Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd. For the English language varieties in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style § National varieties of English.

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

KhndzorUtogh

Closed with no sanction. KhndzorUtogh and Parishan both given some advice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning KhndzorUtogh User who is submitting this request for enforcement Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 1 January 2024 The sentence "Azerbaijan regains control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh" added by a third-party user; 3 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh changes "regains" to "takes" and leaves a note on the talkpage; 5 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh's edit reverted, with a discussion ensuing on the talkpage; 18 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh reverts back while the discussion is in progress and nowhere near reaching consensus. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 28 December 2023 KhndzorUtogh is currently subject to an indefinite arbitration enforcement sanction requiring them to obtain consensus before readding any reverted content in AA3 articles. They have also been warned not to engage in battleground editing. 9 January 2024 The sanction conditions were clarified to them (on their own request) just a few days ago. Additional comments by editor filing complaint KhndzorUtogh narrowly escaped an indefinite topic ban following the most recent AE request addressing their battleground behaviour, but unfortunately continues to display the same editing pattern that earned them the one-revert sanction they have just violated. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [1] Discussion concerning KhndzorUtogh 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 KhndzorUtogh 3 January 2024 is not a revert, it is a general copyediting diff, all of the changes of which I explained on the talkpage for Ken Aeron, the user that edited 1 January 2024. Ken never replied, instead Parishan later did. The 5 January 2024 edit by Parishan (who is the un-named editor) was only a partial revert; I didn't receive a notification that I was reverted and hadn't realized that I had been. I also wasn't notified Parishan had replied to me four days later on 9 January because I didn't get an alert. By the time I noticed it on 18 January, I didn't remember a one-word change out of a much larger copyediting edit I made for a different user. Since I wasn't notified of Parishan's revert, it appeared that the word was never changed. The 18 January 2024 edit came after I posted several sources for it on the talk page, so it had seemed like a single bold edit I had made, in line with WP:BRD. And it seems like incredibly bad faith and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for Parishan to link a discussion I had with Callanec showing several examples of me being careful to adhere to the rules, and then somehow conclude "continues to display the same editing pattern". For example, I followed the advice given here to the letter on the Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh article. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk: This article had a massive amount of activity within the first few days of January (42 revisions by 13 users). I was reviewing every change and copyediting where needed, and unfortunately amid all the other changes, I forgot that I had already changed this one word. The confusion also came from interacting with two different users. After I copy edited several changes made by Ken Aeron, that user never disputed anything in my edit, so I must've made a mental note this issue was resolved. Then Parishan made a manual change; not a revert, so I never got the "Your edit on X was reverted" notification. When I changed the word on 18 January, I thought I was changing it for the first time as WP:BRD allows. I wouldn't have changed the word otherwise, I'm being very careful not to get into an edit war. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC) By partial revert, I only meant that the 3 January 2024 edit was not 1:1 reverted by the 5 January 2024 edit; Parishan only made one change (perhaps not an undo, so I never got the "Your edit on X was reverted" notification would've been a better choice of words). Of course I understand this is still a revert, but because it left most of my changes intact, didn't use the undo button (which sends a notification), and the article had a lot of recent activity, I hadn't noticed it at the time. And regarding the various 1 January 2024 edits by Ken Aeron, I remember the most alarming changes being the addition of false/unsourced claims (the part about the armed forces) and the unexplained removal of sourced information. I hope this explains why I didn't recall changing one word as clearly as the other differences. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning KhndzorUtogh This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I'm looking at the talk page of 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh as it was at the time that you made this edit. I'm plainly not seeing consensus in the relevant discussion (i.e. the NPOV issues section of the talk). The guidance given by Callanecc on your talk page, particularly An editor adds something to an article. You revert/change what they added. An editor reverts you. You can't revert their edit without a consensus, makes the restriction quite clear. @KhndzorUtogh: In light of the above, would you be willing to explain why you made the edit to re-insert your preferred language of takes even though it had been reverted to regains by another editor prior to your doing so? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC) @KhndzorUtogh: Let me lay this out a little bit more clearly, from my understanding: An editor adds something to an article (Azerbaijan regains control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh) you change what they added (Azerbaijan takes control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh) an editor (partially) reverts you (Azerbaijan regains control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh) You revert edit No. 3 without a consensus (Azerbaijan takes control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh, talk page does not show consensus to revert) Am I missing anything here? Alternatively, to what extent do you not understand how Edit #3 is a revert (i.e. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part) of Edit #2, or how Edit #4 is a revert of Edit #3? The ability to have a narrowly tailored restriction that requires one to limit one's own editing, rather than requiring more blunt technical enforcement measures to do so, (i.e. your "consensus-required"-lite restriction given on 28 December, as clarified on 9 January), rests in large part upon one's ability to understand what sorts of edits would be in that restrictions scope. If you don't understand why Edit #3 and Edit #4 constitute reverts, this very well could pose a problem going forward. Can you help me to better understand what your thought process is around what is and isn't a revert? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC) If I'm understanding KU right, they are not disputing that edits 3 or 4 were reverts. I think they are saying that they: did not remember making edit 2 therefore did not perceive edit 3 as a revert at the time therefore knew that edit 4 was a revert, but not that it was a re-addition of reverted content It's hard for me to reconcile that version of events with the talk page discussion, which was mentioned in edit 3, and which would have acted as an obvious reminder that there was history of dispute over "regains"/"takes". Regardless, whether it's a failure to understand, a lapse of memory, or something else, I'm not sure it matters. The purpose of the sanction is to stop KU from edit warring, and if it's not working, then we should escalate the sanction. I'd support something like a one week block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC) With respect to they are not disputing that edits 3 or 4 were reverts, the respondent’s stated above Then Parishan made a manual change; not a revert, so I never got the "Your edit on X was reverted" notification (emphasis mine), referring to Edit #3. I think they may be confusing the “undo” feature with the broader concept of a revert, but the respondent can speak for themself. The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the revert restriction is a self-limiting sanction; the sanctioned editor needs to have a decent understanding of what reverts are if they are going to avoid violating a revert restriction. And they haven’t understood that even after a pretty clear explanation on their talk page. Absent them understanding what a revert is, for purposes of their sanction, they are likely to violate it going forward even if they are willing (in the abstract) to abide by it. I don’t want to set up an editor to fail—the editor either needs to demonstrate that they understand the sanction, or we need to move to a more restrictive one that the editor does understand. I agree that we can block one week for a first-offense violation of the revert restriction (particularly in light of the explanation/clarification posted on the user’s talk page), and I would hope that we can get some assurance from the editor that they understand their revert restriction going forward. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 14:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC) I have the same hopes. Re the terminology, KU described edit 3 in their first response as a "partial revert". I think they get it, but maybe the got sloppy with the wording. KhndzorUtogh, it would help if you could clarify your understanding of what a revert is. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC) If I am understanding correctly, KU is not disputing the facts of the case at all, but is saying that because, on 5 January, another user reverted a small part of a much larger edit KU previously made, and did so in a manner that didn't notify them, they didn't realize they had been reverted in the first place. I find this explanation quite reasonable given the number of intervening edits on that article, as well as KU's activity level. I don't like that we're at AE over a single word that could have been self-reverted, especially when the party being reported here voluntarily engaged on the talk page. Though this is a violation of the letter of the law, I would not levy sanctions here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC) I much prefer to see someone reach out at a user's talk page and explain the reverts and request a self-revert before a trip to AE. When dealing with consensus required, 1RR, enforced BRD , individual sanctions, and all the rest it is easy to make mistakes. I don't think any sanctions are necessary with a commitment to self-revert if a violation is raised and explained. A word that a pattern of such lapses, even with self-reverts, will result in a tightening of sanctions may also not be amiss. That said, as they are already under sanction, and with the explanation and talk page discussion I wouldn't object to a block if other admins believe it is called for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC) I am not eager to be hawkish on a sanction here if my fellow admins think we can get out of this without one. A suggested close: Parishan is advised to request self-reversion when revert-based restrictions are violated, rather than immediately seeking admin action. KhndzorUtogh is advised to self-revert when a possible restriction violation is identified (even if it's in a grey area), and cautioned that a pattern of such lapses, even with self-reverts, will result in a tightening of sanctions. Sound ok, @Red-tailed hawk, Vanamonde93, and ScottishFinnishRadish? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Sounds good to me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC) LGTM. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sakiv

Appeal declined. Galobtter (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
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 Sakiv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sakiv (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Sixth-month topic ban Administrator imposing the sanction ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator diff Statement by Sakiv There was a discussion about the Greater Palestine article that began on January 6, when I brought up the topic of moving the article that began in August. Onceinawhile promptly replied in a non-objective manner and began to personalize the discussion, always referring to me with the word “you.” The same editor had agreed to a rename to PLO and Jordan. Notice that in the history of the article, there is an IP address that suddenly entered the discussion and described me as not being there to build an encyclopedia unlike Onceinawhile. Days passed and the discussion died down for a week, specifically on January 12, when the aforementioned editor nominated the article for deletion. At the same time, as a right to save any article that one of the editors deems worthy of survival, I have attempted to develop it in good faith and constructively. After several hours, editor Zero000 comes and removes content that they find problematic without discussion. I admit that my role was not completely good, but what happened was an accumulation that the other party also contributed to. This reply was very unnecessary and is this a response that helps make the encyclopedia a place for cooperation?. On the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I acknowledge that I was supposed to notify the two editors involved, but there was a discussion that was ongoing and it was not clear what was the appropriate place - dispute resolution or a third opinion. My goal was an administrative measure not to delete texts from an article until the picture became clear. I didn't get any warnings about complaints due to my "battleground edditing". Most of my edits revolve around football and season statistics. My edits bear witness that I stay away from sharp and uncontrolled debate and adhere to neutrality.Sakiv (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC) I received one message on my discussion page and after that I did not say anything about the topic. I am committed to the decision and the topic revolves around that article alone. There are no complaints about my contributions to other articles. I acknowledge that what I did in the Administrators' noticeboard was not what was expected, but that was the basis for the emotions that followed the heated discussion of the article and the discussion of deletion. Sakiv (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Despite this good intention and my avoidance of any disturbances during these days, it seems that there is nothing left to be said. I find it very difficult to understand this reaction. Sakiv (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Where did I attack other editors? How will I explain to you what happened? If there is another way. Tell me instead of this type of talk. Everything I explained to you seems to be of no use. Sakiv (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish Statement by Zero0000 I won't repeat everything I wrote at ANI, except to note that here again Sakiv demonstrates a serious OWN problem with that article (Greater Palestine, now merged). Every disagreement with his/her changes is taken personally no matter how much they are explained. Also, I have never deleted anything from that article without explanation so that charge is false. On the other hand, with only the pseudo-explanation "restore valuable information", this edit of Sakiv undid 10 months worth of edits. Zerotalk 03:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by Star Mississippi While I supported the topic ban in the referenced discussion, I also think their conduct post TB shows that Sakiv got off too lightly. Continuing to re-litigate the old fights is not conducive to collaborative editing and would support a broader block. Star Mississippi 20:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC) NB: not a frequent AE editor, please re-format me if needed. Star Mississippi 20:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sakiv Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2) Result of the appeal by Sakiv This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Spending your appeal attacking other editors is not going to get you anywhere. I think it would have been helpful if ScottishFinnishRadish had linked to a few diffs/the ANI thread to explain the topic ban, but the ANI definitely provides enough examples of poor conduct to justify a TBAN (e.g. You are clearly anti-Israel). Galobtter (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Based on what's been presented here, I see no reason to overturn the 6 month topic ban. It might have even been too lenient, but time will tell on that one. The WordsmithTalk to me 03:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC) An appeal that is spent attacking other users is a non-starter for me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Irtapil

Irtapil indefinitely topic banned from the Palestine/Israel conflict, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Irtapil User who is submitting this request for enforcement BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Irtapil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it WP:1RR violations: At List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war: 13:12, 14 January 2024 - Partial revert of 19:09, 5 January 2024 18:32, 14 January 2024 - Partial revert of 16:33, 14 January 2024 20:14, 15 January 2024 - Partial revert of 16:12, 15 January 2024 22:20, 15 January 2024 - Partial revert of 04:34, 30 December 2023 11:05, 16 January 2024 - Partial revert of 20:43, 15 January 2024 I requested they self-revert after the 22:20, 15 January 2024 edit. They did eventually revert, but not before making an additional 1RR violation at 11:05, 16 January 2024. Note that this edit was only problematic due to the 1RR violation; absent that I would agree with it. 23:23, 18 January 2024 - Partial revert of 16:33, 14 January 2024 10:10, 19 January 2024‎, 10:42, 19 January 2024, 11:11, 19 January 2024, and 12:42, 19 January 2024 - Partial reverts of 03:49, 19 January 2024 I requested they self-revert after the 11:11, 19 January 2024 edit; rather than doing so, they made an additional 1RR violation with the 12:42, 19 January 2024 edit. They still have not self reverted these violations. Looking through a few of their edits, I see they have also violated 1Rr elsewhere, although no request to self-revert these were made, such as at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel: 17:04, 5 January 2024 17:38, 5 January 2024 to 18:22, 5 January 2024‎ 19:01, 5 January 2024 From the discussions that took place on their talk page, my belief is that they want to comply with the 1RR restrictions, but they are struggling to understand what they need to do. I've seen similar behavior elsewhere; where they appear to intend to comply with the relevant restrictions, but for various reasons fail to do so. For example, I previously raised this edit with them, in which they added the claim that the Entire Population 2,375,259 of the Gaza Strip had been Captured, a claim that is both extraordinary and unsupported by the source they added which was from May 2023 and provided the population figures for the Gaza Strip. When I warned them about it on grounds of NPOV, their explanation convinced me that they added this figure in good faith; that they believed the number of affected individuals needed to go somewhere, and they believed the "captured" column was the best of the various options. However, they should have realized that leaving it out was a better choice than introducing a serious WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V issue. Similarly, other editors have warned them about adding content without citations alongside a "citation needed" tag. Again, their explanation convinces me that they are acting in good faith, with them intending to add sources later, but they should realize that they should add the sources and the content in the same edit - or at least at the same time. Elsewhere, I've seen them misunderstanding where and how it is appropriate to notify editors of discussions. To summarize; I believe they want to contribute positively and within the restrictions to the topic area, but I'm not convinced they have the ability - or at least, I don't have the ability to provide the guidance necessary for them to do so, although perhaps some here will be able to. 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 13:54, 15 November 2023 (see the system log linked to above). Additional comments by editor filing complaint I've added diffs of the edits they reverted per request from Galobtter; I'm happy to include a written summary of what they reverted as even with these diffs it isn't immediately clear, but I will need a few hundred extra words to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC) In regards to The what and why aren't just rhetorical flourishes, I want actual answers, I think what I said when I originally brought up the revert addresses your questions: I note that you have since made another 1RR violation; 11:05, 16 January 2024. Making a 1RR violation while a request to self-revert a 1RR violation [is outstanding] isn't a good look; I won't ask you to revert this one because it's a reasonable change, and I wouldn't even have brought it up outside this context, but I would suggest you be more careful in the future. Admins, this takes me over the word limit; please revert if inappropriate. 06:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC) I realize I am already over the limit, but may I have an additional 100 words to document some new concerns of WP:HOUNDING? BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC) Thank you. Since this report has been open Irtapil has turned up at my talk page at Wikipedia Commons, to participate in a discussion on a topic that they are not actively engaged in and, as far as I can tell, have never been engaged in. I don't have any other examples where they have turned up at a discussion they could only have found through stalking my contributions, but I find this one sufficiently disturbing to mention because it is cross-wiki stalking. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 10:20, 23 January 2024 Discussion concerning Irtapil 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 Irtapil Questions & Replies My bookmark to find where i can write @Ealdgyth i have shortened it e.g. here - It was stuck for a while because i honestly thought "20 edit limit" applied to statement revisions. Irtapil (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish @Ealdgyth @Galobtter It has only been about 24 hours since i asked @user:Seraphimblade about the word limit, and i was busy with off line responsibilities for most of that time. I really can't fairly respond to these two sets of unrelated issues in 500 words. If you want me to start with 500 can you suggest the top priorities to address first? I think the citation note thing is a new bad habit, i only recently noticed the "reason" flag and i suppose i over used it. I really do not feel i have been given a fair chance to self correct this issue. I want to to fix my recent edits and improve them? If i am topic banned i cannot do this. Irtapil (talk) 05:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Previous Request @user:Seraphimblade I was hoping that I got up to 500 words to respond to each statement? But it seems I was over optimistic? Could I at least have 500 words to respond to each of the main issues, please? The statements below mostly don't relate to what BilledMammal originally raised. 500 words to respond to the 1RR list from user:BilledMammal 500 words to respond to the feedback about citation notes I think I can trim this down to something readable within that limit. But it would also help if @SaintPaulOfTarsus or the arbitrators @user:Seraphimblade please removed the paragraph beginning "The user has also added citation needed tags to already-sourced information, in order to speculate…" because the paraphrasing severely misrepresents what I said, and I don't think I can properly respond to that misquote without using up a lot of my word limit. Irtapil (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC) But I would like to discuss this with @SaintPaulOfTarsus on my talk page because it looks like I'm sometimes expressing myself in a way that's prone to misinterpretation and I want to prevent that happening in future. Irtapil (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC) ATTEMPTED FIRST 500 1RR There were no violations of 1RR left outstanding when BilledMammal brought this to arbitration. The long version user talk:irtapil # BilledMammal There was one revert in a span of over a week 13:12, 14 January 2024 to 10:21, 23 January 2024 this was a multi step revert that I explained on the talk page This came after BilledMammal made drastic changes to every part of the page in their own 60-step edit I objected here Making such drastic changes to the page and leaving them pending discussion would lead to forked versions that become almost impossible to reintegrate, it was not at all appropriate to do this unilaterally. 5 January The newly raised edits are on a page nominated for deletion that consensus deemed needed drastic revisions. BilledMammal had no prior involvement in this page the complaint about them is vindictive and uniformed. cite notes I believe this is a more genuine problem and i want a fair chance to fix it this is a new bad habit and I only recently started using the "reason =" field on cite notes and it seems I rather drastically missed the point of what it's for but some of the paraphrasing of what I wrote in it drastically misrepresents what I said. BilledMammal I have been worried by Billed Mammal's editing for a couple of months They have removed a vast amount of material from that page from that page, most of which was NOT "empty columns". 04:00, 19 January 2024 "BilledMammal disruptive editing" or LINK I think a topic ban might be appropriate. Today they have (so far) removed about 20% of the page List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war without obtaining consensus. The only discussion on the talk page for the past two weeks has been me, disagreeing with them as politely as I can manage (but by I admit not always succeeding at remaining polite), and an anonymous IP agreeing with BilledMammal about one change that BilledMammal made before today. Irtapil (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC) I was agreeing with another editor, but the previous comment seems to have possibly been deleted? I believe a their motive was mostly retaliation for that complaint and for that one genuine revert on 19 January that they disagreed with. e.g. "11:05, 16 January 2024. "Note that this edit was only problematic due to the 1RR violation; absent that I would agree with it." They did not think it needed changing They said they would normally agree with it The only plausible reason to add that non-problem to the already long list of imaginatively defined "reverts" was to make me feel threatened, overwhelmed and intimidated? I have noticed BilledMammal threaten multiple people with disingenuous WP:1RR allegations. Often they don't male it to arbitration, but the person just decides editing is too stressful and gives up. We are losing a lot of potentially valuable editors in a "non random" pattern. This is likely to be severely biasing Wikipedia in a very damaging way at a very dangerous time to be doing that. Any attempt to deal with this damaging pattern of behaviour is deflected with WP:canvasing e.g. Finally, I’m a little uncomfortable with them posting talk page notifications about this ANI thread to half a dozen editors who I have recently disagreed on content with; it feels like they’ve engaged in WP:CANVASSING. BilledMammal (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC) from "BilledMammal disruptive editing" and by @ScottishFinnishRadish below Statement by Selfstudier This recent ANI discussion seems relevant, in particular the interaction between filer and defendant.Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by SaintPaulOfTarsus I feel justified making a statement because a talkpage message I authored was linked above and discussed by admins. I have had frequent interactions with the user starting in early December, mostly in ARBPIA. I quickly started experiencing CIR concerns like those Galobtter expressed below, culminating in a series of edits to Battle of Sufa last week I felt bordered on disruptive. 20:09, 16 January 2024: addition of a section on media portrayals of the 7 October attacks (all the attacks, broadly speaking), which seems to have little direct relevance to this specific single attack. 20:45, 16 January 2024: unsourced extension of the battle date in the infobox by four days. This was discussed on the user's talk page. I didn't come away from the conversation with any idea where the alternative date came from. 08:12, 16 January 2024: unsourced addition of a new group as a belligerent in the battle. After I asked for clarity, a later edit added unsourced information (on Khan Yunis) that had no direct connection to the article's subject (Sufa). I addressed this on the article's talk page (last reply in linked section) after reverting it, but received no explanation. In addition to what you previously read from me, the user deploys citation needed tags in other disruptive ways. 19:08, 16 January 2024: addition of a citation needed tag to a portion of the infobox reading "Al-Qassam Brigades: 3,000 entered Israel." A comment attached to the template reads "is that 3000 militants or does that include people celebrating at the destroyed fence?" I opened the cited article and found that its fourth sentence read "The 3,000 figure in the latest assessment only includes armed terror operatives and not the waves of Gazan citizens who took advantage of the enormous gaps in the fence to also make their way inside later in the day." 01:50, 11 January 2024: addition of a citation needed tag to the translated name of a military group: "Salafi Army of the Ummah in Jerusalem." In part, the user's comment reads "Please double check the citation supports that translation". I double-checked the citation and found that the second sentence of the referenced article read Its full name is 'Jaysh al-Ummah al-Salafi fi Bayt al-Maqdis' ('The Salafi Army of the Ummah in Jerusalem')." These examples indicate a tendency to dispute content without checking existing citations. The user wouldn't have had to scroll far to have these questions answered. The user has also added citation needed tags to already-sourced information, in order to speculate on whether Hamas likes Israeli Arabs less than other Israelis because they view them as "traitors", or on how often Muslims who want secular government quote the Quran, and includes commented-out speculation in articles on whether ISIS was involved on October 7, because "I've read half a dozen in depth articles on this, but i need to find them again." Reading WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, I felt I had observed nearly all the listed examples from this user. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Irtapil This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I'd appreciate if there was a link to the diffs you are saying Irtapil reverted, because otherwise it is very hard to follow sequence of reverts/verify the 1RR violations. I looked at the diffs at User_talk:Irtapil#BilledMammal too, and it's hard for me to see where the revert is, especially since table edits are very hard to follow in a diff format. But it seems like part of the issue is Irtapil will try to partially revert an edit through a sequence of many edits, split over a long enough time that there will be interventing edits turning that one revert into multiple. We already discussed this on my talk page where I tried to explain why that counts as multiple reverts. It seems like Irtapil could avoid issues by fully reverting in one edit, and if they want to preserve part of the edit that they reverted then that edit can be safely added back over a sequence of many edits without any issue. I'm more concerned about the other edits, especially adding edits with citation needed. Regardless of the issues with editing on their device, in this topic area every edit is going to be controversial and needs to include an inline cite with the edit, and cannot be based on "know[ing] citations exist". I'm getting increasingly concerned Irtapil doesn't have the competence to keep editing in this WP:CTOP. Galobtter (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC) BilledMammal, sure you can have an extra 100 words. Irtapil, the 20 diff limit is a limit of the number of diffs you can link to. It doesn't not stop you from editing your statement. Like Seraphimblade said, I would recommended trimming it a lot - sure you have a lot to respond to but I would keep it short and coherent. I tried reading it and couldn't make sense of what you were saying. One thing I will say is that 1RR has to be followed whether you are trying to do a good thing or not; this is why BilledMammal points out violations even if they agree with the edit. Galobtter (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil, you may only respond in your own section. Reaching out to other editors for advice is pretty close to canvassing. By informing them of this discussion by asking for advice you're essentially blocking them from engaging with this AE request. I've warned Irtapil at least twice now about personalized commentary. Along with the example BilledMammal provided, there is also this recent example of not understanding canvassing. Combined with the confusion about reverts and the citation needed issue I find myself in agreement with Galobtter that they may not be net positive in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This is a situation where I would normally go for a 3-6 month and 500-1000 edits topic ban to allow the editor to gain necessary experience. In this circumstance the editor has over four years and 8000 edits to their name, so I don't know that it would be effective. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil, you're at nearly 2000 words and a completely unrelated image, and as far as I can tell you haven't really addressed anything. If you can provide a statement with 500 words that actually addresses the substance and still need more, then we can determine if you need an extension. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC) Yeah I don't see what else can be done here other than an indefinite topic ban. I don't think a time limited ban would help. I would recommend Irtapil ditch their current statement and write a new short one that specifically addresses the issues raised. Galobtter (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC) I think we're past the point of waiting for another statement at this point. After my two earlier warnings for personalized commentary I linked to above, they have yet again commented negatively about an editor's motives. Any objections to an indef topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC) None from me. Ealdgyth (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC) Irtapil, the word limit for responses is 500. If you need a little more than that, you would probably be granted it if you asked, but you're currently over 1600. Please do some substantial trimming. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC) I agree that, unless the statement is radically changed, nothing in the current statement from Irtapil is keeping me from supporting an indefinite topic ban. It's not a good idea to be told on the 26th to shorten your statement, and keep editing without doing so. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss

Makeandtoss is warned to avoid (slow-motion) edit warring in the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The user is also warned to adhere to the area's topic-wide one revert restriction.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Makeandtoss User who is submitting this request for enforcement BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it WP:1RR violations: At Israel–Hamas war: 10:52, 23 January 2024 10:55, 23 January 2024 At Assassination of Sadegh Omidzadeh: 15:41, 20 January 2024 15:08, 20 January 2024 11:10, 20 January 2024 11:00, 20 January 2024 They have previously responded quickly to self-revert requests (October, November) but they were unwilling to do so here, arguing that these don't constitute reverts. There are additional unreverted 1RR violations, but I lack the diffs to present them and they were not raised with Makeandtoss at the time. Outside of WP:1RR they have engaged in extensive edit warring at Israel-Hamas war. They have edit warred over describing in Wikivoice Israel and the US being internationally isolated amid calls for a ceasefire: 10:08, 22 January 2024 - Israel and the United States were internationally isolated to Israel and the United States were internationally isolated amid global calls for a ceasefire 08:01, 21 January 2024 - Israel and the United States were internationally isolated to Israel and the United States were internationally isolated amid global calls for a ceasefire 10:44, 19 January 2024 - Israel and the United States have been described as increasingly internationally isolated to Israel and the United States have become increasingly internationally isolated 13:01, 17 January 2024 - Israel and the United States have been described as internationally isolated to Israel and the United States have been described as increasingly internationally isolated amid calls for a ceasefire 12:47, 12 January 2024 - Israel and the United States are becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage in their refusal to accept a ceasefire to Israel and the United States are becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage amid global calls for a ceasefire 21:26, 6 January 2024 - The United States has sided with Israel in rejecting those calls to Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage 14:33, 4 January 2024 - The United States has sided with Israel in rejecting these calls to Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage 14:32, 30 December 2023 - Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage to Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated amid growing global calls for a ceasefire 10:16, 16 December 2023 - The United States has sided with Israel in rejecting calls for ceasefire to Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated amid growing global calls for a ceasefire They have also edit warred over whether Palestinian casualties should be led with "Since the start of the Israeli operation": 10:03, 22 January 2024 07:59, 21 January 2024 10:43, 19 January 2024 11:52, 12 January 2024 This isn't the full extent of their recent edit warring on that article; the most significant violation that I have not detailed here is over the number of paragraphs in the lede, with them being very insistent that it must be four, but I am running out of diffs. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 20:45, 14 October 2023 - Page blocked from Israel–Hamas war for 48 hours for disingenuous edit summaries, edit warring, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 11:32, 11 July 2017 (see the system log linked to above). Additional comments by editor filing complaint Vanamonde, may I have ten more diffs and 200 more words to address your comment? BilledMammal (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Thank you. 10:55 was a revert of this edit, where an editor added a counteroffensive it called; this was modified over the next thirteen days, and was in the form a counteroffensive named when Makeandtoss removed it entirely. I believe this constitutes a revert, but if my understanding of a revert is mistaken I would welcome a correction. Regarding the second set, at Assassination of Sadegh Omidzadeh: 11:00 and 15:08 involved edit warring over the use of this source; Makeandtoss first removed it at 11:00, saying removing unreliable source; Eladkarmel then re-added it in the same context at 12:23, 20 January 2024, and then Makeandtoss removed it again at 15:08, saying arms associations are not reliable sources. There was some discussion on the talk page about this source, but I'm not seeing any consensus to re-remove the source. 15:41 is less problematic, because by that time Eladkarmel had said If you think the current paragraph is bad, I'm not against deleting it, although it remains a technical 1RR violation. Regarding the third set, "global isolation": This has been discussed a couple of times (1 and 2). However, I'm not seeing any consensus to include it there, with a number of editors either opposing it generally or opposing the specific form that Makeandtoss has been insisting on; while it is currently in the article, I would attribute that to persistence rather than consensus. Regarding the fourth set, "Since the start": As far as I can tell, Makeandtoss and PrimaPrime have been disputing this since Makeandtoss first added it, and nobody else has cared to comment on this specific aspect despite some discussion between the two on the talk page. Again, while it is currently in the article, I would attribute that to persistence rather than consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Thirteen minutes after you re-removed the source Ecrusized, not Eladkarmel, said Yup, I am over 1RR so I would support if you reverted this. BilledMammal (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 16:00, 24 January 2024 Discussion concerning 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 Makeandtoss 1 The second edit was not a revert since the edit had been stable there for 13 days. 2 These were not edit wars, there was actually a friendly and constructive talk page discussion for each of the edits [2]. Furthermore, there was no way for me to self-revert since when notified to this, the article had been moved and the content was completely changed. 3 These were restorations of the phrasing that was agreed upon in two talk page discussions that I engaged in with other editors. 4 This was also a restoration of the term that was presented on the talk page. There are no violations of 1 RR above, and the rest of the edits were restoring edits that were agreed upon in the talk page of a constantly changing article at the Israel-Hamas war. In my defense, I will admit that, although I believe the last article ban was excessive, I accepted it, learnt from it and kept it always in my mind to avoid violating 1RR again and engaging in the talk page more. This behavior is the opposite of edit warring. On the other hand, it is important to note that the filing editor has a documented history of making false accusations to get editors they disagree with in contentious topics banned: 1- They have been warned on AE in 2021 that "BilledMammal is warned that groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions". And they were blocked afterwards. 2- Editors also pointed out to this behavior of theirs just 3 days ago at AN [3] 3- They have filed another complain against another editor just yesterday here on AE, just above this discussion. It is crystal clear now that instead of engaging on the articles' talk pages to solve disagreement and reach consensus, they have chosen instead of spend countless hours trying to find fault in other editors to get them banned. This is not about making everyone conform with WP's guidelines, this is about them continuing to edit unopposed. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC) @Vanamonde93: Thank you for the reasonable assessment. Please note that the second revert was not because no one responded in the talk page but because as you can see from my edit summary I was objecting to the mass reversion of my edits on the basis that I should receive permission from the editor, and that I wanted them to revert the specific edits that they objected to. After this happened there was a talk page discussion that they eventually stopped responding to. I hope what I meant is clearer now. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC) @Vanamonde93: It was genuinely made in good faith, I didn’t expect it to be controversial at all; my point was to allow the editors to revert specific edits so that the talk page discussion can be more streamlined instead of focusing on dozens of things. Looking back, at that moment, I was pretty upset that the hours-long effort I put into summarizing the article was reverted, so you are right, I did indeed overreact impatiently, but this is not a general editing behavior of mine, evidenced by 10 years of being on here and working constructively with everyone. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish: @Red-tailed hawk: Thank you for taking the time and effort in reviewing this and all other cases. I realize the importance of your role in identifying and subsequently minimizing disruption to ensure WP remains a constructive place. At the same time, equally important, is to ensure that defenses are given adequate attention so that fairness is ensured. As mentioned above, it was impossible for me to revert myself, because the content had completely changed at the assassination article. As for the other edit it had been 13 day stable, so it cannot be considered a revert, especially considering that article is constantly being edited. Most importantly, on the sentence regarding international isolation, there was a constant discussion on the talk page in which consensus (the process of addressing all editors relevant concerns that involves putting compromises) was present in the talk page as you can see here and here. As noted by @Vanamonde93: there was a genuine effort to talk this through, and compromise was made several times. This is constructive and is not just repeatedly undoing other editors' works as defined at the guideline. Although I admit this should have been more thoroughly and appropriately discussed through an RFC, but I was hesitant given the high levels of activity on the article and its talk page, in which it is difficult to track who changed what and why. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Response to additional comments I did not "remove" counteroffensive, I replaced it with invasion because that's what the linked Wikipedia article is called. More importantly, this was a 2 week stable edit and is not a reversion. At the assassination article talk page, the editor who I reverted explicitly told me that he reverted me by mistake: "Sorry, I didn't notice the unreliable sources thing." And then they also explicitly told me: "Yup, I am over 1RR so I would support if you reverted this". And then in another comment: "If you think the current paragraph is bad, I'm not against deleting it". There was no dispute and thus no edit warring. On the contrary, it was an evolving consensus on what is the best way forward. The third set, there were two discussions on the talk page. In both, there was disagreement on the phrasing of the words, but this was constantly evolving as seen above. Furthermore, the fact that this sentence remains in the article roughly reflects that there is agreement for its inclusion. As for the "Since the start.." in the edits I added a RS from the NYT, an addition not just restoring, which is also based on the talk page discussion and trying to find what RS say about this. More importantly again is the fact that this sentence remains in the article, also roughly reflecting that there is agreement for its inclusion. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC) This was 2 hours after Eladkarmel told me: "Sorry, I didn't notice the unreliable sources thing." I just noticed that I might have mixed up the users Eladkarmel and Ecrusized since they have similar usernames, but that just proves that all 3 of us were working together and not reverting each other. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Please do not take this out of context to settle scores, you were mass reverting my edits, claiming editors needed to take permissions from you to edit since it is a featured article; this is shown explicitly in my edit summary: "per talk page, anyone is welcome to revert any specific edits they disagree with". Furthermore, you even stopped engaging on the talk page. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by Midnightblueowl Makeandtoss has engaged in similar behaviour, namely WP:Edit Warring, at the FA-rated Nelson Mandela article, where they have sought to push additions about Israel/Palestine in recent days. After their initial alterations/additions were reverted, with a request that they abide by WP:BRD, they twice restored their edits: 08:47, 19 January 2024 15:31, 20 January 2024 This appears to be a pattern of behaviour across multiple articles, one motivated particularly on issues regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by Zero0000 Makeandtoss is an excellent and valuable editor, not least because he is one of the very few in ARBPIA who can read Arabic. Just before this case was filed, I spent some time explaining aspects of the 1RR rule that Makeandtoss did not understand. For example, he thought it was ok to do a second revert if the editor he was reverting had apparently agreed to it on the talk page. In terms of his combativeness level, among regulars in ARBPIA he is around the middle, well below many others who are more careful. Of course he has personal biases but so does everyone who edits in ARBPIA. In my opinion a stern warning is a sufficient outcome. Zerotalk 00:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Statement from Irtapil Please note, the accuser here is symaltaniously accusing (at least) two editors of long lists of alleged 1RR violations. (See also the section directly above this) Irtapil (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC) @user:BilledMammal can you please more clearly identify the edits, that the accused is supposedly reverting, and the user who made them? Firstly it is hard to tell what is being reverted without seeing who is who? Secondly it takes at least two people to have an edit war, who is the other side of this? Irtapil (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Result concerning Makeandtoss This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Some parts of this complaint are concerning, others less so. I'm struggling to see how the examples in the initial complaint are 1RR violations. The edits to the Israel-Hamas war could be, but if the second edit was an obvious revert, I'm not seeing evidence of it yet. The second set as best as I can tell is a genuine example of consensus-building via editing, with multiple editors modifying each other's contributions, and with constructive talk page discussion. The other set of edits (re: global isolation) on the Israel-Hamas war are spread far apart in time, and are clearly not 1RR violations. The contested text is currently present in the article, meaning they could reasonably be seen as enforcing consensus; if there is evidence that those were edit-warring over disputed content, I have yet to see it. The edits on Nelson Mandela are more concerning to me; there's at least one too many reverts being made there. I would have preferred to see more substantive engagement on the talk page from all parties, but nonetheless that does not justify the second revert while discussion was ongoing. Makeandtoss, best as I can tell you performed this revert an hour after MBO left this message on the talk page, and a minute after your response on the talk page. I don't see how you can justify that based on a lack of engagement. At the very least more patience is expected with contentious content on an FA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC) BilledMammal, yes, length extension is fine by me (and in the interest of fairness I think Makeandtoss should get an equivalent extension for rebuttal, should they want it). Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC) Makeandtoss, yes, it's obvious that you objected to being mass-reverted; but that does not justify a revert on your part. If you can't see that, I'm beginning to feel a sanction may be needed here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC) I see multiple 1RR violations, not remedied after being approached on their talk page, and long term, if low intensity, edit warring over the lead of Israel-Hamas war. 13 days is reaching stability in these articles, but it's something I would hang my hat on to rebut 1RR. I don't find pointing to a two+ year old warning at AE about vexatious complaints convincing either, as the section above certainly doesn't appear vexatious, and at ANI there wasn't any consensus that their behavior was disruptive. That whole line of argument is just WP:NOTTHEM-style deflection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC) I'm a bit concerned that the slow-motion edit warring continued on the very same article that the respondent was partially blocked from by HJ Mitchell a mere three months ago. That the behavior is continuing makes me think that some sort of longer-term restriction may warrant consideration. The topic area is already under 1RR, and I don't think a 0RR is going to be really all that much more effective at deterring the user's edit warring here—particularly so given that the warring is already in slow-motion. This leaves the possibility of a topic ban/page ban, or alternatively a final warning before one. I'm not sure which would be more appropriate here. With respect to the complaints about the filer raised, I agree that that, as SFR mentioned, the two+ year-old warning given to BM is immaterial here; this isn't a vexatious complaint, nor is it groundless. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC) @Vanamonde93 and ScottishFinnishRadish: Would you be OK with closing this with a warning to Makeandtoss to avoid slow-motion edit warring within WP:ARBPIA? I'm increasingly thinking that a broad TBAN is not yet warranted, but I don't see the behavior as being limited to one page. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC) @Red-tailed hawk: yes, I'm okay with that. I agree with both your assessments above. I haven't commented here because I've been undecided. I think fundamentally Makeandtoss needs to recognize that they have been too free with the revert button; I'm not impressed with their reply to me. But a broader sanction feels disproportionate, and it's clear that they are quite capable of collaborating with editors of differing POVs when they put their mind to it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Slow motion edit warring and 1RR, and I'm fine with that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Noted. I'll close this in a few hours as such so long as no other admin objects. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Napalm Guy

Napalm Guy has been indefinitely blocked by ScottishFinnishRadish as a regular administrative action. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Napalm Guy User who is submitting this request for enforcement Firestar464 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Napalm Guy (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/Eastern Europe#Contentious topic designation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 17 October 2023 First instance of the user editing the article on the Ukrainian Insurgent Army in contradiction of sourced material in the body 19 November 2023 Doing it again a month later 19 November 2023 Reverting an editor who reverted them for contradicting the material in body 19 November 2023 They post a comment on the talk page of the article, restating their claims and ignoring the body of the article while attacking WP admins. Strongly suggests WP:NOTHERE in my opinion. 10 December 2023 Comes back just under a month later, doing the same thing. 11 December 2023 Again 17 January 2024 Back just over a month later 26 January 2024 Back nine days later Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any None If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) by Ymblanter Additional comments by editor filing complaint What can be seen here is a pattern of slow-motion edit-warring, a refusal to get it, as well as POV-pushing. Requesting a contentious topic restriction on the topic of Eastern Europe, or at least a page ban from Ukrainian Insurgent Army. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [4] Discussion concerning Napalm Guy 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 Napalm Guy Statement by (username) Result concerning Napalm Guy This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I've indeffed as NOTHERE as a standard admin action. Clearly here to RGW or otherwise push a POV. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)