Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:


Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland

Initiated by My very best wishes at 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
World War II and the history of Jews in Poland arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. 5.1) My very best wishes is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  2. 5.2) Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Requesting the removal of the bans described in 5.1 and 5.2

Statement by My very best wishes

My editing restrictions were based on the findings of fact about my comments during the arbitration. This FoF tells about two issues.

  • The first issue was my "desire to defend the actions of Piotrus and Volunteer Marek" (FoF). I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas. Yes, I felt they deserved some support, in part as victims of harassment by the banned user. However, the behavior by VM was clearly problematic, and I do not want to condone anything he did. It was never my intention to enable bad behavior in the project, and I am sorry for exercising a poor judgement in this case. Moreover, these guys are more than capable of defending themselves. Therefore, if the one-sided interaction ban is lifted, I would still refrain from commenting about VM and Piotrus anywhere, just in case, although a legitimate collaboration with them could be beneficial, given the overlap of our editing interests.
  • The second issue was my participation in the arbitration case, "extensive, often strongly stated, not always backed by evidence" and "sometimes contradicted by policies and guidelines" (FoF). Yes, I made wrong comments in this case, and I sincerely apologize for making them. I thought that including me as a party to the case was an invitation to comment, even though there was no an obligation to comment. Unfortunately, no one said that my comments were so unhelpful during the case, prior to posting the Proposed Decision (actually, I striked through one of these comments: [1]). This had happen in part because I simply had nothing new to say on this case, being only marginally involved in the editing of pages on Jewish history. That's why I did not submit any Evidence. Who cares what I think about the research article outside of my area of expertise, Wikipedia policies (arbitrators know them better) and participants whose editing I mostly knew in other subject areas? But it was not my intention to offend anyone or make your work more difficult. I am sorry if it looked that way. I just commented, exactly as I would with my colleagues or friends, and we frequently disagree on issues. Well, that was wrong. A contentious arbitration is not a proper place for such discussions. I fully understand this now. I do admit having a negative perception of the article by G&K. Not any more. I now believe their publication was a "red flag" indicating that an effort must be made to fix the issues and improve our reputation in the expert community. I would never make such comments again.
  • Contributing to the project was difficult for me with such editing restrictions because a lot of subjects I liked editing may be related to Poland during the war, broadly construed. In June 2023, I started editing page Slava Ukraini that existed in such version and did not mention Poland anywhere, hence I thought it was safe to edit. However, Marcelus inserted a WWII Poland-related content, and I made a topic ban violation by modifying his newly included content. Unfortunately, I realized this only much later, being busy in real life and forgetting about all unpleasant things here. As a result, the topic ban was expanded as "World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe" to make sure that the original topic ban by Arbcom would be respected [2]. I apologize for this blunder. As of note, we had only a minor content disagreement with Marcelus who said this on AE.
  • Once again, I apologize for making such comments during the arbitration and for the topic ban violation a year ago. But I did not have any problems with content editing or dispute resolution in contentious subject areas in recent years, including the area covered by the current topic ban (before the ban was issued). Hence, I am confident I can edit such subjects and interact productively with all users. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Responses
  • @Barkeep49. Thank you very much! Unlike the topic ban, the interaction ban does not prevent me from doing anything I want in the project. I would rather avoid these users anyway. For me, removing the interaction ban is only a matter of feeling myself as an editor in good standing. This is very important for me, but I can function without it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link by @HouseBlaster. Yes, I agree. This is an unusual case when my positive relationships with two other contributors were deemed as disruptive. I agree they were arguably disruptive as something that had led to my unhelpful comments during the arbitration. But I do not see a reason to continue keeping this interaction ban right now. And to be honest, my positive relationships with these users are strongly overstated. Admittedly, I do not like Piotrus, and for a good reason. It is another matter that I can easily collaborate with him, especially given his immense experience. VM? I like his erudition, but he is not my "buddy". Sure thing, I am not going to support them anywhere. Why would I do it? To be a glutton for punishment? My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aquillion. A simple warning to me during the case would be sufficient. I was very much willing to listen what arbitrators have to say: [3] (Speaking on my comment in this diff, it appears in diff #5 of the FOF as a proof of my wrongdoing, but it was merely my honest answer to a ping by another user who asked me a legitimate question, and I happily striked through my comment after a clarification). I thought mere fact that some of them talked with me during the case was an indication that I am not doing anything seriously wrong. And it was a civil discussion, even though I admittedly assumed bad faith by the off-wiki party and good faith by VM. My very best wishes (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pppery. Yes, indeed. Importantly, this wider topic ban on AE was imposed only to prevent any future violation of the original topic by Arbcom, nothing else [4],[5]. Therefore, if the original topic ban is lifted, there should be no reason for keeping this wider topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HouseBlaster. Actually, after having this experience, I would rather not support anyone in any administrative discussions, just to be safe. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments that do not support anyone specific, such as [6], I believe would be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoidh. Yes, the iban is not hugely restrictive. I can even edit same pages as Piotrus and VM, just should not interact with them per WP:IBAN. Although I never had problems interacting with them on any article talk pages, and we rarely reverted each other's edits. The issue is my comments during administrative discussions that could be regarded as supporting these users. I fully understand this now and would never do it again, even if the iban was lifted. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sdrqaz. Thank you! Yes, I do not really see why this iBan would be needed. I do have an editing overlap with VM in Wikipedia:RUSUKR and some other areas. These subjects are debated at article talk pages, and VM participate there. As a practical matter, why can't I say on an article talk page that I disagree (or agree) with such and such argument by VM because [an explanation]? What harm that would be? My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell. Thank you very much! Would you also consider supporting motion 3? That wider topic ban was introduced specifically to ensure that the original topic ban by Arbcom would not be violated. Hence, it is not logical keeping it if the original ban will be lifted. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Statement by Piotrus

Statement by Aquillion

The topic ban always struck me as one that shouldn't have happened. There simply wasn't anything in evidence that MVBW had problems in the topic area; and topic-bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I can understand why it happened (ArbCom needs to maintain decorum during cases and has a limited toolbox to enforce that) but if they felt something was necessary, just the interaction ban, ejecting MVBW from that specific case during the case, or at most restrictions on participation in future ArbCom cases where MVBW isn't a party would have made more sense, since those were the actual issues it was supposed to resolve. Beyond this specific instance, I feel that ArbCom might want to consider how they'll enforce decorum in cases in the future and what sort of sanctions someone can / ought to get for issues that are solely confined to the case pages itself like this - partially it feels like the topic ban happened because there wasn't a clear precedent of what to do, so they just tossed MVBW into the bin of the same sanctions they were leveling at everyone else even if it didn't make sense. Possibly more willingness to eject unhelpful third parties from specific cases while the case is in progress could be helpful. --Aquillion (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pppery

Note that My very best wishes is also subject to an overlapping AE topic ban (WP:AELOG/2023#Eastern Europe: My very best wishes is topic-banned from the areas of World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, and is warned that further disruption may lead to a topic ban from the whole Eastern Europe topic area, without further warning. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

Acknowledging courtesy ping. To nitpick procedurally, the TBAN I enacted was an AE-consensus sanction, not an individual one. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319 § My very best wishes. Courtesy pings to @ScottishFinnishRadish, Courcelles, Valereee, Seraphimblade, and Guerillero, who participated in the admin discussion there. I personally have no opinion on whether to lift the sanction. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HouseBlaster

I remain of the opinion that MVBW should not be under an iban. Would someone kindly be able to explain to me what preventative purpose it is serving? Any "don't do this again" message (both to MVBW and people in the future who might consider disruptively defending someone at ArbCom) has surely been received at this point, so I don't see it remaining serving as a further deterrent. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

My very best wishes' has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek.

My very best wishes (then known as User:Biophys) cooperated off wiki with Piotrus and Volunteer Marek (then known as User:radeksz) in order to influence articles' contents and to get opposing editors sanctioned. Details are available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. The case resulted in Eastern Europe's listing as a contentious topic for Arbitration enforcement.

TFD (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby, I did not say that MVBW's involvement in the Eastern European Mailing List (EEML) should affect the current application. I said that MVBW "has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek." He wrote above, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." No one asked him to bring up his previous relationship, but if he does, it should be the whole truth. TFD (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby, there is no reason I should disclose my interactions with you since it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

MYBW wrote, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." Do you think that is a fair and accurate reflection of their previous interactions?

My advice to you and to myself is to let the administrators decide what signficance if any it has.

TFD (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elinruby

I want to say that MVBW is an invaluable contributor, particularly when it comes to Russia and Russians. I deeply regretted losing contact with him because of the topic ban, given that I was still trying to straighten out the pages about collaboration with Nazi Germany and was talking to Polish editors about that.

I was a party to the Holocaust in Poland Arbcom case. as best I can tell for much the same reasons as MVBW; we were editing in the topic area of the war in Ukraine at the same time as VM and Gitz6666. I protested the topic ban at the time. MVBW is interested in the war in Ukraine, and not Poland. However the history of the region is such that part of Ukraine was once part of Poland (to vastly oversimplify) and I completely understand both that it would be difficult to respect a topic ban and that it would be necessary to break ties with me because of it.

If it is relevant to anyone's thinking I strongly support removing this topic ban. I do not think the interaction ban is necessary either; he seems pretty serious about addressing the Committee's concerns. Elinruby (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Four Deuces: is bringing up the truly ancient past. As someone who is on friendly terms with all three editors and frequently was in discussions about the Ukraine war where MVBW and VM were reasoning witH editors who thought the Russians could do no wrong, I can assure you that Piotrus was in entirely different topic areas at the time, and told me he lost contact with MVBW after the email list case. It is true that MVBW often agreed with VM on Ukraine, but then so did I. VM did his homework on Ukraine and every time I checked him, he was completely correct. I will also add that when I went back to the war on Ukraine article after the HiP case I found more than one source misrepresentation in the limited area of casualty numbers that I was trying to update, and vast resistance to edits to the "stable version". So I regret to say that in my informed opinion the sanctions were not only unnecessary but harmed the encyclopedia. Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Four Deuces: this is someone else's appeal so I am going to give that rather specious argument the silence it deserves. I'll just note you are not disclosing your interactions with me either, for that matter. I am not saying you should have; sometimes ancient is just ancient, is all, and that is true in both cases. Elinruby (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Clerk notes

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

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion

Motion: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland

Remedy 5.1 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic ban on My very best wishes) is repealed. Remedy 5.2 (the 1-way interaction ban) remains in effect.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. As explained above I thought our factual basis for the topic ban was weaker than for the i-ban. I ultimately didn't vote for or against it because I decided a firmer outcome to the case was better than a milder one but this particular case I wasn't sure it was ever necessary. I think a year on and given the assurances here by MVBW that we can revoke it, also knowing that should it ever be a problem again that an individual admin or AE could swiftly reimpose it. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This seems to be a reasonable request especially when it can be reimposed as necessary if it becomes an issue. Also support repealing the AE sanction, though if there is objection from editors on that point I'd be open to reconsidering that point. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am not sure the iban needs to stay in place, but otherwise I am not finding great issue with this motion. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am making this my second choice to a motion (below) to repeal both bans. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice. I'm not convinced that the interaction ban is necessary either, but this is better than nothing. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm happy to extend MVBW some rope. Ultimately, the best result all round from a topic ban is that the topic-banned editor spends some time contributing constructively elsewhere and then comes back after the requisite period and is once again an asset. The second best is that the topic ban keeps an otherwise productive editor away from an area where they can't see their own bias but I don't think MVBW is that sort of editor. They have made positive contributions elsewhere instead of just sitting out the ban or testing its limits and their appeal shows a level of self-awareness that hopefully means they won't make the same mistakes if given a second chance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Given the history and leadup to the case, I am very very wary of repealing the majority of remedies from it; in particular given how past granted appeals/repeals of remedies contributed to escalations and further conflict. However, this was a very harsh sanction and MV's appeal is not bad. I still cannot support the appeal but I will not oppose. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 2: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland

Remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) are repealed.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. First choice. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. I am not convinced that the interaction ban serves any preventative effect; I think that based on this appeal and the unusual nature of the interaction ban (effectively for serving as a "fan club"), its usefulness has worn out and My very best wishes understands what went wrong. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments above. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This would be a mistake. The Iban can be looked at in the future but I am skeptical of appealing it at this time. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Given the history that led to its implementation, nothing in the request is compelling enough to warrant removal of the interaction ban, which does not appear to be unduly restrictive. - Aoidh (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 3: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland

My very best wishes' topic ban from World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, imposed under the Eastern Europe contentious topic procedures, is repealed.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Given that a repeal of the narrower Polish topic ban is on the cards, it seems pointless to me to repeal that and have a broader topic ban (which covers the Polish topic ban) in place, sending My very best wishes back to square one. I am generally in favour of the Committee not interfering in Community affairs, but given that the topic ban was carried out as arbitration enforcement, it is well within our remit to repeal as well. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If I had understood it to be an AE consensus rather than individual sanction I'd have incorporated it until my original motion (as an individual it could have just been "undone" as a normal undoing). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per my comment in the first motion. - Aoidh (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. If one would like a restriction lifted, one should ask --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion

Historical elections

Motion: Historical elections

Following a request for action based on evidence of alleged harassment and canvassing, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the topic area of historical elections. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

  • The case title will be Historical elections.
  • The initial parties will be:
  • Guerillero will be the initial drafter
  • The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
  • All case page are to be semi-protected.
  • Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

  1. Support in principle. I think Number 57 raises three excellent broad questions where we can definitely be of use. I'm mildly in favour of trimming the parties list to experienced editors only per my comment below, but that doesn't affect my support of opening the case. Maxim (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aoidh (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions

Proposing --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've boldly changed the proposed case to "Historical elections", which solves the problem that we already have a case by basically that name, and also clarified that the scope is focused on completed elections, going quite far back in history, and not super focused on current elections. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now, for a comment on the merits. This case is what another Arb intelligently described as "hybrid." There's not so much private information that we can't hear it in public. But there is so much private information that we can't hear it as fully public as we usually would. This case rather much reminds me of the WPTC case. For the moment, we're obviously being a bit coy about what the private parts are; but I do hope that we can lay them out a little more completely at some point. As for the on-wiki parts, that's where the public part of the case comes in. We're looking for indications of broader issues in the realm of articles on historical elections, including the on-wiki/off-wiki interface. If you're an editor in the election articles area, your thoughts, commentary, and feedback are welcome. If you have been named as a party, we want to hear that as well, but beware that you've probably been listed because you have been involved in a dispute in the elections area or are suspected of off-wiki misbehavior. As for the peanut gallery (i.e. you haven't edited in the historical election articles area but would still like to chime in), if you have comments about how the WPTC case did or didn't work well, or other suggestions for hybrid cases, this would be a good time to mention that so we can take those lessons to heart before we do another hybrid case. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 22:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The more I sat with my above message, I feel like it didn't quite do justice for describing the process, since this isn't how we usually do things. If you've been named as a party, I imagine that feels pretty scary. And I won't lie: yes, this could have repercussions to your editing career. At the end of the day, we ask for your honesty and cooperation. I would treat this as we usually would a case request at WP:ARC. We're not deciding the merits of the case here; we're just deciding if we need to take the case and do the whole nine yards of collecting evidence, workshopping, and proposing a decision. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Anonymousioss (51 edits) and BigCapt45 (29 edits) be formal parties? Even with evidence of their material involvement in the matter at hand, I'm not sure it's fair to designate editors with this little experience as parties. A talkpage message along the liens of "please review our policies and don't do this again" may be more appropriate (alternatively, a block if the conduct is egregious enough to warrant it). Maxim (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support removing editors with few edits from the list of parties. If they need to be added back in, it can be done later. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a fan of adding parties later during the case, as this prolongs the case for everyone else and creates an imbalance in the amount of time people have had the chance to provide statements before the decision is made. It may lead to chaotic situations or perceived, perhaps actual, unfairness. So if parties are removed from the list, let's please keep them removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anonymousioss

Statement by BigCapt45

Statement by CroatiaElects

Statement by DemocraticLuntz

Consensus was clearly achieved in favor of not removing elements of county pages (presidential election results) that had been there for decades and are clearly a key aspect of understanding a county. I'm not sure what this is about other than someone having sour grapes that the universe of users who care deeply about this aspect of county pages and believe it’s a critical aspect (even if prose might be preferable). DemocraticLuntz (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mcleanm302

Statement by Number 57

I have seen an increasing problem with off-wiki canvassing (largely done via Twitter) since the middle of last year. This has largely taken the form of editors posting on Twitter about disputes they are having on Wikipedia (or about matters they disagree with), which in turn has driven both edit warring and canvassed contributions to discussions. In several cases, these canvassed contribution have changed the direction/outcome of the discussions (for example this discussion, the consensus of which completely changed after off-wiki activity started on 15 June).

In addition to the canvassing effect, the off-wiki activity has often involved personal attacks and sometimes veered into harassment. In one recent incident, an editor who edits under their real name had their details posted on Twitter by another editor who was using Twitter to canvass people to an American politics dispute. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative environment, but from a personal perspective, it is extremely hard to maintain civil collaboration with editors that you are aware are saying things about you on their social media accounts that would fall under WP:NPA if posted here. When raising off-wiki personal attacks with one editor, rather than apologise, they brushed it off, saying it was "separate" to their Wikipedia work, while another editor who became involved in the dispute after seeing the posts on Twitter saying such attacks were fine "as long as it does compromise your privacy or safety".

If there is to be a case on this issue, I personally would like to see three outcomes:

  1. Clarity on whether making personal attacks on other editors on social media is sanctionable under WP:NPA.
  2. Clarity on whether posting about Wikipedia discussions/disputes on social media is canvassing (as some editors have claimed that such behaviour is not canvassing).
  3. Guidance given on how editors/admins should react to any future social media-based canvassing (e.g. locking articles affected, restoring articles to the pre-disruption status quo, discounting canvassed talk page comments etc).

Number 57 21:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Talleyrand6

Statement by VosleCap

Statement by Tryptofish

I'm phoning in from what The Good Captain aptly called the "peanut gallery", to comment about the aspect of hybrid cases that concerns whether or not ArbCom should assume the role of the filing party. I've been thinking about this, and I think I can offer a distinction that may be useful, and points in this case to yes, you should accept this case.

There's a pretty well-established consensus that ArbCom should consider cases where (a) the community has said there's a problem, and where (b) the community cannot solve it ourselves. Here, there have been some ANI threads, and there appear to be private communications from community members to ArbCom, in which there is private evidence of concerns about harassment and/or canvassing (per discussion here). That satisfies the criteria of (a) the community asking for ArbCom help, and (b) the community being unable to process private information. Also, and this is key, it might well be awkward to expect the editor(s) who feel harassed to come forward in public and be the filing party. So it makes good sense for ArbCom to "self-file".

In contrast, hybrid cases didn't work so well in the Polish Holocaust case, where ArbCom initiated the case after an outside publication criticized Wikipedia. (Strictly speaking, there had also been requests from the community, including a declined case request, but those never reached critical mass.) What prompted ArbCom to initiate that case was ArbCom's reaction to outside pressure. A couple of months later, ArbCom granted ECP to an account representing an outside group, in order for that account to file a case, but it turned out that that person was wasting everyone's time.

So the distinction I want to make is that it's good for ArbCom to self-initiate a case when there is private evidence, particularly of harassment, and members of the community have provided this private evidence, but might suffer further harassment if they filed the case themselves. I would want ArbCom to consider such cases, including this one. But when the pressure to start a case is coming primarily from outside the community, ArbCom should generally wait for a community request to come forward (or private evidence from the community about harassment), instead of ArbCom jumping ahead themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this motion as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should open the proposed case or provide additional information.

Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335

Salfanto

Salfanto blocked indef (diff) as a regular admin action (no AE enhancements). El_C 12:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Salfanto

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
TylerBurden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Salfanto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBEE
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 12 June 2024 Adds in WP:WIKIVOICE that the perpetrators of a missile strike on civilians were the Armed Forces of Ukraine, complete violation of WP:DUE.
  2. 27 June 2024 Uses Twitter/X and other non WP:RS to claim the deaths of volunteers in Ukrainian military unit.
  3. 18 June 2024 Uses Facebook to reference another death on the same article as above
  4. 13 June 2024 Uses butchered Facebook reference to name commander of Ukrainian military unit.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 21 February Blocked by El C for persistent addition of unsourced content.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 3 April 2023
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

In response to JDiala: After editing for over two years and recieving countless notices about these policies, I don't think the ″new editor″ excuse flies anymore. We're all new at some point, but you're still expected to start following guidelines when they have been pointed out to you. Not even a block got the point across in this case, so either there is an inability or unwillingess to edit in line with policy. Your second point seems like a bit of a tangent, we're here to discuss the editor being reported, not about project-wide issues, both inexperienced and experienced editors can face consequences when engaging in POV pushing, which I would think you would know given that you have a topic ban. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JDiala Then you should stay on topic, which is the editor conduct of Salfanto. TylerBurden (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Salfanto You have been continuing to use Twitter/X as a source for adding content claiming deaths of WP:BLP, and that is well after you have been both informed about and blocked for referencing policies. TylerBurden (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support an indef block as discussed below, since they are continuing to make the same kind of edits even while this report is up, seen for example here. The source makes no mention of desertion (abandonment of military duty without permission) yet Salfanto adds their own WP:SYNTH about it. They either do not care or do not understand referencing policies. TylerBurden (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2 July 2024

Discussion concerning Salfanto

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

Statement by Salfanto

  • I've already been told about the Facebook sourcing and have since stopped using Facebook as a source. It would help if Wikipedia puts them on the depreciated sources list. Salfanto (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Comment moved to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by JDiala

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

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

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

Statement by ManyAreasExpert

I'm still waiting for the editor to explain their edits here Talk:Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion#Assessed by the ISW . Another edit, where they add ambiguous This claim was assessed by Institute for the Study of War on 7 November 2023 , is [8] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found another piece from the editor [9] where they spread poor- or unsourced Russian propaganda as a thing actually happening. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another misrepresentation [10] where the source 'War in Ukraine is like WWI but with drones,' says foreign fighter | Euronews says Bjørn reckons that of the recruits end up at the front, 20 % leave after 2-5 missions because they realise that “war is hell” but it becomes "20% desert". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SaintPaulOfTarsus

The user has continued to make misleading and dubiously-sourced edits within the topic area in just the past few hours, asserting here that several foreign fighters killed in action were the commanders of units supposedly called the "1st Rifle Platoon", "2nd Rifle Platoon", and "3rd Recon Platoon", despite no such term existing in the cited articles. I can only conclude that these alleged military unit names are either completely fabricated by Salfanto or perhaps drawn from some "phantom" source the user for whatever reason chose not to reference; the association of the deceased individuals with the alleged military units remains unexplained in either scenario. In the same edit the user asserts that Ukraine's 22nd Brigade was a "belligerent" in the 2023 counteroffensive citing an article that claimed the brigade was, at the time of publication, either training in the relative safety of northern or western Ukraine, or lingering in some staging area behind the main line of contact, waiting for the Ukrainian general staff to decide when and where to deploy them and had yet to participate in any sort of hostilities. As a frequent contributor to the topic area, based on my observations of this user's editing patterns, edits like these are the rule and not the exception. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Salfanto

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Salfanto, I'd be interested to hear from you here. I see you were blocked on 15 May for consistently using poor sources or not citing any at all. Here, we have the first edit citing no sources (and which seems to contradict what the article said at the time), and three more edits citing Facebook or Twitter. If the block didn't get the point across, I'm not sure what else to do here, but I think it's pretty clear we need to do something. I certainly don't think this editor needs to continue editing in the ARBEE area, but I'm not convinced a topic ban there will do anything more than move the problem elsewhere. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think indef for sourcing issues as a normal admin action, until they can make a convincing unblock request that addresses the sourcing issues and demonstrates they understand WP:RS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • JDiala: WP:CTBE is unfortunately ambiguous as to whether it applies to all bans (including topic bans) or merely site bans; however the main point of that section of policy is that it seeks to avoid a "Gravedancing" scenario in which an editor can mock, belittle, or otherwise uncivilly engage in taunting a banned user *who is unable to respond or seek redress.* Pointing out the existence of a prior topic ban as evidence of a user having had opportunity for understanding that editors can face consequences when engaging in POV pushing, doesn't strike me as the kind of conduct WP:CTBE was intended to regulate. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This was brought up at my talk page and I addressed it here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the problem is consistently poor sourcing across their contributions, only some of which happen to be in WP:ARBEE, then I think we have a broader problem than can be addressed by this remedy. And even recent creations (like this one on an event in Germany) have used deprecated and other unreliable sources in inappropriate ways. The user either needs to be given a final warning and explanation on reliable sourcing, or they need some sort of block until they acknowledge and can demonstrate that they understand the policy. I lean towards the former. If a block is performed, U don't think this should be an AE action, since it's based on the user's broader behavior and limiting appeals here seems to be counter to our aim of getting the user to understand sourcing better. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aredoros87

Aredoros87 indefinitely topic banned from AA2. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Aredoros87

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Vanezi Astghik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Aredoros87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 16 June 2024 Re-adding contentious content that was previously reverted and never reply to the talk discussion
  2. 24 June 2024 Removes the development projects for being "unsourced" when there are in fact multiple sources (see Philanthropy and social entrepreneurship section, which Aredoros87 also edited in [11])
  3. 22 June 2024 During an AFD likely to be redirected (which happened two days later), Aredoros87 heavily expands the article and says they will add the content elsewhere if the article is redirected
  4. 24 June 2024 Moves the AFD article content to this article, with a number of WP:NPOV violations, such as using the word "occupation" for a town (Shushi/Shusha) that wasn't part of the occupied regions
  5. 30 June 2024 Further POV pushing use of "occupation" for Shushi, with partisan low-quality sources
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 29 December 2023 Arbitration enforcement sanctions, including temporary AA ban and an indefinite restriction requiring to obtain consensus to readd any content that has reverted in any article related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

  1. That cannot be "false" when there was never any consensus to include the contentious content. If Aredoros had discussed the sources on the talk page, instead of reverting in violation of their sanction and adding “3 new sources”, I would've pointed out that 2 of those sources are both by Fahrettin Kırzıoğlu who "probably never before has a single person in Turkey falsified history so massively".
  2. Err, no, we don't have to. Citations in the lead are usually redundant because it's a summary of information in the body. Aredoros just removed cited information they didn't like. And it wasn’t added by a "random non-EC" user [12].
  3. Aredoros clearly didn't just add sources, they added POV pushing.
  4. Ditto, POV pushing with obviously partisan sources.
  5. Again, if Aredoros adds the Shushi "occupation" POV pushing to the article after it already has a strong consensus to redirect, then copies that to another article after, then it's not just moving content. Vanezi (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[13]

Discussion concerning Aredoros87

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

Statement by Aredoros87

  1. False. When the content was removed by Vanezi, I started a discussion on talk page.[14] He said "more sources would be needed"[15]. And I added 3 new sources for that specific content under the edit summary "added Kökçe version with extra sources per discussion".[16]
  2. I removed an unsourced claim. Even if there is information in the body of the article, we still need to have references for the statements in the intro. This could have been restored with a proper reference. Deleting unsourced claims is not a violation.
    That particular page is being edited by a number of random non-EC, newly registered users. Even I had to request for protection[17]. This edit was also done by a person that I reported here[18]. Just one day after it's being closed, Vanezi made this report.
  3. Not correct. The page was proposed to be deleted or redirected just because it was unsourced and duplicate as mentioned by the nominator.[19]. I added sources and left a comment saying: "I added sources and pics to all items in the list...Technically speaking, I would support redirecting,..If the consensus will be "Redirect", I will move the content as well. Otherwise, I will extend the article."[20]. In the end article was redirected, and I moved the content there.[21]
  4. The result of the AFD was to redirect. That doesn't mean the sourced content cannot be reused in the redirected article.
  5. I simply moved content from the deleted article, without checking the wording. If there's problem with the wording, Talk Page is the place Vanezi should discuss first. -- Aredoros | 17:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • 1. Vanezi never challenged reliability of the sources. As you can see from the talk page[22], he complained about WP:WEIGHT, and asked for more sources, and I added.
    Please pay attention that, in this report, initially, Vanezi claimed that I re-added a content without a discussion, now he/she is challenging sources.
  • 2. From MOS:LEADCITE: Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.
  • 3. From WP:DISCUSSAFD: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination which is what I did. If there's a problem with the sources Vanezi could start a discussion first.
  • 4. On talk page, arguments should be presented first to challenge the sources.
  • 5. As I mentioned in this edit summary (copy from the revision)[23] I just moved content from this revision[24] which was redirected without any discussion.
    Also, stating that Shusha was occupied is not POV pushing. Some international organizations, such as PACE, considered Nagorno-Karabakh an occupied territory. From PACE report: "Nagorno-Karabakh and the other occupied territories of Azerbaijan".[25].
    We could have a discussion to decide whether to use "occupied" or "controlled", but Vanezi never started a discussion. Aredoros87 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish,
1. On 10/05, I started a discussion. On 17/05 Vanezi replied me saying more sources are needed. On 16/06 I found new ones and added. Why Vanezi didn't challenge the reliability of the sources for 18 days? What was he waiting for? Isn't it weird?
The user also ignored talk pages on other articles as well. Please see the conversation there. Vanezi just ignored section #3.
2. But there's no ref tag next to it. MOS:LEADCITE says controversial subjects may require many citations
3. All you mentioned in green text already exists in article. I just added missing part. And I want to note, the article was heavily edited by user who declared it's connection to the subject[26]. Originally this article had almost no critical information about Vardanyan, despite critical reports in major Western media. Aredoros87 (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Aredoros87

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This seems to have gotten somewhat missed; ARBPIA threads like the one below have a bit of a habit of sucking all the air out of the room. I'll try to read through this when I can, but just commenting here to keep the bots at bay. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too will try and come back and look through in the next few days. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having looked at the diffs above before I saw SFR's post I came to the same conclusion that #1 is a violation of the restriction and that the editing to the Ruben Vardanyan article is problematic. It also worth noting that in the original thread which lead the sanction Aredoros87's editing of the Ruben Vardanyan article was a large part of the problem. I agree that a TBAN from AA-related topics is an appropriate way forward especially when considered in the context of WP:ARBAA3#Administrators encouraged. I'd also suggest noting that if a future appeal of that TBAN is successful it should come with a TBAN from Ruben Vardanyan. Given it was my original sanction I'm willing to do the TBAN but I'll wait a couple days for others to weigh in. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading your response I have decided to issue a topic ban from AA2. Whether you can excuse it or not this is a clear break of the consensus required restriction which requires you to seek consensus for challenged edits not to make them and hope for consensus. Regarding the other two, your reason does not justify the actions you took or are not relevant to the problem behind your editing.
  • This is a clear violation of their sanction to not re-add reverted content without consensus. This removal was clearly sourced in a section, and this fails NPOV as cherry picking and is a overly-close paraphrase from the source, which says (machine translated) "Why Ruben Vardanyan Can See the Future" was the title of an article published in GQ magazine in 2017. In it, Vardanyan is portrayed as a philanthropist and visionary, which is what he tried to portray himself as in the 2010s, after he made his fortune in the 1990s. During those years, he launched charity projects, invested in the Skolkovo business school, where, according to his idea, personnel for Russian business should be forged, and built a school in Dilijan, Armenia, with a unique educational methodology that should “unite people, nations and cultures in the name of peace and a sustainable future.” The source runs nearly 5000 words. I see a topic ban as a reasonable response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

A bunch of socks/compromised accounts blocked. Further action related to anything here will need a separate report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Icebear244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Nishidani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:General_sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Complaint by account compromised to evade a sanction
  1. [27] Restoration of an extremely contested, recently added content, despite lacking consensus and ongoing discussions. Commented "revert patent abuse by barely qualified IP editors" (all editors involved appear adequately qualified).
  2. [28] Repeated restoration of the same controversial content.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Complaint by account compromised to evade a sanction
  1. On February, warned against using unconstructive or unnecessarily inflammatory language in the topic area, for using highly inflammatory language ("dumb goyim beware") [29]
  2. Week-long block for personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: [30],
  3. Day-long block for violating the consensus required sanction [31]
  4. Day-long block for personal attacks or harassment [32]
  5. Week-long block for personal attacks or harassment [33]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Comments by account compromised to evade a sanction

Nishidani and other editors persistently and forcibly and disruptively push a much-disputed definition of "Zionism" as colonization, despite ongoing discussions aimed at consensus. There is significant opposition to the proposed changes (at least 7 editors) evident on both the talk page and through repeated restorations of the last stable version. I read on their talk page [34] that just yesterday another editor asked them to withdraw their uncivil commentary and self-revert but they declined to do so. They declined my request too. [35] Such behavior discourages participation and unfairly dismisses contributors as "unqualified," yet upon checking, each one of them has made substantial contributions over a significant amount of time on Wikipedia. It is concerning that experienced editors, who should set an example for newer ones, appear to not only misunderstand the concept of consensus but also resort to attacking editors attempting to reach consensus and uphold neutrality. From their block log, it appears that Nishidani has received multiple sanctions in the past related to both personal attacks and consensus issues, which are the same issues under consideration currently. Icebear244 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani, let me correct you. You seem to have overlooked @האופה, who also opposed using the term in the discussion, and it appears @Vegan416 did too. My count shows it's nine, which calls for further discussion before any disruptive editing, edit-counting, or uncivil commentary continues. This diff, by the way, is also worth reviewing [36], as attributing views to others appears to be another issue. Icebear244 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk sure. I did some browsing and was surprised to see that we define Zionism, in WP:VOICE, as colonization. I wondered how there could be a consensus for this and checked the edit history. It quickly became clear that there is no real consensus, but rather a forceful imposition of a controversial view by multiple experienced editors, with Nishidani being especially aggressive. Then I noticed that Selfstudier, who has just written to me on my talk page, is no less severe, constantly using intimidation and edit warring to force their views while discussions and even RFCs are ongoing. These editors are acting together and defending each other even in this discussion, which highlights how serious the problem is.
Despite being aware of the potential WP:BOOMERANGs and the risks involved, what I saw was so dire in my opinion that I would not mind receiving sanctions, as long as it finally prompts someone to take action (@ScottishFinnishRadish, even if a topic ban is totally unfair after just one possibly problematic edit and edit summary, as opposed to decades of unsanctioned violations discussed here). Banning me honestly won't solve the problem, since I have made just a few edits in this topic area. In fact, it might make the problem worse by driving neutral people away, who won't report violations now seeing the consequences. I hope the admins here won't turn a blind eye this time. This is the time to act. Icebear244 (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[37]


Discussion concerning Nishidani

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

Statement by Nishidani

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

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

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

  • @Icebear244. No, no mistake. I made my tally of the figures analysing the edit history of the article. User:האופה ( 1,262 edits, registered just after 7 October 2023) made a brief off the top of the head talk page comment. Vegan is the only one identifiable with the position of the 7 who, quite properly, abstained from reverting the passage he contests on the talk page.
The essence of what happened is that 19 editors over a month engaged, mostly, with one revert each (with notable exceptions, Unbandito made several and מתיאל made five. I followed the page but, apart from providing several sources when a cn note was posted, did not intervene. I made one revert whenI reverted O’maximov (1,010 edits in 5 months). Note that he was reverting Zero0000, who is perhaps the most meticulously knowledgeable student of the scholarship on Zionism we have). I'd made my revert, and left it at that.
Some days later out of the blue you (Icebear244) joined the six other editors who reverted to the minority-supported version with the following, plainly false edit summary about the state of the consensus'The next to restore this disputed version, against consensus and every possible wiki policy, will be reported for edit warring and disruptive editing'.
I would accept that from an administrator (while noting on their page that they had restored the version that had less support), but we peons are not allowed to join one or another side in a dispute, in a blatantly partisan manner, and dictate a ukase, forbidding any challenge under pain of an AE sanction. And in singling out me, you ignored all the evidence that several of those whose reverts you favoured were multiple reverters, not, like myself, engaged until then in a single revert. That was such an outrageous assumption of authority, the use of threat language to support a minority view and make it the default text, that, well, if I see intimidation, I don't buckle. I undid it, particularly because you never made any comment on the talk page in support of the minority but just barged in. Note that in your complaint all of the behavioural defects you cite could be applied equally, at the least, to editors on the side you joined.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos Black Kite's comment. I did think of jotting a note to the effect that this is the third of three AE complaints against me since February jist this year. And that in the context of a further two cases involving the incidence on wikipedia of outside interference in the way we edit these articles ((4) 4th (5)5th). But I decided not to make the point BK just made, preferring to drop the temptation, and go to bed and read a novel. It would have sounded like whingeing, a pathetic intimation that I deserve some immunity- No one can expect extraordinary sanctuary here or special rights. Still, I do 'worry', to the degree that I 'worry' about such gossip (I don't), that the 'no-smoke-without-fire' psychological syndrome will kick in against me if this barrage persists. Nishidani (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Red-tailed hawk. True, if you trawl through the dozens of AE complaints emerging from reactions to my 96,000 edits over 18 years, you will get a score or two of remonstrative cracks expressive of the frustration at finding that the several hundred book and scholarly article sources which it is my main interest in supplying to wikipedia are often reverted or disputed by a handful of editors who prefer talkpage challenges which, in my view do not reflect the ideal I cited in your citation of the Tamzim thread ('the self-conscious, deliberative use of reason as an instrument for the strategic pursuit of truth.'Josiah Ober, The Greeks and the Rational:The Discovery of Practical Reason, University of California Press 2022 ISBN 978-0-520-38017-2 p.1.') So yes, I should be perfect, and bear up. And when dragged into extensive threads where complaining editors show little knowledge of the subject (they do not cite any scholarship in rebuffing the data culled from it, but have decided views of what can or cannot be said) I should keep my nose to the happy grindstone and not react. But every now and again, it would be refreshing if these endless plaintiffs' records were examined to see if they add useful scholarly sources regularly or, as it strikes me, spend an inordinate amount of time singularly on talk pages, at ANI/AE or tweaks/reverts of what others add. Nishidani (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red-tailed hawk. About you proposal, I don't really object, though in the several cultures I have lived my various lives in, I've never been called uncivil. To the contrary (but no one need take my word for that). (The proposal will of course mean that the on average 3 AE complaints per year (it seems) that I have to face will multiply, because every edit I make will henceforth be closely parsed to see if some word, some 'attitude' there can give warrant for an AE report Several times, after an editor has repeated the same argument while sidestepping the evidence of RS provided in a discussion, I write 'yawn'. The superfinessing of AGF will make remarks like that evidence of incivility.) It will change the chronic targeters focus to advantage) Wikipedia is one further culture, and since civility rather than actually contributing serious content, is a preeminent concern, with very particular protocols, it could well be that here the general impression is that I am uncivil, aggressive, bullying. I would just make one point. The accusation you trace back to a diff in the 2009 permaban, was totally unsupported by the diff history cited to that end. In short, Arbcom slipped up, at least on that. And that ruling of incivility has been endlessly touted as proof in the dozens of complaints made against me since. Perhaps since then, things have changed. That is not for me to judge, but for my peers. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am learning something about myself with every lame insinuation this complaint has raised the opportunity to throw my way. Some of them are taken seriously, several just pass under the radar (JM's grievance, because I, deeply ironical given this complaint about my chronic 'incivility' , failed him for his ignorance of the 'niceties of polite usage').
  • agitator.'someone who tries to make people take part in protests and political activities, especially ones that cause trouble.' (Cambridge D.)
  • 'One who keeps up a political agitation. After the Bolshevik Revolution freq. applied spec. to Communist agitators.'(O.E.D.1989 vol.1 p.258 col.1)
Look, I know what the verdict will be, without these extra bits of 'evidence' being added about my putative manner of endlessly bullying my way round wikipedia. There's enough there to justify taking the serious measure that has been asked for repeatedly, mostly unsuccessfully, for a dozen years. I'll take no umbrage if one simply closes it thus, because, given the atmosphere and the forseeable sanction, these farces are only going to recur with the same regularity as they have in the past, and one should move on and bury the issue once and for all.Nishidani (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Euryalus. Point taken that 'I know the outcome' might look as though admins are predictable, which they certainly aren't. What is predictable is that for the rest of my wiki life, the pattern of the last decade, of being complained of relentlessly at AE, will, somewhere along the line, reach a tipping point. That is in the nature of things.Nishidani (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Murphy. I know my linguistic punctiliousness can be annoying, but though ageing can cause odd bodily charges, I can't see any evidence in the shower that I have undergone a gender change. That is 'burn the witch' should be 'burn the warlock', which, also, because it contains 'war' is more suited to the casus belli here, even if 'war' etymologically in warlock has another root, meaning 'covenant' (covenant-denier':)Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ ScottishFinnishRadish. It is contrafactual, the meme that this area is 'toxic' for the reasons you give. Since 7 October large numbers of articles have been created, my impression is that scores and scores of editors new to the IP zone, of all persuasions, have entered to work them, and remain. Not a peep here out of most of them. I myself haven't even troubled to follow a score or so articles in any close detail other than making occasional edits or comments, and I think this is true of most of the veteren editors. The real work on those articles can only be done when, not current newspapers, but secondary scholarly reports come in. One waits for that.
Only a manic hyperactive, 24/7 sleepless POV pusher could chase down and try to 'control' everything. No new editor who (a) argues respecting solid RS, and adds to them (b) works with care to discuss rationally any issue will, as far as I remember, encounter some 'toxic' enmity from a small 'mafia' of the kind insinuated as congenital to the whole 1/P area in the kind of AE complaint we are dealing with here. Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ ScottishFinnishRadish. Sorry if I misread you. My reply would exceed the word limit we are bound to respect. It's late here, but I will outline on my page the response that is due, tomorrow, and provide a link, in order to keep matters tidy and succinct here. Nishidani (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way BilledMammal, you claimed I suggested that editors of the article Calls for the destruction of Israel are "the hasbara bandwagon”. That’s nicely framed.

In that diff I said no such thing. It only shows me arguing that repeating the meme in question (Hamas uses human shields) suggested to me that some ‘experienced editors’ are unfamiliar with core policy’ and the scholarship on that meme's use. My dry summary of the historical overview elicited the response that I ‘clearly sympathize more with Hamas' POV’ and was disruptively ‘personalizing the dispute’, being ‘uncivil’.

Well, goodness me. ‘the Hamas POV‘ attributed to me did call for the destruction of Israel. So in context my interlocutor was intimating bizarrely that I share the view Israel should be destroyed, an egregious WP:AGF violation. I don't report such trivia, nor do I keep that kind of remark on some silly file detailing injurious, ‘uncivil’ insinuations thrown my way for some future AE retaliation. Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinishRadish. The version we have is the consensus version, since 12 longterm editors agreed on it, as opposed to 7 editors opposing, of whom 3 are now permanently blocked as socks. I.e., 12 vs.4. To revert to some prior version would be to endorse the no-inclusion-so-far result desired by that exiguous minority of editors, and ask us all to re-engage in another humongous discussion.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

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

The other editors, all of them that are involved in the discussion, should be named and notified. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating how a content dispute is leveraged into a civility issue for purposes here.Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: Complainant received standard awareness notice on 9 May following edits to the Rafah offensive article. 03:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Not sure if everyone is addressed just to other admins. However, it is true that statements and accusations of one sort or another have been made that appear only indirectly to do with the matter at hand and arguably constitute exactly the type of behavior that the accusers are themselves complaining of. In my view, if one believes that one has a valid case of some sort, then one should actually make that case in some suitable forum and not merely talk about it en passant, merely because the opportunity to do so exists. Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Re the Zionism article (in some sense, the root of all this, it seems), how would one open a separate thread to figure out what to do about it? Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: How about it? Shall we file a case and name everyone, including ourselves? Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

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

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

@ScottishFinnishRadish the aspersions I objected to are Most of the users responding here frequently show up to defend their pro-Palestine wikifriends or attack their pro-Palestine enemies whenever they see the chance, and vise versa. I'd like if this would be considered evidence of disruptive battleground behavior. If it is, I'll start collecting diffs. and Topic banning any or all of these disruptive users would improve the ability of other editors to improve articles in this area. This user previously accused me of being deceptive, without the slightest bit of evidence. They have been repeatedly agitating for others to be topic banned based on their incredibly absurd belief that having certain views is disruptive. Yes, repeatedly claiming others are disruptive on the basis of things like how often they vote in RFCs a certain way that they decide is pro-whatever is casting aspersions. nableezy - 12:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you all needed convincing of what is actually happening around here, I would have thought this little episode would have enlightened anybody who was paying attention. It is not the "pro-Palestine and pro-Israel wikiwarriors battlegrounding and POV-pushing". It has never been that, there has never, so far as I have been reading these talkpages (and I started from very early archives), been the "pro-Palestine" and "pro-Israel" editors. There is no such thing as a pro-Palestine group of editors in the way there are editors pushing extreme fringe POVs aligned with one of the parties of this conflict. Red-tailed Hawk brought up Nishidani's past record, and included in that the ban issued in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria. And Im glad he brought that up, because it turns out to mirror this melodramatic episode at this board here and now. We had then two groups of editors, one pushing for identifiably right-wing Israeli POV language, and another pushing for an internationalist language. The "pro-Palestine" POV was never on the table. We had users arguing to use, in Wikipedia's narrative voice, the chosen language of a fringe sized minority of sources, and no users arguing to use the POV language of the other fringe sized minority of sources. That is nobody argued that Tel Aviv should be introduced as being in "occupied Palestine", whereas Ramallah should be introduced as being in "Judea and Samaria". And what brought it to arbitration? The incessant edit-warring by two socks of an already banned user (NoCal100 and Canadian Monkey being socks of Isarig, now Former user 2). But the ArbCom of the time, like some of the admins below, only saw this as two equivalent "camps" of editors. They did not see one group of editors editing in defense of Wikipedia's policies and ideals, and another attacking them. That is what that was, and that is what this is. It is not, despite the claims of Thebiguglyalien or whoever else, two opposing groups who should just be shut out irrespective of their fidelity to the policies that matter here. And what happened as a result of that case? Most of the editors who were editing in defense of Wikipedia's policies are gone, NoCal100 however never left us. Because the dishonest editors that stoke these edit-wars and bait the honest users in to these enforcement threads that have admins willing to dredge up 10 year old sanctions that were bullshit based on bullshit but somehow add up to a problematic record dont actually lose anything when their latest sock account is blocked. It's the editors who are editing with fidelity to the sources and our policies who are too honest to just run up 500 edits on a new account to start all over again that are actually lost. nableezy - 19:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

So, one checkuser block so far. Several of the editors involved in the edit warring at Zionism resemble other editors, for example, ABHammad resembles Dajudem/Tundrabuggy/Stellarkid/Snakeswithfeet - sorry ABHammad, it's just what the math suggests. Perhaps many issues could be avoided if participation in edit warring was enough to trigger a checkuser, or checkuser was used much more routinely. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal:, whether saying A resembles B is regarded as an aspersion by anyone (other than the person I said it about) is a question that does not interest me. There is no utility for me in civility concerns, it's just an irrelevant distraction. From my perspective it is an objective statement of fact about the relationship between objects in a metric space. There is no value judgement, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same person. There are at least 3 ways to address these things. ABHammad could make a true statement of fact. A checkuser could simply have a look. An SPI could be filed. A problem, of course, is that 'computer says so' is currently not a valid reason to request a checkuser. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding recolonization of the PIA topic area after a potential Arbcom case clean out, you can ask the question - how long would recolonization take? This 'ARBPIA gaming?' thread at AN provides an answer. With a little bit of preparation, it could take as little as two and half days. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To preserve the record here, User:Kentucky Rain24, another editor employing deception, who also happened to be involved in the edit warring events at Zionism used to generate this report, has now been blocked. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Iskandar323: that a rational and pragmatic response would be to conduct checkusers, especially if an Arbcom case or a separate AE case are options. Including what turns out to be a disposable account in a case presumably wastes everyone's time given that disposable accounts have no standing, and remedies have no impact on them. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 916crdshn

Sockpuppet

I've been following the ARBPIA topic area from my hospital bed, and in all honesty, I'm surprised by the number of infractions committed by experienced editors. They consistently disregard consensus-building and stubbornly restoring their preferred edits, even while discussions are still ongoing. I also saw this behavior from Nishidani and attempted to persuade him to revert his edit yesterday. Selfstudier, who responded to this complaint, unfortunately exemplifies this issue. I've observed similar actions from them as those of Nishidani. For instance, they've reintroduced disputed content still under discussion [38], [39]. In this case, they and others removed a POV tag while discussion is still ongoing [40]. In this case, they even restored a controversial edit while RFC was ongoing on its inclusion [41]. However, this one surprised me the most: [42]. In this case, you can see how they, along with another editor, bombarded a user's talk page with accusations of 'tag teaming' and oh so many diffs "for whatever whoever wants to use it for", while in fact, all these editors were doing was to restore the last stable version while discussions were ongoing. I also see Selfstudier just spamming every new editor with the strongly worded version of the 'contentious topics' alert. I think this just scares away good editors. In all honesty, there appears to be a pattern of established users employing bullying tactics to stifle the influence of other contributors. Where do we draw the line? 916crdshn (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see how one editor here, @Levivich, uses this noticeboard to cast aspersions on several editors without providing convincing evidence. After reviewing their editing styles, topics, and activity times, which appear distinct to me, it seems their only commonality is differing views from those of Levivich. Levivich also uses this noticeboard to present fiercely debated topics, such as equating Zionism with colonialism,[1] and references controversial scholars like Ilan Pappe[2][3][4] as if they were mainstream truths. This is particularly concerning given that they recently shared the belief that "We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism." This seems to align with the situation @The Kip and the @Thebiguglyalien described in their comments. 916crdshn (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 916crdshn (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Schuessler, Jennifer (2024-01-22). "What Is 'Settler Colonialism'?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-08.
  2. ^ Shlaim, Avi (2014-05-14). "The Idea of Israel and My Promised Land – review". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-07-08.
  3. ^ "Far Left historian Ilan Pappe says he is good friends with Haniyeh". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2007-02-13. Retrieved 2024-07-08.
  4. ^ Parker, Fiona (2023-11-18). "Exeter University professor 'admires courage' of Hamas 'fighters'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2024-07-08.

Statement by BilledMammal

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

A few other examples are:

  1. 3 July, in a discussion about the intent of Zionism:

    Has anyone objecting here ever read the founding documents of Zionism? I have the eerie impression this is like discussing the origins of Christianity with people who haven't read the New Testament.

  2. 18 June, criticized editors for rejecting a source as unreliable, and then focused on their grammar:

    So you've read as far as the title. And 'it's' is not how the possessive 'its' is written. It means 'it is' and as you spell it, it produces an ungrammatical sentence:'it is reliability'.

    They also doubled down when an admin told them to knock it off.
  3. 21 May Wrote a long comment, starting with The editing of this zealous article is too incompetent to be reliable, to which the primary author's response concluded with As for the rest of your argument here I'll reply at length tomorrow. Nishidani's reply was:

    Don't worry about replying at length, because I already find the article itself, which will prove briefer than the threads, unreadable. I had to force myself to read it once, and noting the constant misuse of sources. I haven't the time to waste on it.

  4. 1 May, in response to an editor questioning the use of Counterpunch:

    That lazy approach means editors do not need to read carefully and evaluate the quality of any piece: all they need do is look at the publisher, note wiki editors have suggested caution, and jump at that pretext to hold anything at all from such sources to hostage.


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

It is ridiculous. It shouldn’t be this easy to find examples of them attacking editors rather than focusing on content, and the fact it is suggests there is a real issue here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: If you have reason to believe ABHammad is Dajudem/Tundrabuggy/Stellarkid/Snakeswithfeet, I suggest you file a SPI. Merely saying they resemble that user is an WP:ASPERSION.
(I haven't interacted much with ABHammad, and I don't know who Dajudem/Tundrabuggy/Stellarkid/Snakeswithfeet is, so I can't comment on how likely that is to be true). BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: Sorry, I linked the wrong diff. I've now linked to the correct ones, which included the quoted lines. BilledMammal (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

Here is the most recent and ongoing discussion regarding this content dispute [43], and note that this was also discussed recently in this discussion here [44]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite, I very much agree that more progressive discipline is needed in this topic area. Your proposal for Nishidani regarding civility seems a very good solution and similar restrictions instead of outright topic bans should become common practice.

I would also propose that similar restrictions be considered for some of the editors who participated in this content dispute / edit war, but regarding other policies, like edit warring or original research rather than civility. Too often a small number of editors are able to thwart consensus simply by insisting on their position, even though their stance be contrary to RS and based only on their own personal opinions or on their own independent analysis. The focus needs to be on reliable sources and those who ignore RS or insist on prioritizing their own analysis need to be reigned in. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

On second thought the "probation" idea may not be a good one, but more warnings and progressive discipline would very likely be an improvement to the managing of this topic area. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vegan416

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

Statement by Dan Murphy

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

Wait! What?! Nishidani once described someone gloating on a talk page about their success at getting an opponent blocked by arbs as "soporific" (I know, I should have placed a trigger warning) and another time described people who have clearly either not read or pretended to not read any primary, secondary, or tertiary sources on early Zionism as "people who have not read much about Zionism?!" I withdraw my support. Per Raddishfinis: Burn him! Burn the witch necromancer! Dan Murphy (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the Icebear account has been indefinitely blocked by a checkuser. The account's email and talk were also disabled. Shocked, shocked!Dan Murphy (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why this hasn't been closed is beyond me. But the 916crd account (speaking of "aspersion") was created in 2021, spent about 2 years completely dedicated to the city of Corona, CA, left, and then returned this June entirely devoted to talk page and notice board complaints about editors on Israel/Palestine articles (18 out 20 edits; one edit to previously uncreated userpage, one revert at the Golan Heights article.) The only 2 talk page comments the account made prior to its hiatus provide an interesting contrast. [45]Dan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The now blocked Nocal sock Kentuckyrain, which shares the same style and views of the now blocked sock Icebear who opened this complaint AND the same style and views as the now blocked sock 916crd (which backed up Icebear and Kentuckyrain), was HIGHLY active and abusive on the Zionism talk page in destabilizing the article and exhausting the patience of the actual people of good will. Same shit, different decade. And y'all still reward it.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskander - Two of them, particularly the one that started out looking like a paid editor for small businesses, reek to the heavens.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Unbandito

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

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

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

Unbandito (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing I wanted to point out, @Red-tailed hawk, I know you were looking for an answer from @Nishidani but I read the phrase "barely qualified IP editors" as pertaining to the editors' qualifications within the Israel-Palestine topic, not IP as in an IP address/unregistered editor. That makes more sense in context, as the editors involved are clearly not and couldn't be IP editors of the latter type. Unbandito (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Parabolist

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

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

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

My thoughts in no order:

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

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

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

Statement by The Kip

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

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

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

@Sean.hoyland re the "pioneer species" comment - a valid point, yes, but in my opinion it can't possibly be worse that the toxic, POV-ridden, edit-warred, propaganda-filled environment that currently exists.
The active participation of editors without a specific POV to push, that're more interested in creating a comprehensive/nuanced encyclopedia, has become active discouraged by the area becoming overrun by battleground conduct perpetuated by more than a few of the editors in this AE report, backing both sides of the conflict. Speaking from personal experience, outside occasional dabbling at WP:RSN or here, I effectively quit editing the area upon seeing that my opinions would be disregarded if I didn't fully align with either the pro-Israel or pro-Palestine blocs of editors. The Kip (contribs) 15:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (Nishidani)

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

My previously complaints about: tag-team edit warring (recent example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), both-siding WP:ONUS, and bludgeoning

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

  1. That Palestinians are not native to Palestine 1 2 3 4 5
  2. That all of Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem) is part of Israel Talk:Israel#Tel Aviv (contrary to WP:RFC/J, continuing scholarly consensus, and reality)
  3. That the idea of Zionism as colonialism is WP:FRINGE 1. This is such a common myth, Ilan Pappe's Ten Myths About Israel has a chapter about it.
  4. That Zionism as settler colonialism is WP:FRINGE 1 2 3 4
  5. That Nur Masalha, and New Historians like Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim are WP:FRINGE 1
  6. The long-debunked (since 1980s) "endorsement of flight" theory 1 2

User:מתיאל was a disclosed paid editing account in 2021 1 2 3; the disclosure was removed from their userpage in April 2024. They made about 50 (non-deleted) edits between Sep 2021 and Mar 2024 (xtools). Top edited pages for User:ABHammad [46] and User:O.maximov [47], aside from Israel/Palestine, are articles about businesses. User:Galamore: Jan 2024 UPE ANI (blocked, unblocked); May AE "Galamore cautioned against continuing long term edit wars, especially when those edit wars have been the target of sockpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing."; May ANI for gaming 500.

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

Man, I don't get it. How are some of us more concerned about someone saying "patent abuse by barely qualified IP editors" than they are concerned about patent abuse by barely qualified IP editors? I've been through this before with people rewriting history to say Kurds don't exist or that the Holocaust was about killing Poles not Jews. Just the other day, here on this page, we talked about someone claiming the Duchy of St Sava does not exist, and right here, right now, in this thread, there are diffs of a group of new accounts trying to rewrite history to say that Zionism was not colonialism because Palestinians were not really from Palestine, and the mainstream historians who say otherwise are "fringe". Doesn't everyone care about that? I'm here because I want people to have accurate information when they Google stuff. Isn't everyone else here for the same reason? So what do you need? More diffs? Is it that the diffs are unclear somehow? Do you need it formatted with a different template, on a different page? What is it, what will it take, to make all admins actually care about people trying to rewrite history on Wikipedia, more than they care about people getting upset about people rewriting history on Wikipedia? If you must, go through the diffs of incivility one by one, then you'll realize they're not actually uncivil, and then please can we focus on the actual problem here, which is patent abuse by a bunch of new, barely-qualified accounts in the IP area. Thank you have a nice day. Levivich (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We now have a 6th revert in the "recent example" string above, from Oleg Yunakov, along with saying at the talk page that the "colonization" is a "statements that are only mentioned by select scientists" and "opinion of colonization is clearly a minority" (plus the mandatory ad hominem swipe). That is flat misrepresentation of the sources, and Oleg knows this because he participated in the discussion about it, where he brought one source--which, IIRC, is the one and only WP:RS that disputes "colonization" among over a dozen that were examined in that discussion. The current ongoing edit war by this group of editors isn't the first edit war about "colonization" on the Zionism article, we had one a month ago (1, 2, 3, 4). So we have the edit war, we have the talk page discussion where we bring over a dozen sources and examine them, and still they just go back to edit warring, bringing in new accounts, and still, people claim against all evidence that a mainstream view is a minority view.

I did my part. I researched, I engaged in constructive talk page discussion, I posted over a dozen sources, I read the sources other people posted--and a number of other editors did the same. Can admins now do their part, please: TBAN the people who are misrepresenting sources by claiming that "Zionism was colonization" is not a mainstream view, who only brought one source (or zero sources, or didn't even participate in the talk page discussion at all, as is the case for some of these editors), and who continue to edit war. We don't really need to prove a UPEfarm for this, just TBAN them for the diffs I'm posting on this page. I think AE is the right place for this. Thanks. Levivich (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind doing a separate filing if it's going to get looked at (and I won't be boomeranged for forum shopping, or some such). Any feedback on what that filing should focus on or how it should be framed (or should there be multiple filings, one for each editor?), would be welcome. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Oleg and I looked at some sources just now at Talk:Zionism#Round 3 and I think we've come to some understanding about what is the mainstream v. significant minority viewpoint on this issue. Levivich (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a new day and we have more edit warring about Zionism and colonialism (today, at settler colonialism): 1, 2, 3. Nobody's edited that talk page since June 17. This is like every day in this topic area right now: it's a full-court press to make sure Wikipedia doesn't say Zionism is any kind of colonialism. Levivich (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still going: 1, 2; 1, 2. Levivich (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Sure, Iohann just asked me about the same on my talk page. I'm still a little unclear about what exactly we're raising for review (edit warring? pov pushing? bludgeoning? some combination? something else?) and exactly who to list as parties. Should the filing be workshopped? Levivich (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Galamore

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

Statement by Zero0000

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

To editor ScottishFinnishRadish: I am alarmed by your proposal that Nishidani is a net negative. In my 22 years of editing in the I/P area, it has been a rare event to encounter someone whose scholarship and ability to cut through to the heart of an issue stands out so strongly. He would be a good candidate for the most valuable I/P editor at the moment. To be sure, Nishidani doesn't have much patience with editors who arrive full of opinions and empty of facts, and there are times I wish he would state the obvious less bluntly. But reports like this are not really about Nishidani's behavior; they are an opportunistic response to being unable to match Nishidani in his depth of knowledge and command of the best sources. Nobody would bother otherwise. Zerotalk 09:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JM2023

Going off of what BilledMammal said, from the sole interaction with Nishidani that I can recall, this was my experience. This was in January. After I commented on another user's talk page, Nishidani appeared and removed my comment, saying You had your say. Go away [48]. I believed it was a violation of talk page guidelines, so I took it to Nishidani's talk page, resulting these instances:

  1. I see you are very young, so perhaps you are not quite familiar with good manners and accused me of speaking to the watchlist [49].
  2. So, there's a good laddie. Off you go. [50]
  3. Edit summary: Please desist from the soporific cant on this page [51]

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

Statement by Loki

FWIW, I think this case should be closed with no action. Not because I necessarily think Nishidani is a paragon of civility, but because I think if you're going to impose a restriction you should wait until the direct report actually has any merit at all. Otherwise you're incentivizing people to report opposing editors until action is taken against them. Loki (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by berchanhimez

I disagree that whatever happens to OP should impact what happens to the person OP has reported. If an issue exists, it exists regardless of whether another user wants to expose themselves to the toxic environment that occurs from reporting that issue. While I make no comment on the issues raised about the person who posted this thread, I second the concerns OP and others have had about the reported user's repeated incivility in the topic area. It is a perfectly reasonable outcome that both the reported user and the one doing the reporting get sanctioned. But it is not appropriate to absolve the reported user of sanctions for their inappropriate behavior just because the OP also has not behaved appropriately. That is completely against the spirit of WP:BOOMERANG, which is to clarify that the OP will also be examined - not "in lieu" of the person they report, but in addition to. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add, I have observed this sort of behavior in Nishidani and other editors in this topic area. I think it is patently absurd that Nishidani or anyone be allowed to hide behind "the person making the filing is worse than me" and/or "but I'm right and speak the truth" to avoid sanctions, and it disturbs me that even some administrators are engaging/agreeing with the idea that the incivility, bludgeoning, and other behaviors Nishidani is so well known for (even by those supporting them) should be ignored because of the filer/their contributions. That is the attitude that makes new people not want to engage in a topic area - seeing people being disruptive avoid sanctions simply because they are prolific contributors. I would love to provide my opinions/evaluation of concerns in I/P, but the mere fact that even though I've been relatively inactive for over a year I recognize Nishidani as a net negative to discussions in this area has led me to not even try touching it. I'll note also their comments at WP:RSN § A step back to look at the metacontext of this complaint - where Nishidani, rather than continuing the completely valid discussion of a source they agree with's reliability, they opened a subsection which cast aspersions on the OP of that thread, and other editors, under the guise of "metacontext". None of that was useful to the discussion, yet it went unpunished because their contributions are otherwise appreciated? They then had the gall to call me the one disrupting the discussion, because I called out how their section did not add anything to the discussion about the reliability of the source. And they then basically threatened me by saying Try to exercise some discursive restraint, so that the already unmanageable mega-threads don't develop into unreadable subthreads - which is even more rich coming from them who opened a new subthread that added zero actual "meat" to the discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

@ScottishFinnishRadish: That Nishidani's: "hostility outweighs any improvement to the encyclopedia", is a palpably subjective assertion, regardless of the rest of the statement. I imagine if one reviewed the evidence however, in terms of page creations and content and sources additions to articles, the community would conclude otherwise. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: I was also tempted to simply join the refrain and go in for an encore of: "Burn the witch!" It hit the nail on the head. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of weird activity right now. It could be accounts being handed over, or it could just be sleeper accounts being booted up. I rather suspect the latter: if you're a clever, long-term sock, it's not hard to leave a trail of account profiles behind you over the years. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're not going to get a burning, can we at least dunk Nishidani in a pond and see if he floats back up or not? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A very rational response to this thread, and the blocking as socks of two of the editors involved in the original edit-warring, as well as another account that weighed in here, would be to conduct a check-user on the other low-count accounts. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller)

I know that I should not just say "per"... but I'm tired. I'm tired physically but much more I'm tired of these attacks on Nishidani. User:Zero0000 is absolutely right when he wrote that "In my 22 years of editing in the I/P area, it has been a rare event to encounter someone whose scholarship and ability to cut through to the heart of an issue stands out so strongly. He would be a good candidate for the most valuable I/P editor at the moment. To be sure, Nishidani doesn't have much patience with editors who arrive full of opinions and empty of facts, and there are times I wish he would state the obvious less bluntly. But reports like this are not really about Nishidani's behavior; they are an opportunistic response to being unable to match Nishidani in his depth of knowledge and command of the best sources." Nishidani is probably the most erudite editor I have ever come across here (there may be better ones, I just haven't met them). As Zero said, this should be dismissed out of hand.I also agree with User:Dan Murphy, both his first post and the tounge in cheek next one. And with User:Iskandar323. The filer should be sanctioned but as they don't edit in this topic a TB would be pointless. I also can't help wondering if someone contacted them, this all seems so odd. Doug Weller talk 13:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

This is an absurd report, filed because the defendant made two edits to restore to the consensus wording and one of them contained some minor incivility which was not directed at any particular editor. This smacks heavily of opportunistically trying to take out an ideological opponent. Frankly I'd expect more than a topic ban for the filler. What's to stop them engaging in this sort of behaviour in other CTOP areas in the future? I would hope for sanctions that ensure that can't happen. TarnishedPathtalk 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323, I think they only did that to witches and not warlocks. From memory the burning and the dunking was very gendered. TarnishedPathtalk 13:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland, I am Jack's complete lack of surprise that yet another editor involved in the content dispute, who seeks to remove colonialism from the article, has turned out to be a sock. TarnishedPathtalk 09:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with @Nishidani that socking should not be rewarded by reverting to a version that does not reflect consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 13:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LilianaUwU

Considering the OP of this thread was blocked as a compromised account, and that Nishidani has been repeatedly targeted for their edits in ARBPIA (remember Mschwartz1?), I think this should be procedurally closed. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

I don't think I'm just some random newish account, and my one extended interaction with Nishidani was at Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism last year ([52], for example). Based on that, I have no doubt of his erudition, but I was also painfully aware of his, well, snottiness towards anyone with whom he disagrees. Whether that's a matter for AE is above my pay grade. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (user)

Result concerning Nishidani

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @Nishidani: Can you clarify specifically who you are referring to with barely qualified IP editors? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to sanction history, filer seems to have a few holes. I will note that the block from 2009 brought up by filer was not actually a week long due to ensuing community discussion after it was issued. There are also additional sanctions given to respondent at AE that filer did not include:
    1. 2023, warned for battleground behavior at Zionism, race, and genetics.
    2. 2019, indefinitely banned from creating or making comments in AE reports related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except if they are the editor against whom enforcement is requested, per AE. Sanctioning admin notes that this was for the user misusing Wikipedia as a battleground and casting aspersions on others in the thread.
    3. 2017, 1-month TBAN from Arab-Israeli conflict after banning admin observed that the user personalize[s] disputes rather than focusing on the content.
    4. 2012, 1-month long TBAN the Israel-Palestine area after violating 1RR.
    5. 2009 ArbCom-imposed topic ban, which was later successfully appealed in 2011
    Problems with your civility have date back to 2009, when the ArbCom found that you had engaged in incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. I don't think it appropriate to refer to other editors as barely qualified IP editors when they are not IP editors. At a baseline, it is not civil, and it comes off as a personal attack. You were already warned against using against using unconstructive or unnecessarily inflammatory language in the topic area earlier this year, and this sort of thing is another example of that.
    If you are going to stay in this topic area, you need to remain civil. This is a core pillar of Wikipedia. If warnings are not doing the job, and civility issues are not improving despite all this time, then more restrictive sanctions become the only option to solve the problem. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After thinking a bit more on this, I think something outside of the standard set is required. With respect to respondent’s long-term civility issues, reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project require something more narrowly crafted than a topic-wide TBAN, but something that is more substantial and concrete than yet another warning.
    The solution I am propopsing, and would request other admins here consider, is something like that which the community endorsed for BrownHairedGirl, a prolific and productive longtime editor who had exhibited chronic civility problems over many years. At a 2021 ANI thread, the community placed BHG under a form of civility probation. This allowed BHG to continue to make productive edits, while also enforcing a tight leash on civility issues. An analogous proposal that would apply in this case is as follows:

    If, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Nishidani violates WP:CIVIL within the WP:PIA topic area, Nishidani may be subject to escalating blocks, beginning with a 12-hour block. These blocks will be arbitration enforcement actions—they may not be lifted without a successful appeal at the administrator’s noticeboard, at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, or to the arbitration committee. The restriction is indefinite, and may be appealed at WP:AN, WP:AE, or WP:ARCA in six months.

    I believe that this balances the ability of respondent to contribute positively to this topic area (something a topic ban would prohibit), while also providing for clear consequences should civility issues continue. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 18:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I ask this question only on behalf of myself and without having talked to or consulted anyone else. A consensus of admins at AE can impose whatever restrictions they want. But Nishidani (and every other AWARE editor editing within PIA) can already have blocks that function as arbitration enforcement actions with-in the topic area of PIA and those blocks can be for anything that not follow project expectations, including anything which violates WP:CIVIL. With BHG there clearly was a change - civility blocks went from easier to overturn to harder to overturn, but I don't understand what is "new" with this restriction? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the “new” part is that it provides clear expectations for future behavior and for how admins will deal with it. Unilateral AE actions are already available, but a set framework to deal with this user’s incivility in particular would serve to dissuade future incivility in a way that the general existence of the CTOP for the Arab-Israeli conflict has not. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 20:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The CTOP notice provides clear expectations of behavior. It's not as if there is some new information in policies that everyone here isn't aware of. The framework already exists with AE/CTOP. All this does is restate the rules that we're here to enforce, only with arbitrary block time limits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks RTH (or RTS) for idea, and not opposed to the concept. However one concern: agree with Barkeep49 that this is already within the scope of AE enforcement, and I wouldn't want to create an informal expectation that escalating blocks weren't an option for CTOP-warned editors unless there was a subsequent AE decision to formalise a regime for them. I know that's not strictly what is proposed but we risk creating expectations of it if we start imposing this formalisation for anyone repeatedly brought to AE. Mildly, we also risk rewarding efforts to weaponise this noticeboard via repeated specious filings. Be good to have further discussion on how these issues might be addressed. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: Not sure I agree that an outcome is determined wrt the original complaint. The only outcome with consensus at this point is a topic ban for the filer. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nishidani, yes this is a reasonable conclusion, if a somewhat depressing one. Weaponisation risks are a side effect of AGF. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've come around to the view that these kind of paroles are not very effective. At this point I think we need to decide if the behavior was incivil, and if so do we think a warning will be effective at preventing this in the future? As far as weaponization goes, yeah this circumstance isn't great, but the editor qualifies for editing ARBPIA. Do we risk adding another tier of ARBPIA editing where you can only make an AE report after reaching some arbitrary threshold? Do we want to tell editors new to the topic area that they can't report behavior by editors with a sufficient amount of edits? We should be promoting new editors (although not this one) in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien: With respect to... Most of the users responding here frequently show up to defend their pro-Palestine wikifriends or attack their pro-Palestine enemies whenever they see the chance, and vise versa. I'd like if this would be considered evidence of disruptive battleground behavior. If it is, I'll start collecting diffs, if people are attempting to abuse the AE system in order to unjustifiably purge people along ideological lines, I think that would be something worth considering. But that sort of material would be so complex that an Arbitration case might be the better venue. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't be the only person that is getting bored with these semi-regular editors queueing up to report Nishidani (to be honest, I'm getting really bored with a significant number of editors that are trying to weaponise AE, RSN and other venues). If I was assuming bad faith I'd think there's almost off-wiki co-ordination going on. So just to be clear, the filer made this edit note the edit summary, which was their first edit for three weeks, and then came here to complain about it? Sorry, no. Nableezy's comment is relevant. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to know how Icebear244 became involved here. I have gone through their contributions, and I found that had never edited the Zionism article until they made this edit, which more or less kicked off this thread. I also don't see all that much prior editing of related topics; I could only find a sole edit to a related talk page (though I could be wrong, since that's a bit harder to catch by scanning through contribs). (Upon further review, there are edits to Antisemitism and higher education in the United States which might be somewhat related that I had missed on my initial go-through) — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Along those lines, @Icebear244: Can you explain how you came to the make the revert on Zionism? Were you alerted to the page somehow, or did you naturally encounter it? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thebiguglyalien, it's not fear, it's the enormous opportunity cost. There are several actions I would take if I had the dozens of hours necessary to implement and defend them.
    Are we okay with battleground editing making the topic area toxic and making it less likely that anyone without a strongly held POV will want to get involved leading to an even more entrenched battleground? I say (only partially in jest that we look at the last dozen or two ARBPIA AE reports and start looking at who shows up more often than not to rep their colors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and Icebear244 should be topic banned. Clear POV pushing, added a section called Islamist Terrorism citing a source that did not say Islamist or terrorism, but did say a group they'd never heard of said, In a statement, the group described Mr Kipper as an Israeli agent and said his killing was in retaliation for what it called massacres in Gaza and Israel's seizure of the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, which also happened on Tuesday. Add that to the change of the prose about the humanitarian toll and it's pretty clear. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd concur with you here on the topic ban for the filer. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with indefinite topic ban for Icebear244. The storyline of their progress from uninvolved editor to vehement AE filer is doubtful at best. And to paraphrase, the approach of "sure, sanction me but take down my enemy too" is battleground at its finest. They're not the only editor in this thread who needs a break from this topic but at this point they're the most obvious. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I even wonder if an account that goes from pretty much exclusively editing cartoon articles for years, straight to various hot-button topics such as AP and Russian/Chinese disinformation, might not be compromised (or has been handed over to someone else)? Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Or went from high school to college? Or watched the news? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, possibly, which is why I'm wondering about it rather than stating it. It just seemed like a very abrupt change. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I share this concern. — Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A concern which turns out to be correct. What a surprise. Black Kite (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, is everyone cool with this? Regarding the comment by Thebiguglyalien, this isn’t the first time an editor has mistaken their own views for those of the community, but at a certain point the repeated claims of disruptive editing against others users without evidence constitutes casting aspersions and should be dealt with appropriately. Makes a claim of disruptive editing about another editor, says that such claims should be dealt with? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must be missing some context - isn't this simply an allusion to the practice of weaponising dispute resolution? If so, it doesn't seem a particularly controversial thing to say. Euryalus (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It reads to me as accusing another editor of disruptive editing, although I could be misreading it as a statement about tbug. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thebiguglyalien's comment starts with "Nishidani is a long-time agitator in this area, where their enforcement of a pro-Palestine point of view through battleground behavior and hostility outweighs any improvement to the encyclopedia" (diff of comment). Nableezy is saying that that comment is an aspersion because TBUA makes the statement as their opinion, presumably believing it to be a view of the community and therefore not requiring evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I read it, and that would make this isn’t the first time an editor has mistaken their own views for those of the community an unsupported aspersion as they're calling for action because of the repetition of casting aspersions. That Nish is a net negative is subjective, but the long history of sanctions and warnings presented with the report is evidence of someone being a long-term agitator. Agree with the conclusion or not, it's not an unsupported statement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't edit, or oft administer, in the IP area and from that perspective/ignorance what I see in this AE report is a fairly inactive editor making a drive-by edit with a provocative edit-summary to a highly contentious article and, on being reverted, immediately rushing to this board. By their own admission, Icebear244 doesn't care about Boomerang sanctions or topic-bans from an area that they don't normally edit in any case, as long as it sparks action against the editors who are actually active (editing and discussing) in this topic area. Hard to imagine a more explicit example of WP:GAMING and WP:BATTLEGROUND.
Participation from "non-regulars" in a topic-area is (potentially) very valuable if either their knowledge of the subject allows more sources and perspectives to be considered or their distance from the subject allows them to moderate existing debates. Getting more "outside" editors to participate in tag-teamed edit-wars or to set up a pawn-for-piece exchange at AE is worse than useless and should be actively discouraged.
I don't know if action is warranted against Nishidani or other editors who are active at Zionism etc but by indulging this complaint we would be setting up some perverse incentives that will be exploited in this and other CTOP areas. Abecedare (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also commenting as someone who's only ever been involved on the fringes of the IP area, so take it with a grain of salt, but I'm pretty surprised to see anyone taking this report taken seriously. I'm also surprised to see Red-tailed hawk suggesting with a straight face that Nishidani has "long-term civility issues" based on diffs no more recent than 2019 and as old as 2009, with years between each of them. If I'd been editing in an area as controversial as this for 15 years, I'd be content with a block log ten times longer. @Red-tailed hawk: Concerns were raised (by myself and others) about an overly punitive and unempathetic approach to dispute resolution at your RfA just a little over six months ago, and you're really here at AE now, proposing sanctions on an experienced editor working in our most difficult topic area, because they called a nonspecific group of editors "barely qualified"? Did you reflect on that feedback at all? – Joe (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, I have considered that feedback, Joe. I would ask you to simply read the full thread; I am sad to see that you seem to have missed the warning from earlier this year when arguing that my analysis was merely based on diffs no more recent than 2019. (The warning was included by filer, which is why it was not included in a list of additional sanctions given to respondent at AE that filer did not include that I provided above). I believe that my approach is preventative, not punitive.
    I do, however, hesitate to do anything more than what has been done here in light of the conclusive block of filer by an Arb for being compromised. If there is the sort of manipulation that requires CU tools to address or Arb tools to address, then I do feel like the CU corps or the ArbCom would be the appropriate venue to handle them since the regular admin corps may be missing relevant evidence. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so we have:
    1. Civility concerns
    2. Battleground concerns
    3. Off-wiki coordination/UPE concerns
    4. Concerns about accounts possibly having been handed off for use in this topic
    5. Concerns about toxicity keeping uninvolved editors from engaging in the topic
    6. Concerns about weaponizing processes
  • A mixture of these come up in almost every report here with mostly the same editors involved and AE simply isn't equipped to handle it. We should just refer it up to Arbcom, where there is a structure for many editors providing evidence and building complex cases. Piecemeal solutions are fine for the obvious bad actors and the simple cases but they don't work for entrenched long-term editors. And we should topic ban Icebear because that's what AE actually handles well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishidani, I just provided a summary of what comes up in many of these AE reports. Looking at this report as an example, we have accusations unrelated to the report going in all directions. We're at the point where dealing with a report against an established editor, like yourself, has to take into account a laundry list of other considerations. We can take each incident in isolation or we can use the process that exists to address if there are paid editors intentionally baiting you, if there is a toxic environment, if there is an entrenched battleground mentality, to what extent are processes being weaponized. All of that has to be looked at together and AE isn't the place for it. If you look at my first response here, that's what it was about, doing something about the battleground that makes itself evident at almost every AE. Not topic banning you, only the person who made the report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (again) the Icebear244 topic ban. They don't really edit in this area other than this sudden battleground-like rush to AE so I doubt they'll care. But warranted nonetheless. There's also merit in a more detailed investigation of the offwiki coordination/handed off accounts issue, for which there's a reasonable starting point of evidence. AE is not the ideal place but where is? Not sure the rest needs anything further at this point. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we need do anything beyond TBANning the filer, and for the avoidance of doubt I don't think we need refer this to ARBCOM. I don't see an intractable problem here; I see an editor who, unable to get their way via good-faith discussion, is attempting to use AE to clear the decks of their opposition. A boomerang TBAN is the appropriate response. Given that this thread has spiraled I don't think it is the right place to evaluate anyone else's behavior either, but I find Levivich's diffs more concerning than anything posted by the OP, and would suggest a separate filing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting (as someone else did above) that the TBAN has also fallen by the wayside as Ice-bear has been blocked as a sock. Potential remaining issues include UPE/handed-off accounts, weaponisation of this noticeboard, and what further might be done to reduce the battleground approach of all "sides." However these are wider issues than Icebear's views on Nishidani, and it seems odd to piggyback their resolution on this specific complaint. Perhaps we can close this as no action without prejudice to pursuing those other issues elsewhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As noted, I saw on WP:AN that the OP has been blocked as a compromised account. No opinion on the other points in this complaint. Liz Read! Talk! 03:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like 916crdshn (talk · contribs) has now also been CU-blocked as a compromised account. DanCherek (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have collapsed the comments by the checkuser-confirmed accounts, which also includes the filer of the complaint. Per WP:PROJSOCK, editors are not permitted to use undisclosed alternate accounts to edit project space, and the special sanctions were implemented at least in part to stop exactly this sort of brigading behaviour, so these comments are invalid and should not be considered further. Some other editors have provided their own evidence regarding Nishidani's behaviour, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with most everything in this area, this invariably becomes a mess. To the primary complaint: Can Nishidani be a little crabby? I think we all know the answer to that. Can he go overboard with that sometimes? Well, I've sanctioned him a couple of times myself. Is "a little crabby" the worst we have to contend with in the ARBPIA area? If that day ever came, it would be cause for celebration. Would the ARBPIA area be better off without Nishidani's participation? I'm not convinced of that at all. I am certainly not inclined to in any way reward people who compromise accounts and (presumably) use said compromised accounts to evade blocks or sanctions their other accounts are under, and to try and get other people sanctioned. So, I think close this without action, and then if an editor who is actually in good standing is willing to put their name on a complaint of this type, we'll evaluate that at that time. I would caution said editor that your own hands better be really clean indeed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ScottishFinnishRadish, Red-tailed hawk, Seraphimblade, Barkeep49, Vanamonde93, Abecedare, Euryalus, and Joe Roe: Nishidani aside, I'm not sure we're doing what we need to be doing to address the conduct in the page history at Zionism. A partisan tag-team edit war is not acceptable conduct for any editor, and regulars in the topic area should absolutely know better. The edit war is still ongoing – do we want to open a separate thread to figure out what to do about it? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Call me old fashioned but, if there's a long-running edit war limited to one page, then just fully protect it? You don't even need a one of those new fangled see tops for that. – Joe (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to protect it, but usually we warn or sanction editors when they break policy. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping, but I have no plans to weigh in substantively as I trust the great group of admin who are handling this. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the protection stops the disruption, I don't see what the point would be. – Joe (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally, warnings and sanctions are used to prevent disruption from recurring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    follow-up ping to Vanamonde93, last one didn't go through. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Selfstudier: Probably a new AE thread, with a scope specifically on the edit war and a larger list of parties. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can try another AE thread, though we might be better to Refer to the Arbirtration Committee if one AE thread wasn't enough to handle things. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Restore the last stable version and implement consensus required. If we're trying to do an omnibus report, that's what Arbcom is for. I don't foresee any sanctions based on a single revert, and any examination will require looking at the behavior of named editors (or parties) in the topic area. Sounds like Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fully protected the article in the current version to allow for discussion. I've done it indefinitely so that the article doesn't auto unprotect itself but was intending it to last around a week so that editors can discuss in the various threads on the talk page. It's a normal admin action so anyone should feel free to modify it to something else (eg SFR's restore and consensus req) but I feel like we're at a point where some admin action is necessary. If edit warring continues after the protection is changed back to ECP (around a week) we can look at individual sanctions for those continuing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talkcontribs)

78.147.140.112

Respondent (now editing as BRMSF (talk · contribs)) is sternly reminded to avoid misleading other editors through the use of multiple accounts and/or through logged out editing. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning 78.147.140.112

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
78.147.140.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 17:35, July 4, 2024 First revert to restore unsourced and factually incorrect version of the article, claiming "Reverting to stable version until consensus can be reached". No policy based objection has been made, and it is diffuclt to imagine how any could be made to retain an innaccurate and unsourced version
  2. 19:52, July 4, 2024 Second revert several hours after the first, removing even more properly sourced details and corrections, including the correct date of death per both book sources they removed
  3. 00:34, June 24, 2024 Denial by 92.30.6.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) of being the same editor as 82.16.150.34. After I pointed out their shared use of the phrase "bizarre mental gymnastics", they ceased their denials.
  4. 19:34, December 30, 2023 Adds biased unsourced commentary of "refusing to accept the moral responsibility for the consequences of its actions and refusing to admit its warning was inadequate", amongst other disruptive changes
  5. 22:24, December 30, 2023 Repeats previous edit
  6. 02:07, January 3, 2024 Repeats previous edit
  7. 06:17, December 31, 2023 "A certain politically motivated sector of the userbase seem intent on attempting to abuse concepts...Politically motivated negationism intended to minimize the responsibility of a group for its own behaviour is not acceptable in an encyclopaedia"
  8. 16:25, December 31, 2023 "Your interest seems to be in whitewashing and not in documenting fact...Judging by your edits you are an Irish republican, and thus consider this to be an ideological struggle to whitewash groups you like...You do not care about the subject except as a vehicle for propaganda"
  9. 18:32, December 31, 2023 "I thought that would bait you. It appears you are confirming your biases, which are that you advocate for a violent non-state actor which claims to be a government; a claim nobody but their already convinced supporters believe. I can see it is of no utility arguing with you because you are already of a certain mindset, one that is unfalsifiable and automatically rejects any argument against it"
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Important to note the RFC the IP started on the talk page is solely related to the lead of the article, and their reversal of straightforward factual, properly sourced corrections to unsourced material are a clear attempt to influence the result of the RFC, since the corrections to the main body/infobox will directly influence the wording of the lead. Kathleen's bike (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user is now editing as BRMSF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Further problems include:
  • False statements such as "claims about coincidental suffocation or heart failure as the primary cause of death and not the assault are purely conjecture and are not based the forensic evidence", when the post-mortem specifically gave three possible causes of death, skull fracture caused by being pistol-whipped, asphyxiation or heart attack.
  • Apparent original research, with "observations based on the facts" regarding cause of death
  • Dismissal of reliable source claiming "This indicates the author of the article may not have been in command of the full details of the case" when saying natural causes (presumably the heart attack option suggested by post-mortem") as a possible cause of death
  • Reverting most of these changes with a misleading edit summary (note the RFC isn't concluded, and only covers the lead anyway)
Kathleen's bike (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you know with 100% certainty (since you quoted the book in your post) Lost Lives says "Post-mortem reports showed he had two skull fractures, one of which could have caused death. Examination revealed it could have been caused by a blow from a Browning automatic pistol. The post-mortem suggested he could also have died from asphyxiation or a heart attack". It does not say the heart attack was caused by the assault. Kathleen's bike (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, what? It was me that added the three possible causes of death in the first place, replacing the existing unsourced, incorrect version. It was you that reversed that change without any good reason. If anyone is "laser-focused" on any possibility, it is you since you attempted to dismiss there being multiple possible causes of death with nothing except your own opinion. Kathleen's bike (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified


Discussion concerning 78.147.140.112

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

Statement by 78.147.140.112

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

Statement by BRMSF

Additional: I am the IP in question; my IP address changes whenever my (somewhat unreliable) router resets, as such I could not remain on a single IP constantly. BRMSF (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You yourself are contradicting the sources you provided; for example attempting to assert heart failure rather than physical assault; when the source you were relying on stated that these were possible alternative causes of death after mentioning the blunt force trauma injuries. I am not at all convinced you are acting in good faith. BRMSF (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are laser-focused on the possibility which makes the IRA look the least guilty, rather than acknowledging the other potential causes. One of the accused plead guilty to manslaughter, meaning that one of the perpetrators admitted responsibility in a court of law. Remember when you said a person does not get to "relitigate a criminal trial based on your own opinion of the events"? BRMSF (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have backed up everything I have said with sources, you just so happen to disagree with the sources, including the ones you offered. BRMSF (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Statements moved to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by JackTheSecond

Procedural comment: An ANI discussion on this topic was opened be the accused party, regarding the filer at wp:ani#User:Kathleen's Bike. Also, I requested the page protection level suggested below.


Statement by Star Mississippi

I protected the page subsequent to the ANI report but before seeing this because they were both edit warring. If any admin thinks it's resolved, feel free to unprotect. Star Mississippi 00:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 78.147.140.112

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This IP's first edit was to WP:ANI, which leads me to believe that this is logged out socking. ANI is project space, and logged out or alternate account participation there is not permitted. I'm rather inclined to block them given that. If the IP editor wants some other result, you will need to log in to your actual account. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    {{checkuser requested}}: Is there evidence of WP:LOUTSOCKing here from a technical perspective? The behavioral evidence in this tread also leads me towards suspecting it as plausible, but I would want a bit more. This is because the CIDR range is a /15, and one of the related /16s do appear to show some recent awareness of projectspace outside of this instance (see: this IP's comments on ANI last month). We obviously cannot connect to a specific master publicly, though NewPolitician (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log· investigate · cuwiki) appears in last month's ANI thread, and appeared to have an interest in the politics of the United Kingdom. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's at least  Likely that all three of the IPs (including the two below) are the same user. Dynamic IPs are not inherently forbidden, but it meets the definitions of WP:PROJSOCK and WP:LOUTSOCK to take advantage of changing IP addresses to give the appearance of being multiple editors, and I think PROJSOCK compels an editor who edits from dynamic IPs to make an effort to disclose the connection. This user has not, and appears to have claimed the opposite on at least one occasion (see point 3 in the complaint). I'll leave it to the other reviewers here to determine if that merits a sanction. I saw no indication that they are also participating with an account. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think that lying about not having previously made an edit is worthy of something. But if a stern warning to not WP:LOUTSOCK going forward is all that is needed to prevent that sort of disruption in the future, then that is all the something that we should pursue. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least as a first resort, hopefully "Don't do that again" will suffice. If it proves not to, we can always take further action then. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent anyone else relying in the next 18ish hours, I will close this thread along those lines. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Seraphimblade. The IP editor can either use their regular account, or create one in the unlikely scenario that they are genuinely a new user. It is hard to AGF given their apparent attempt to deceive (see the sequence: [53], [54], [55]) when editing from other IPs including:
If the current problem persists, the article pages can be semi-protected and (if necessary) even their talkpage can have pending changes enabled. Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the IP has created an account and the issue is being discussed on the article talkpage, I believe that this AE report can be closed for now with just a reminder/warning. I would advice both User:BRMSF and User:Kathleen's bike to tone down the rhetoric and be mindful not to bludgeon the RFC; best to state your respective case once (with sources) and then let others weigh in. Abecedare (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ustadeditor2011

Appeal declined. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

Appealing user
Ustadeditor2011 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed
Block from the page Amaravati with an expiration time of 02:06, 20 September 2024
Administrator imposing the sanction
Daniel Case (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
[56]

Statement by Ustadeditor2011

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

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

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

Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale is very clear, there was a non-consensus on founder of the city Amaravati. Now, since it is still in discussion over the talk page, I would like to focus on other aspects of the article. I have taken a middle path on the content disupte related to founder of Amaravati so I am going by other editors on the matter. The matter is now resolved, block is no longer necessary, so that article can be expanded and improved by me. I would like to improve the lead section of the article with appropriate grammar and syntax. I would like to update the article with new references. Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 07:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I promise, I would not continue edit warring. I will avoid such scenarios. I am looking for one opportunity. Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will not do that Now. I will not attack anybody. Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Moved responses to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel Case

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ustadeditor2011

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Ustadeditor2011

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

Waterlover3

Indeffed as a normal admin action by me because I got to it first. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Waterlover3

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Significa liberdade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Waterlover3 (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/A-I
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 8 June 2024 Waterlover3 made two edits to the page 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation (one linked), a page directly related to the Arab–Israeli war.
  2. 24 June 2024 Across three edits, Waterlover3 added significant history and context for the Ghoul rifle article, primarily focusing on its use in A-I conflicts.
  3. 1 July 2024 Waterlover3 made edits to Elbit Hermes 900, an Israeli aircraft used for tactical missions.
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 2 June 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On 26 May 2024, Waterlover3 was blocked for one week due to edit warring. Specifically, they were editing the CZ Scorpion Evo 3 page, adding information about how Hamas used the weapon.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification


Discussion concerning Waterlover3

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 Waterlover3

Statement by FortunateSons

Unfortunately, the defendant is either unwilling or unable to understand the relevant editing restrictions. I’m not sure if it’s CIR (or perhaps age?), but that doesn’t really matter. Just about everything, including their talk page (which was modified after they were made aware of ARBPIA, at which point they should have noticed an issue) implies that they are NOTHERE, or don’t attempt to separate their significant personal biases from the editing. FortunateSons (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

This is a non EC editor, any contribution that is not an edit request should be reverted with reason WP:ARBECR and editor reminded of the restrictions. Persistent breaches by such editors should usually result in a block, just ping an admin, an AE case shouldn't be necessary.Selfstudier (talk) 11:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (Waterlover)

"ok i am pretty sure hamas doesnt involve itself with US copyright laws KEK since yknow its designated as a terrorist organization"

"Hands off Waterlover, death to IOF swine!" (IOF = "Israeli Occupation Forces")

"o7 long live the revolution long live the resistance" (O7 = October 7)

That's um not good. We shouldn't be allowing that kind of rhetoric, just like we shouldn't be saying things like "nuke them all". I know it's a minefield with people expressing support/opposition for parties in a war, but I think we can draw lines here, at openly calling for death to people, or celebrating attacks on civilians. Especially not in response to template warnings about copyvio or edit warring. User talk:Waterlover3#May 2024 is old but still. They were blocked for edit warring after that. Then in June, calling an editor a disgusting pig, which someone warned them about on their UTP. This is all rather concerning. (Also maybe remind AFC about ECR.) Levivich (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawk: take a look at the infobox of Lebanese Civil War and note how Israel is a belligerent on one side and PLO is a belligerent on the other; note also the infobox says "Part of the ... Arab-Israeli conflict"; note also the lead, which explains that war began as fighting between Palestinian Muslims and Lebanese Christians, and a few years later, Israel joined the fight. That entire war is part of ARBPIA; not even "broadly construed," it's a direct part of the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. It's one of the major chapters in those conflicts. Levivich (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dan Murphy

I would urge any admin who doesn't know that Bashir Gemayel was an Israeli ally/asset against the Palestinian Liberation Organization in the Lebanese Civil War to abstain from making decisions about who is fit to edit articles about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. What a website. (Waterlover? Should be 86ed.)Dan Murphy (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Waterlover3

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • It is a bit unclear to me why this is being brought nearly a week after the last edit by respondent that might plausibly violate this restriction. I think it would be appropriate to give the account a specific reminder about the 30-500 restriction in this topic area, including a clear explanation as to the scope of this topic area; it is not always obvious to new users that the scope of ECR applies to articles that are not primarily about the Arab-Israeli conflict, even if the edit itself is related. The user has already been told about the existence of the 30-500 restriction twice, but another interaction with a good faith editor may have come off as encouragement to continue some editing in this area in a way that is not compatible with WP:ARBECR, and I don’t see any substantial clarification on the user’s talk page about the exact scope of the area beyond the initial CTOP notification template. Any of their edits in this topic area, except for edit requests, may be reverted in line with WP:ECR.
    I will separately note that this interaction is quite strange, but does not appear actionable at this point.
    Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich:
    The IOF comment was made by an IP from Vietnam, not by the respondent (unless the two are the same person, in which case it becomes much worse).
    My understanding of “o7” is that it is an emoticon representing a salute (see:wikt:en:o7), rather than an endorsement of the October 7 attacks. I had not considered the possible double entendre.
    I had missed the response to the copyright argument while going through the user’s talk page history, and looking at this a bit more it does appear that there is a pattern of incivility here that might warrant more than a mere reminder to address.
    Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting that Waterlover3's most recent edit, to Assassination of Bachir Gemayel on 7 July, also violates ECR. That article concerns the killing of a Lebanese politician by Syrian rebels, which occurred during Israeli occupation in the 1982 Lebanon War; the article also describes Israel's subsequent occupation of the city. The sanction's scope is the Arab-Israeli conflict, not limited to Palestine, although the same article also describes a related massacre of Palestinians. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit hesitant to label the assassination of a Lebanese Christian militia leader from Lebanon by a Syrian Social Nationalist Party member in Lebanon while there was an ongoing ceasefire as being within WP:PIA, both because it apparently lacks Palestinian involvement and because it lacks Israeli involvement. Parts of the Lebanese Civil War are surely in scope, but not all parts, and I don't think this part is. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you should have a better read of WP:BROADLY; like most things in this conflict, it's not so simple. The incident was in the context of a war in which Israel invaded Lebanon under the auspices of "rooting out" the PLO, and in which the IDF had been supporting Gemayel as a "counterbalance" to the PLO in Lebanon. The day after he was killed, Israel violated the ceasefire and illegally occupied West Beirut, then allowed Lebanese Christian forces to slaughter Palestinian civilians in a refugee camp (the Sabra and Shatila massacre), an attack which has been labelled a genocide and which Israel was later deemed responsible for. One might argue that only parts of the article directly related to the occupation are covered by ARBPIA, but I think we're playing with fire by drawing those sorts of distinctions in this topic area. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with you on this. There is so much intertwined that viewing it broadly is necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even without the 50/300 violations, the conduct I'm seeing here, so far as ignoring and mocking people who try to give them advice, and the general nastiness, lead me to believe this editor is NOTHERE. I'd be inclined to block as such, even if just as a normal admin action rather than AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No objection to that as an ordinary admin action. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's probably the move here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Levivich in that we allow editors to edit in spite of holding abhorrent views, but we do not let them express those abhorrent views on Wikipedia (c.f. WP:NONAZIS). Waterlover3's user page currently introduces themselves as "i am waterlover 3, Proud Lebanese from northern lebanon and i hate the IDF. i dont edit much articles other than stuff that relates to weapons or the resistance. [sic]" While they obviously hold a bias, who among us doesn't? Yet the vast majority of us are capable of editing productively in spite of our personal biases. This is a sensitive topic, one where a new user with "I hate the IDF" at the top of their user page making personal attacks against editors who don't hold the "right" point of view is, to put it mildly, going to be a net negative. We can rely on ARBECR for new editors who haven't established an editing history, but editors who demonstrate that they are going to be a disruptive element in the topic aren't going to spontaneously improve after they make 359 more edits. Waterlover3 should be topic banned. Side note: the "disgusting pig" comment was directed at a drive-by account named "Zi on this", which probably should have been WP:DISRUPTNAME blocked, but they've only made that one edit. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amayorov

Closed with no action. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Amayorov

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
IOHANNVSVERVS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Amayorov (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


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

This user has been reported at the Administrator's Noticeboard regarding potential EC gaming here, July 7 2024. There has not been much response to that and since the reported user has been and continues to make so many changes and is currently engaged in so many talk page discussions, I am reporting it here in hopes of more swift action being taken. I commented at that thread about my concerns, being: "Account created in 2016 but first edit made a few days ago and quickly put in 500 edits, immediately jumps into Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area, seemingly POV-pushing. Seems to be an experienced user as well." It seems quite clear this is an experienced user who has engaged in EC gaming and is therefore most likely a sock account that is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to push a point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOHANNVSVERVS (talkcontribs) 20:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk, I made this report at AE so that an actual decision would be made, as the AN thread I predicted was likey to not go anywhere. If this report is closed and the AN thread fades out as it appears it has/will, then is there nothing further to be done? This is an issue that should be taken more seriously. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Amayorov#Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion

Discussion concerning Amayorov

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 Amayorov

If the complaint is about me being a sock account, then that is false. I could reveal and confirm my true identity if deemed necessary.

My account was first created when a university practical asked me to create a web page about a chemical compound in 2016. A couple weeks ago, I started to be interested in Wikipedia editing, and have edited over 150 pages, creating a few of them practically from scratch.

I’m interested in the IP history, about which I’ve read a lot. Since gaining extended privileges, I’ve made improvements to those articles. Those edits have arguably been better-sources than any of my other work, due to my having more knowledge to my having more knowledge on the topic. I do not deny that I wanted to contribute to these topics from the start.

I did not push an agenda but instead engaged in respectful and good-faith discussion on Talk pages. In a few cases, I conceded a point. The only complaint I got is that I use Benny Morris as my reference historian of choice. Whenever possible, I try to corroborate his claims using work by other scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amayorov (talkcontribs) 20:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Amayorov

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I don't see a reason why we need to have a separate AE discussion from the AN discussion since it is the same primary complaint. Having the discussion in two places at once seems suboptimal from a coherence standpoint at best, and asking the other parent at worst. I recommend closing this with no action, and allowing the AN discussion to continue. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent comments from any other uninvolved admin, I will be closing this with no action in ~12 hours. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @IOHANNVSVERVS: You have provided no diffs here to support your accusation of POV pushing aside from a live link to the AN discussion, and I just don't find the behavioral evidence of socking that you have presented in this thread to be anywhere near sufficient to warrant a sanction. If you have additional information, you can provide it at the AN thread (or, if related to socking, at WP:SPI). Closing with no action. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JoeJShmo

JoeJShmo (talk · contribs) is topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict for 6 months and 1000 edits by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning JoeJShmo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Kashmiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
JoeJShmo (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
  1. 8 July 2024 Commented on a response to their edit request on a page designated as CT
  2. 11 July 2024 Continued discussion in defiance of warnings and a long thread on their own Talk page in which they participated
  3. 11 July 2024 Continued discussion in defiance of the above
  4. 12 July 2024 Continued discussion in defiance of the above
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 3 July 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
  • Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

JoeJShmo, a non-XC editor, has been warned about CT restrictions in force on certain pages related to Palestine–Israel conflict. In particular, they were explained that they can only place edit requests[57]. As can be seen, they immediately opposed. Even though several established editors and an experienced admin Doug Weller tried to reason with them, they didn't report or sanction them after a repeated violation, this effort has unfortunately failed – JoeJShmo continued to post on a CT-restricted page Talk:Mossad. I have no idea what is needed to stop them.

@JoeJShmo, I'm not sure that it helps you to mention here your uninivited comments on a several month old discussion on my Talk that you were no part of, and you waded in solely to accuse me of anti-Semitism (as you also did below), unconnected with ongoing editing and most likely as a revenge to my first revert of your CT violation. Are you certain this presents your ability to collaborate and follow Wikipedia standards in a good light?
@ScottishFinnishRaddish, I will next time, thx. — kashmīrī TALK 11:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's unbelievable that after so much of explaining, JoeJShmo still keeps arguing for their mistaken interpretation of CT restrictions even here... Maybe it's a WP:CIR matter at the end? — kashmīrī TALK 11:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoeJShmo, in response to your most recent comment, here's another page for you to read: WP:ASPERSIONS. FYI, my report here was prompted solely by the disruption you've been causing – your apparent determination to take more and more of community's time on arguing with you on the policies you kept violating. I encourage you to read this behavioural guideline: WP:POINT. — kashmīrī TALK 11:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoeJShmo: WP:ARBECR policy is unambiguous. What editors agreed with you is that the information page WP:Edit requests is not very precise. Still, you were told that you need to follow Wikipedia policies and explained what precisely they are in this instance. Yet you keep bringing up an information page to justify your repeated breach of policies. Is there a way to make you understand the rules of participating in this project? — kashmīrī TALK 12:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJoeJShmo&diff=1234354020&oldid=1233536763


Discussion concerning JoeJShmo

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 JoeJShmo

(note: I've just seen the word limit. I'm not sure if I'm over it and I apologize if I am. I'm not sure what to do as I believe all the info below is highly relevant.)

The statement above by user Kashmiri is grossly misleading. I'll explain my position. It started when I was unaware of the EC rules and edited in a page relating to the Israeli Palestine conflict (I edit on a small phone where the warnings on top of many pages are automatically collapsed), and I got a warning on my talk page shortly after, so from there on I was aware of the EC rule. Shortly after I posted on a talk page in this topic, being unaware the rules extended to all discussions, and got a warning about that too, so at this point I was fully aware of the rules (see here where I request clarification on the rules in another topic before posting).

Later I posted an edit request in the Mossad page which someone responded to. I responded in turn, making what to me was a logical assumption that the exception to edit request includes responses to editors who seemed unaware of the exact arguments behind the edit request. Thereafter, Kashmiri posted a fairly rude warning on my talk page, saying something like 'are you asking to get sanctioned' (it may be relevant to note here that this user may feel some sort of animosity towards me after I had previously called out that they had not apologized for something anti-Semitic they had said, see my talk page under 'warning'). I explained the ambiguousness of the rules and questioned this user's lack of assuming good faith. I went on to raise this topic in the village pump policy page (WP:VPP#Talk pages of contentious topics), and the responses so far have been mixed, and a couple people have brought forth the idea that perhaps clarifying the request or responding to an editor who hasn't understood the request would be allowed. I think it relevant to mention that the request I was making in the Mossad page was a purely grammatical request, quite un-controversial (a matter of whether common usage in regards to the Mossad is to use the word 'the'). In light of the fact that the EC rule was obviously intended to prevent provocative and uninformed contribution in controversial areas (some editors in the above linked discussion even pointed to this for the reason to be strict in this matter), and the ambiguousness of the policy, I though it logical that any editor with common sense would not take issue with the discussion I continued to have at the Mossad talk page. I would classify my discussion there as clarifying my position (a matter of using the word 'the') and bringing further sources to my position. If any editor had taken a clear position against my proposed request that I didn't think stemmed from a simple misunderstanding and a possible lack of clarity on my part, I don't think I would have responded further.

In conclusion, I believe there's a certain amount of good faith inherent in the decisions of when to make issues out of policy (for a more obvious example, I'd point to non EC editors who respond 'thank you' to an editor that implemented their request), and unfortunately, I don't think Kashmiri has demonstrated that good faith here today.

Hey selfstudier, that's an unfortunately misleading statement, as I am always open to discussion. I believe the point in contention was defining what exactly the policy encompassed. If you read the discussions again, I'm confident you too would come to the conclusion that no editors displayed any reluctance in the matter of generally follow the rules. JoeJShmo💌 10:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmiri I was only giving context to the situation to users that may have been confused by your motive in raising a complaint, considering the spectacularly uncontroversial nature of the discussion in question. I'd love to assume good faith and think that you are a regular in raising complaints in Arb over questionable, minor, and harmless possible violations of policy, but your history shows otherwise. JoeJShmo💌 11:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish I apologize about the waste of time that was had here. Just to be clear, are you establishig that consensus is that replies to edit requests, even in the way of clarification/explanation, are not allowed, or are you simply of the opinion that the policy's wording makes no room for such exception (in which case, I might point out, anyone contributing to the discussion l Iinked above seems to disagree, at least in the matter of its ambiguity)? JoeJShmo💌 11:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish: Thank you for the clarification. For the record, I've never called the user in question anti-Semitic and I sure hope they aren't. I did, at one point in the past, ask them about something anti-Semitic they had blatantly implied. However, I am of the belief that any person's one time slip-up need not define them.
And Kashmiri, your questioning my continued discussion about the violation in question is uncalled for. The policy is ambiguous, and there is still an ongoing discussion to build consensus. Your refusal to acknowledge that is concerning. JoeJShmo💌 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per Nableezy's comment: see User talk:Nableezy#Reverting my edit JoeJShmo💌 13:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
per the questions on my edits on the war crimes article- please start a new arb request if you are concerned. I am concerned that a ban following separate issues raised in the replies here, without the proper process of a new discussion and relevant statements, would not be justified. JoeJShmo💌 10:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Also see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Talk pages of contentious topics. I also made an effort with defendant at their talk page and rapidly concluded that nothing would help.Selfstudier (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Just noting that while this was open the user added another extended confirmed violation here. nableezy - 13:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just so Im clear here, repeated violations of the extended confirmed restriction that get a user to extended confirmed are mooted once they are extended confirmed? nableezy - 10:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

Given the manner in which the editor has obtained XC, I think a sensible solution would be its revocation until they have 1,000 mainspace edits and a broadly construed TBAN until that time. TarnishedPathtalk 11:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]