Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:15, 25 October 2023

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

Scientelensia

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 Scientelensia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Drsmoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Scientelensia (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

Scientelensia has been accusing multiple users of bias/prejudice, which is uncivil and is very much against WP:AGF.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180168962 - “You may perhaps have a disconcerting bias in this regard.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180150707 - “Even if you do not like Palestinians, you must see that this scale of death, whoever caused it, is a tragedy. The image of the man shows that not all Israelis oppose Palestine. And also, what is wrong with being “ultra-Orthodox”? You sound like you may hold a prejudice in this regard; if so, please say why, if not, I issue my apologies.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180150468 - “You seem to have an anti-Palestinian bias.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180149986- “You seem to have a heavy bias.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180071513 - “I find your actions deeply troubling and also simply wrong.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180067500 -“Also, your opinion seems to be highly biased.”

I advised them to strike their comments, but Scientelensia ignored me and continued calling users biased.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180229378 - “I never objectively said that they had a bias, only that they ‘seemed’ biased, ‘perhaps’ had a bias or ‘may’ have held a bias. Thus, I am not stating 100% that these people are biased, because how would I know?”

And then resumed calling users biased

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180231991 -“People only removes the ones here because of their seemingly biased views.”

Edit: Re Iskandar323, I’m confused by your comment. You said I didn’t speak with Scientelensia, yet my conversation with them, where I advised them to strike their comments, as well as their response, is included in this filing. Not only that, you linked to it in your post where you tagged Nableezy.

Edit:Iskandar323, I recommend reading through that thread you’re linking to, as well as the admin warning of a boomerang.

Edit: Nableezy, can you explain why you’re linking to an outdated diff that was very quickly struck/clarified within about 10 minutes? Doing so is very misleading.Drsmoo (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scientelensia#c-Drsmoo-20231015173000-Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion

Discussion concerning Scientelensia

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 Scientelensia

You can see my innocence from the excerpts; I have tried to contribute positively but this user has brought me into a needless situation. I would in fact call into question the user (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Drsmoo_and_WP:BATTLEGROUND_behaviour) who reported me and their actions. Also, if you actually view the contents of the diffs, you can see that I am actually right although I know now I should not have said so. The stuff the opposing people on there were saying was much worse: I have been taken out of context (!).

Context will prove that I have only been trying to do good. See the talk page on the ‘genocide against Palestinians’ to see this. People are always going to argue on Wikipedia, but by impassioned discussion the best result can be produced.

I believe everyone has a bias, and if I can discern people’s I will say so. Once people overcome their prejudices editing is easier. I obviously have bias too as everyone does, so if they tell me it is only for my benefit, regardless of the way in which it is said.

I suspect that Drsmoo’s annoyance with me is the product of our different stances on how to run the page. Drsmoo has perhaps been engaging in off-putting and hypocritical editing for some time (e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive76), though this may be a significant stretch. Glances at the talk page and SJ’s talk page show that I have been acting in a good and productive manner. I take Seraphimblade’s comments and will learn from them.

On Kathy Hochul, user Muboshgu says I have a “pro-Palestinian bias”. Firstly, by the rules which have just been explained to me, one should not say these things. Secondly, I used a reliable source and this is what it said. Just because an affair in one side, does not always mean it is biased. In the source, there is nothing to say that Hochul said bad things about Israeli Americans: just because the sentence was not in favour of Israelis, does not mean that there was an unfair bias against them. That the content was re-added suggests that it was useful and relevant and unbiased and that a consensus was reached on this, and thus that the revert was unnecessary and even plain wrong.

I strongly reject the unfair characterisation that I am biased. Since I first saw the page on the alleged genocide, I have tried hard to maintain a stance of neutrality where others have not. For instance, I was the one who added these sourced sentences: “The characterization has been rejected by many, but not all, Israelis.”, “Some Israelis reject the characterization of genocide, saying such accusations are antisemitic.”. I also modified the phrase “Both Israel and Palestine frequently accuse the other of planning a scheme of genocide.” I also added a rejection of characterisation section which was removed. I have also made sure that it was clear that it was not an official genocide by using language such as ‘argues’, ‘claim’, ‘belief’, ‘characterisation’ and ‘seems’:

“Genocide against Palestinians is a characterization of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict which argues that Israel has carried out and/or is carrying out some kind of genocide against the Palestinian population, sometimes related to the view that Israel is a settler colonial state. The view also includes the belief that the system with which Israel governs the Palestinians is one of racial segregation and apartheid. The characterization has been rejected by many, but not all, Israelis.”

Neutrality has always been important to me, which is probably why I pointed out people’s biases, though this was wrong. My conduct on the talk pages may have been wrong on parts yet I am willing to make amends and I believe that I have never contributed badly or destructively in this topic. So while users such as User: Muboshgu will call me biased and others such as User:HJ Mitchell will find this concerning, I refute this strongly. If anything, I believe that throughout the page’s construction, others, possibly including the person who referred me here (hypocrite anyone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180084227?), have been acting very much worse than me with more one-sided edits and wild accusations such as ‘blood libel’ (can’t remember who that was) in the talk page. I feel that in receiving a punishment I am the victim of a collective punishment. This is wrong. I admit I was naive when I received a harsh (as admitted by the person who gave it to me) GENSEX ban, and it is in my opinion wrong to bring it into the result.

Please hear my case.

Edit: sorry if my statement is too long, this was not intended.

Fair enough on that. I take that point. Also, I invited you to read my statement which proves that I have considered my conduct and found some of it wanting. What you say is in part hurtful and not true, and I’d like you to consider how your message came across. Please read my full statement and do not let that one mistake of mine (my only defence is that I was driven to this by a harsh ban and was sad about how things turned out with this editor who seems to bear something against me despite their own questionable conduct which you have not addressed) make up your entire definition of me. Also, I’ve put so much time into this site, making a list of articles much better and more expansive as you can see on my talk page (User:Scientelensia). I have also created a good page. I’ve put so much effort into this that I would really be sad to be banned because of one desperate mistake when I am being the only one out of a collective group being punished :(

Yes, I have done some wrong but looking on the Genocide against Palestinians page you can see that others who are not being punished our doing much worse. I’m anxious of a result and quite unhappy as I believe I deserve another chance and believe that the user who referred me here may also be in the wrong (see all the statements above).

Please read my statement… Scientelensia (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Moved from uninvolved admins' section. Threaded discussion is not permitted at AE, please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

First off, yes. Scientelensia would do well do curb their accusations of bias. We all have bias, we all know it (hopefully), and though this is plainly obvious, constantly accusing other editors of bias does not adhere to AGF or general principles of civility and is a distraction from the activity of actually editing. At the same time, I find it disheartening that Drsmoo would raise this AE just two months after being cautioned in an extremely similar filing Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive321#Nishidani. Drsmoo also does not appear to have attempted to have a single conversation with the accused on their talk prior to this AE filing. It is worth noting that most of these comments by the accused come in the context of one of several fraught discussions at Talk:Genocide against Palestinians, where the editor that launched the thread spoke of "blatant Hamas propaganda", in which context it is rather obvious that the discussion is awash with bias, with hardly a need to mention it. As noted here by Nableezy, what Drsmoo has avoided mentioning is the rather extreme tone of the discussions on the page, with claims of antisemitism and blood libel letting fly in all directions. This does not mitigate the point that personal accusations of bias are to be avoided, but the context here is an exceptionally bias-fraught discussion. The user, who is relatively new, and I believe very new to the space, just needs to internalize their thoughts here and allow the transparent bias is such topic areas to speak for itself without the need to descend to commentary on individual editors. The issue here is a mundane behavioural one that could have been addressed at ANI and may require a slap on the wrist, but it does not rise to the level of an AE-worthy prosecution. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo: I said on their talk page, which is usually the first port of call. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For other installments of Drsmoo's WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, please see the dedicated ANI section that was opened a day before this AE thread, and this other attempt to prosecute other editors today through the abuse of the admin help template. The pattern that emerges from all of this is not a problem with other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by nableezy

That entire talk page is full of accusations of racism, blood libel (!), antisemitism, and bias. Drsmoo said he did not see those instances, which kind of surprises me as he responded in a thread that opened with an accusation it was made (by Buidhe for the record) in "abuse of power in order to manipulate public opinion regarding current Israel-Hamas war. Raises serious concerns regarding potential political motives that seeks to legitimize Hamas actions against Israelis." All users should focus on the article content, but this selective outrage is just too much. Given something like this remains on the talk page with no admonishment to be found.

Oh and, eyeroll emoji. nableezy - 15:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You changed it to "ones biases", not sure I see anywhere that was struck. The point is accusations of bias are common, including occasionally by your good self. They dont necessitate running here when actual accusations of straight up racism and blood libel are being bandied about without an eyebrow being batted. nableezy - 16:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Muboshgu

I just reverted an edit by this user exhibiting their pro-Palestinian bias on Kathy Hochul.[1] They may not be able to participate in Israeli/Palestinian articles and discussions on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

To play devil's advocate, Scientelensia is a somewhat(?) new editor who made their first edit on November 13 of last year.[2] It's possible that they don't understand things like WP:AGF and that they should address article content, not editor's conduct or suspected motivations. Perhaps a warning and an explanation of why their conduct was lacking might be in order? (That's assuming that they are willing to listen and learn.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Less of the bias stuff would be good. Afaics, the edit referred to by Muboshgu has been reintroduced and is not something I would get overly excited about on its own. As for being provocative take a look at the filer here. A warning is sufficient I think. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Scientelensia

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

The conduct here might merit a warning – but really, I think NOTFORUM is just being trampled on up and down the page. Just to spitball, is there something a consensus of admins here can do to enforce talk page standards? All the discussion around vague accusations of non-neutrality where no one is actually focused on proving it (by showing that the current set of sources constitute undue weight) seems to be making discussion of the article unproductive. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron Ideally, we should just be removing junk comments as soon as they're posted and if necessary warning or sanctioning editors. We can create an edit notice for the talk page with {{notaforum}}. Quick and decisive action is the best way to keep it under control in my experience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly concerned that Scientelensia seems to be stating that they intend to continue making the personalized remarks. I very much agree that they have not been the only offender in that regard, and that perhaps a more general solution for that talk page (maybe limiting each editor to a certain number of posts per discussion?) may also be necessary. But, Scientelensia, maybe you intend your "just sayin'" type remarks to be helpful in some way, but they are clearly not being received like that and will need to stop. I'm concerned that if you don't intend to do that, we'll very shortly find ourselves back here if we just issue a warning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu's diff is concerning. Casually labelling other editors "biased" while making blatantly one-sided edits like that shows either an intent to disrupt or a remarkable lack of self awareness, either of which is incompatible with editing in a contentious topic. I also note that Scientelensia is already subject to a GENSEX topic ban so they should be even more careful. An indef ARBPIA-wide topic ban might be a little over the top but I don't think we can wrap this up without some sort of tangible sanction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scientelensia I'm very confused. How on Earth did you find a a nearly-fourteen-year old complaint about the filer at a noticeboard that hasn't existed for over a decade? And what do you think it proves, except possibly that your battleground mentality drives you to dig up ancient dirt on your opponents instead of considering that there may be issues with your own conduct? If you really can't see the problem with the content you added to a biography of a living person, then I question not just whether you should be editing the Arab-Israeli topic area but whether you should be editing Wikipedia at all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron and @Seraphimblade FYI, I've brought this back from the archive. As I said on my talk page, if we're not going to get a consensus among us for anything more than a logged warning then I'll support that, but I do feel the conduct here rises to the level that some sort of action is necessary, especially considering that Scientelensia has been sanctioned in another contentious topic already. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will not object to something like a topic ban from the area, or at least a section of it. I was quite unimpressed by the initial response here, which basically amounted to "Well, I'll keep doing it anyway", and with that on top of already having received one sanction, I don't think a lot of leeway is called for. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was also rather dismayed by the conduct I saw here. If you want to put down a topic ban, I think that's reasonable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cukrakalnis

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 Cukrakalnis

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Marcelus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Cukrakalnis (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:CT/EE

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

[3] – removal of Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force from the category "Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany"
[4] – same for Święciany massacre committed by Lithuanian police in German service
[5]]- same for Lithuanian TDA Battalion
[6] – same for Category: Lithuanian Auxiliary Police; Essentially, C rebuilt the category tree so that most Lithuanian units collaborating with Nazi Germany are not directly in Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany but in Category:Generalbezirk Litauen, which is the name of the occupying German administrative unit.
[7], series of edits in which C removed any information about LTDF collaboration with Nazi Germany, notice the change of text from “LTDF was subordinate to the authorities of Nazi Germany” to “LTDF was disbanded for being insubordinate to the authorities of Nazi Germany” ([8]), while both are true, one shouldn’t replace the other.
[9] in this edit C also removed the attribution of the statement that 983 LTDF soldiers were sent to the Oldenburg concentration camp to the historian Arūnas Bubnys, although this information only appears in his older works (it does not appear in more recent works), and is not repeated by any other researcher of LTDF history. In general, the existence of the Oldenburg camp is questionable. In general, I noticed that much of this edition is a verbatim copy of a machine translation of Bubnys article ([10]) which I reported to WP:CPN (from words "On 23-24 November 1943" to "with military units assigned to them").
[11] - removal of Category:Lithuanian collaborators with Nazi Germany from article on LTDF commander Povilas Plechavičius
[12] - removal of link to article on the unit's collaboration with the Germans
[13] – Cukrakalnis introduced a change in which he stated that Yad Vashem claims that “the Lithuanian Provisional Government 'did not encourage brutal actions' against Jews and that only high-ranking Communist officials and members of the NKVD were supposed to be punished by death”. In fact, this was a misrepresentation (combining the description of LAF and PG activities) of the words of Lithuanian historian Vygantas Vareikis, published in a work by Yad Vashem.
[14], removal of information of 259th Lithuanian Schutzmannschaft Battalion allegiance to Nazi Germany
[15], same for 258th
[16], same for 256th
[17], same for 10th
[18]: trying to talk to C about these changes is very difficult. In this conversation I asked for the reinstatement of allegaince to Nazi Germany in the infoboxes of Lithuanian Schutzmannschaft Battalions quoting the source. C replied "fixed" pointing to his edit where he added the parameter "branch = Ordnungspolizei" ([19]). When I pointed out that I was advocating addition of the parameter "allegiance = Nazi Germany", he replied: "It was not part of the Wehrmacht, so adding Ordnungspolizei is more accurate", completely ignoring the thing I asked for. Typical example of WP:NOTGETTINGIT.
[20]: C makes also WP:PERSONAL attacks against me. For example: “you just want to demonize it as 'collaborationist'", "Your shameful attempts, shameful behaviour on your part”, “your incessant questioning of the numbers provided by one of the foremost Lithuanian experts on the matter, Arūnas Bubnys, whose given information you even accused as 'fringe' in this edit, which is absolutely shameful behaviour on your part” show lack of ability to remain level-headed in this topic.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[21], C was blocked in the past, and promised to “cease engaging in ethno-nationalist and homophobic provocations on Wikipedia” and dedicate himself to “purely to editing military and neutral history”.

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

Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 15:57, 28 March 2023.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In my opinion edits undertaken by Cukrakalnis, are incompatible with the spirit of Wikipedia and calculated to hide inconvenient historical facts that he does not favor. And due to the fact that I am one of the few editors who monitors this area, I am concerned that they may go unnoticed. I have had disputes with C in the past on various topics, and while I have not always found his edits to be the best, I consider his edits on the topic of collaboration with Nazi Germany to be particularly alarming, as the misrepresentations made on this topic is in my opinion especially harmful. Still, I think C is capable of giving a lot in other areas.

Apologies, that's my mistake I understood that I had to say what remedy to put on Cukrakalnis, I am deleting this from "Sanction or remedy to be enforced", just to be clear: he does not have this TBan now Marcelus (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C fails to mention that he himself made Category:Generalbezirk Litauen subset of Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany (15:46, 20 March 2023). He did so day after the creation of Category:Massacres in Lithuania during World War II (20:54, 19 March 2023‎) and three minutes before making changes in categories of Święciany massacre (15:49, 20 March 2023). Thus, the whole explanation that he made them "upon seeing that the article already had Category:Generalbezirk Litauen, which was the subset of Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany" sounds insincere, since he himself, after all, created such a category structure 3 minutes earlier.

Moreover, he did not take an analogous step with respect to other German occupation administrative units. Besides, just putting this category there makes no sense: it suggests that Generalbezirk Litauen itself was part of the Lithuanian collaboration. When I challenged this move C stated: "The Lithuanian Auxiliary Police, Lithuanian Security Police, etc., were subordinated to Generalbezirk Litauen. The Generalbezirk itself is clearly part of Lithuanian collaboration." ([22]), which makes no sense in the regard of WP:PARENTCAT and is also factually incorrect, but that's other matter.

Also untrue, is what C says, that "allegiance tag is supposed to be used if the unit is part of the armed forces of a sovereign country", because Template:Infobox military unit clearly says something opposite: "allegiance - optional - Used to indicate the allegiance of units which are not part of the regular armed forces of a sovereign state".

It is also not true that I expect a ban for C, I consider him a difficult to cooperate with but useful editor, just in my opinion he is unable to remain objective on the topic of Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany, so I think he should withdraw from editing in this space. I apologize for the length of the comment.Marcelus (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to read @Elinruby's comments. It seems that they has not familiarised themselves with the diffs. I do not understand the accusation of WP:IDHT and also the whole lecture about collaboration seems unnecessary. This is not a discussion about content, but about C's conduct. I am also not comfortable being called a "blockhead".Marcelus (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: this is not a dispute about content, I can handle that on a t/p, but only if the other side is interested in a proper dispute. The problem is that Cukrakalnis isn't such person, diff No. 14 is one of many proofs of that.

@Elinruby: I have never had a blood feud with anyone, I have never tried to impose my world view on anyone, all my edits have solid support in the sources.

@Ostalgia: I do not feel antipathy towards Cukrakalnis. Nor do I feel that I stand on a completely different position from him. I don't stand on any positions at all. I write about things that interest me (which may give the impression of "taking a position"), I am guided in my edits by objective knowledge and RS. I prepared this report to present C's actions on the subject of wartime collaboration in Lithuania, which I feel are aimed at hiding inconvenient facts and minimizing the size of this collaboration. The second issue is a complete lack of cooperation, confrontational discussion on t/p, removal of sourced information, gaming the system to block edits that C does not like. What disappoints me in the entries of those commenting is the complete lack of reference to these diff. This calls into question the relevance of AE as a tool at all.

I don't know what purpose an IBAN on me would serve. On the one hand, I am encouraged to start discussions on t/p, on the other hand, I am threatened with IBAN for conducting them. Look at this my non-confrontational attempt to start discussion about changes in the article ([23]), the answer ([24]) is immediatelly hostile: "You are very obviously pushing a POV", "It is absolutely false and misleading to claim", "Your shameful attempts" etc. it ruins a discussion before it started. Another example ([25]) is me asking to restore Wikiproject:Poland, and answer ([26]): "You do have to realize that Lithuanian history is not a subset of Polish history and that Lithuanians are not Poles". The feeling I never once expressed. How you can possibly conduct reasonable discussion in such atmosphere? Marcelus (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: Let me quote a Lithuanian researcher Justina Smalkyté: The Local Force (Litauische Sonderverbände, Vietine ̇rinktine)̇ , set up in the spring of 1944 by the Nazis, was another collaborationist military formation with a distinctively Lithuanian character, which, unlike the auxiliary police battalions, did not participate in the mass murder of Jews. You insist on using the distinction that one researcher has proposed for Vichy, and completely ignore the nomenclature used by researchers dealing with Lithuanian collaboration. And not Polish researchers, which is what a lot of people strenuously try to impute to me, that I represent "official Polish historiography," in fact I very rarely reach for Polish researchers. "Zero evidence in the body" is largely due to the fact that C purged the article of such content, but nevertheless the article still describes the circumstances of the formation and activities of the LTDF, which shows the extend of collaboration. I've never touched on the subject of concentration camp guard units, so I don't know where this came from. In general, your comments on me are very emotional, aggressive even, combined with the deletion of my comments on t/p, makes me doubt your impartiality on this issue.Marcelus (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: But I never claimed that every LAP battalion took an active part in the Holocaust. With regard to these units, I only advocated the reinstatement of the "allegiance" parameter with the value "

Nazi Germany, which Cukrakalnis removed; I did not raise the subject of the Holocaust or collaboration with regard to them, so I am surprised why you bring this issue up.Marcelus (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: I'm not even arguing at you, I'm just trying to understand what's your point.Marcelus (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

Discussion concerning Cukrakalnis

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 Cukrakalnis

Yes, I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. --Marcelus (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Marcelus already wrongly reported me a year ago - on 8 July 2022. Marcelus' WP:GRUDGE has not ceased over the past two years. Last year, to stop any problems caused by the problematic interactions with Marcelus, I asked for an IBAN, which was not granted. Almost a full year later, other users already noticed that the interpersonal dynamic is problematic: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#Cukrakalnis and Marcelus' history of incivility/bickering towards each other (submitted by a user now renamed User:Prodraxis). Just a month before this, User:Ostalgia said I think the sanction applied by Tamzin is proportional to the infraction, and just want to point out that this is the nth case involving Marcelus and Cukrakalnis. Given the huge overlap between Lithuanian and Polish history, and the evident bad blood between them, perhaps a 2-way IBAN could help prevent further disruption.. [28] Here we go again, another case by Marcelus against me.

I see nothing wrong in me following Wikipedia's rules and removing WP:PARENTCATs in articles where they were superfluous. Category:Generalbezirk Litauen is already a subset of Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany. Thus, it follows that I should remove the parent cat in favour of the more specific category. It is absolutely unfair to characterize me as trying to deny Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany, because I myself created Category:Lithuanian Security Police officers which I clearly tagged Category:Lithuanian collaborators with Nazi Germany. Furthermore, this was just a part of my broader effort to help in the work on collaboration with the Axis Powers in World War II - I was cleaning up the category tree to make sure that categories would be as precise as possible and to remove cases where there were superfluous parent categories. Here are a few cases out of the many many edits that I did: [29], [30], [31], etc. Please note: I received a barnstar User:Cukrakalnis#For intelligent discussion and content creation in the area of Collaboration with the Axis Powers, so clearly my contributions are according to Wikipedia's rules and it is only Marcelus that mistakenly finds fault where there is none.

The cases that Marcelus tries to use as proof against me only show that I was following Wikipedia's rules. E.g. with Święciany massacre [32] - I had created the Category:Massacres in Lithuania during World War II and that is why I had to remove a few categories that were the parent cat of the newly-created one I had just created. Upon seeing that the article already had Category:Generalbezirk Litauen, which was the subset of Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany, why would it make sense to keep a superfluous category ? It doesn't, so that's why I removed it. Regarding the Nazi Germany thing in the allegiance of those battalions - Marcelus omits that the allegiance tag is supposed to be used if the unit is part of the armed forces of a sovereign country. Instead, the units we were dealing with were all auxiliary police units, thus not part of the Wehrmacht - Nazi Germany's armed forces. Overall, Marcelus just wants to ban me because we disagree.

Either way, Marcelus' actions and report go directly against the spirit of the conditions on which his block was lifted not even 2 weeks before today (Marcelus' block log here). Marcelus went against the strong recommendations of administrators like User:Z1720: I strongly recommend that Marcelus stay away from the articles that caused the controversies, at least for a couple of weeks or months. [33] and even his assigned mentor User:Piotrus: try to stay away from any controversies in the Polish-Lithuanian topics, or any controversies in general, as it is too easy to make a bad edit in such articles [34]. Did Marcelus listen? No! Marcelus plunged back into the controversial topics that got him banned in the first place and even tries to get me banned instead (seemingly his ultimate goal, considering his long-term behaviour of the past few years).

Apologies for the infrequent editing the past few days (which will continue into the future), because I am busy with matters in my life.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 137.22.90.18

Searching on WP:EDR, WP:AEL and in the AE archives doesn't give any topic ban for Cukrakalnis. While I'm going to assume that there is one, could you provide a diff of the sanction for other users to review Marcelus? Otherwise, if there isn't a link to an alleged TBAN, I think that this could still be handled at AE (Eastern Europe is a contentious topic), but discussing admins should note the lack of evidence for the TBAN. The linked unblock discussion also does not appear to be specifically about the alleged TBAN topic. 137.22.90.18 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Darkfrog24

Hi. Not involved in the conflict, never met these editors before. Just checking the diffs: 1) [35]Yes, this user removed the category "Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany." 2) Added cat "Massacres in Lithuania during World War II" in a context that does involve Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany. To save space, I'll say that I checked every diff, and I believe any reasonable person would conclude that all of them are indeed related to Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany in some way. Some are categoires, some are content, one is a talk page post, and some are change descriptions, but every diff is related to that concept. So even if this topic ban has a carve-out that allows C to change article categories, say, there would still be enough here to be worth considering. The issue is, as anon137 says, whether there is a topic ban in force. Could it have been one set years ago that's since expired? Has C's username changed since it was placed?

I do not believe that the diff on line 15 rises to the point of a personal attack. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plugging Cukrakalnis into the "search for sanctions" bar produces no results.[36] Using Cukrakalnis as a term to search the page history shows Cukrakalnis commenting on other cases.[37] Marcelus and Cukrakalnis have interacted here before: [38] Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the archives of C's talk page for notices of arb discussions concerning him and only found this: Arbitration case about Pahonia But it seems C used to be called "Itzhak Rosenberg." Also no logged sanctions under that name:[39] Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Marcellus has cleared up the confusion... My conclusion is that the diffs above show C moving articles away from "Here's how the Lithuanians collaborated with the Nazis" and closer to "The Lithuanians did not collaborate with the Nazis." At the time, I figured C was a Lithuanian who wanted to distance that country from the Nazis because C recognizes Nazis as evil. I get the impression that Marcellus believes the articles were more accurate before C changed them. I did not check the posted sources to see which of these positions is more verifiable because that's not supposed to matter. If there's a policy here, it's WP:VERIFIABILITY, but I don't know if anyone violated it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was following Wikipolicy on WP:PARENTCATs: 'an article should be categorised under the most specific branch in the category tree possible, without duplication in parent categories above it'. Category:Generalbezirk Litauen is already a subset of Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany. It is absolutely unfair to characterize me as trying to deny Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany, because I myself created Category:Lithuanian Security Police officers which I clearly tagged Category:Lithuanian collaborators with Nazi Germany. Clearly, if I had been trying to distort history into claiming that no Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany took place, I would not have done that. But I was never denying any historical facts and this is just the latest of Marcelus' reports against me. See my statement for the bigger picture of this situation. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Piotrus

Sigh. I'd offer mediation again but I don't think I have the time, will, or sufficient neutrality for it to work (since I am Polish as well). Ping User:Elinruby for their thoughts (sorry for dragging you into this... but hey, there is a tiny chance they may want to offer to mediate more themselves - they have done so recently more than me at Talk:Lithuanian_Territorial_Defense_Force). Other than that, I am at a loss whether edits by those two users are problematic enough to warrant a topic or interaction ban (newsflash: I don't like sanctioning folks if there is a chance to work things out peacefully per WP:HERE). Is the content improving? If so, then this is more smoke then flame. But are both parties improving things equally? This would require a more in-depth review than we seem to want to do, leaving us with the choice of doing nothing, or doing something, both of which could .be wrong. If nothing jumps out, well, there's time-sanctioned concept of more WP:ROPE I guess. PS. Regarding content improvement, I will note that there is a copyvio issue that came to my attention recently. See here for my analysis. How widespread is the problem I have no idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elinruby

I just suggested to Marcelus last night a search for other sources not in either Polish or Lithuanian, and proposed some definitions of collaboration, which is not as obvious as it apparently seems to some. It is largely unsourced OR overall in the many many European WW2 articles, from what I have seen.

Marcelus, if you were polishing diffs while I was explaining Stanley Hoffman vs Bertram Gordon vs Fabrice Grenard [fr]... dude, miss me with the time-wasting stuff next time you've already decided to do something like this. I don't need help finding stuff to do, at all, I despise drama, and this was not a good idea. You should withdraw this complaint if they let you.

General comments

It is just not that simple in the case of the LDF, and "collaborationism" is wrong even if somebody does keep adding it where it doesn't belong, all over ww2. LDF fighters were not French, or a government, and if they were recruited at gunpoint they probably didn't sign up for ideological reasons or to kill Jews. Rene Bousquet and the Charlemagne Regiment were collaborationists, ok? Lots on the LDf talk page about this
consider a boomerang for IDHT
I haven't looked yet at the police unit's page. If this unit, not just other units like it, indeed guarded a concentration camp, good enough for me, Marcelus can call them Nazis all he wants as far as I am concerned. But fyi the Nuremberg tribunal decided not to try such soldiers unless evidence existed that they personally had done more wrong than just belong to a unit
A better and more recent taxonomy than the three I know (Sorbonne explainer)and/or other sources possibly not dreamt of in their philosophy might maybe have avoided all this. I would like to know if Marcelus even looked those links at all. (I forgot Julian Jackson at the time btw)
I think they are both too invested in this one unit that the Germans thought they had for a couple of months.
I suggest Marcelus be required to cite Lithuanian history texts, and Cukrakalnis Polish. There seems to be a divergence in the history taught in those two countries. Something fundamental like who did the killing exactly. The idea needs work but might help. Topic ban optional
Both very good editors if they can just get over WW2 and worry about the next batch of fascists
I gave *each* of these blockheads a barnstar for teamwork (with personalized wording) and they each deserved them for some really great work on the collaboration article. I know it's hard to believe that right now
The collaboration category tree was a huge mess the last time I looked, mostly about enterprise software. I did indeed discuss this with Cukrakalnis. The artcle's page moves didn't help and the Collaborators category is still about 20-30% people found not guilty of collaboration. Edits there may be legit, would need to look and I can't just this second
if there really is a big copyvio, I can't defend that, and the explanation better be really really good. I need to be away for several hours and will check for any questions when I'm back

TL;DR probably worth the effort but man...totally counterproductive dramah...Elinruby (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I announced yesterday that I would have limited availability for a couple of days. I have a few minutes now, but I am out of words and speechless besides.

Marcelus' mentor asked me to look at this dispute and Marcelus brought it here instead, while I was trying to explain to him that there are many historiographies. Cukrakalnis on the other hand responded to my effort to mediate and signed on to one of my proposals to resolve this particular manifestation of clashing dogmas. The Collaboration parent category and article is a ridiculous mess guarded by people who like that. I didn't know that Cukrakalnis was working on the category, he knew what happened to me and good for him for trying anyway.

@Piotrus: if he can't hear me I can't help, sorry. But I will say as an aside that "blockhead" is a very fine word for people intent on validating every negative stereotype out there of the official Polish historiography.

@Marcelus: I looked at your diffs. Too bad you didn't look at my links. I gave you that barnstar because I was impressed that you didn't do this stuff at Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. I thought you had grown since your blood feud over a coat of arms. I see now that I was wrong about that, and the lack of strife was simply that you and Cukrakalnis were working in different sections of the article. If that is the way forward here, then you are with this filing asking AE to impose your worldview on Lithuania, and should get back into your own lane. While I have with my eyes open gotten sanctioned for defending you in the past when you were right, I refuse to do so again here, where you are extremely wrong.

Without reference to the details of whether getting gang-pressed constitutes collaboration, or whether that is in fact what happened, I hereby repudiate your insistence that there is a single correct view of World War II. If this were NPOVN I would tell you that we explain controversy; we don't censor everything but a single historiography deemed correct. And as an aside, "blockhead" is a very fine word for people who get the people trying to accommodate them into trouble and I am not the only editor you have done that to. Sorry, Piotrus. I really did try.

To whoever is clerking, I apologize for not asking for more words but I don't know how soon I will be able to get back online. Probably not before tomorrow at the soonest. Feel free to do whatever seems best. Elinruby (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I share the fatigue Ostalgia is expressing. But would these articles get written under an i-ban? That's a real question, not rhetoric. The history of World War II really should have coverage, and this deadlock has gone on for months. Marcelus claims above to always go by sources, addressing this to me. And so I have in the past believed. But in the current dispute he insisted that the lede and the infobox of a military unit contain the word "collaborationist", a misuse of the word that he refuses to acknowledge, and aside from that, an appellation based on zero evidence in the body of the article and one single source that said that *other* police units had guarded concentration camps. Yet he was convinced enough of the rightness of his cause to bring this complaint. He shouldn't be trying to edit Lithuania, or to police anyone else's editing in the area, is my conclusion. I suggest widening the pool of sources and writing the body of the articles first as the way forward to whoever writes this, and good luck to that person. Elinruby (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ostalgia I did say that. Elinruby (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus is imputing an "all" into general statements about "Lithuanian police auxiliary units". Units 12 and 13 were definitely involved in the Holocaust and possibly other units as well. Unit 258 however was a training unit that existed for three months and possibly never saw action. Lithuanian Auxiliary Police battalions says it was not involved in the Holocaust, btw. When I tried to mediate this dispute, I asked for and did not see a reference that says that it did participate, or any other cooperation from Marcelus for that matter. I don't understand why the drama about such a small topic but it's longstanding at this article in particular. if there is an itch to sanction, I can definitely understand that. It should be both if anything, though. Cukrakalnis was definitely uncivil, and Marcelus still doesn't hear that, and is definitely using AE against an opponent. To allow for the possibility of constructive editing, maybe make the topic "Lithuania in WW2" rather than EE. Or page block them both, better yet. Wikipedia can survive without an article about this unit for a while longer. Elinruby (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus this is pointless. You have been arguing about that tiny little topic for months and months. Also, it isn't one historian, btw. Multiple people have built on Hoffman. But that isn't about you and Cukrakalnis, just an example of IDHT, irrelevant to whether allegations of Nazi allegiance justify a loss of temper after they go on for these many months. I think they might, but it isn't up to me. Did you ever find a source about this unit, not some units? Did you look? OK then. What was it that you expected to happen here? Sources are sources even at AE. Over and out. Elinruby (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ostalgia

We were here a month ago with these two in what I described as the nth case involving them. I guess this is n +1. Both are active users, both can contribute to the encyclopedia, but they stand on completely opposite positions and edit in an area that is not only conflictive in general, but also work on and around topics on which there's significant overlap (Polish and Lithuanian history are deeply intertwined). Their antipathy towards one another is evident and intractable. Last month I suggested a 2-way IBAN and I still believe that, whatever else is decided here, the IBAN rises to the level of a necessity at this point. Ostalgia (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby - you said to Marcelus that I thought you had grown since your blood feud over a coat of arms. I see now that I was wrong about that, and the lack of strife was simply that you and Cukrakalnis were working in different sections of the article (bolding mine). This is, hopefully, something that the IBAN could accomplish. Of course, it will not solve the underlying problem, but at the very least would delineate spheres of "non-intervention" that should, I hope, minimise conflict and force each of these editors to stay in their lane. Is it a perfect solution? Far from it. But perfect is the enemy of good. Ostalgia (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cukrakalnis

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

@Marcelus: You don't specify which contentious topic this relates to (I'm assuming Eastern Europe) and it's not obvious that Cukrakalnis is aware of the restrictions. Can you show that they are aware? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see an attempted informing in the filter logs, but it looks like the edit was never saved after the “are you sure you want to notify this user?” message was displayed. Courcelles (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the diff, Marcelus. As far as I'm concerned, that clearly demonstrates that Cukrakalnis is aware of the contentious topic procedure and this request can proceed as such. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to dismiss this as a content dispute, though both parties could make better of the talk page and ask for outside input if they can't work things out themselves. Enforcement is not the answer to disagreements over content. It can be useful if one party refuses to allow a consensus to form or refuses to abide by it but I don't think we're at that point. It can also be useful if someone is misrepresenting the source material, but I've seen no evidence of that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I don't agree that this is just a content dispute. This diff (Your shameful attempts...absolutely shameful behaviour on your part...you don't care, because what matters to you is your OR) is the clearest example, but it seems pretty much every conversation between Marcelus and Cukrakalnis breaks down into unproductive back-and-forths very quickly, with Cukrakalnis's behavior coming across as especially unimpressive: just read this discussion, this discussion, this minor disagreement over WikiProject tags, etc. This is a long-term problem featuring the same handful of editors, as the archives of ANI, AE, DRN, etc. show. But what can we do about it? An i-ban is the usual solution for two editors who don't get along, but in this case I worry it'd just lead to two sets of non-neutral articles. We could give Cukrakalnis a logged warning that any further inappropriate remarks will lead to sanctions, but that feels like it's just kicking the can. The best option I can think of would be a narrow, time-limited topic-ban for Cukrakalnis (e.g. from World War II in Lithuania and Poland for three months), but that has downsides too. I'd be grateful for any thoughts from other admins: this has been sitting here for two weeks now and really needs to be resolved one way or another. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic area is a relatively niche one and it's a shame that two of the main editors specialising in it can't see eye to eye. I share the concerns about an IBAN. I'm not sure the topic ban would have a much different effect. The best I can come up with is a logged final warning and perhaps a short block for focusing on personalities instead of content, to be followed by rapidly escalating blocks for any future breaches. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal

Brandmeister, the OP, is banned from 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh and its associated sub-pages. There is consensus that no action is required against BilledMammal. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:24, 23 October 2023 (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 BilledMammal

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: BilledMammal (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#Proposed enforcement

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

BilledMammal appears to still show unhelpful behavior by trying to override third-party opinion and without opening a threaded discussion. Earlier they were blocked once and received at least three warnings.

Reverts a six-day stable version by repeating old argument that "Dixon was hired by Azerbaijan", even though at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Luis Moreno Ocampo an uninvolved user stated: Dixon's statements are not invalidated by his connection to the Azerbaijan government. Include his statements and inform readers that he was hired to write a rejection of Ocampo's report.
Reverts again on the same day, claiming "no consensus"
Writes at the BLP discussion after the revert and nine days after the uninvolved opinion, insisting on their version

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked on 25 October 2021 for 48 hours due to "abuse of process"

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

May 2023 edit-warring warning

November 2022 edit-warring warning

January 2022 warning

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Rlendog, Vanamonde93, I'm seeing a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption of dispute resolution process here, where an uninvolved opinion has been a central pillar. With that in mind, attempts to seek further dispute resolution become frustrating and time-consuming. Brandmeister^talk 18:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, Vanamonde93: With regards to being circumspect after logged warning, I decided on this report because in my view BM's behavior was unhelpful. But I understand that whether a particular behavior is sanctionable or not depends on admin interpretation. In the same way, opinions of non-admin users may differ, just like mine. I recognize admins' dissent, but do not think that WP:Boomerang is an issue here - I do not have the habit to submit frivolous reports or abuse ANI in some way. I think much of it comes from the aforementioned difference in interpretation of sanctionable behavior. I've read admins' arguments about further dispute resolution and acknowledge them. Brandmeister^talk 20:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[40]

Discussion concerning BilledMammal

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 BilledMammal

To provide the full edit summaries for the first and second diffs:

WP:UNDUE; Dixon was hired by Azerbaijan, and his report doesn't appear to have received any media attention of note.
No consensus at that discussion to include. I agree that including it isn't libel, but that doesn't make it WP:DUE. The only reliable and independent source that I could even find mentioning Dixon in this context was a CNN article, which only discusses the preliminary opinion letter and not the report. It also focuses on the allegations, and is clear that Azerbiajan hired Dixon.

Next, I'm not sure why the warnings are relevant, particularly the 2022 ones, but since they are included I feel I should explain them:

January 2022 I was warned about my comment here, for saying I suspect that English is not their first language; it may be beneficial for them to edit on their native language Wikipedia before appealing here, as the language barrier may be why they have struggled to gain competence.
November 2022 I was warned about reverting changes that other people made to my talk page contribution.
May 2023 was a dispute about whether other editors could add options to a multi-option RfC. There was an option I believed should be considered; JFD disagreed.

As for the actual topic of this report, this is a content issue; there isn't a consensus at BLPN to include it.

This is perhaps getting a little too far into content for AE, but I believe that it shouldn't be included because it is WP:UNDUE, and because it is possibly a BLP violation. The former is because it has received almost no coverage in reliable and independent sources. The latter because we deem it a "controversy", but reliable and independent sources have not done so. Further, we give weight to the claim that he left out information that undermined his conclusions, despite no reliable and independent source doing so.

It also fails to mention that the report was commissioned by Azerbaijan, even though the comment from the uninvolved editor that Brandmeister justifies their edit with says Include his statements and inform readers that he was hired to write a rejection of Ocampo's report.

This ANI discussion from last week may also be relevant, as in it I accused Brandmeister of misrepresenting three sources in this topic area. 10:42, 13 October 2023

@Grandmaster: In the talk page discussion on adding that report three of the five participating editors disagreed with doing so. It's another content issue, not worth bringing to AE. 13:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved editor Bon courage

Meh. While the idea of 'a six-day stable version ' of an article is an intriguing one, this just looks like robust-ish editing from BilledMammal very similar to the kind that the complainant has been doing on the same page. So: a content dispute in an area where consensus is indeed unclear, with nothing rising (yet) to the level of disruption where admins need to step in. Both editors would be advised to dial things back and try for a wider consensus before resuming the back-and-forth reverting to the point where it does become a problem, in my humble view. Bon courage (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grandmaster

I only recently started editing the article in question, but immediately noticed problematic editing by BilledMammal. In particular, here he completely removed the important finding by the UN mission to Nagorno-Karabakh region, claiming that it was WP:UNDUE. In reality, the finding reported by the Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General Stéphane Dujarric [41] has a direct relevance to the topic of the article, and the opinion of the number one international organization that actually sent a mission to the conflict location cannot be undue. If there are sources that question the UN finding, we can only present them along with what the UN says, but not remove the important part of the UN report. It looks to me like a tendentious editing by BilledMammal. Grandmaster 13:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kevo327

A report based on diffs related to the BLPN discussion which has no consensus for OP's recent edit, not to mention WP:ONUS - but that didn't stop OP from restoring their edits repeatedly and reverting users [42]. The UN detail edit's discussion that was opened yesterday has no consensus either, in fact, several editors have disagreed to add undue barely present in RS detail to an already undue report that was heavily criticized [43], [44] by RS. This AE case is subpar and perhaps raises concerns about OP's competence and witch hunting opposing them editors, they were recently warned by @El C: for opening another content dispute AE case [45]. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HistoryofIran

I've been keeping a watchful eye on Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians and its talk page. This looks an attempt to get rid of a opposing editor. An investigation should made regarding Brandmeister's edits and conducts, who seems to be doing his best to justify and minimize the actions of Azerbaijan against the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians per the ANI report and his other comments/edits in that thread. Grandmaster, who supports Brandmeister here and in that article has also just filed an SPI against one of the other opposing users, what a coincidence [46]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KhndzorUtogh

I felt I should make a statement, given that Brandmeister made an AE request against me as well last week. That request, also, was considered to have been over nothing sanctionable, and Brandmeister was given a WP:FORUMSHOP warning because that AE thread was made right after I had made an ANI discussion about Brandmeister. If Brandmeister is already making a new AE report for someone they are disagreeing with so soon after the last one and it is again for conduct that is non-sanctionable, should a WP:BOOMERANG apply to this excessive reporting? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DFlhb

Not seeing anything sanctionable in the original request. I also don't see any problems with the diff User:Grandmaster highlighted as problematic editing. However, Grandmaster's comments in the talk page discussion are puzzling, for example stating that notability is the "main criterion" for inclusion in articles, that to remove information is to "censor" it, or that it is original research to discuss a source's relevance on the basis of statements made in other reliable published sources. Not that I'm saying those are sanctionable either, but an experienced editor making those comments is concerning, especially in a CTOP. For the record I've never edited that page, nor, to my knowledge, that topic area. DFlhb (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning BilledMammal

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

I am not seeing any sanctionable conduct. This seems like a content disagreement where BilledMammal regards certain facts as being given WP:UNDUE weight, has not come close to violating WP:3RR and has been willing to discuss the edits. Rlendog (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the additional comment, I did not see any consensus emerging out of the linked BLP noticeboard discussion. Disagreements on contentious topics often take more than 6 or 9 days to get resolved, and admittedly can be frustrating. Rlendog (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not see sanctionable conduct here. The line between content and conduct can be blurry in cases like this, but at the moment I'm seeing disagreement in which the opinions of both sides are grounded in policy. The sources being discussed are neither so unquestionably reliable that omitting them is sanctionable conduct, nor so clearly unreliable that promoting them is sanctionable. I suggest all editors concerned be a little less free with the revert button, and invite outside input where opinions on sources and content are evenly divided. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion of uninvolved users at BLPN is helpful, but is not in any way sacrosanct, and any user is free to disagree with it. If you want to build an enforceable consensus on this subject, an RFC is the way to go. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also considering whether a boomerang of some sort is needed. I note that Brandmeister was blocked for a month for behavior in this precise area. This was 10 yeas ago, so it's ancient history; but you'd hope that after such a sanction and a logged warning a week ago a user would be more circumspect. I'm still unsure what an appropriate response would be: a second logged warning feels like too little, an indef CT-wide TBAN (our typical response) perhaps too much. How do other admins feel about a time-limited TBAN from 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, which seems the most proximal area of conflict? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bishonen: You're quite correct; the 10-month option is fine with me. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandmeister: The issue isn't simply that interpretations of sanctionable conduct differ, it's that you returned to make a very similar report to one you had already been warned about. @Bishonen: That's a fair point, and I don't love time-limited sanctions either. I would be okay with a 10-month TBAN, but (I just thought of this, sorry) what about a TBAN from making reports to AE/AN in this area? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded: I also don't see sanctionable conduct. The DUE/UNDUE question here is a matter of opinion, where it's not disruptive to edit according to either opinion. For transparency, I was the admin who blocked BM for abuse of process in 2021, as mentioned by the OP. It's the only entry in their block log and I don't see the relevance of it here. There may be a little irony, since the abuse was overuse of AE (IMO),[47]) but not relevance. Bishonen | tålk 16:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
KhndzorUtogh makes a good point. Should there be some form of boomerang? Bishonen | tålk 22:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Re boomerang: in view of this recent ANI, which earned Brandmeister a logged warning, and their two recent AE reports, I agree with Vanamonde that we don't want to warn them again. A TBAN from the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive might be the thing, but I never much like time-limited bans. It's too easy to merely wait out the ban and then resume the behavior. At least, if time-limited, a TBAN should be pretty long. 10 months? Bishonen | tålk 10:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
Vanamonde, the ANI that resulted in a warning was filed against Brandmeister, not by them, so I think it's just the filing of the two AE's that is obnoxious use of noticeboards here? Or was there something more? Anyway, I don't think such a TBAN would be sufficient on its own, and probably not needed, considering the pushback they've already been getting for overuse of AE. I still like a 10-month TBAN from the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive, what do you say? Anybody else? Rlendog? Bishonen | tålk 08:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I don't feel strongly about it either way 10 month TBAN seems a bit harsh but given that FORUMSHOPPING was part of the ANI warning it may be appropriate. But on the other hand the issue there was that there were reports made to both ANI and AE, while this case just went to AE so isn't necessarily FORUMSHOPPING. If no further action is taken I hope Brandmeister will at least take this discussion as a caution to use AE appropriately. Rlendog (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support the narrow topic ban. Would also support a ban on filing complaints about other editors. A broad topic ban would be disproportionate in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Makeandtoss

Appeal is declined both on procedural grounds, as the sanction had expired, and for lacking a clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 48-hour partial block from the pages 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war for disingenuous edit summaries, edit warring, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground

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

Notification of that administrator: Special:Diff/1180310664

Statement by Makeandtoss

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard.

I feel the reasons given for my block are unjustified:

1- disingenuous edit summaries: in reference to this edit. Disagreeing with my edit does not mean my edit summary was "disingenuous", nor is it a consistent editing behavior of mine. Furthermore, it is not one of Wikipedia's blocking reasons.

2- edit warring: On the article I was blocked from editing, I have initiated seven discussions on the article talk page ([48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]) and others on my own talk page, where we reached consensus in a constructive way ([55]).

3- treating Wikipedia as a battleground is also unjustified as testified by my consistent and lengthy efforts in reaching consensus with other editors in that specific article ([56], [57]).

Overall, the goal of blocking is to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, and there is no evidence that my editing was disruptive in any way. As outlined above, there was a constructive, collaborative and respectful effort to contribute to the article I was blocked from; something I have consistently engaged in for the past decade in WP:ARBPIA articles, and is attested by my clean record. These reasons were argued by someone I was reporting, and the user wanted to retaliate, there is no objective justification for it. And anyway, my good faith behavior necessitates receiving a warning before being blocked per WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: and @Levivich: Thank you for commenting your honest opinions. I feel that the edit summary issue has been given too much weight in this discussion, as it is a simple edit that some people disagreed with, which could have been straightforwardly solved on the talk page, and not a justifiable reason for a block. The real issue here is being accused of edit warring and treating Wikipedia as a battleground; things that cannot accurately describe my behavior as demonstrated above. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I am not looking past anything, either phrasing has not been used by any reliable source reporting on the current war [58], as my original edit summary stated. In any case, this is a disagreement like any other that could happen between editors, and is easily and straightforwardly solvable on the talk page; this does not justify a block. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Thank you for your comment. Please note that the I am here to appeal the block because I find it unjustified, even if it has expired. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: I find the existence of an unjustified sanction on my decade-long, hard-earned, block-free log to be deeply demoralizing. The right to appeal should still be available, especially considering the sanction has been fully enforced already. I wish for this discussion not to be closed to give the opportunity for at least a recognition to emerge that this was not in place. Thank you for understanding. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I thank you for your patience in reading through my replies, appreciate it. I only put the latter (as a shortcut) because it basically also includes the former, but here are the two demonstrations of how these phrasings aren't supported by RS [59] and [60]. Hamas has been described in multiple ways on RS, mostly as "having ruled the Gaza Strip since 2007". Either way, it's a simple subjective disagreement that is not disruptive. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Your comment on the possibility of appeal is on point and aligned with my initial train of thought. Not being able to appeal short-sanctions, makes them unappealable, which isn't optimal.

As my original edit summary stated, my problem was with the phrasing, which is not supported by RS [61] [62]. Hamas can be described in a multiple of ways, mostly in RS as "having ruled the Gaza Strip since 2007", and much less frequently as "government of Gaza". This is not disingenuous, this is simply my perspective that we should follow RS verbatim, which other editors are free to disagree with, on the talk page peacefully; which is not disruptive either. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Appellant started an ANI thread to complain about another editor (since also blocked) in a manner suggestive of weaponising processes to remove an opponent. The complaint was that the other editor had removed an RfC the appellant started and had then archived the appellant's message on their own talk page. There are obvious issues with holding a formal RfC on a six-day-old article that is in a state of constant flux. Removing the RfC altogether was the wrong approach and the editor in question was the wrong person to do anything with it, but going straight to a noticeboard instead of just restoring it was about the most dramatic course of action possible. The ANI thread (predictably) descended into interpersonal bickering, in which the appellant played a large part.

During the ANI discussion, the appellant's use of edit summaries was raised, specifically this one. The edit removed the text the de facto government of Palestine in Gaza, which is how Hamas was introduced in the article, with the edit summary Hamas is a non-state actor, no reliable sources have used this phrasing to describe the group. Issues with phrasing should be resolved by editing or discussion, not wholesale removal, and claiming that sources don't support the claim that Hamas is the de facto government in Gaza is absurd; the removal leaves the opening sentence without an explanation of who or what Hamas is. There was also evidence presented of 1RR violations.

The reason for a block does not need to be one of the "common block rationales". Warnings are not a requirement, but the standards of conduct expected in the topic area are clear and well-advertised and the threshold for sanctions is lower than in other areas. This was a mild sanction; the other party at ANI got a two-week site ban for similar conduct, mostly because they had a longer block log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not start the complaint because I wanted to dramatically remove an opponent, I started a complaint because that was the only reasonable thing to do, given that my RFC was removed, and that my objection to the removal of the RFC was also removed from his talk page; which is clear refusal to even discuss. I would have been accused of edit warring if I restored the RFC.

I can remove the phrasing, just as someone had inserted it without seeking consensus on the talk page; this cannot be described as disruptive editing. Nor can my behavior be described as edit warring, as the edits were in response to new consensus forming on the talk page, in several discussions that I initiated myself.

I still believe that this mild sanction to have been unjustified and that I should have received a warning as Wikipedia guideline states. The other party was bickering with admins, other editors, and has an extensive history of edit warring and being sanctioned; these are things that I do not share with them and do not wish to be compared with them. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI {{gender|SPECIFICO}} = she. Editors are entitled to remove anything they wish from their own talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information on the user's gender. Editors might be entitled to remove a talk page message, but I don't think they are entitled to ignore talk page messages objecting to a removal of an RFC, which represents a doubling-down of a refusal to even discuss. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your comment below (because we're supposed to stick to our own sections at AE), the phrase you removed was not just "the de facto government of Palestine" but "the de facto government of Palestine in Gaza". I can't tell if you genuinely don't understand the distinction or if you're deliberately looking past it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this being left open for a determination if that's what Makeandtoss wants, even if it's purely academic. However, I stand by my action and believe it was proportionate and necessary. Nothing I've seen here convinces me otherwise. I've given my reasons but Makeandtoss is being very selective in their reading of my comments. The only thing that's changed since ANI is I'm less sure whether they're being disingenuous or they just don't understand. This will be my last comment in this thread unless I'm pinged by an uninvolved admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Merlinsorca

I was invited to join this discussion by the appealing user.

I don’t see a reason for Makeandtoss to remain blocked. As already mentioned, we were able to amicably resolve edit disagreements via talk pages. In terms of edit warring, most editors on the article in question have engaged in similar, if not even more questionable, behavior. I don’t think these editors should be blocked either; this is just the nature of a contentious and heavily edited article.

Actually, I’ve found Makeandtoss to be far more open and receptive to dialogue and discussing conflicts than other editors. Merlin^s orca 21:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Makeandtoss

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

Statement by Iskandar323

As Merlinsorca has noted, Makeandtoss is exceptionally open to dialogue and I'm not sure the laconic edit summary mentioned above, if this was indeed part of the reason to block, was particularly onerous. The phrasing removed is indeed marginal at best, and the details were not mentioned in the body of the page in any case, so it was technically accurate that there was nothing supporting this phrasing on the page in question here, even though it is supported on the referenced topic's own dedicated page . However, one could just have easily argued for the removal on the basis of it being off-topic, excessive detail in the lead, etc. (we expressly link terms to more detailed pages for this very reason, per WP:SUMMARY), so the removal was not unsound, and indeed, the removal appears to be affirmed by its lack of restoration on the page as it stands. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Yes, it's quite possible that there's a miscommunication here. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Haven't looked into the rest, but I'm going to opine that the disingenuous edit summary is actually a miscommunication. The text removed was "de facto government of Palestinians in Gaza," and the edit summary says no RS uses that phrasing. My guess is that neither Makeandtoss (nor Iskandar, nor anyone else) would deny that Hamas is the de facto government in Gaza. The confusion probably stems from the words "of Palestinians," because "government of Palestinians in Gaza" could be interpreted to mean that Hamas is the government, located in Gaza, of all Palestinians (including those outside of Gaza, e.g. the West Bank) (which is not true and no RS makes this claim) vs. Hamas is the government of only those Palestinians in Gaza (which is true and supported by RS). I think Makeandtoss interpreted the phrasing to mean the former (though I interpret the phrasing to mean the latter). Levivich (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: is Hamas the government of Gaza? Levivich (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We’re here on the issue if my editing is disruptive. One edit that someone disagrees with doesn’t mean my editing is disruptive. This phrasing “de facto government of Palestine” is used by zero RS currently reporting on the war currently [63]. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course AE can vacate a sanction no longer in force. I don't know why anyone would think it can't. It's been done before and no policy says otherwise. If appeals of sanctions became moot when they expired, then every short time-limited sanction would be unappealable, and people would rush to appeal short sanctions (and decide those appeals) before they expired (or worse, the opposite), none of which would be good for Wikipedia. If admins don't want to volunteer to hear an appeal, don't. But expiration doesn't make it moot. Also, vacating-or-not-vacating aren't the only two options on an appeal.

Like HJ, I can't tell if Makeandtoss still avoiding the distinction is inadvertent or deliberate, but either way I agree it's disruptive. Arguing about whether Hamas is the government of Gaza disrupts the normal editing process, and CIR in this topic area means understanding and appreciating the difference between the government of Palestine and the government of Gaza, and appreciating the difference between removing just "of Palestine" vs removing the entire phrase "de facto government of Palestine in Gaza." Levivich (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Makeandtoss

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

Statement text copied from User talk:Makeandtoss (permanent link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is moot… the short block has expired. Courcelles (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss, AE’s appellate powers are limited to vacating the sanction issued. We cannot, by definition, vacate a sanction no longer in force. That’s why I say this is a moot appeal, there’s no decision to be made that isn’t ultra vires of this venue, AE can manage only active sanctions and formally logged warnings. Courcelles (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see there was some disruptive behavior, which was met with a minor sanction which has already expired. I don't see anything else to do here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur that AE cannot overturn a restriction that has already lapsed. To the extent that this creates a sort of immunity for very short sanctions, I would say that's more feature than bug. ArbCom could resolve at ARCA that a lapsed sanction was in error, but I doubt they would be inclined to, and I do not think that that would be a good use of anyone's time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Tamzin said, there is both AN and XRV for general community review of a disputed admin action, and that could certainly include AE actions. I agree that appeals at AE should be limited to determining whether a sanction should be modified or overturned, not academically disputing the merits of one that's already expired. Unless any uninvolved admin objects, I'll close this as moot within the next day or so. (And Makeandtoss, while I'm not going to bother moving all your comments, please make any further comments only in your own section.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lilijuros

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 Lilijuros

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Lilijuros (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

18:23, 18 October 2023 "But doubting either the Biden regime or the Pentagon requires at least two things: the first, a lot of intelligence and the second is stupidity. You, as a simple ordinary person, probably don't have intelligence, fact which makes me conclude that the second option is more likley."

This was modified to

18:24, 18 October 2023 "But doubting either the Biden regime or the Pentagon requires at least two things: the first, a lot of intelligence and the second is stupidity. I truly ask myself what's the right option in your case."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 3 July 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Either the original or the modified comment are unacceptable personal attacks.

I will aim to drop my snark level. It be helpful if the canvassing and bad faith reading of my comments ended though. nableezy - 23:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish, see for example this from the past, I for one would loooove an interaction ban with לילך5. Can make it two way even I dont care. nableezy - 23:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shes only has ~150 edits since then, though some were pretty obvious results of following me around when she did come around. As is this, given its her first ever edit to this page. nableezy - 00:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin and anybody else, I have no interest in furthering any dispute with Neutrality here, and being honest with myself some of the things I have read and seen over the past few days have left me overly emotional and likely overly confrontational. Im definitely not saying Im wrong, but I did go harder than strictly necessary. nableezy - 17:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Lilijuros

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 Lilijuros

Statement by Jeppiz

Not involved and happened to see this as I follow AE. Could I point out there are two possible interpretations here. "Intelligence" can mean both "information" (access to intelligence) or "mental capacity (being intelligent). It would seem the user meant the first usage, suggesting that ordinary wiki-users don't have access to intelligence. They did also use "stupid", which is not ok, but I'm less sure the intelligence part was meant to insult. Jeppiz (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by לילך5

@ScottishFinnishRadish: could you take a look at Special:Diff/1180879557 by Nableezy? He wrote that a fellow editor made a "dishonest claim" and also made an ethnic characterization with "and no it is not just those dishonest Arabs reporting about it". This is worse than Lilijuros' comment. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alcibiades979

I've been on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion page and have witnessed a torrent of abuse by Nableezy. In response to a moderator requesting WP:ONUS in regard to the inclusion of a source he swore repeatedly at the moderator here, casting aspersions in edit summary here, abusive comments here, more abusive comments to a moderator here, more here. And this is only in the past 24 hours and related to one page. I've been editting wiki for years and haven't seen behaviour like this before. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AndyTheGrump

Since I've been mentioned here, I should probably note that (a) I stand by my 'bullshit' characterisation of Neutrality's post at WP:FTN, and (b) that whatever Neutrality was doing at FTN, it most assuredly wasn't anything a 'moderator' worthy of that name would be doing, even if Wikipedia had them. I have largely stayed away from discussions concerning recent events in the Middle East, mostly on the basis that I've given up any hope of Wikipedia being able to produce anything even approximating to encyclopaedic coverage of the topic. I do however reserve the right to point out that canvassing is going on, and when someone (anyone, admin or not) then writes I've made my position clear because I think it's important to establish the relevance to fringe notions as if this somehow mitigated transparent canvassing, I'm going to call it bullshit. Because that's what it is. Bullshit from an admin who damn well ought to know better. The FTN thread was grossly improper, and it is only my reluctance to get involved in this shitshow further that prevents me taking the matter to ArbCom where they would then no doubt than have to waste more than a few hours figuring out how to agree with my depiction of the situation while avoiding using the same concise phraseology. If I have to defend my words, I will. And those whos deeds I referred to will then have to do the same. Your choice... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Lilijuros

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

I'm less than impressed with this attack, even after the adjustment. The rest of their behavior that I've reviewed doesn't seem too bad, although it's also not great, either. I would normally lean towards a six month and 500 edit topic ban, but they have significant experience on Hebrew Wikipedia. I don't know if the community norms are that much different over there, but I assume attacks like that are still a no-go. They're essentially an SPA in a topic area that they cannot edit in main space. I'm interested in hearing what other admins think of potential sanctions here, or if a logged warning would be sufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Nableezy's comment as an ethnic characterization, rather it's snark directed at editors they think don't trust Al Jazeera because it's an Arab news source. Nableezy, please cut out the snark and claims of dishonesty. The topic is already actively on fire, and there's not enough admins to keep on top of all of the disruptive behavior. We don't need more of that from people who know better, especially if you're going to be bringing other editors here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, got anything more recent than 14 months? Hard to interaction ban based on something that old. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen too much that is concerning in their (few) edits and this particular remark appears to be a one-off thing (though the "obviously pro-palestinian" opener in the reported edit is actually more problematic). I suggest warning them to be careful in their remarks and not call out other editors as being biased and to leave it at that. RegentsPark (comment) 15:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Umm. Aren't all of Lilijuros' edits an ARBECR violation? They acknowledged in July their familiarity with the ARBPIA CTOP regime. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction of the above: Some edits fell into the talkpage exception to ECR, although the RM/merge comments did not. If there's no objection, I'd like to close this with two only-warnings to Lilijuros: a procedural one for ECR violations (next offense likely indef), and a substantive one for incivility and battleground conduct (next offense likely TBAN). Speaking of battleground conduct, I'm not thrilled with לילך5's tit-for-tat approach here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support the warnings. I don't find Lilach5's counter report too concerning, as I don't recall seeing their name around here often. It's reasonable to point out that someone making a report at AE is engaging in poor conduct themselves, and it doesn't seem like they're using this venue as a BATTLEGROUND. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In light of continuing ECR violations even as this was discussed, in addition to the broader BATTLEGROUND issues, I have indeffed Lilijuros. Leaving this open as the matter of Lilach5 and Nableezy remains unresolved. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Alcibiades979: I have precious little patience for misrepresentations at AE, and precious little patience for misconduct in this topic area, so it's taking a lot of self-restraint here to assume good faith. You just made five allegations against Nableezy. Let's see... Nableezy never "swore at" Neutrality and was in fact the third person to say "bullshit" there (after AndyTheGrump and Neutrality himself). Accusing someone of canvassing isn't casting aspersions if the speaker explains why they think there was canvassing, which Nableezy (and others) did. The third through fifth diffs are varying degrees of problematic, and could lead to sanctions in the event of a Nableezy/Neutrality thread here (which, by the way, would be within AE's jurisdiction, contrary to something Nableezy said; Neutrality is CTOP-aware due to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive216 § Nishidani). I won't presuppose the outcome of such a thread, and am definitely not saying Nableezy's comment was beyond reproach. But the conduct I see in those diffs is very different from what you've described, Alcibiades. Consider this a warning for misrepresenting diffs. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good indef. I don't see the need for any further formal action. Maybe words of advice or a logged warning to Nableezy to consider the heat-to-light ratio when commenting and lose the snark. It's not necessarily sanctionable misconduct but it's not helpful in bringing discussions towards a consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hedikupa Parepvigi

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 Hedikupa Parepvigi

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Rosguill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Hedikupa Parepvigi (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:AA3

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

Special:Diff/1180478284, 16 October, edits to Armenian Genocide-related topic
Special:Diff/1180483442, 16 October, further edits to Armenian Genocide-related topic
Special:Diff/1180848628, 19 October, attempting to dismiss a peer-reviewed paper published in a T&F publication by accusing its author of having worked for the terrorist Gülen network

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

Special:Diff/1176703893 notified of Armenia-Azerbaijan CTOPs and GS/AA on September 23

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Between the continued edits to AA-topics following a CTOPs notice as an account with 50 edits, the parroting of the "FETÖ" conspiracy theory line to attempt to dismiss criticisms of Turkish state sources, and the SPA-focus on Turkish-Armenian politics and related topics, I think a topic ban or NOTHERE block is warranted. I would action it myself, but I am involved in the RSN discussion about Anadolu Agency. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta admit, citing an article by Anadolu Ajansi denouncing a critic of the same in the context of the RSN discussion is pretty funny. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1180903793

Discussion concerning Hedikupa Parepvigi

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 Hedikupa Parepvigi

I have not edited any Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. Firstly, I edited Turkish journalist Fatih Altaylı's biography. This article did not have any warnings on its talk page that it was covered by AA. Secondly, Gülenist terror network (FETÖ) is a criminal organization that has been outlawed by Turkey, Pakistan, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Gulf Cooperation Council and Organization of Islamic Cooperation. It is responsible for the 2016 Turkish coup attempt and the killing of 250 Turkish citizens. In June 2022, Western democracies like Sweden and Finland officially pledged to curb activities of this illegal organization.^[1] This topic is not covered by AA either just like Fatih Altaylı's biography.--Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Theleekycauldron, I do not support any form of genocide denial. Genocide denial is an ignominious act. I recognize the suffering of the Armenian people and their contribution to Turkish culture. The second edit you refer to describes a debate that occurred between Sevan Nişanyan and Yusuf Halaçoğlu over the events of 1915. Their opinions do not belong to me; I summarized what the participants said. All those information is present in the sources I cited, including the Armenian Weekly. Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/220628-trilat-memo.pdf "As prospective NATO Allies, Finland and Sweden extend their fully support to Turkiye against threats to its national security. To that effect, Finland and Sweden will not provide support to YPG/PYD, and the organisation described as FETÖ in Turkiye. Turkiye also extends its full support to Finland and Sweden against threats to their national security. Finland and Sweden reject and condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, in the strongest terms. Finland and Sweden unambiguously condemn all terrorist organisations perpetrating attacks against Turkiye, and express their deepest solidarity with Turkiye and the families of the victims"

Statement by Ostalgia

I am completely uninvolved in this topic, but since I participated in an unrelated discussion that is yet to be closed I'm checking AE every once in a while. I have to say the reply Hedikupa Parepvigi just gave Theleekycauldron does not fill me with confidence, in fact, quite the opposite. I recognize the suffering of the Armenian people and the events of 1915 are, in Turkish political discourse, common alternatives to dance around the term genocide. His "explanation" also does not at all explain why, in the entire section, the only word in quotation marks is the term genocide, as if to underscore his disagreement with its use. If you'll excuse the pointed question: Hedikupa Parepvigi, do you support the characterisation of the deportation of Armenians and the death marches they were subjected to as a genocide, yes or no? Ostalgia (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Hedikupa Parepvigi

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

I'm not terribly familiar with this topic area, but it should be clear that Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed does not require a notice on a page, especially if an edit specifically discusses the Armenian genocide. Claiming that a page wasn't tagged as a defense is wikilawyering. Further, summarizing To that effect, Finland and Sweden will not provide support to YPG/PYD, and the organisation described as FETÖ in Turkiye as officially pledged to curb activities of this illegal organization seems disingenuous at best. I'm of the mind that some sanction here is necessary. I'll try to dig in a bit more soon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing their edits and taking into account their wikilawyering and misinterpreting sources here I find myself leaning towards a topic ban from AA/Eastern Europe at minimum. Going to give it another day or two to see if there's any other input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: The second edit Rosguill cites is pretty cut-and-dry POV pushing of Armenian genocide denial. A tban from Armenia–Azerbaijan seems advisable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a topic ban from Armenia or just the Armenian Genocide and related topics (the scope can always be widened if there are more problems). I would also be happy with a medium-term mainspace block. They seem to have something to contribute on Turkish topics and their comments on talk pages seem constructive so I don't think a site ban is called for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colin

No action is required. LokiTheLiar is advised to follow WP:DR which probably means an WP:RFC although this August 2022 RfC might be sufficient. Johnuniq (talk) 22:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Colin

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Colin (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#Motion:_contentious_topic_designation_(December_2022)

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

2023-10-05 Lots of WP:OR, asserts a published paper is not neutral because it's by a "trans activist"
2023-10-08 Calls sources 'so-called "academic papers"', calls the previously mentioned professor a 'cyclist', asserts that the whole topic is out of the grasp of linguistics as a science entirely
2023-10-17 Directly says that the author of said paper is not reliable because she is transgender (Edit 06:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC) : saying specifically The elephant in the room is McKinnon is transgender and is a transgender activist)
2023-10-18 Doubles down on the above assertion after being challenged (Edit 06:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC) : saying specifically As for bias, well all of us have biases and potential to manifest those biases, so what matters is whether we try to compensate for them and how well we do. Some of our biases come from innate things like, you know, Gender bias on Wikipedia, Racial bias on Wikipedia. I don't think the intent to accuse her of bias for an innate trait is ambiguous at all here.)
2023-10-08 #2 2023-10-09 2023-10-19 2023-10-17 GCF 2023-10-19 GCF 2023-10-19 GCF #2 Several other diffs where Colin argues for excluding sources for WP:OR reasons
2023-10-19 GCF #3 A particularly long piece of WP:OR (Edit 06:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC) : and WP:NOTFORUM) about a tweet that nobody else had brought up and which is not particularly relevant

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)

Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 2022-11-13 (and also at ANI on 2023-02-22).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I've known Colin for a while as a good contributor to the GENSEX topic area. However, recently, he's been making some very odd and concerning arguments on Talk:TERF_(acronym) and Talk:Gender-critical_feminism. Many of them, as in the diffs above, are for excluding academic sources based purely on WP:OR reasons such as believing the topic to be outside the ability of academia to decide, or an apparent personal belief that "TERF" is a slur. And several are even worse than that, up to and including arguing for exclusion of a certain source because the author of the source is trans, and doubling down on this assertion when challenged.

This is surprising to me because, again, I usually think of Colin as a pretty good contributor to the topic area. I'm not sure what sanctions I'm actually supporting here but I would at least like an official warning. Loki (talk)

@Johnuniq The assertion here is a) that Colin is POV-pushing by denying the reliability of academic sources, b) that he's also doing a whole bunch of WP:NOTFORUM soapboxing on the topic in the process, c) the main reason I decided to make this report, that he's trying to deny a source is valid based on the identity of the author. I don't think anyone would have trouble seeing the issue if an editor was for excluding an academic source because the author was black, or Jewish, or a woman.

@Tamzin Noted, but I do think that what I'm calling WP:OR problems above are also WP:NOTFORUM problems. The point is that he's making a lot of arguments that aren't consistent with policy. Loki (talk)

@ScottishFinnishRadish / @Colin Now that Colin's struck the worst comment and admitted it was inappropriate, I'm okay with withdrawing this. Loki (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but one clarification: I did not think Colin was "on the TERF side" and that's not why I linked to WP:HID. My concern was with specific inappropriate comment(s) and not with Colin's overall political opinions, and I was hoping that was clear from my initial comments here. Loki (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: diff

Discussion concerning Colin

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 Colin

I have struck reference to McKinnon's transgender status. I agree that was not appropriate to mention and is quite irrelevant to my argument. They are an activist who casually uses the word "TERF" to describe "people who hate trans people" or "bigots" or "assholes" as she describes them. I have not once asked for any sources to be "excluded", as Loki repeatedly asserts above, or doubted their "reliability" (though the quality of "reliability" depends quite on what information one is drawing from the source and claiming). I am certainly not asking for "an academic source" to be "excluded" because of an identity aspect of the author.

Wikipedia accepts biased sources. I think Loki has confused my claim that McKinnon is biased on the matter of whether TERF is a slur with thinking I view their work as "unreliable" or that it should be "excluded". I also think Loki has confused the academic nature of their work into thinking that makes opinions in it "facts" that can be asserted in Wikipedia voice or used to determine if a slur-redirect is just fine and dandy. McKinnon has their opinions and the article notes them. Activists on the other side (e.g. Suzanne Moore writing in the Telegraph) have their opinions. Neither of these people are neutral impartial voices, they are biased, and both opinions may be noted in attributed form on Wikipedia in accordance with due weight. What we lack, in this domain, however, are reliable secondary sources saying things like "most academics think" or "is generally considered to be / not to be ..." and so on. We just have a bunch of primary sources on people's personal opinions. That opinions on whether this word is a slur fall align exactly with "depends who you ask" is a problem for Wikipedia and frustrating. I think that has a bearing on the validity of a recent move that turned TERF into a redirect to gender-critical feminism. Previously it had the content that is now at TERF (acronym) which notes, among other things, that it is disputed whether or not TERF is a slur and whether it is, today, being used as a label about radical feminists or even feminists.

I think during the discussion Loki has learned about WP:RS/AC and accepted their article content previously overstated that there was any consensus on this. I've also learned during the discussion, what philosophy of language is.

I think McKinnon's paper and youtube arguments are sloppy and have picked them apart much as I might pick apart a sloppy work making medical claims. I also think I have written way too much and should accept that editors in the discussion have dug their heels in and there is no consensus or likely to be one. -- Colin°^Talk 08:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I ask Loki strikes his above link to Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. For the avoidance of doubt for anyone joining this who don't know me, I'm very much not on the "TERF" side. My argument in this debate is that TERF, today, is a hate word, and Loki should read Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive to find out what it says about people who fling about slurs. I don't think either side hating each other is productive, respectful or a good way to be a human being. -- Colin°^Talk 08:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor Bon courage

Happened to notice this because this page is lingering on my watch list, and a report on Colin seemed surprising. I went straight to the most grave accusation "Directly says that the author of said paper is not reliable because she is transgender" sourced to this[64]. But looking at the diff that is not what is said, "directly" or otherwise. The point being made is that a source written by an activist is likely to be biased on the topic of that activism, which seems totally reasonable to discuss, especially on an article Talk page!

The fact that the filing party then tried to push back against this by invoking WP:NPA seems utterly bizarre.[65] Bon courage (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved editor Graham Beards

This is just a lively discussion on the reliability of sources, which is precisely what Talk Pages are for! Our policy on original research clearly says "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Colin is the author of WP:MEDRS and thus has proven expertise on judging the quality of sources; it would be wiser to listen to him rather than protesting here. Graham Beards (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Colin

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

Is the assertion that Colin is mistaken, or that he is misusing sources, or bludgeoning, or something else? Is the claimed problem that Colin asserts that Rachel McKinnon is a trans activist? I have no idea but Veronica Ivy states that Ivy, formerly Rachel McKinnon, is a transgender rights activist. Perhaps the claimed problem is that, due to McKinnon being a trans activist, Colin believes McKinnon should not be used as a source regarding whether TERF (acronym) is a slur? That is an interesting issue for wikilawyers—can an activist be a reliable source given the "independent" in "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" at WP:RS? Has a discussion concluded that Colin's statement are WP:OR? At any rate, I am having trouble identifying the problem being reported. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone want to comment on whether anything further is needed before closing this as no action? Does WP:BOOMERANG apply? Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Johnuniq: I don't see cause for sanctions. Maybe some sort of informal warning to Loki, although I'm not sure what exactly the warning would be for. (Failure to exhaust other steps? Failure to AGF?) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Setting aside everything else, WP:OR explicitly does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. Editors are absolutely allowed to conduct research into a source's credentials to determine how much weight their opinion is due under WP:NPOV. If that weren't the case, NPOV would be essentially unenforceable. That's not to say that the arguments here were appropriate or inappropriate—I'll reserve judgment—but they by definition cannot be OR violations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further thoughts by the cold light of day (noting that this is a topic area I edit in, but not with these editors and not regarding these topics—but take it with a grain of salt if one wishes; I won't be the one to close this): Colin shouldn't have brought up McKinnon's transgender status. I see what he was getting at, but pointing out her status as a transgender activist made the point more than well enough. That's it. Everything else is within norms for talkpage discussion. As noted, editors are allowed to engage in OR on talkpages. Editors are also allowed to express personal views, as long as it doesn't cross over into forum territory. As far as I can tell, any comments Colin has made expressing his own views have been in service of improving the two articles in question. Some represent a minority viewpoint (and maybe Special:Diff/1180864538 somewhat overstates the currency of that viewpoint), but there is no WP:DONTSAYTHINGSPEOPLEDISAGREEWITH nor even a WP:DONTBEWRONG. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of a similar mind to my colleagues above. I'm not seeing anything out of the ordinary, disruptive, or out of line. They've struck their comment on McKinnon's transgender status, and admitted it wasn't constructive. There's nothing to be done here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

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: Andrevan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:37, 21 October 2023 (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:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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

What I want to show in the diffs here is that Nishidani accuses good faith editors attempting to make improvements as having a destructive motive, editors of incompetence, that any dispute is a waste of time, WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY, has been repeatedly warned and previously banned and blocked, continues to be unkind to various editors such as BobFromBrockley, myself, Tryptofish, and others. He is very abrasive, and he has a strong POV. I tried a few times to warn him, to reach out to him and tell him what he is doing is a problem as did other editors.

October 20, 2023 Nishidani personally attacks editors and questions editors' motivations and makes bad faith assumptions.
October 20, 2023 Continued.
1. I am not attacking the motives of the two editors who persist in challenging the title. I am challenging their competence to make a fair and neutral assessment of the article. I do so because throughout these threads I can see little evidence of a mastery of the sources. The objections are all fixated on three words, a thematic index, informing the present title, which has extensive textual warrant in sources. Every alternative has been shown either to misrepresent the article as it stands, or to suffer from periphrastic ineptness (often admitted).
2. Andrevan.You obviously don't know what you are talking about. To assert the above would imply you probably haven't read the literature on this,
3. So the giveaway here is that the purpose of these RMS is to change the title, not because as it stands it doesn't reflect the article's focus, but because only a different title will provide a pretext to gut it of portions of existing text some editors apparently find distasteful. All of this in complete indifference to the actual scholarly literature that generated the article. The RM is speciously motivated. Its only apparent rationnale is to secure a warrant for deleting text.
October 19, 2023 Look,Bob. How many articles do objecting editors actually write for wikipedia, rather than talkpaging or tweaking? I cannot see any sign of it over the last years. The smearing of it as an 'essay' seems to be simply your subjective term for dislike of it. he last remark above is particularly offensive. Throughout there has been a persistent unease, irascibility, antipathy to what numerous academic texts state, that Zionism had a tradition of racial definition of Jews which dragged over into genetic studies of Jews particularly in israel. All alternatives offered have no other function that to bomb that strongly documented linkage out of sight. That is the only perceived function of these repeated challenges - don't link Zionism to either 'race' or 'genetics' or both, whatever numerous books anbd scholarely articles state. All this again shows that we are merely doomed, with this last POVish erasure push to go over the same tedious, exhausted soils of prior threads, with their errant inconclusiveness, forcing everyone, yourself included to repeat themselves,and it is a total waste of everyone's time.
October 19, 2023 I can see that this is an open invitation to waste everyone's time by repeating, or ignoring, what has been written over three months of relentless attrition by, mainly, two editors who can't accept the existing title.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

21 August 2023 Sanction imposed and vacated
18 August 2023 Logged warning
14 April 2019 "banned for a week...they are misusing Wikipedia as a battleground and casting aspersions on others"
6 April 2018 warning for strong POV
1 June 2017 Nishidani is topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict for one month.
March 2017 "Nishidani clearly violated the consensus required sanction placed by the Committee on all ARBPIA articles."
2012 topic ban
2012 another in 2012 topic ban
2010 cautioned to mind the ban

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

User has been to AE a few months ago. See above. They were notified between 2014 and 2017.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I invited Nishidani to amend or strike these incivil messages.

My prior discussions with Nishidani

[[66]]
prior statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive321
warned user that their message was incivil and that I would file AE [67] [68]

A little puzzled by the comment by Johnuniq, I didn't claim Nishidani used the verbatim word "destruct," the exact quote was, The RM is speciously motivated. Its only apparent rationnale is to secure a warrant for deleting text. which is a characteristic of a deleting motive that is specious, that is not just an opinion on content or sources. It's a comment on editors. It is also not true that we've been repeating the same thing for 3 months. It's an evolving discussion. Furthermore, your statement that the question of competence may be well-placed is spurious. Please read the quoted text more closely if you would. Andre🚐 05:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani has responded on his own talk page with an utter lack of self-awareness, remorse or concern, no apology or intent to strike or change their uncivil behavior.[69][70]

Comment by Selfstudier fails to address, and rather excuses, civility issues and instead substitutes their own opinion on a content dispute. Presently, the RM has more support than opposition, and it is not just 2 editors carrying on, despite the continued false claims by Nishidani and others that editors are simply repeating themselves. That's a falsehood. Please note I did not participate in the AFD of the article, so that's another red herring.

Nishidani continues to respond on their own talk page with absolutely 0 collegiality or any awareness whatsoever of the civility lines breached. I find Jeppiz's comment also quite puzzling, since there's nothing frivolous whatsoever about this report, and I appreciate Ealdgyth's message. Nishidani is a valuable contributor, that was never in dispute, but I am asking for adherence to the civility policy. It is forbidden to speculate on other editors' motivations. Do I need to explain this to experienced users?

The pound of flesh thing was an unfortunate turn of phrase by someone I know to not have meant that. I hope and AGF. Regarding Tryptofish's comment. But I also want to ask the admins to understand there is a chilling effect of the antisemitic-adjacent bullying in this topic area that must be addressed. Which is that antisemitism is a big issue in this topic. Groups and individuals in this topic often bring up. It's common to paint with a broad brush. It's common to stereotype. By the actors in the content area. Not accusing any individual. But we need civility, and we need respect, good faith, and collegiality.

Nishidani, in my final attempt to offer an attempt for him to soften his tone, retract his personal attacks, etc., has doubled down once again[71]

Regarding Levivich's arguments, if Levivich shows me that I have overstated or misunderstood or misapprehended something, then I told him that he is right. I stand by where my arguments ended up - if I made errors, I try to listen and correct them. How is that tendentious? El Haj, is a supporter of BDS, a movement that some people have claimed is antisemitic. I did not say she is. But she's a pro-Palestinian nationalist actor who has been met with controversy. The bottom line is, I'm willing to change my mind in content disputes. Nishidani is not and shows extensive WP:OWNership behavior. Nobody has provided any diffs that show the same on my end.

Like I want to be clear here. Saying that a source doesn't say something, and then having someone cite that it does, is a GOOD THING. That's discussion. It's not tendentious, people make mistakes. There are hundreds and hundreds and pages cited. Nobody has an encyclopedic memory of everything or every page. It's not "misrepresentation" and it's not "debunking." It's discussion. I don't claim to be perfect. Again, all I'm asking is civility. I want to say it's deeply unfair and disturbing if I come here asking for civility and some people think that I need a warning for tendentious editing. I've never said an uncivil word to the opponents in the dispute. I attacked a professor for her positions as not being unbiased. That is based on reliable sources.[72][73][74] etc I've engaged in good faith discussion along with other editors and I am not the only one. I am repeatedly attacked in ways that are not permitted by civility policy. And the response from some admins and other users is "well, he's frustrated, so that's OK"? Incivility is NOT OK.

Tamzin, it's perfectly problematic to insinuate that El Haj is antisemitic, something that I attempted not to do. I said that El Haj was controversial and that she's a leader of BDS, a Palestinian nationalist movement that some people consider antisemitic (I didn't say I consider it antisemitic), though I made clear not to accuse any individual, and she shouldn't be given equal billing to a Jewish geneticist. Nishidani's statements on Ostrer and Behar and others were equally dismissive (I can provide these diffs, if anyone finds this useful). I didn't claim that's because they are Jewish. That's not why. It's content.

I'm assuming I'm over word count so I can't respond anymore, but I'll respond one more time. Please look at any diffs of mine or edits of mine closely. I will defend that I have always sought to understand. I would challenge the interpretation that I am refusing to change or repeating myself; that is a lie. It's also a lie that I have misrepresented or sought to misrepresent sources. I urge admins and other users not to accept, at face value, the falsehood that I have been singlehandedly disrupting this page or creating noise that is tendentious on the talk page and misrepresenting material. That is a blatant lie.

One more comment. I came here complaining about a bright line civility violation. Now we're playing a BOOMERANG game. Is Andrevan a tendentious editor, did Andrevan violate BLP, did Andrevan misrepresent sources. I promise I did not. But open a separate thread about me. This is about Nishidani's civility. Or, is it OK for some editors to be incivil to others as long as those editors were tendentious? Not what I thought.

I assume I am not supposed to comment here anymore, but I will be taking a nice long break from the article regardless.

Levivich should review the accepted definition and metrics for WP:BLUDGEON, as it in no way described responding politely to a thread and asking for clarification or discussing questions. And please let me know if I need to strike or remove these comments due to the word count. I've actually rarely been to AE before and certainly never warned or sanctioned here that I can recall. There was a kerfluffle in 2018 when I was an admin; ask me about it if you want to know. But Nishidani has been repeatedly warned and topic-banned, so despite his gracious message below and other times that he has been gracious and we've gotten along, I do think he should at the very least, agree to a mutual break on the article in question.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[75]

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

I thought it best (in terms of not wasting even more time) not to comment here. I do so now because it has been suggested that the situation is so 'toxic' on that page that all editors should be banned from it. That would be deeply unfair, especially to Levivich. I have clashed with Levivich, quite strongly (on my talk page in the distance past) over I/P issues. But, even while doing so, I have had occasion to admire and express deep appreciation for his mastery of wiki protocols, and exceptional ability in cutting to the chase to make a neutral, balanced assessment of conflicting views in lengthy disputes, on any number of other topics that, when I have noted them, arise on various administrative pages.

On the page in question, in the early deletion process, there was something very peculiar someone like myself had to handle: objecting editors refusing to accept what strong sources clearly stated. To my surprise, Levivich stepped in, and comprehensively demolished these early objections, succinctly, with analytical cogency, on the basis of source mastery. He'd done his homework thoroughly and came out in favour of its retention. Given our past clashes, I couldn't but admire the way he suspended all ideological or personal readings, and simply hewed to the documentary facts, which happened to suggest that the title, and its content were a reasonable summary of the state of scholarship on a little known and neglected topic. It was proof of exceptional integrity, shorn of any suspicion of bias, partisanship, or politics, in a very sensitive topic area where we have, elsewhere, often found ourselves at opposite ends of the spectrum.

On my page, without mentioning his name, I cited several passages from his early comments, that more or less corroborated the fact that I was not alone in my frustrations. For using that material I apologize to Levivich. I should not have dragged him into this. He certainly should not suffer from any general sanction, because his neutrality is above suspicion, and his judgment has been throughout informed by mastery of the topic sources, which few other editors appear to have troubled themselves to read. His intervention for me exemplified how an ideal administrator would behave in managing conflict.

I'd have no objection to being banned from the page, if the closer also looks at the behaviour of the plaintiff in this case and takes some similar measure in their regard. It's been three months, the dispute is driven by just two people among a score of editors, and it's time to bury it. Take out one from each side for balance to respect the cause-and-effect aspect of this continual disruption and this sorry episode can finally rest.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde. I am on the short end of life. Three months defending a page from erasure or radical rewriting, by editors who in my view have not read or will not read the sources and simply object to the topic with frivolous pettifogging, was already an excessive taxation on one's time. Further mediation, i.e., a month or two of the same, would only impose a recitative of source citation versus opinions already exhaustively done. A ban would end the dispute itself, since it would put an end to secondguessing what the topic is about, or should be about, without even reading the sources.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Andrevan has just stated he has decided to take a very long break from the page, I should think any possible measure against him, as some have suggested, should be dropped. This would not apply to myself, since I maintain an active interest in the page that may lead to continued, if rare, editing. So, I have no objection to any sanction in my regard. This always in the interests of parity.Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell.Just a technical point. I am banned from ever using AE, except to defend myself if some complaint against me is registered here (three arising from the article I wrote so far). If it has to be spelled out, that has meant that for 4 years, anyone who strongly disagrees with my work, can report me - as the record shows often on frivolous complaints that have left a mark though dismissed - while I am denied a reciprocal right. So the option you suggested, that I should have myself raised the issue here, rather than remonstrate on the talk page, was never on. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier (involved)

Filer has proposed an RM to change the current article title from "Zionism, race and genetics" to "Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism" which on the face of it has little to do with the existing title. Said RM is not at present garnering a consensus and has devolved into increasingly bald assertions with little foundation such as "The point is that the article scope is synthetic and stitched together" an argument repeated ad nauseum and which failed at AfD.

Imo Nishidani is with some justification irritated (as am I, tbh) at the continued efforts of a subset of involved editors persistently advocating for a change of title and complaining about the article content for months in succession following an AfD which did not achieve the desired outcome from their POV.

The longer the talk page gets the more likely it is this sort of thing is going to occur, the RM should be allowed to conclude without further disruption (from anyone).

Statement by Jeppiz

I must say I find this complaint somewhat frivolous. I have disagreed with Nishidani on content matters many, many times but hold Nishidani to be a valuable contributor. Looking at the diffs provided here, I see - at most - some small frustration but nothing that would rise to the level of any action.Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

The way I feel about it is summed up here: [76]. The last time this came to AE, when I was the filing editor, I was told that I had overreacted, and was described elsewhere as having sought "a pound of flesh". So I've chosen not to come back to AE about what has been happening, but I thank Andrevan for making the effort. If AE admins think that saying that Andrevan and I are not motivated by anything constructive in proposing RMs is made OK by following it with the claim that "I am not attacking the motives of the two editors...", if AE admins think that saying that "I am challenging their competence..." is nothing more than a heated discussion of content because it is followed by "I can see little evidence of a mastery of the sources", and if AE admins can brush all of that off as just some nifty elegance of phrasing, then I guess that after 16 years of editing here, I have not only failed to understand how to read sources, but I also don't understand what editors are expected to behave like when there are CTs. Whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow up, and this time, I'll try not to be sarcastic. I see from the admin comments that I'm not the only person who finds the talk page hard to deal with. I'll also point out that, despite the characterization of "two editors", I have very often disagreed with Andrevan and agreed with Nishidani on content matters. So I really dislike Nishidani's use of "two editors" to lump Andrevan and me together. My primary interest in the page began when I saw the AfD and decided that efforts going on by other editors to find a different pagename would be something where I'd like to help. The one RM where I was the editor proposing the change was supported by Andrevan, Nishidani, and Levivich, and the change was a mere comma. (Yes, a comma.) And it ended in "no consensus". The present RM was proposed by Andrevan, but I brainstormed with him to come up with the proposal, and I strongly support it. I've also criticized his framing of the RM nomination ([77]), but that doesn't change the merits of the proposal. Anyway, I find it really horrible to have to bat down efforts to shut down the RM discussion (and bury it in a wall of text), by Nishidani and his enablers whose very lengthy arguments boil down to "we are tired of having to discuss new proposals, and two editors – Andrevan and Tryptofish – are just here to make trouble, because they clearly do not understand the source material". That's what the comments I linked to in my initial post here are saying. Vanamonde has it right: Nishidani needs to stop personalizing his comments at that talk page. If he doesn't like what someone is saying, he can respond with a factual reference to the source material, without the lumping of editors into the good guys and the enemies, and he can take substantive conduct concerns here. Instead, comments like [78] come across to me as a personal attack, and WP:BRIE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan makes a fair point about the boomerang aspect of this: see WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm seeing administrative reluctance, so I'm gonna repeat myself: WP:BRIE. And WP:2WRONGS: if anyone here wants a boomerang or action against anyone else, open up a separate AE thread for that. And admins, instead of feeling overwhelmed about looking at the talk page and imagining blocking everyone there, just focus on the case that has been placed before you, and deal with the merits of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde: I'm saying this in the context of admins appearing to find it difficult to deal with this particular case, and I'm basing that on comments by your fellow admins. In difficult cases like this, I recommend reading WP:2WRONGS (not least because I wrote it). Nothing in my comment does, or could, prevent an AE admin from nonetheless throwing the boomerang. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to correct a factual untruth. Harry Mitchell repeats a claim by Nishidani et al. that Andrevan is "using the RM process to implicitly change the scope of the article". This is absolutely false. The proposed RM change would actually make the title correspond much more closely with the existing page, as I have tried to explain carefully on the talk page. This has been a falsehood that has been supported only by the argument that "we are the editors who understand the sources, so you should believe what we say". --Tryptofish (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

I share Self's irritation, because

Last month, Andre argued that the sources aren't about Zionism, race, and genetics, they're really about Zionism and eugenics. That Zionism, race, and genetic may be "synthetic, or original" (meaning WP:SYNTH or WP:OR).
Then he said it's about Zionism and race, not genetics, or Zionism and race/eugenics but not modern genetics. Editors listed sources that discuss Zionism, race, and genetics.
Then he said, it's about Zionism, race, and genetics, but not molecular genetics or actual genetic science or Mendelian genetics, and thus it's SYNTH, an anachronism and temporally confusing. Nishidani and I pointed to sources that covered Zionism, race, molecular, and Mendelian genetics.
Then he said "these sources cover Zionism, purported Jewish race, and purported Jewish genetics, and not Palestinians," even though I had just quoted from a source talking about all four in the same paragraph.
Then he complained that two sources, Abu El Haj and Ostrer, were given "equal billing." I quoted from multiple scholars that discussed those two sources as a set (they were both published in 2012 and had opposing views, and are significant works in the field).
Then he said just because the sources give them equal billing doesn't mean Wikipedia should.
Then he said Ostrer is not about race or Zionism. I quoted Ostrer discussing race and Zionism.
Then he said Abu El Haj only "mentions DNA". I provided an extensive quote from Abu El Haj discussing genetics. He replies, "Yes, El-Haj talks quite a bit about concepts such as Y-chromosomes or Cohen modal haplotypes, but, she isn't qualified to opine on those topics scientifically, and a lot of that is outdated already." By this point I'd quoted from a number of sources that cited and discussed Abu El Haj. But she's not qualified because "Nadia Abu El-Haj is a leader of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Some people consider that movement antisemitic," "not just a Palestinian, but a pro-Palestinian political actor," "a Palestinian nationalist with an anti-Israel POV." (For WP:BLP purposes, let me state I do not believe these characterizations are accurate.)
Yesterday, he said the article scope is synthetic and stitched together.
Then he said it violates MEDRS.

This isn't everything; Andre's signature appears 67 times on the article talk page and another 60 times in the most-recent archive page (which BTW isn't the highest, there are editors who have posted more). Levivich (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, we're not children. Levivich (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nish, for the kind words. It's true, I was appalled at seeing a number of editors claim that sources don't cover X when they very clearly covered X, including entire pages, sections, chapters, papers, and books, directly and entirely about X. When other editors demonstrated these sources covered X, some editors would claim they didn't cover Y. When they were shown the sources covered Y, they next claimed the sources didn't cover Z. And so on. In Andre's case, we got through X, Y, and Z, then it became "not qualified" (demonstrably false), or saying that just because sources give equal billing to two viewpoints doesn't mean Wikipedia should (that is the literal, exact opposite of NPOV), or saying well, she's Palestinian, leader of BDS, and anti-Israel (probably a BLP violation), and then, MEDRS (there is no WP:BMI in the article). This is a series of baseless arguments, sometimes policy-violating arguments. Then editors lose their cool, and the editor making the baseless arguments report them for incivility. It's a story as old as Wikipedia. I've personally been on all sides of it.

If admins want to do something helpful that doesn't take three months, why not reinforce the idea, with some kind of general reminder, that editors need to WP:RTFS -- that misrepresenting sources is serious and sanctionable misconduct -- and that editors shouldn't say a source doesn't cover X if it has a chapter called "X", for example.

You could add to the general reminder that if editors are engaging in this sort of source misrepresentation, other editors should report them to AE rather than losing their cool and telling them in so many words to f off. But that only works if admins at AE are willing to sanction that particular misconduct. In my view, too often admins skip right over that and call it "content dispute." Like, you can say anything you want about a source, and admins will say "content dispute." That's also a story as old as Wikipeida. So instead of reporting it, editors just tell each other to f off.

This is true everywhere on Wikipedia, but especially true in contentious topic areas. I'm over my limit, I'll shut up now. Levivich (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I know I said I'd shut up, but this is something new, but related. Please look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are Hamas and Gaza ministry numbers reliable?. I don't know about everyone else, but I see the literally the same pattern of gish gallop-WP:BLUDGEONing in the discussion as I saw in the Zionism/race/genetics talk page. IMO this is an ongoing problem that should stop. It's overwhelming and thus disruptive. Levivich (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Ill also add that Andrevan's edits to enforce his entirely off-base idea that El-Hajj may not be used because she has views he does not like or because of MEDRS (????????), seen in this diff (includes a pair of minor changes by another editor) is likewise tendentious. We have editors attempting to enforce an ideological purity test on sources. Participation in BDS, a wholly nonviolent protest against a state, is used as an attempt to disqualify a freaking tenured Columbia University professor, who by the way is a natural born American citizen, making a Palestinian anthropologist or not just a Palestinian, but a pro-Palestinian political actor or a Palestinian nationalist with an anti-Israel POV purely about ethnicity and not nationality, cited in a book published by Stanford University Press or in the Journal of the History of Biology. This is the same type of thing that happens in AP2, editors are seeking to enforce some ideological purity test on sources. The problem they have here however is that the views they dislike are mainstream, academic, superbly qualified, and by any objective reading of our policies should be included in our articles. Ive told Nishidani in the past, several times I think, that he should stfu about the intellectual rigor in the arguments advanced against his position on talk pages. But I have yet to encounter a single instance in which he was not right, in which the person he was arguing against was bringing specious and otiose arguments devoid of sourcing or logic. You have an editor making claims that a person's ethnicity or political views disqualifies their usage as a reliable source, when that person meets every single criteria of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You have an editor editing to that effect in the mainspace. And you have an editor annoyed with it and said so. Yes, he shouldnt say so, we should all continue to pretend that we are the best of pals and everybody is advancing honest arguments, but maybe pretend the problem isnt the annoyance, thats just a symptom of the actual problem. nableezy - 14:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if the problem of this isnt clear to you, try replacing Palestinian with Jew or Jewish in those quotes and see if it becomes clearer. nableezy - 15:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, yall should lift this bonkers restriction prohibiting a user from using the DR process when necessary. nableezy - 17:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by North8000

I dropped in at that article as an additional set of eyes. IMHO it's a weird situation, with the ostensible core question far more easy to fix than it appears. IMHO the 30,000 foot view on the biggest question appears to be:

Generally, folks (including Nishidani) agree on the current general scope of the article
Most folks think that the current title has problems. There's an RM open to move to a particular title. Nobody is wedded to that particular proposed title, it's acknowledged to be merely a best effort at a fix.
Nishidani is throwing out a lot a heat against any title change, saying that the motive for any title change is to change the general scope of the article! (see #1!)
In a effort to help sort it out, as step 1 I asked Nishidani to describe what the scope of the article is/should be. Due to #1 above, I figured that would head this towards a solution. Nishidani never answered.

So it appears that Nishidani has already "won" the main thing that they really want but is unwilling or unable to recognize that and instead keeps throwing out heat and accusations. I don't understand that, but perhaps a rest from the article (which they seem to have agreed to) would help that get sorted out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nishidani

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

Re "as having a destructive motive", I can't find "destruct" in the above or at Talk:Zionism, race and genetics. Re "incompetence", there are places on article talk where more circumlocution should have been used but in context it's not an attack as in "X is incompetent", it's an opinion that some have made decisions with no regard for the sources (I have no idea about the accuracy of that opinion, but it's less egregious than an attack). Re "waste of time", if "written over three months" above is correct, it's understandable that someone would regard rehashing the same points to be a waste of time. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say that I cannot find the following at all collegial or civil: "You obviously don't know what you are talking about" or "what has been written over three months of relentless attrition by, mainly, two editors who can't accept the existing title" or (from a glance at the talk page outside of what Andrevan brought here) "Like most of the comments in these endless threads, we are asked to debate questions that a competent grasp of the sources would not normally allow one to raise" (from a post at 10:48 20 October) or "Many editors appear far more disposed to argufying on talk pages than actually doing in depth reading to improve pages" (17:18 20 October) (Please note I did not investigate other editors of that page and that I have no interest in delving into the quagmire that is the whole of the editing area of the Middle East). I understand that the talk page has been contentious and subject to a lot of discussion, but when that is the case, the best practice is to work to be MORE civil, rather than let your frustration show - which will only degrade things. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, the whole discussion/topic area is not good, all around. If I had more time to mediate on the talk page, I'd try to get the discussion back on the rails. But I don't have that time. I briefly (for about 20 seconds) considered just banning everyone from the article who's commented on the talk page, but then sanity reared its head and I knew that if I don't have time to mediate the talk page, I certainly don't have time for the firestorm that would erupt if I did such a banning. Like Tamzin, I'm not going to stick my neck out for a unilateral action in THIS topic area, I don't have that much free time to devote to one rather obscure article. But can we at least have everyone engaging on the talk page TRY to behave better - less bludgeoning and more listening to each other and at least attempting to avoid being provoked by the other editors? Ealdgyth (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the fourth AE request about this talk page. I closed the first with a TBAN of Tombah, a decision which I think has been thoroughly vindicated. I closed the second with warnings to Drsmoo and Nishidani, which everyone seemed happy with, and left a warning on the talkpage of Z1720's design. In the third I gave Nishidani a short pageban and was then persuaded that that was overkill, and vacated it with apologies. I had a quite nice conversation with Nishidani afterward; I was less taken with some comments by people who were nowhere to be found during two exhausting previous AE threads. So you can bet I'm not going to be the one to close this fourth request. But I do think Levivich has made a pretty good case that Andrevan's participation on the talkpage has been tendentious and disruptive, particularly the insinuation that El-Haj is antisemitic. Something should probably be done about that. G-dspeed to whoever decides on what that should be. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked into this with any real depth but from Tamzins description above this feels like the kind of AE report that option of a referral to arbcom was made for. I leave it to the capable admin here to decide if it's actually a good cj in this situation. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was mulling over that thought when I wrote this comment. Now seems like a bad time for an ARBPIA 4—at least in my non-arb judgment as someone who can recall Manning naming dispute, where ArbCom review of a rapidly-unfolding controversy turned out to make things harder in the end—but I would support a referral to ArbCom on the specific question of conduct relating to the article currently titled "Zionism, race and genetics" (not that we can stop ArbCom from pursuing a broader scope if it wants). I agree with most of Vanamonde93's analysis below, but we've already done logged warnings. We've already done a general warning to all talkpage participants. Analyzing individual editors' conduct piecemeal hasn't been very effective. If we're not going to do the kind of nuclear option Ealdgyth mentions—a thought I've also toyed with a few times—then the next step would seem to be systemic review by ArbCom. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: There's a reason I used the word "insinuation" here. Let's say someone were to say "Andrevan is a user of Discord, which some people say is a meeting place for white supremacists". Both halves of this statement, independently, are true (the former per your userpage, the latter per e.g. [79]). But obviously, juxtaposing those two pieces of information would clearly carry the insinuation that you are a white supremacist. (Which I do not think you are, to be clear! But I thought this would make for an illustrative example.) So it's not in dispute that El-Haj is a leader of BDS. And it's not in dispute that BDS has been accused (credibly or otherwise) of anti-Semitism. But do you see what happens when you put those two things together? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The behavior of multiple editors leaves something to be desired. The difficulty is that it is bad in different ways. As Tamzin says above, Andre's comments questioning El Haj as a source are deeply problematic (not because they question her reliability, but because of the way they do so). Contentious topics do not only require civility; they do also require that editors not make specious arguments, that they ground their arguments in policy, that they not bludgeon talk page discussions, and that they read and comprehend sources they're citing and/or critiquing (I'm not saying Andre is failing to do all of that; I am making a general point). Conversely, I do wish Nishidani would respond to such comments by ignoring them, pointing out their lack of basis, or bringing them to admin noticeboards, as appropriate. Personal commentary is not only not appropriate from a policy perspective, it's actively unhelpful in resolving the conflict in any way. I'm not keen on referring this to ARBCOM. There is a lot of ongoing discussion, which the principal actors here are best placed to resolve. Symmetrical page bans would make that harder, and an ARBCOM case harder still. I'm leaning toward logged warnings, even if that feels somewhat insufficient. I'm really hoping that Andre and Nishidani recognize that if this were to go to ARBCOM, sanctions are likely; they both evidently care about this topic, but are going to find themselves unable to edit it unless a course-correction happens. Talk page mediation would be very helpful, but I absolutely do not have the time for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin: I don't want to refer this to ARBCOM because, in addition to what I wrote above, I don't see this as an intractable dispute; page bans would likely fix any aspect of this that ARBCOM could address. I only reluctant to impose such a ban because I'm unsure if that's too harsh, not if it's too lenient. A warning remains my preference, but if there is no appetite for that I'd support single-page TBANS for Andrevan and Nishidani over an ARBCOM referral (which of course I cannot prevent another admin from making at any point). Vanamonde (Talk) 23:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish, it is entirely standard practice to examine the conduct of the person opening an AE complaint. I closed a report above with a boomerang just a few hours ago. I don't know why you think a separate report would be needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not analyzed the full discussion involved in this case, although I did close the AfD, so this is only a provisional comment. I frankly agree with Levivich's views here. Misrepresenting a source needs to be considered a red-line tendentious behavior akin to violating 3RR. Andrevan's response is a good one: course-correcting is of course what we want as a community. Nevertheless, while it's a good response, I don't know that it's an exonerating one. Everyone makes errors, but repeated errors, involving the same topic, followed by attempts to sanction their opponents in said discussion at AE? That starts to seem tendentious. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is a mess. Without doubt, several of the participants have contributed to the breakdown of discourse. In particular, Andrevan is pushing one interpretation that does not meet with consensus, and is arguably being tendentious by using the RM process to implicitly change the scope of the article rather than trying to work the issues out through normal discussion. Additionally, his description of a living person whose work is cited in the article is not acceptable. Nonetheless, Nishidani's responses are also inappropriate. Talk pages are not the place to discuss other editors' motives or accuse them of misconduct instead of bringing a complaint to AE; and it's not just with Andrevan that Nishidani has crossed over the line into discussing contributors rather than content, thus derailing the discussion, or at least taking it further off-course. I quite like Ealdgyth's nuclear option; I wouldn't lose any sleep over fully protecting the article and talk page for a week or so to lock everyone out and hopefully help people regain some perspective. Failing that, I favour a short-to-medium term page ban for both Andrevan and Nishidani, both whom are good editors whose contributions I respect but who are a significant part of the toxicity on this talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

LoomCreek

LoomCreek partially blocked from Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion for two weeks by Tamzin. Seems they're better aware of the rules around 1RR now, and hopefully this behavior does not recur. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2023 (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 LoomCreek

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: LoomCreek (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

Edit warring over whether and how to mention Hananya Naftali:

17:51, 20 October 2023 (weakened PolitiFact's statement about Naftali's official status)
04:36, 20 October 2023 (reverted removal of content)
15:51, 19 October 2023 (reverted removal of content)
03:37, 19 October 2023 (reverted "Israeli influencer" to "a digital aide")
03:13, 19 October 2023 (reverted sentence saying his comment was misattributed as by a government spokesperson")

Edit warring over description of Channel 4's assessment of the voice intercept: (Content originally added by LoomCreek, diff not linked)

Edit warring over whether to attribute a casualty estimate to the "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry", or just the "Gaza Health Ministry":

Edit warring over whether to mention the initial Guardian impression:

19:53, 18 October 2023
19:11, 18 October 2023
02:21, 18 October 2023 (Same as third diff in Al Jazeera section)

Edit warring over whether to say that Al Jazeera attributed the explosion to Israel:

19:47, 18 October 2023
19:17, 18 October 2023
02:21, 18 October 2023 (Same as third diff in Guardian section)

Edit warring over whether to use "claim" in reference to Israeli statements about the explosion:

Edit warring over whether sources were sufficient for a claim: (Content originally added by LoomCreek, diff not linked)

05:10, 19 October 2023 (reverted removal of content)
03:30, 19 October 2023 (removed "better source needed" template)
22:58, 18 October 2023 (removed "better source needed" template)
01:58, 18 October 2023 (reverted removal of content)

I requested that they self-revert whichever of these reverts that they could and while they said they would be careful, they did not self revert. I posted a follow up comment repeating my request for a self-revert to which they have not replied, despite having subsequently made further edits and reverts to the article in question. I've taken that as an implicit rejection of the self-revert request and that in combination with the subsequent 1RR breaches led me to decide it is necessary to bring the issue here.

This request does not include every problematic edit; I would need approximately 30 more diffs and 200 words to present them all. Note also that some of these diffs are consecutive, and thus do not count as separate reverts; however, no diffs in the same section are consecutive with each other.

This case potentially extends into AP2; while investigating these reverts I noticed they had previously been warned twice about edit warring at Red scare; investigating further I found that they had engaged in edit wars at other articles that I believe are covered by contentious topics, including Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán (3RR breach) and Killing of Rayshard Brooks. 07:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

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 10:34, 20 October 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

this edit is the only one that came after billedmammal had informed me There was a second revert, but it wasn't part of any repeat edit warring and so I choose to prioritize other diffs over including it. If admins are willing to give me additional diffs and words I can expand. 20:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Comparing the reverts above to the current state of the article I'm not sure any are still appropriate for a self-revert; many have been reverted by other editors, and the remainder has changed extensively from the version implemented by LoomCreek.

Regarding they seem to have not understood the 1RR until the 20th, they also made multiple breaches of 3RR at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, and I am a little concerned that their continued denial of having also violated that policy at Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán (four reverts between 21:57, 7 October 2023 and 02:06, 8 October 2023) means that they will break it again shortly. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression the rule was by each day at least by UTC. Once again, I don't really do super heavy editing when it comes to articles like this. I mostly do other wikimedia work, map & graph/image creation, and article creation (Coumarin derivatives for ex.). If you're certain I'll break the rule again soon, I welcome you to take it to arbitration then for a broader topic ban. - LoomCreek (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That misunderstanding makes sense; thank you for explaining. The explanation does alleviate my concerns that we are going to end up back here or at WP:AN3 again shortly. BilledMammal (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

07:57, 21 October 2023

Discussion concerning LoomCreek

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 LoomCreek

As for the claim of misuse at other articles, Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán and Killing of Rayshard Brooks the 3R was never broken. And they tried to claim a revert that I did removing hate speech was falsely labeled Hate speech, someone putting "(was/were)" under a gender nonconforming person whose been killed classifies as such. Red Scare was also someone singlehandedly attempting to change the lead intro after several editors told them to stop and that they were not acting in good faith. If I could back I would've done more to handle it better, the 3R rule was never broken however.

Now to address on the current topic.

For Naftali I did more then I should, before I was fully aware of the different ruleset. After I learned of it I stopped.

17:51, 20 October 2023 and #03:13, 19 October 2023 don't have standing as edit warring.

The first one was simply an additional quotation from the politifact article and clean up of the intro sentence to make it easier to read, something I said in my summary (this edit is the only one that came after billedmammal had informed me).The second one was just a simple removal of original research, there wasn't any reliable sources cited to it, had nothing to do with the content. The other edits I definitely made a mistake on and I'm sorry about that.

All earlier edits were made in good faith, it was just before I was fully aware of the ruleset around the article. I would also like to mention most of the topics here were heavily discussed in the talk page. I'll drop editing this topic for a while, and if you like to implement a topic ban for a while that's fine. But I want to make it clear I was not acting in bad faith. LoomCreek (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jeppiz

This would be seem to be an unusually clear case of repeated disruptive behaviour. Some of the diffs provided show flagrant violations of the 1RR in place on these articles, and should have led to blocks if reported. The fact that we see so many disruptions from LoomCreek in such a short time, and on so sensitive articles, indicate that they should not edit the ARBPIA area. The occasional overstep is one thing, but systematic violations is not acceptable. Jeppiz (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning LoomCreek

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

I have p-blocked from Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion for 2 weeks for violating 1RR; this should be treated as a warning for edit-warring more generally as well. I'm disinclined to sanction further given that they seem to have not understood the 1RR until the 20th; the hospital explosion is the one page they continued to revert on subsequent to that (the 17:51 edit restores a sentence that had been added at 04:36 and later removed), so hopefully a p-block will make clear what counts as edit-warring here. BilledMammal, if you would like to list what edits you think should be self-reverted, go ahead. It's not entirely clear to me from the above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on positive discourse above, this can probably be closed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan rostie

Stephan rostie blocked for a fortnight for multiple 1RR violations. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:24, 24 October 2023 (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 Stephan rostie

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Stephan rostie (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

Stephan rostie has been engaged in edit warring and 1RR violations at two articles within the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area

At Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

20:23, 19 October 2023 - Restored a claim that Al Jazeera attributed the strike to Israel.
15:37, 19 October 2023 - Reverted edit
10:32, 18 October 2023 - Removed sentence about IDF phone intercept
22:46, 17 October 2023 - Removed sentence about munitions in protected locations

At 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Edit warring over how to summarize the countries that denounced Hamas for its actions:

General 1RR violations:

11:43, 20 October 2023 - Removed mention of massacring civilians
22:46, 19 October 2023 - Reverted edit
14:22, 19 October 2023 - "alleged Israeli war crimes" → "Israeli war crimes", with the edit summary starting with I am sorry if that would annoy some genocide deniers
13:11, 19 October 2023 - Removed claim that Hamas launches rockets into civilian areas, and that Israel frequently responds with bombing campaigns

They self reverted 20:23, 19 October 2023 at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion after I approached them, but when I approached then about the 2023 Israel-Hamas war violations they ignored me; since then they have made further reverts, including further 1RR violations.

They were warned for 3RR violations in March, and then blocked twice for edit warring in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area in July (linked below). The second time they were blocked it was requested that they do not edit in the topic area until they are extended-confirmed; they agreed to this. Immediately after they made a few hundred edits, mostly consisting of adding just a wikilink, (for a representative example, this edit at Jody Sperling; they made 27 almost-identical edits within the span of 11 minutes at the same article) many of which were later reverted. They stopped making these edits when they reached ECP.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

22:53, 17 July 2023 - Blocked for edit warring at Arabs
09:01, 20 July 2023 - Blocked for edit warring/1RR violations at Arabs

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:11, 17 July 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

22:11, 22 October 2023

Discussion concerning Stephan rostie

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 Stephan rostie

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Stephan rostie

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

I've blocked Stephan rostie for two weeks for the multiple 1RR violations with a history of edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good block. If this is going to become a habit, more draconian sanctions might be needed but we can address that later if we need to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[3] ttps://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/220628-trilat-memo.pdf "As prospective NATO Allies, Finland and Sweden extend their fully support to Turkiye against threats to its national security. To that effect, Finland and Sweden will not provide support to YPG/PYD, and the organisation described as FETÖ in Turkiye. Turkiye also extends its full support to Finland and Sweden against threats to their national security. Finland and Sweden reject and condemn terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, in the strongest terms. Finland and Sweden unambiguously condemn all terrorist organisations perpetrating attacks against Turkiye, and express their deepest solidarity with Turkiye and the families of the victims"

[a]

[b]

[1]

@@ Line 498: / Line 498: @@
 {{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} could you take a look at [[Special:Diff/1180879557]] by Nableezy? He wrote that a fellow editor made a "dishonest claim" and also made an ethnic characterization with "and no it is not just those dishonest Arabs reporting about it". This is worse than Lilijuros' comment. ---Lilach5 ([[User:לילך5|לילך5]]) [[User talk:לילך5|discuss]] 19:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
-====Statement by Alicbiades979====
+====Statement by Alcibiades979====
 I've been on the [[Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion]] page and have witnessed a torrent of abuse by Nableezy. In response to a moderator requesting [[WP:ONUS]] in regard to the inclusion of a source he swore repeatedly at the moderator [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1181831049 here], casting aspersions in edit summary [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion&diff=prev&oldid=1181831194 here], abusive comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosion&diff=prev&oldid=1181637131 here], more abusive comments to a moderator [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1181832064 here], more [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1181832649 here]. And this is only in the past 24 hours and related to one page. I've been editting wiki for years and haven't seen behaviour like this before. [[User:Alcibiades979|Alcibiades979]] ([[User talk:Alcibiades979|talk]]) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

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