you also won't revert if someone else reverts yours? —valereee (talk) 19:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Ping Fix ping: Arminden —valereee (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC) Shrike, I'm just asking for clarification of what Arminden has posted, as it could be taken several ways: I won't revert my edit If someone reverts my edit, I won't revert them Both of the above —valereee (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Aquatic Ambiance

Aquatic Ambiance is topic banned from all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
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 Aquatic Ambiance User who is submitting this request for enforcement GorillaWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Aquatic Ambiance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Standard discretionary sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it MGTOW Aquatic Ambiance's contributions to the Men Going Their Own Way talk page (viewable at Talk:Men Going Their Own Way#Misogynist, but shows they stopped engaging on the talk page as of February 5, 2021) 08:57, 12 May 2021 changes lead sentence wording related to "misogynist", with the summary "One person cannot define a group." 10:39, 12 May 2021 same as above (revert) 17:31, 07 June 2021 removes "misogynistic" from lead sentence, with the summary "One person cannot define a group". 17:37, 07 June 2021 same as above (revert) Other pages 14:48, 18 May 2021 changes "Ideology" from "feminism" to "misandry" 10:24, 28 April 2021 adds "popularly known as OnlySimps" to lead sentence of OnlyFans (see simp if unfamiliar with the slang) Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above. Diff: [14] Additional comments by editor filing complaint In January/February 2021, Aquatic Ambiance joined a discussion on Talk:Men Going Their Own Way to discuss the inclusion of the term "misogynist" in the lead sentence of the article. Their last post to the discussion was on February 5, where they wrote "Anyway I won't bother with things like this anymore because I've promised myself not to waste time on discussions anymore, be it political or otherwise." The discussion ultimately failed to reach any consensus to change the wording, but Aquatic Ambiance has apparently decided to just try to slow-motion edit war the change in anyway. I'm only familiar with their edits through the MGTOW page. A quick perusal of their edits shows what appears to be generally productive editing* on articles about bands interspersed with vandalism on gender-related topics: for example, changing the infobox "ideology" field from "feminism" to "misandry" at Women's Equality Party, and adding "popularly known as OnlySimps" to the lead of OnlyFans. It seems pretty clear that this user has a strong antifeminist POV and is not able to edit in this topic area. *I haven't looked too closely at their COVID- and epidemic-related edits—from looking at their talk page there may be an issue there too, but that's outside the scope of this request. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [15] Discussion concerning Aquatic Ambiance 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 Aquatic Ambiance Statement by Jorm This user is simply not here to be productive. There's nothing more to say than that.--Jorm (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Here's an edit where they left the summary of redundant feminist nonsense.--Jorm (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by Sangdeboeuf Apparently one can "define a group" when it suits one's purposes to call a feminist political party "misandrist", while ignoring reliable sources. A.A. seems to be WP:NOTHERE to be productive in this topic area. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Aquatic Ambiance This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Fairly obvious gender & sexuality topic ban required here IMO. Edits in other areas look fine. Black Kite (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC) Agree with Black Kite. A couple of attempts to insert a POV in a single article would probably merit a warning but if all edits in the g&s area are problematic, as they appear to be here, then a topic ban is definitely in order. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC) This editor was properly notified of this case having been filed, and has edited since then, so apparently has chosen not to respond. Given that, proceeding with what we have here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)