Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341

IntrepidContributor

WikiFouf warned for opening an RM soon after another was closed without any change to the status quo, IntrepidContributor warned for edit warring, Selfstudier warned for removing an RM when involved, Levivich warned for removing an RM when involved and inappropriate communication, Berchanhimez warned for battleground conduct, and Bluethricecreamman warned for battleground conduct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:38, 7 October 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 IntrepidContributor

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: IntrepidContributor (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:ARBPIA

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

Sep 7 16:55 - first revert
Sep 7 17:41 - second revert
User talk:IntrepidContributor#1RR - declined to self-rv

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: 24hr 3RR block on 10/15/22 [1]

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): alerted Aug 18

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think this account is almost certainly a sock. Compare their timecard/edit history with Wierzba (Wierzba xtools) and IsraPara2 (IsraPara2 xtools) (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wierzba). IntrepidContributor, AFAICT, had never edited in ARBPIA in its first round of activity (7/22 - 2/23). The account was mostly inactive between 2/23 until August 17, 2024, when they started getting involved in ARBPIA for the first time. Aug 16, 2024, is when the AE against O.maximov closed with a warning (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive338#O.maximov). IntrepidContributor has only made 30 edits since Aug 17, almost all focused on fighting the "Gaza genocide" move. O.maximov was later blocked as a sock at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Icewhiz#27 August 2024. I could go file at SPI, and this account was on my list of SPIs-to-file, but it would save a bunch of paperwork if reviewing admin could just {{Checkuser needed}} here to see if these accounts are a technical match, which I expect they will be. If you want more behavioral evidence before requesting a CU, or if you want me to file a separate SPI, let me know. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 18:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly edit the Russian and Ukrianian wikis... Special:CentralAuth/IntrepidContributor says 0 edits to ruwiki or ukwiki. Perhaps they edit there with another account? Levivich (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So if I understand correctly, AE is not well-suited for multi-party disputes, but it looks at all parties? Levivich (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR: it turns out we have multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing, or been part of opening such RMs Diffs/links for this incredible claim? Levivich (talk) 14:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, SFR. That first RM was just about the disambiguator. It said "It is intended without prejudice against any other discussions or requested moves such as regarding changing the "Israel–Hamas war" wording." That's why the second RM was OK in that instance. Not comparable to this case. Your analysis is very similar to BM's in that you're overlooking massive differences. Can't believe this. Levivich (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, please re-ping those arbs and explain your earlier accusation was false in light of what I've written above. Levivich (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, SFR, your second example doesn't support your statement in multiple ways: it wasn't multiple editors, and anyway, in your second example, the first RM ended in "not moved" and explicitly suggested further discussion: "This close is without prejudice to opening a further discussion". You just made the same mistake twice, comparing RMs that explicitly said no prejudice to another RM. I went over this in detail on BM's talk page. You need to fix what you wrote, not double down on it. Levivich (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I'm 100% going to appeal this to AN, TBANs or not. Reopening the RM was massively disruptive. I don't believe the community will decide that it was OK to launch that RM or that the right thing to do was to let it run. AE got this one wrong. Levivich (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, separate from asking at AN whether shutting down the RM was the right thing to do, I'm also probably going to ask ARCA to take another look at the whole "1RR doesn't apply" thing again. If that's the scope of 1RR, it at least needs to be documented somewhere, because right now every 1RR talk page notice says 1RR applies to "this article" which everyone will understand means the talk page too, and WP:1RR says it's the same as 3RR, which explicitly applies on all pages. (Also it doesn't make much sense to exempt talk pages anyway.) Levivich (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BK: never closed, just deleted. I deleted it, then Self, then SN, then Self un-deleted it after this AE, and it's since run. Surely no one will touch it now (except an admin). I have no problem with "should have been been closed instead of just deleted," if that's the procedure I'll follow it, but I have a big problem with what happened here, that it's just been allows to run. We went from non-disruptive (me shutting it down) to disruptive (it running), IMO.

BTW could you please tell me: I suggested two masters above, and your answer about CU mentioned one of them. Is it also "unrelated" as to the other (o.max/"icewhiz")? Levivich (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Barkeep49, I will do so. Levivich (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee @Starship.paint, idk if this is the one you're referring to, but the May 3 RM that ended up at "Gaza genocide" had a move review that ended Aug 22. The new RM (that brought us here) was opened Sep 7, 16 days later. Levivich (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gee I don't know why more people don't bring AE cases. What could possibly be stopping them? 😂 Levivich (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SFR: Battleground for Levivich? What are you talking about? Levivich (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing uncivil in my message to BM; it was direct, but polite. What BM has been doing -- using my AE reports as an opportunity to complain about Selfstudier, which has now happened multiple times -- is the "battleground" behavior here. Levivich (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BK: it's no more intimidating than "You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.". Levivich (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a cultural thing but I really don't see anything uncivil or otherwise problematic about the phrase "we're going to have a problem if you don't cut the crap" (essentially what I said). I think that's substantially nicer than saying "you may be blocked" and especially saying it in bold, or leaving any template. Please keep in mind that I'm talking to someone who I've known and worked with for years. Frankly, I think I should be able to talk to my long time colleagues kind of however I want, kind of without being judged by "outsiders," meaning by people who I haven't worked with for years. If BM has a problem with me or something I said to him, he'll tell me, as I told him when I had a problem with him (this wasn't my first complaint on his talk page, hence why it's phrased as a final warning). I don't think it's an admin's place to quibble about the particular language used between long time collaborators. It's not like I dropped f-bombs or made threats of harm or something serious like that. Just because I didn't phrase something the way you would have, doesn't mean it deserves a warning. Levivich (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphim: this isn't about just commenting on my AE threads. You'll notice many people have commented on my AE threads, and many of those comments have raised issues with editors other than the editors I was reporting. I only left such a message for one editor, and there's a reason for that. It's because I don't have any problem with people commenting on my AE threads, of course I know that the entire community is welcome to comment on any noticeboard threads I start, and of course I know that other editors' conduct may be examined at any given noticeboard thread (including my own conduct). That message was about one person, doing one very particular thing, multiple times, over an extended period of time. This wasn't even my first message about it, but my previous messages went unheeded, so I told him we're going to have a problem -- meaning, I'm going to report your conduct and ask for sanctions -- if he doesn't stop. I think it's frankly a good thing to warn people like this, rather than just reporting him. When I have problems with users, I almost always go straight to their talk page and tell them directly, before I seek any admin involvement. That's a good thing to do, not a bad thing. Levivich (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, sure:

Recent history begins at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive336#Nishidani. BM and I both participated there. It was closed with "Further action related to anything here will need a separate report." Both BM and I have filed multiple separate reports since then.
Me, Aug 5: "Please don't put me in the position of taking you to AE along with the other editor..." "The other editor" was User:3E1...
BM, Aug 10: At the 3E1.. AE, BM nevertheless comments that Selfstudier should be warned also.
Me: Didn't complain at that time, at least not that I remember.
BM, Aug 16: At a different AE report I filed, BM again alleges edit warring by Self.
Me, Aug 16, at AE: "To everyone: if you have a problem with another editor, please file your own report (at AE, ARCA, RFAR, ANI, or wherever). Don't use my report as an opportunity to bring attention to an unrelated grievance between other people."
BM, Aug 19-27 at ARCA: BM's comments, including User:BilledMammal/ARBPIA discussion statistics, again focused on Self
Me, Aug 29 at ARCA: "...complaints about other editors should be brought separately..."
BM, Sep 8: At this AE report about IntrepidContributor, BM comments, again alleging misconduct by Self.
Me, Sep 8: User talk:BilledMammal#We're going to have a problem

Levivich (talk) 16:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: I've been thinking about your latest comment, and want to clarify that it was never my intent to prevent BM from participating at AE, it was my intent to stop BM from preventing me from participating at AE. I'm sure you don't need diffs for this, but I've been told multiple times by multiple admins recently to bring concerns about "other parties" in a separate filing. This is what I want BM to do. Because I want to be able to report edit warring at AE without worrying about whether my report will be beset-upon by other users raising (almost always, longstanding and only tangentially-connected) other issues about each other. I want to be able to use AE without my reports turning into a months-long, three-ring circuses. I am feeling a "chilling effect" because other users -- in many cases, the same users, both non-admin and admin -- seem to find my AE reports absolutely irresistible. But those same users that have so much to say whenever I file at AE, never seem to have their own AE reports to file, nor do they have so much to say at anyone else's AE reports. I have given this a lot of thought over the last few days, and I still don't think it's unreasonable for me to say, "stop using my reports as an opportunity to complain about others" (especially the same others, e.g. Self). I need to be able to ask for admin help without becoming a magnet for toxicity and disruption, but right now, I am that magnet. I feel like if I say "hey, that guy crossed 1RR," somebody somewhere blows a whistle, and it's like "game on! whoo hoo!!" This dynamic has to stop, wouldn't you agree? Levivich (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, I don't see a consensus to warn me for anything. I don't see any other admin articulating that I should receive a warning (I see two saying they think not). I also don't understand why you want to warn WikiFouf, I don't see that they did anything warn-able. Also, it's October 7: today is not the day for ARBPIA AEs. Also, it's Jewish New Year. This is not the week for any non-urgent ARBPIA enforcement. Maybe stop pushing for sanctions?

@Ealdgyth: who on this list has been warned before? Who are you referring to? I think it'd help if you were more specific: say who exactly you think should be sanctioned how exactly and for what exactly (diffs would be great). Your vague comments confuse me. Levivich (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93, @Seraphimblade, @Ealdgyth: is what SFR says true? You read my diffs and explanation above, and you think what BM has been doing is OK and my asking him to stop deserves a warning? You each also think I should receive a warning for deleting that RM, and WikiFouf deserves a warning for starting it? You think Self deserves a warning for reverting its reinstatement, but Serial Number does not deserve a warning for reverting its reinstatement? If so, why are Self and I being singled out? Levivich (talk) 14:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, I'm asking you specific questions, please do me the courtesy of answering them. Especially if you're going to vote to sanction me, I think I deserve direct answers to my direct questions. Levivich (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/1244541208

Discussion concerning IntrepidContributor

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 IntrepidContributor

As I mentioned to Levivich on my talk page, 1RR does not apply to talk pages and fixing TPO violations. The diffs provided show me reverting the improper removal of an editor's post on a talk page. Their entire complaint here seems to be more about their suspicion that I am a sock of another account. I mainly edit the Russian and Ukrianian wikis and I have never heard of those editors I am accused of being. IntrepidContributor (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier, if you didn't like WikiFouf's RM, you could have voted against it instead of deleting it. Removing the proposal is a TPO violation and a third editor doing it doesn't make it right. There was an RfC and no moratorium was agreed on page name move requests [2], so you should not be obstructing an uninvolved editor from a good faith attempt. IntrepidContributor (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 there have been a number of editors who have objected to the page title since the last RM, and the MR that was closed a month after it. The RM discussion itself was very tight and should have been closed as no consensus, leaving the page name as Gaza genocide allegation or accusation. The MR brought up the fact that at 30 on 30, with three choices of names, the closer should have weighted it according to the similarity in two names Gaza genocide allegation or Gaza genocide accusation. But I don't think this is the right venue to arguing the case for the a new move request, and that should be left to the community. IntrepidContributor (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Regardless of the 1R problem, this is straightforwardly disruptive behavior. There was a well attended recently concluded RM that in addition went through MR and nothing has changed since. Rather than specifying anything new, the presented nomination is chock full of personal opinions such as I wholeheartedly believe that "Gaza genocide" is a premature title and does more harm than good, risking the erosion of public confidence in Wikipedia for a wide swath of the population and regurgitates everything that was already discussed in the recent RM. Yes there are editors that actively dislike the current title, that is not a sufficient reason to go through all this again.Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A third editor has now reverted the RM proposal Selfstudier (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ample opportunity to engage was given to reported editor here and here, instead they chose to edit war and only then the matter was raised here, all within a couple hours, no-one having responded to the RM in the interim. This seems to me, in all the circumstances, to be a proper approach, BM attempt to muddy the water with irrelevant "otherstuff" argumentation notwithstanding. Selfstudier (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the revert by a third editor and the RM is now running. Selfstudier (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Not that it has anything to do with this case but seconding what Levivich says and that's not the first time you have taken out of context "otherstuff" to bolster your argument together with naming me in the process. Quite wrongly in my view. Selfstudier (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

Given that there was an RM which was closed on 3 July 2024, endorsed at a move review 22 August 2024 and that there have been three RMs on the article this year, the filling of another RM so soon after the last one had been endorsed by a move review by WikiFouf was disruptive. IntrepidContributor restoring it not just once, but twice, is even more disruptive regardless of whether 1RR applies to talk pages or not. TarnishedPath^talk 11:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez per WP:TAGTEAM: Tag teaming (sometimes also called an editorial camp or gang, factionalism, or a travelling circus) is a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus.
Where's your evidence for coordinated meatpupperty? If you don't have any you need to retract your personal attacks/aspersions. TarnishedPath^talk 07:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to draw admin attention to IntrepidContributor's comment at Special:Diff/1244972583, in which they engage in personal attacks and aspersion casting against every editor who has voted for a procedural close in the RM at Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 5#Requested move 7 September 2024 by stating that they are all engaging in "POV pushing or stonewalling". TarnishedPath^talk 09:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd further like to draw admin attention to IntrepidContributor's WP:CANVASSING of editors to Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 5#Requested move 7 September 2024 at Special:Diff/1244837374. When I drew their attention to the fact that they'd engaged in canvassing at Special:Diff/1244979886 and that they should ping all involved editors to remedy their breach of behaviour guidelines they responded at Special:Diff/1244988992 by stating that I should remedy their breach for them. TarnishedPath^talk 12:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors constantly making personal attacks and accusations of bad behaviour without providing the slightest bit of evidence is getting rather tiring. It needs to stop. SFR floated the idea of giving short term topic bans to any editor who had done so and at this point I say go for it. Scorch the earth. TarnishedPath^talk 05:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal if you're going to imply hypocrisy in voting in support of a RM which was opened not long after another was closed and then voting procedural close in another RM in similar circumstances you need to demonstrate that editors were aware of that. I certainly wasn't aware of the prior RM for the Israel-Hamas war article and can't be expected to have known given that my contributions to the PIA area is sporadic. What you present shows nothing unless there is something more. TarnishedPath^talk 05:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal, I don't think it's an absolutely wild suggestion that a lot of editors wouldn't have read each and every comment in such a large discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 05:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal and why would they have been more likely to read the first comment than the comments further down near where they placed their !vote? TarnishedPath^talk 06:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal, what you state to be general isn't universal. It's being debated because you are implying the motives of other editors and I happen to be one of those editors. TarnishedPath^talk 06:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

First, there was a consensus against a moratorium on that page.

Second, it was recently established that involved editors shouldn't be shutting down/closing formal discussions that they disagreed with, and should instead go to an admin when the discussion is problematic. I note that one of the parties that shut down this discussion, Selfstudier, participated in that discussion, and so should have been aware of that.

Third, Selfstudier previously objected to involved closes in relation to RM's on that page. As part of that, they were warned against reverting closures, and told to go to an admin in the future.

In general, I think the editors closing this discussion, but especially Selfstudier who has been involved in these issues before and appears to be espousing a double standard, have behaved far below what we expect of editors in a contentious topic. BilledMammal (talk) 12:17, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the recent comment by David A, particularly their second sentence, I want to call out the obvious POV pushing that is occurring here.

In this AE, we have a number of editors objecting to opening an RM proposing moving the article to a less definitive title just two months after the previous was closed in favour of the title they supported.

However, that RM was opened just a month after a previous RM was closed against moving the article to a more definitive title.

These same editors had no objection to that RM, and some such as David A were instrumental in opening it.

Effectively, these editors are saying that discussions that propose a change in favour of their POV are allowed, while discussions against their POV are not - and they are using tag-team unilateral involved closures and AE to try to enforce this.

Such behaviour is a violation of half a dozen policies and I believe AE needs to act against it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David A: Off topic, but I don’t have a position on the reliability of +972, and I don’t express one in the discussion you linked. I also don’t seek to remove all references to Al Jazeera, although I do question its reliability. BilledMammal (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the editors asking for an example of editors who objected to this move request, but had no objection to others opened within a similar period:

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 34#Requested move 23 December 2023 was closed on January 4, and the close was finalized on January 10, with a consensus for "Israel-Hamas war".

Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 40#Requested move 23 January 2024, which proposed moving the article to "Israel-Gaza war" was opened 19 or 13 days later, depending on where you are counting from. Of the editors objecting to the move request under discussion here:

Selfstudier (talk · contribs) supported a move on 23 January 2024
David A (talk · contribs) supported a move on 31 January 2024
Levivich (talk · contribs) supported a move on 6 February 2024, with their first comment on 24 January 2024
TarnishedPath (talk · contribs) supported a move on 16 February 2024

Other editors in this discussion participated in that RM, but as I haven't interpreted their comments as objecting to this move request I haven't included them in this list. There are also a large number of editors who objected to this RM on procedural grounds within the RM, but supported that RM without any objection; I also haven't considered them for this list. BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: The first line of the first !vote in the 23 January 2024 RM (mine, for the record) said there was a consensus for "Israel-Hamas war" less than two weeks ago.

Unless these editors aren't reading any of the discussion before !voting, they would have been aware.

In addition, Selfstudier was indisputably aware of the prior discussion - they participated in an objection to the close of the 23 December 2023 RM. BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: They wouldn't have needed to read each and every comment; only the first line of the first comment. BilledMammal (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TarnishedPath: I'm surprised this is even being debated. In a general context, it is well established that for various reasons comments at the top of a discussion are far more likely to be read than comments at the bottom - and in a Wikipedia context editors need to go to the top of a discussion to click "edit source", not the bottom. BilledMammal (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking for myself, while I felt it was inappropriate, it also didn't bother me, being very minor compared to much of what we see in this topic area.

If it had come from someone with a history of incivility I might have taken an issue with it, but up until recently I have never seen any problems with Levivich's behavior and so am happy to dismiss this as a one off. BilledMammal (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, I'm quite confused by most of those diffs you provide.

What is the relevance of the ARCA discussion, for example? And what is the relevance of this request? As far as I can remember, the behavior you were asking me to stop was my objections to/reverts of your involved closures of discussions at the article under discussion here, not raising issues with other involved editors?

Regardless, you don't need to worry about me participating in your AE discussions any more. I've got a few things to wrap up and then I'm going to retire from Wikipedia, tired of the incivility, hostility, and POV pushing, and in my time remaining the only AE discussions I plan to participate in are ones I will open if the ARBCOM case does not proceed. BilledMammal (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WikiFouf

@Selfstudier That's really a bad-faith interpretation. You don't have to agree with the reasoning, but don't pretend like I didn't detail why I think that A) the title is premature and, B) it can erode confidence in WP's neutrality. I don't cite new sources, yes, but that's the whole point : I reviewed all of the sources we do have right now and I disagree with the verdict that 'Gaza genocide' is reflective of the wording used by available reliable sources. Hence why I launched the RM, and encouraged people go through the sources table. I'm not trying to be "disruptive". WikiFouf (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

It seems likely that ongoing efforts to change the title of the Gaza Genocide (which includes less polite efforts like this) are explained in part by the attention/canvassing occurring off-wiki on social media sites etc. I don't know (or care) whether the concerns are legitimate policy-based concerns, but what also seems likely is that this attention is not dependent on the number or details of the RMs, it is dependent on the result of the RM not being the current title. Unless an RM is guaranteed to result in a change to the title that supporters of Israel find satisfactory, I'm not sure there is any point in having it. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, out in the real world, interest in this Gaza Genocide article formed about 1000th of a percent of what people looked at last month in English Wikipedia (amounting to over 10 billion views), so the article title issue does not appear to be an urgent or significant issue from a global statistical perspective. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just like targeting the title of the Gaza Genocide article is not likely to stop until the correct outcome is obtained, the targeting of Selfstudier is not likely to stop until the correct outcome is obtained, in my view. I find this concerning, not because of anyone's opinions on the Israel-Palestine conflict, but because by my estimation, since the start of 2022, around 1800 of Selfstudier's edits (and probably more) are directly related to implementing/enforcing ArbCom remedies including ARBECR, notifying new users, handling edit requests and creating edit notices. So, this particular user, the topic area's top (non-sock) contributor by edit count (normally a positive thing, but apparently a negative thing in PIA), spent over 12% of their revisions on essentially policing the largely unprotected topic area. For me, it's to be expected that editors will ignore this aspect of an editor they perceive as an obstacle or opponent of some kind, but if admins ignore it the AE process starts to resemble an autoimmune disorder. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "I think there is a strong case that Levivich should be prohibited from bringing users to AE until a case on those issues is held at ArbCom."

I don't think this idea has any utility.
Like it or not, Levivich is one of the topic area's countermeasures to ongoing disruptive activity. They are part of PIA's immune system.
The statement can therefore be re-expressed as "There is a strong case to disable one of the countermeasures to ongoing disruptive activity in the topic area."

If an editor sees what they regard as disruptive behavior or policy non-compliance in the topic area they should be able to report it here at AE. ArbCom is not going to be able to solve many of the systemic problems in the topic area because the on-site effects are produced by external factors, off-site things they have little to no control over, like whether a person decides to evade a ban, or engage in/respond to canvassing efforts, or allow their personal views to take priority over policy compliance etc. And there is no obvious misalignment between Levivich's stated objectives in their reports and the objectives described by policy and existing ArbCom remedies. They have a much higher resolution view of the state of the topic area than ArbCom is likely to ever have. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Berchanhimez

"immense disruption on this noticeboard (and elsewhere)" - this is not what I see. I see an editor documenting what they regard as inconsistencies between actions and rules.
"It begs the question why Levivich is bringing editors to this venue when others are not thinking to do so." - This is easily explained by friction and a number of other factors. I could bring numerous editors to AE and SPI, and yet I don't, because, for me, the cost/benefit ratio makes it too expensive. There aren't many editors willing to put in the work required to gather evidence and present a case.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by xDanielx

A new RM might arguably be appropriate now that the closely related RM for the parent, Palestinian genocide accusation → Palestinian genocide, was unsuccessful. In any case, if editors feel it's too hasty, they should request a speedy closure by an uninvolved party, or possibly snowball close it if there's a clear consensus that it's too hasty (which seems unlikely given the consensus against a moratorium). It's really inappropriate for two highly involved editors to simply delete a good-faith RM they don't agree with. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:10, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David A

I do not think that Levivich or Selfstudier should receive any punishment. People who disapprove of the current page title keep forcing us to vote over and over and over regarding the same topic, with very brief breaks in-between, until they get their desired result.

It is to demand too much from Levivich and Selfstudier to expect them to know exactly where to draw the line regarding what is or is not allowed in every possible development in this regard.

Also, they are knowledgeable, constructive, and well-behaved editors. Putting them on restraining order for such a limited reason would cause longterm damage to the overall wellbeing of the pages concerning this topic. David A (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to accusations by BilledMammal, there does not exist any coordination between myself and other Wikipedia members. We are merely people from different parts of this world who seem to share a humanitarian concern for the unnecessary loss of innocent lives, particularly children, and going by the United Nations recent voting records regarding the currently ongoing military actions by the government of Israel, the vast majority of the population of humanity strongly disapprove of them, so statistically speaking there should logically be a much greater shortage of people in Wikipedia who agree than those who disagree.

Also, I was referring to that this was not the first time that there have been attempts to overturn the recent page title move within a brief timespan, although going by my, possibly flawed, memory, most of them were by new editors to Wikipedia who did not have extended edit-confirmed rights to respond to the Gaza genocide talk page.

In addition, even from my, likely very limited, observations of BilledMammal's own activities here in Wikipedia, he has very actively participated in several attempts to remove all references by both Al Jazeera and +972 Magazine, which are the two main news organisations that report war crimes by the Israeli government. [3] [4] [5] [6]

Also, for the record, I have been subjected to death threats and multiple serious personal attacks from people who support the current military actions of the Israeli government. [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] David A (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Okay. My apologies for making a mistake regarding +972 Magazine, but as far as I am aware, disqualifying sources from being considered reliable by Wikipedia allows editors to systematically remove all of them from Wikipedia pages, which in the case of Al Jazeera would severely cripple the reporting from the Gaza war. David A (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: For the record, all that I recall of the renaming procedure is that the ongoing move discussion was extremely disorganised, lengthy, tiresome, and all over the place, so I assembled the three main titles suggested by other members that were not too long and awkward, and seemed to have good arguments and Wikipedia page title precedents backing them, and then put them to a vote by pinging all of the previous participants in the discussion, in order to help bring some order and structure to the chaos.

There was no deliberation involved beyond that I thought that all of the three alternatives were shorter and less awkward that the then current title for the page, nor did I expect the current title to get the most votes at the time. I do not recall voting in a preceding survey before the very lengthy sprawling discussion that eventually resulted in the current title, but if I did, I probably just voted for what I thought was the least bad available option at the time. David A (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Never mind. It seems like you are talking about a renaming discussion for another page. My adhd unfortunately strikes again. Anyway, I do not recall reading your own quoted comment there. I likely just voted for what seemed to be a less inappropriate title. David A (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Sean.hoyland: about that Levivich is a highly knowledgeable member who helps to bring order, structure, and fact-based resolutions to discussions, so getting rid of him would cause active harm to the parts of Wikipedia where he is active, and contrary to @Berchanhimez:'s claims, I think that the attempts to shut up editors who are highly concerned about human rights violations via this arbitration discussion seem considerably more prevalent and concerning. David A (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez: As far as I am aware, I have only made fact-based additions to Wikipedia, especially lots of reliable statistics, and do not think that I have made any disruptive behaviour via insults or bad editing. I used my wording as one that seemed neutral, given that there are some editors who are concerned about human rights violations in general, regardless of who is doing them, and others who seem to act in a more partisan manner regarding this topic.

Absolute objectivity is not an inherent part of human nature. Some people just attempt to systematically hide their subjective traits whereas other are compulsively honest about them, the latter of which is a part of my type of autistic mental condition. However, that does not mean that I have ever made dishonest edits that I know of. I think that I have gone to extremes to attempt to word all my information article page Wikipedia edits in a matter-of-fact neutral manner, make certain that they use reliable sources, and to evaluate all of the available facts regarding this situation before reaching a conclusion. Just because I do have a moral system that says "Over 18,000 dead children and around 1 million starving people = not good", this does not remotely make me a disruptive editor, and I think that people without any such ethical concerns would be considerably more concerning, as a lack of conscience is also a form of bias, and of a far more socially destructive variety. Any viewpoint whatsoever is a bias. It is inherently unavoidable. David A (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion: That is correct, yes. There have apparently been recurring cases of public agitation against the work in this page, such as this Reddit thread and multiple negatively worded news articles that are listed at the top of the talk section of this page, with resulting cases of new and completely inexperienced editors causing considerable hostile disturbances. David A (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what little it may be worth, just a note that I also do not think that Levivich did anything remotely deserving of a warning due to his comment. It seemed like an attempt for honest but polite communication, not actual hostility. David A (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A possibly stupid question if I may, and I apologise if I am disturbing: Will a few Wikipedia members receive warnings for simply removing posts from new editors who spammed page rename requests without being extended edit-confirmed, which I think is a requirement in order to be allowed to post messages in the talk page section of the Gaza genocide page? If so, it seems extremely impractical to be forced to constantly bother staff members to remove them instead, especially given the continuous outside news and social media agitation against this page that I gave examples for above. David A (talk) 19:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Okay. Understood. It may have been an honest mistake though. David A (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

Will point out the obvious hypocrisy by BilledMammal for forgetting that opening an RM a week or so after move review closed with your team losing is anything other than POV-pushing in the process. Won’t argue against the fact that violating WP:TPO by deleting a discussion isn’t POV-pushing itself by the pro-Pal folks either… I saw the admins saying that ARBPIA states all rules are more especially enforced in this area, but maybe the request for ARBPIA5 could resolve such matters by putting in place much more explicit rules within ARBPIA instead of relying on the entire corpus of wikipedia policy? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish - I'm fine with receiving a warning for battleground, apologies for targeting BM in an underhanded phrase, but looking at the list Ealdgyth has, if I have a warning for a single phrase in a paragraph, I would also like a warning for everyone else in that list Ealdgyth also quoted. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by berchanhimez

I'd like to say I'm surprised to see this. But I'm not. Levivich and other editors are continuing to try to weaponize AE to cover up their own bad activities in pushing their POV. While the last move review was closed as "endorse", the closer was quite clear that that was mostly a "no consensus to overturn (but not necessarily meaning there is a consensus that it was correct and proper)". The closure of the last RM "overturned" what was about a 3-to-2 majority (if not more) for a title other than the now-current one, but because of the actions of some editors (not necessarily here), the closer found a "majority" for the current title. Then editors (some here) bludgeoned the move review to prevent the actual problems with the close from being adequately discussed. And now they're mad that the community is being asked to opine again given the woefully improper close of the last move review that amounts to a supervote.

That all said, since AE has already been unable to take action on a recent report in the area because of the number of users involved and the cross-user issues (tag-teaming, POV pushing, potential off wiki coordination, etc), this report should simply be punted to ARCA as evidence in the already ongoing request for a new arbitration case. Specifically, this case should be used as evidence that Levivich (and others) are attempting to weaponize AE to remove people they disagree with from the topic area so their POV pushing cannot be questioned. Beyond that, the only short term action that should be taken is a prohibition on the most flagrantly abusive users (Levivich coming to mind as making multiple threads here recently) from making AE reports until the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. If a user is truly problematic, Levivich should be able to trust that someone else can make a report. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be extremely clear, I disagree completely with Barkeep's message below that he does not consider threatening another user (BilledMammal) on their talk page to be evidence that should be considered here. Levivich is weaponizing AE, and is attempting to get "first mover advantage" by claiming that if they make a report on AE, their own behavior shouldn't be able to be looked at, because they made the report. Should not be allowed whatsoever. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will not retract anything, but I will clarify that "their" here was not solely intended as a third-person singular pronoun, but also to cover other editors with whom Levivich frequently tag-teams (whether intentional or not) on reporting editors. As SFR replied on BilledMammal's talk page, it's more than ripe to have the behavior of others involved brought up when evaluating a AE request, because the actions of others influence and inform the evaluation of the reported user. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich has now taken to claiming that AE shouldn't review the whole circumstances of the situation when a report is made (in other words, that they want a first mover advantage), and claimed that they intend to "appeal" this even further because they think they should be able to own the topic area and have their views on a discussion taken as fact before adequate discussion, making involved closures/removals without repercussions. If this isn't more than enough evidence that Levivich is one of the biggest problems in this topic area on either side of the debate I'm not sure what would be. Textbook disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. I'll say again - if there are disruptive editors there are more than enough other people who can bring those editors to AE. But Levivich's participation in this topic area at this point and especially in AE regarding this topic area is no longer beneficial or constructive - and it's been that way for quite some time. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be extremely clear: I am fine if AE admins choose to punt this to arbcom in conjunction with the recent ARCA request for a new case in the Israel-Palestine conflict area. But do it already - stop giving the guise that anything can (or should) be done here if that's going to be the end result. I think there is a strong case that Levivich should be prohibited from bringing users to AE until a case on those issues is held at ArbCom. They are wasting administrator and other user time at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To Sean, I say that the mere fact he is reporting potentially valid disruption does not justify his immense disruption on this noticeboard (and elsewhere). There are plenty of other editors who can continue to bring editors to this noticeboard and discuss them without Levivich's participation/reporting of them. It begs the question why Levivich is bringing editors to this venue when others are not thinking to do so. The mere fact his complaints seem "facially valid" does not justify the disruption they cause, nor the dogpiling they bring. I haven't seen a single case they've brought recently that has been so urgent as to not be able to wait for the ARCA request to start a case. But what it does do is create a chilling effect for editors wishing to participate in this area. If you don't agree with Levivich (et al - those who agree with him and show up quickly to comment on these requests and discussions they start/opine in on talk pages) you risk being taken to AE in an attempt to silence you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David A: Wikipedia isn't the place to "be concerned about human rights violations". We report facts, not what we want people to hear. Attempting to pass off disruption as okay because you think they're trying to be "right" is the exact sort of disruption that makes us violate our core content policies in this topic area. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint (2)

berchanhimez has utterly misunderstood the situation in their claim that Levivich … is attempting to get "first mover advantage" by claiming that if they make a report on AE, their own behavior shouldn't be able to be looked at, because they made the report. Levivich’s position has been consistent. Less than a month ago, Levivich said: Don't use my [AE] report as an opportunity to bring attention to an unrelated grievance between other people. Please respect the time I put into this. Unless it's about me, or HaOfa, it doesn't really belong in this thread, it belongs in a new one. Levivich did not mind his own conduct being examined in the same AE thread, he just wanted other editors to be examined in new AE threads. I look forward for berchanhimez's false claim to be retracted. starship .paint (RUN) 04:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: - the context was that the 12 January move, [13] [14] explicitly said: This RM is intended specifically to fix the incorrect year disambiguation as soon as possible: a clearly incorrect title shouldn't be left in effect long-term on a heavily viewed page. It is intended without prejudice against any other discussions or requested moves such as regarding changing the "Israel–Hamas war" wording. This move was closed 20 January 2024. starship .paint (RUN) 14:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: - you are correct. There is a May RM that ended in June and which move review ended in ~~July.~~ starship .paint (RUN) 15:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- move review ended in August. My bad, thanks Levivich. starship .paint (RUN) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PhotogenicScientist

Apologies for the tangent, but I think this is worth clarifying while we're here: The applicability of 1RR to talk pages is not clear from current policy/Arbcom pages.

Per policy (WP:EW), the three revert rule (and WP:1RR by extension) applies to all "pages", including those in talk and project spaces.
Per ArbCom ([15]), 1RR is meant broadly to address article content, and specific talk page 1RR "violations" were deemed to not be violations.

So, 2 questions:

If ArbCom's standard applies to WP:ARBPIA, would that standard apply to all CTOP talk pages? And to all talk pages generally?
If the above are true, should WP:3RR be amended to remove the explicit mention of Talk pages?

Thanks. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 if that decision is binding, then can WP:3RR be summarily updated, on that basis? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 that separation I (vaguely) understand. Though, the ArbCom 1RR sanction appears to be documented here, where "revert restrictions" links directly to the section with WP:1RR. And in that section, 1RR is explicitly defined as being analogous to 3RR with a few specific changes (none of which mention excepting Talk pages).

So, can the WP:EW#Other revert rules section be modified to reflect the ArbCom decision? It's on a policy page, but that section starts off saying its material is from ArbCom. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Regarding the suggestions for mass topic bans - I do want to point out that the disruption in this topic area is ultimately coming from external sources and is the result of a broader conflicts outside of Wikipedia. While many editors are behaving in a subpar manner, that's not the root issue here; and despite their sniping, most of these editors are experienced enough to know and follow at least the basic outline of how we do things. I'm concerned that broad topic-bans could remove those experienced editors while leaving a bunch of new / inexperienced ones who would continue the same conflicts without the same knowledge of our policies and procedures. Obviously warnings and such are needed and people who don't improve or who are obviously part of the problem need to be removed, but topic-banning basically all the highly-active experienced users in a topic area that is seeing substantial external disruption is probably something to be avoided if possible. --Aquillion (talk) 15:57, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning IntrepidContributor

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

I'll probably circle back to the substance of this report but from a CU perspective IntrepitContributor is technically Unrelated to Wierzba. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out I circled back faster than I had anticipated. IntrepidContributor can you please address the substance of why you are restoring the RM, not just why it is/isn't 1RR, and why it is not disruptive. Namely, why a new move discussion is appropriate now given that the previous move review closed 17 days ago. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unimpressed with Intrepid's response, which has large elements of "I don't agree with the consensus so I'm going to try again and see if I can get my consensus." While I am sympathetic to the idea that the MR closed a month after the move discussion itself and that this is a developing situation, the idea that consensus can change does not allow for the same point being brought up repeatedly over a short period of time and/or in multiple venues in an attempt to shift consensus[16]. I also continue to have concerns, as I expressed in May with editors reverting formal discussions - such as moves or RfCs - in order to shut them down. Now that May discussion also clarifies that 1RR does not apply here but that doesn't mean that I don't find some behavior here troubling. I'll wait to see if any other admins post thoughts before stating what specific outcome I favor. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich has the RM been closed? Or was the RM simply reverted so no one knew it was attempted? I was in favor of closing the RM which I note in the comment above. When Selfstudier decided to revert SN, I nearly procedurally closed it myself. If another uninvolved administrator is thinking about closing it, I would support them doing so. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich I did not check the account against Icewhiz. You're welcome to ask for that to be done at SPI. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PhotogenicScientist I think this answers your questions (decided by ArbCom itself rather than AE so it is more binding). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PhotogenicScientist, 1rr is an arbitration sanction, 3rr is a community policy. Two different things. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS: ArbCom can't make policy. It can only make decisions within its remit. Which includes this conflict and 1RR. So the decision to update the policy page is up to the community to include (or not). Barkeep49 (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Up to the community about updating that or not. So if you're interested I'd read WP:PGCHANGE about what that looks like. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, I'm in agreement with Barkeep that the 1RR question is adequately addressed by Arbcom, and there is no violation here. This is very similar to a repeat of the May report specifically dealing with involved editors vetoing consensus establishing processes. In that report we issued a final warning for exactly what Levivich and Selfstudier did here, and it was clear that such involved closures were inappropriate. Although the RM didn't bring anything new to the table, this is not an uncommon situation in the topic area. Selfstudier supported a RM three days after the closure of a prior RM, and even if they disagreed with the RM procedurally, they should understand that editors often disagree about when another RM is appropriate. Gaza genocide has been through several recent RMs in close proximity so another, though not great, isn't so flagrantly out of process, e.g. started by a non-EC editor, that heavily involved editors should have stepped in. This should have been brought to AN or an uninvolved administrator, or at the absolute least brought up at the editor's talk page.
With the unrelated result of CU we're looking at an extended-confirmed editor in good standing who opened a RM two months after the prior request that, while as Barkeep pointed out doesn't really bring anything new, isn't wildly malformed or procedurally flawed beyond repeating a two-month old discussion. Involved editors do not have veto power on discussions that they believe are occurring too close to another recent discussion, or any other formal process. This was already widely agreed upon at AE. That two editors who are taking part in a discussion about involvement and involved actions in this specific topic area would think that this reversion was acceptable is surprising to say the least. Additionally, simply believing that someone is a sockpuppet doesn't free us of WP:AGF, and contributions can not be reverted simply on suspicion of sockpuppetry.
In my view the shutting down of a discussion started by an extended confirmed editor in good standing by two involved editors is more of an issue than starting an RM too soon after the last one. WP:SNOW or WP:AN exist for this situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SFR: I'm not being glib here: are you saying that the "trout" noted in the closing summary was in actuality a final warning? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makeandtoss received a final warning for closing the rfc. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I understand now. I suggest a warning for IC and Selfstudier, and maybe even a narrow topic ban on closing/reverting formal discussions for Selfstudier. I don't see the same history for Levivich and I see attempts to use our processes so I don't see a need for a warning about the conduct in this complaint (which I do not consider this message a part of). Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a functional difference between a warning not to close discussions you're involved in and a topic ban. The result of doing it again is likely to be the same. so I think a warning is fine in that instance. A more sternly worded reminder that editors should not be closing or removing consensus establishing discussions when they are heavily involved might be in order, as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That all makes sense to me. I do want to note the general warning will only carry so far - for instance I would not expect everyone in the topic area (even "regulars" at this forum) to see the message. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't think we should even have to give such a general warning/reminder, because that is covered in WP:CTOP and the alert pretty much every editor in ARBPIA has received or given. Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice. This type of behavior shouldn't need a warning, because WP:INVOLVED and WP:TPG already cover it in detail, and editors must comply with all applicable policies and guidelines and follow best practices. Why are we making sure everyone gets a notification that they must do this if we're just going to warn for violating PAGs? So, I guess what I mean about a more sternly worded reminder is saying that this already prohibited behavior will be sanctioned if it occurs in the future. We don't need to hand out any more individual warnings for this, because everyone with a CTOP alert has already been put on notice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, do you have any appetite to topic ban (for 90 days or so?) everyone who cast broad aspersions in this report, or otherwise did not edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice.? That might be enough time for an Arb case to get started, or some subs from the bench to make their way onto the committee. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh, Cabayi, Guerillero, HJ Mitchell, Moneytrees, Primefac, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, and Z1720: here we have another case where at first blush there is one issue to address that AE could probably handle, but it turns out we have multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing, or been part of opening such RMs. Editors from across the spectrum can't help but to show up and accuse each other of bad faith editing, to make bad faith accusations that everyone supporting an option in an RM are People who apparently support Israel's current military actions, to demand other editors not take part in AE proceedings, or claim that editor misbehavior in the RM and MR led to a POV issue with an article title. No one seems to think their aspersions or personal attacks are the same as the aspersions and personal attacks other people cast, and this shitshow happens pretty much every time we end up here for any but the most obvious behavioral issues with new or inexperienced editors. There aren't enough AE admins to be expected to take the brunt of the fallout from any significant action, if there is even consensus for anything. Can we maybe put the scoot on getting a case started? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TarnishedPath, I've pinged the few others from those discussions and given an only warning for canvassing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, Closed 19 January, New RM opened on the 24th, Selfstudier, David A Levivich. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So there's also Closed 13 February, new RM 29 February, David A, BilledMammal.

Both of those RMs had no prejudice towards another RM, as did the RM at the center of this report, which had a consensus against a moratorium. We're, again, looking at standard behavior in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if we're looking at the reasoning behind the move, that RM on 29 February was spurred by this, which is about as "there was no consensus for the name I wanted, but I disagree with the previous close" as it gets. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, I'd need to see the context for multiple editors involved here that have !voted with no procedural objections in RMs opened within days after earlier RMs closing. Valereee (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through this filing and the comments from other editors ... and I have to agree with SFR - the accusations are certainly piling up here. From a quick read ... the following statements stood out to me as being less than optimal (in fact, often completely useless) in helping to resolve issues:
- "Their entire complaint here seems to be more about their suspicion that I am a sock of another account"
- "attempt to muddy the water with irrelevant "otherstuff" argumentation"
- "People who apparently support Israel's current military actions"
- "and they are using tag-team unilateral involved closures and AE to try to enforce this"
- "That's really a bad-faith interpretation"
- "this is straightforwardly disruptive behavior"
- "obvious hypocrisy by BilledMammal for forgetting that opening an RM a week or so after move review closed with your team losing is anything other than POV-pushing in the process"
- "Levivich and other editors are continuing to try to weaponize AE to cover up their own bad activities in pushing their POV"
- "editors (some here) bludgeoned the move review to prevent the actual problems with the close from being adequately discussed"
Note I didn't link these to specific editors because they are examples of the continual low-level sniping, accusations, and off-topic digressions that continually interfere with non-involved admins ability to get to the bottom of issues. I get it that the real world war is inflaming passions all around. But it doesn't help the issue here on wiki if we tolerate this sort of sniping/off-topic digressions/etc. Ideally, all editors would agree to dial things back, and at least try to pretend to pay lip-service to the ideals of editing here. Unfortunately, I think its gone on too long and I certainly can't say that I have any intention of opening myself up to actually taking action in this CT - because why should I expose myself as a target of this level of constant sniping? Why do folks think this is what editors should be acting like? I don't like the idea of treating everyone in this CT like a toddler who needs to be sent to time-out, but honestly - what other choices do non-involved admins have? The best way to discuss things is to not discuss what you think the motivations of other editors are, but rather to engage with sources and facts. None of the above examples do that - and frankly, until that type of editing goes away .. nothing will improve in the CT.
As to the actual original complaint about breaking 1RR, Barkeep and SFR discussed this above. All the other stuff about possible sockpuppetry in the original complaint - that should have gone to SPI, which is the correct venue for handling possible sockpuppetry. (I note that Barkeep ruled it as the two accounts being unrelated on technical reasons) All the extraneous commentary from many other editors above ... is pretty much useless. So, we're left with - nothing. We can close this without addressing the other issues, as the one complaint that was suitable for this venue appears to have been decided as not a problem - if I'm reading the statements by Barkeep and SFR correct? While I might like to see something done about the digressions by everyone and the kitchen sink, I don't have the bandwith right now to topic ban everyone on my own admin authority nor do I care to deal with the nasty fallout I can see as likely in my future if I did such a thing. Close this and wait for the inevitable next time when we go through this same cycle again. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were some warnings above that Barkeep and I were roughly in consensus about, although as I asked above, do you have any appetite to topic ban (for 90 days or so?) everyone who cast broad aspersions in this report, or otherwise did not edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice.? That might be enough time for an Arb case to get started, or some subs from the bench to make their way onto the committee. We can do that with a rough consensus here without having a lone admin eat the inevitable dozen hours of shit at all the appeals. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could get behind topic bans imposed by a consensus of admins here, although I really wish that we didn't have to treat other editors like toddlers. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom has a procedure for temporary injunctions to handle the kind of situation described above. I am opposed to AE usurping that authority for itself. I remain open to the warning expressed above. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have the appetite for tbans all around. That feels punitive. Valereee (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath, Scorch the earth usually causes a lot of collateral damage. For instance, battleground language could get caught up in it as well. Valereee (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on whether this is the wrong venue for 1RR in this case, but starting a new RM that quickly simply because you disagree with the previous one is clearly disruptive, and I do think 1RR should apply here. Valereee (talk) 14:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could choose as AE to impose 1RR on that talk page going forward, but I don't think we can decide the previous reverts were a 1RR violation. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get it. I missed the discussion, but I'd have said reverts on talk pages at CTs are disruptive enough, too. Not going to reopen that recent discussion. :D Valereee (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starship, there was an RM that ended in June here that was endorsed in a move review at the end of July -- am I reading incorrectly? Valereee (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NM, I realize you were responding to a post above, sorry! The context there was the closure itself, which actually invited another RM. Valereee (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Berchanhimez, re: It begs the question why Levivich is bringing editors to this venue when others are not thinking to do so. There's a work factor, a knowledge factor, and a risk factor that might prevent others from wanting to mess with AE. The fact someone is more willing to do it is not necessarily evidence of disruption by them. It may simply be they're the only one with both the capacity and the will. Valereee (talk) 11:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself unimpressed with the behavior of several participants here. As Ealdgyth notes, the ad homimen snipes serve only to raise the temperature. Socking has been ruled out and 1RR appears to be a non-issue, which doesn't leave much that is actionable. I am opposed to TBANs at this time; it feels disproportionate to the conduct here. I would support logged warnings. The CTOP restrictions do lay out behavioral expectations, but only in the most general terms. I would make a warning explicit as to the behavior that we find to be a problem. For me, in this case, it is the venue-inappropriate sniping, but particularly the bludgeoning of a process in violation of procedural convention when the outcome is not to your liking, or alternatively the use of procedural fine points to shut down a discussion when a previous outcome was to your liking. As far as I can tell many users have engaged in this behavior, on both "sides", and it isn't acceptable in any case.
That said, I want to flag a concern with my colleagues' comments above. Sometimes there isn't anything differentiating parties in a dispute, and the appropriate response is either mass sanctions or an ARBCOM referral: but sometimes a single user's behavior is very clearly actionable, because they are pushing the envelope further than any others. I don't want us to get in the habit of taking no action, or taking mass actions, simply because multiple parties have shown sub-par behavior. If we sanction one party in a dispute, the others are still free to file AE reports on each other - we are in no way obligated to deal with all the disruption at once. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree with the approach Vanamonde suggests in the second paragraph. Though admittedly I'm not sure who all that means would get a warning (where the 1st paragraph seems to be going). Per the I don't want us to get in the habit of taking no action, or taking mass actions, simply because multiple parties have shown sub-par behavior. If we sanction one party in a dispute, the others are still free to file AE reports on each other note I'd still favor logged warnings for Selfstudier and IC as an appropriate close out of this. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I have closed the RM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish, Vanamonde93, Valereee, and Ealdgyth: is there any appetite for any sanction out of this report? The most concrete proposal - topic bans all around - has no support. But I do so see some consesnus that there were conduct violations here so just closing it as no action doesn't seem to reflect the consensus any better. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Warning for starting another RM without any new reasoning shortly after the last closed. Warnings for removing the RM as an involved party, and for not discussing with the editor that stated the RM first. Warning for edit warring over the removal of the new RM. Warnings all around for battleground behavior. Lastly, a raise for us. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am supportive of each of those warnings. I have not made an exhaustive list of which editors raised the temperature via ad hominem commentary, but that seems to me to be deserving of a warning. I'm honestly inclined to word that last as a reminder - not logged- and apply it to all parties to this report. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, how many times have folks here been warned for some of this? But, if that's the best we can agree on, I can support that. I really wish that warnings didn't feel totally toothless and ineffectual. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My quick check of the log earlier this week said there hasn't been warnings about this for the people involved her I found troubling. As such I support SFR's path as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objections to warnings others think are appropriate. Valereee (talk) 12:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We'll double your current salary, ScottishFinnishRadish. Other than that, I think that's a reasonable solution. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:21, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting what David A and Aquillion are referring to above is happening currently at Talk:Zionism where multiple experienced editors, cooperating pretty well with one another, are dealing with multiple EC editors who appear to have been recruited into the article from outrage in social media and Israeli press. The article had to be full-protected for a day, and even with the talk page semi'd the disruption is ongoing from editors with thousands to tens of thousands of edits who have never edited the page before and aren't familiar with sourcing in a contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So a warning for opening without any change to the status quo for WikiFouf, removing an RM when involved for Levivich and Selfstudier, edit warring for IntrepidContributor, and battleground for Berchanhimez, Bluethricecreamman, and Levivich? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. We're going to have a problem If you don't stop using my AE reports to try and get other editors in trouble., followed by a demand that someone with whom you have a disagreement stay away from a community process falls well short of expectations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SFR, I don't see a tersely-worded complaint on an editor's talk page as battleground. Valereee (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I would call it battleground either but I would call it an inappropriate comment as I do think it reads as intimidation. Barkeep49 (talk) 11:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went with battleground as that specifically calls out intimidation. We could just go with the ol behavior that falls below what is expected in a contentious topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lev I don't know. I do read them as different. "You may be blocked" leaves some wiggle room about whether or not it happens, where as "We are going to have a problem" does not (both of course are conditional on a behavior continuing). I have a notion that this difference has mattered in some previous cases at ArbCom when an admin was in conflict with another editor. I will ponder more and (time permitting) look to see if I can find if I have recall that correct. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'd just go with "inappropriate". It's been longstanding custom that an editor may ask someone not to comment on their user talk page (though even that has exceptions), but I know of no precedent for expecting someone not to comment on your public noticeboard postings, outside of a formal interaction ban or something like that. If you make a thread on a public noticeboard, you should expect others to make comments, and that may include people who disagree with you and people who you don't like very much. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:38, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So a warning for opening without any change to the status quo for WikiFouf, removing an RM when involved for Levivich and Selfstudier, edit warring for IntrepidContributor, and battleground for Berchanhimez and Bluethricecreamman, and a warning for inappropriately demanding that someone not comment on their noticeboard posts for Levivich?

There's also the question of if specific warnings like that are even needed. We could just warn all of them for behavior that falls below what is expected in a contentious topic and be done with it. I don't see a whole lot of utility in specifically wording a warning, rather than just warning specific editors to edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich, for my own understanding here and maybe others', would it be a hassle to pull the diffs of you having asked the other editor to stop doing this before? Valereee (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I agree with Seraphimblade that you probably can't actually stop people from using your work in ways you don't want it used. Is it inappropriate to complain to someone who has repeatedly done something you think is not cool? I mean, is it really even an inappropriate comment? Valereee (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to have a problem if you keep trying to keep people from being warned at AE.

Is that a civil and calm request in the spirit of cooperation, as is what is required in a CTOP, or inappropriate and intimidating? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone said to me "Barkeep we're going to have a problem if you keep suggesting warnings at AE" I would feel the person leaving that was not follow[ing] editorial and behavioural best practice. This wasn't a "stop reverting" this was more akin to "stop participating in a community process" and that ties into what spurred this complaint in the first place. But I am still hoping to have time to consider what's happened in the past. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I'm in the minority on this, I'm in the minority. :) Valereee (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so now we're at:
a warning for opening without any change to the status quo for WikiFouf

removing an RM when involved for Levivich and Selfstudier

edit warring for IntrepidContributor

battleground for Berchanhimez and Bluethricecreamman

Levivich for inappropriate, intimidating communication

Going once... going twice... ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself reasonably convinced by Levivich's explanation and so I'm closer to Valereee than you at this point and so I am back to no warning for him on both notes (which is what had stopped me from closing this thread for a while). Otherwise agree. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No warning for the removal of the RM as well, or just for the message to BM? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of a warning for Selfstudier because of their presence and activity when this removal business has been discussed before. Since Levivich hasn't been around for that I'm not as bothered by their removal. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view the behavior is either disruptive enough to be warned over or not. I don't think there's a minimum threshold of awareness to warn someone not to do something again. Editors don't even have to be aware they're editing in a WP:CTOP to receive a warning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, in the interest of finally closing this, I see a consensus for
a warning for opening without any change to the status quo for WikiFouf

removing an RM when involved for Levivich and Selfstudier

edit warring for IntrepidContributor

battleground for Berchanhimez and Bluethricecreamman

I'll be closing it with this result shortly, absent any objections. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have preferred something a bit stronger because I don't think that we should be doing infinite-warnings to folks already well aware of things but... if that's the best we can do....Ealdgyth (talk) 13:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel you. If you feel like a shit show, there's clearly no clear consensus against any topic bans which is what is required to overturn them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, there's Ealdgyth, Vanamonde I am supportive of each of those warnings., and myself. I would also say that there's a rough consensus for a battleground warning for you, with SB's comment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't agree with the warning of Levivich, I think SFR's summary of admin positions, which omits seraphimblade's conclusion that Levivich's comment was inappropriate (which at least points towards a warning, is fair. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the time for even this small tempest/pushback, much less imposing a topic ban. I've got real life stuff I gotta do and a deadline approaching. But I feel bad that I'm not helping more... (And Levivich, I'm watching this discussion - I do not need the pings for every reply. Pinging me twice in 20 minutes is just annoying. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich - this is why admins flee from this area and it has difficulty in attracting people to help police the area. Yes, I found your note to BM to be intimidating. I get that you didn't mean it to be intimidating, but you have people telling you that they consider it intimidating and you aren't listening to their feedback. Yes, you should not have closed that move request as you were clearly involved. (I thought about replying more, but what I had was not helpful and I deleted it, which is something that ALL the editors in this area should probably practice more - if the things you are typing aren't going to help lower the temperature, then it probably shouldn't be said.) Ealdgyth (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David A, there is no issue with WP:ECR with the RM. The editor that opened it and restored it are extended-confirmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EnfantDeLaVille

EnfantDeLaVille is formally warned that communication is necessary, and lack of communication can result in sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:45, 2 October 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 EnfantDeLaVille

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: EnfantDeLaVille (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

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

10:36, April 2, 2024. Their 8th edit on wikipedia. It appears to misrepresent a source. I tried to discuss with them, but they didn't respond.
07:40, September 19, 2024. Removed material that had an entire section in the body under a misleading edit summary. I tried to discuss but they didn't respond.
14:07, September 20, 2024. Added material in wikivoice with two sources: one reliable but misleading quoted, the other apparently written by former IDF member. I tried to discuss with them on talk, and once again they didn't respond.
10:45, September 25, 2024. Restored material that gives Netanyahu's statements undue weight in the lead in an edit with a summary that misleadingly claims consensus. No consensus on talk page[17] for this.
16:05, September 27, 2024. Added "A day after Hamas' October 7 attacks on Israel, Even though it was unprovoked Hezbollah[3] joined the conflict in support of Hamas[4] by firing on northern Israeli towns and other Israeli positions." Two problems:

- "unprovoked" is quite POV (see discussion here).
- "A day after October 7" (i.e. October 8) Hezbollah didn't attack northern Israeli towns, nor do the sources say that it did. See explanation on this WP:V violation.

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 12:05, September 24, 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Repeatedly misrepresenting sources and POV-pushing. The April 2 edit was made before sanctions alert, yes, but no one should be misrepresenting sources like that.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [18]

Discussion concerning EnfantDeLaVille

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 EnfantDeLaVille

Hi, sorry for the late reply. There are several users and bots who left me messages on the talk page. VR left me 5 messages on my talk page in 3 days. From the moment I started writing things related to Hezbollah, he started writing to me. It took me some time to build a picture of where he notifies me and answer them all. This whole thing felt a bit strange and even bothersome.

The events in Lebanon in recent months catch me at a sensitive time, and the suffering of my people from the situation in my homeland is unbearable. I apologize if I didn't reply in time. I tried to respond to everyone who wrote to me on talk pages. I'll try to look at my talk page more.EnfantDeLaVille (talk) 07:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron can you explain what a logged warning is? I am sorry, yes reverting the last message from my talk page was a mistake. I guess it was bit too much in the recent days, I felt targeted the moment I started writing about Hezbollah, with people (mostly VR) massively tagging me and acting aggressively towards me. Now I see that the same editor who opened the case against me is trying to change Hezbollah's definition on Wikipedia to be a resistance group instead of militant group! that's just amazes me. Anyway, I promise to be more communicative in the future. EnfantDeLaVille (talk) 08:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ABHammad

In all honesty, I don't see the issue here. Vice Regent is certainly one of our most serious regulars on the topic, but this is the second time this week they've rushed to AE about a new editor without a solid case, in what seems to be based mostly on different opinion. EnfantDeLaVille seems quite communicative on talk pages (I saw them participating in three discussions [19], [20], [21]). Maybe VR's taggings all around could be sometimes hard to follow? (this link VR shared doesn't seem to be a genuine attempt for discussion anyway [22]). I think Vice Regent should be reminded not to bite the newcomers and to take content disputes, what this complaint is really on about, on talk pages instead of AE. ABHammad (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that I find it extremely odd to see VR here speaking on POV-pushing while also changing Hezbollah's description from "paramilitary group" to "resistance group" in Wiki voice [23]. ABHammad (talk) 13:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice_regent, experienced editors, especially ARBPIA regulars like you, should know that conduct issues and content disputes are different and have their own places, and if you have disagreements with someone, you should take it to articles' talk pages. This is true especially when it comes to new editors, since this is not the first time you have bitten the newcomers recently, making others have to apologize on your behalf [24]. But now it seems even more troubling that you don't see how applying the term 'military-resistance organization' for Hezbollah, in wiki voice, in the article's first sentence is a blatant violation of NPOV, even if you found one source that uses this description (we actually have a name for this, its called Cherrypicking). ABHammad (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vice regent

Note: I have slightly modified my report by pointing out that the first edit in my report is there because I believe it misrepresents a source, which I believe is a serious issue. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the pattern of reverting without discussions continues. Makeandtoss removed Hezbollah's terrorist designation from lead[25] and then started a discussion on the talk page[26]. I also moved it down. EnfantDeLaVille moved it back without any explanation (no edit summary) and without engaging on the talk page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABHammad, "military-resistance organization" is verbatim from a scholarly source written by Dr Farida and that is published by Routledge. Additionally, I've made efforts to discuss on the talk page[27], have you? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 14:25, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning EnfantDeLaVille

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

It looks like only two of these edits are after they were made aware of the CTOP designation. At first blush my largest concern is the lack of communication, which is absolutely necessary on Wikipedia, and even moreso in contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Despite EnfantDeLaVille's promise two days ago to engage constructively, today they've dismissively deleted a good-faith message about an edit of theirs. I'd recommend a logged warning for failing to communicate. @Vice regent: your initial filing implies that Hezbollah didn't attack Israel on October 8th, and while that's technically true in the sense that the Golan Heights is Syrian territory, it is still true that Hezbollah attacked a territory Israelis live in, so it's not like EnfantDeLaVille made that up out of whole cloth. I think an assumption of good faith would put that squarely at the level of a content dispute (along with most of the other diffs you've mentioned), not worth mentioning in an AE filing. It's the continued failure to communicate I'm more concerned about. Perhaps EnfantDeLaVille should scale back their editing if they feel that they have time to edit, but not time to respond to concerns about said editing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EnfantDeLaVille: see Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Warnings :) no formal restrictions are imposed, but it'll be something to note if you ever end up back here or in another user-conduct setting. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's more or less where I'm at. Barring any objection in the next day or so I'll probably close it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Gonzafer001

Appeal moot due to block expiration. No support for overturning by uninvolved admins. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 2 October 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: Gonzafer001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 36-hour block, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2024#User_sanctions_(CT/A-I)

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

Notification of that administrator: Aware :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gonzafer001

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard. I was reverting constant vandalism on the Hasan Nassarala page

Statement by Theleekycauldron

Gonzafer001 made four reverts at Hassan Nasrallah in the span of less than 20 minutes, none of which were vandalism reverts (see 1 2 3 4), in violation of WP:1RR. I figured a 36-hour block would be pretty standard, but if there are other ideas, I'm all ears :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Gonzafer001

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 GrabUp

They should have followed the WP:1RR rule instead of engaging in edit warring. They can also continue the discussion. Additionally, while it is true that Israel has alleged the death, it has not been confirmed by any neutral or reliable source; every reliable source is simply quoting the Israeli claim. I believe the temporary block is justified. GrabUp - Talk 10:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Gonzafer001

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

I normally go for a week pblock from the page they violated 1RR at, but a 36 hour block is also well within admin discretion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be moot, as the block has expired, but FTR I also don't find the edits you reverted to be vandalism. Wrongheaded, sure. POV-pushing, sure. At a BLP, it would be more defensible to revert edits that said the person had died than that they hadn't died, if there's any possible question. Valereee (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genabab

Genabab is warned to avoid edit warring, that 1RR and 3RR are not allowances, to verify the quality and reliability of sources they are using in contentious articles, and that information simply being verifiable does not mean that it is due. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 10 October 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 Genabab

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Viewsridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Genabab (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

28 September Unsubstantiated claim added
2 October Unsubstantiated claim re-added after being reverted
2 October Another unsubstantiated claim added to another article
2 October Deprecated source used for citing the claim
2 October Unsubstantiated claim added to the article after being removed from infobox

User is aware of sanctions on this topic User talk:Genabab#Introduction to contentious topics

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User Genabab is constantly adding unsubstantiated Iranian, Hezbollah and Hamas propaganda to articles involving Arab-Israeli conflict. Often citing deprecated sources[28] and edit warring once they are reverted. The material they are adding is completely fabricated claims, for example, Hezbollah having claimed killing 2,000 Israeli soldiers[29] while the real tally is 25, as well as adding claims such as Iran's missile attack on Israel destroying 20 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II aircraft.[30] Other edits include changing results of battles in infoboxes from Israeli victory to Hezbollah victories,[31] as well as removing Hezbollah from the list of atrocities committed by the group.[32] Viewsridge (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Genabab

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 Genabab

I am not familiar with how Arbitration requests work, but assuming that I have a right to reply, I will give mine now.

On the unsubstantiated claim on the 28th of september, this is a false application of the term. I have made it clear (and sought consensus for this before on that same page) on the inclusion of the Hezbollah claim that 2,000+ casualties were inflicted on Israel. From the start, I was very much happy to accept the fact that these claims were likely false. But, this is not an issue so long as it states that these are Hezbollah's claims. And I believe it is difficult to argue that Hezbollah did *not* claim that they inflicted casualties on Israel in the range of 2,000. Part of the reason why I believe this makes sense is that a similar principle is followed on the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip page. Where Hamas' claims of IDF casualties are also included. Which is 1,600+. I would assume Viewsridge would believe these figures are not accurate, and they have a right to do that. But I do not see why we ought to include one and not the other.

On the 2nd unsubstantiated claim from earlier today. The same principle applies here for the . Did Iran actually destroy 20 F-35s? probably not. Did they claim they did? Yes. Hence it is substantiated. There may be concerns that citing it in this way gives the impression that these things are certainly true. However, taking note of that, I added a part that states Iranian claim which thereby demonstrates to any reader there is a conflict of interest at play.

For al-Mayadeen. I am well aware that it is depreciated. However, in my edit summary I gave a reason as to why I believe it makes sense to cite it here. It is still the same principle, but I will repeat it in a summary. Essentially, the phrasing of the edit was to get across what Iran claims. And al-Mayadeen, while unreliable in many respects, is certainly not unreliable in getting across what the Islamic Republic claims and believes. In the talk page I made a point of this.

The concluding remarks made here, well they are a repeat of the points I already responded to. But I will take special notice of:

`1. "changing results of battles in infoboxes from Israeli victory to Hezbollah victories". I assume Viewsridge here means Palestinian and not hezbollah. While it is true that I changed this, it was only after I had made a talk post giving my view on why it should be changed. For several days no reply came, and so I made the edit with the expectation that someone would notice, revert and then it could be discussed.

2. "as well as removing Hezbollah from the list of atrocities committed by the group" This is the silliest claim here. The long short of it is, I removed the mention of Hezbollah from that massacre, because the sources that the page used did not mention Hezbollah at all. Genabab (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not entirely sure how much I am allowed to say, but I will briefly respond to this as well.

[38]: False. In the relevant area the source says: "Under Avakov’s protection, she says, Azov has been able to expand its operations and act with impunity.[...] But at Cossack House, this isn’t the image Azov wants to paint of itself. " This links the two together enough to be able to make that edit.

[39]: this is a bold one. I will quote from the nation article directly: "In January 2018, Azov rolled out its National Druzhina street patrol unit [...] The Druzhina quickly distinguished itself by carrying out pogroms against the Roma..." Unless I have misread the linked edit and ManyAreas is reffering to a separate edit I made, I do not know why they included this.

[40]: this was a mistake. I did not realise it was citing Russia times and did not contest the removal. Merely inquired why it was removed.

[42]: No comment. But I do for [43]. As indicated by the talk message, I assumed that we had come to a consensus/agreement. Perhaps I should not have been so naive...

[44]: see edit summary for why

[46]: An especially bizarre inclusion. I do not see why one would bother. Basically, I made an edit. Lute88 objected to the citation of Feffer but deleted the whole thing, so I re-added the edit minus Feffer. Not an edit war.

[47]: this was because ManyAreas appeared to me to be citing something that did not appear in the source he was using. Which was partially true but mostly not.

I do not see how that relates to "barely related sources" or counts as excessive.

And the point of "rejected arguments" is an odd one as it comes after me basically just having a disagreement with ManyAreas' disagreement with my argument. I don't believe there is any policy on Wikipedia that says you have to uncritically accept another user's argument after a set number of replies but that's neither here nor there. Genabab (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Moved to own section; please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of the 2,000+ casualties, there is a further consideration which I had forgot to mention. before viewsridge had disputed it, it was kinda in consensus before. i.e.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_conflict_(2023%E2%80%93present)/Archive_1#h-2,000_Israeli_casualties_according_to_Hezbollah-20240108194700

furthermore, considering the "mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects." the source cited was NbC which is a reliable source. so that should account for that point Genabab (talk) 23:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ManyAreasExpert

Similar edits can be observed in Russia-related articles.

[33] [34] the editor added Azov and Azov affiliated groups while sources only say Azov affiliated groups
[35] adding "bignewsnetwork" reposting RT - russian propaganda source, again [36] after the warning
[37] [38] returning their edits with edit war
[39] [40] [41] [42] returning their edits with edit war

Editor's discussion style is to argue their point with excessive stream of barely related sources or sources which do not support their point Talk:Disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine#c-Manyareasexpert-20240918081600-Genabab-20240917213600 , raising rejected arguments again and again Talk:Azov Brigade#c-Manyareasexpert-20240917204600-Genabab-20240917193100 . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 17:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Kip

Not an admin, but feel like I can shine some light here, going point-by-point:

1 and 2: While Hezbollah themselves are a primary source and therefore not exactly considered a WP:RS for such a contentious topic, consider how we treat battles in the Russian invasion of Ukraine - I don't see a problem with inclusion of this claim, so long as it is clearly attributed to Hezbollah, rather than in Wikivoice. See Siege of Mariupol, where we clearly denote "Per Ukraine/Per Russia," instead of just an objective listing of casualties. Casualties only go in Wikivoice if multiple RSes use them in their own voice.
3. Bulgarianmilitary.com doesn't exactly come off as an RS. This should not have been used for a potentially-contentious claim.
4 and 5: Al Mayadeen is a deprecated source per WP:RSP, and should not be used at all.

Regarding some of the other things brought up:

The ISW withdrawal ––> victory bit is questionable, given there's an ongoing discussion at WP:RSN whether they're an RS or not.
The removed Guardian source on Darayya doesn't mention Hezbollah, but other RSes in the article do, so this is more careless than malevolent - Genabab was technically correct in removing that source, but should've replaced it rather than removed it entirely.
The Azov thing is just outright careless editing.
The use of a reposted RT article is questionable.
The edit-warring is a genuine issue that should be examined.

In total, some of this case is a bit overstated/overdramatized, but there's also genuine concerns with Genabab's editing tendencies. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Genabab, make sure to only respond in your own section. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Swatjester Valid points, I’d forgotten to consider WP:DUE. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swatjester

I have no opinion on most of this dispute but want to comment as to @The Kip:'s suggestion about attribution on the Hezbollah claim. Fringe views are properly excluded from articles on mainstream subjects to the extent that they are rarely if ever included by reliable sources on those subjects. Attributing the fringe content doesn't make it any more appropriate for inclusion if no reliable sources are stating any basis for the claim. That's the distinction here between Hezbollah's absurd and obviously baseless claim (the attack certainly did not cause a casualty count twice that of the 10/7 attacks) and a more traditional dispute over casualty figures. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TylerBurden

I think this editor has shown some signs of WP:TENDENTIOUS editing within WP:RUSUKR, as ManyAreasExpert indicated. Seeing them insisting on adding what can only be described as obvious propaganda in another CT is therefore not all that surprising. Genabab seems to think it is more important to present ″both sides″ than to follow WP:DUE, and I don't think attribution excuses that, because it still adds bogus to articles with our without it. --TylerBurden (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Genabab

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

So I guess I'm not sure why any unsubstantiated claim is more than trivia in any article simply because it's a claim. Genabab, you said But I do not see why we ought to include one and not the other. Why not simply suggest removing all unsubstantiated claims rather than adding more? Valereee (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re: whether you are allowed to respond. Yes, you are. You are asked to keep it to 500 words, and right now you're at almost 1000. And from the various diffs I'm seeing, writing really long is a habit of yours. If you could try to be a LOT more concise. Like figure out how to eliminate 90% of the words. It takes longer to write shorter, but it's a valuable skill here on Wikipedia. Valereee (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the ARBPIA portion, the first two diffs show a content disagreement on sourced material. It was reinserted once, but enforced BRD and consensus required aren't placed on that article. The third diff is more of the same, sourced with a disagreement on including. The sourcing issues in the latter diffs are more concerning. I don't expect everyone to check RSP before using a source, but bulgarianmilitary.com is plainly not suitable for a source. This diff linked appears to be fine, as the source doesn't mention Hezbollah so it would be difficult for it to support their role in the attack. The edit warring to include Golinkin's views is not great, and that should definitely stop. I'm seeing a warning for sourcing and that 1RR/3RR is not an allowance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will be closing this with sourcing, DUE, and edit warring warnings and a general reminder to consider edits and reverts carefully in the next day or so, absent any objections. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had intended to close it this way over the weekend and just forgot I had intended to do it when I had time. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with SFR, and am concerned to now see behavior like this over two different CTOP areas. I think a warning that just because a claim has been made does not mean the article has to mention it (especially if it's widely discredited), along with selecting proper sources and edit warring, is in order. That said, I would remind other editors to consider edits carefully too—for example, the edit which removed material because the sources did not mention Hezbollah seems valid; they really didn't mention it at all. While I'm not going to go look, I'd be more concerned in that instance about who added the material and didn't represent the sources used accurately. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey R. Clark

Invalid request. Filed by non-autoconfirmed user, and does not relate to a CTOP area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:01, 3 October 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 Jeffrey R. Clark

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Baskez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeffrey R. Clark

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[43]]

WP:GOODFAITH

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

October 1 Explanation: This editor, who has since changed his name, as it was Dcheagle, removed tons of relevant and important information from the Oklahoma State football wiki page, and did not respond to messages on his talk page.
October 1 Explanation: User continuing to gatekeep the page, refusing to offer an explaination.
October 1 Explanation: More unexplained deletion of information to fit what he deems as right. No attempt at a discussion in the talk page. Just mass deletion of information.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on October 1 (see the system log linked to above).
Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oklahoma_State_Cowboys_football&diff=prev&oldid=1248707377Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has also been caught using sock puppets in the past, which he promptly erased from his talk page when warned about. He has proven he’s incapable of collaborating with other users, edit wars, and uses sock puppets when people dare disagree with him. It’s time administration steps in.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Jeffrey R. Clark

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 Jeffrey R. Clark

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jeffrey R. Clark

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

Kalanishashika

Kalanishashika is indefinitely topic banned from ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 11 October 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 Kalanishashika

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Petextrodon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Kalanishashika (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/SL

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

25 August 2024 First revert on a 1RR-protected article. User re-added reference to Gordon Weiss.
5 October 2024 User re-added reference to Gordon Weiss after failing to engage in active talk discussion since 2 September 2024‎. This is their usual habit of gaming the system outside the time limit (see additional comments for more details).

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 31 May 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Although the diffs provided above only deal with its latest incarnation, the issue has been long-standing. Since the previous cases of edit warring by this user on the same article were dealt with elsewhere I didn't include them above but I will expand on them here for context. This user who appeared shortly after Tamil genocide article was created seems to be a SPA whose primary engagement has been with that article where their behavior has been disruptive. On 12 June 2024 I reported them to AN3 for 3RR violation but no action was taken although they implied they gamed the system by reverting for the 4th time outside the 24-hour limit and an admin told them as much. Later, after an admin at ANI notified this user that 1RR now applied, this user continued to game the system and reverted for the 5th time outside the designated limit. I highlighted this on 21 June 2024 in an admin's talk page discussion but no action was taken. After being inactive for 2 months, they went back to gaming the system by reverting 1RR protected article outside the 24-hours limit; I notified an admin of this on 27 August 2024 but no action was taken. I did however warn the user that I will file an ARE report if their disruptive behavior persisted. Even after that they have now gone back to flouting guidelines by reverting for the second time without even continuing to engage the active talk discussion that they stopped engaging on 2 September 2024‎. Since I've exhausted all options, I request this committee to solve this issue once and for all.---Petextrodon (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Kalanishashika's reply addressing me:

I gave them two weeks to reply to my comments in the talk discussion but they never did; so I went ahead and re-added my content which by the way they didn't dispute but wanted it to include additional content which I and another user disputed. The right thing to do here once they got back would have been to continue to engage the talk discussion, not re-add a disputed content without even engaging in discussion. They also apologized at the AN3 report last time yet they went back to their disruptive behaviour which doesn't encourage confidence.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I should continue to reply but I would like to address latest reply by this editor.

There's no need to mislead admins when your very last comment in the talk discussion speaks for itself. You suggested we add both content but I and another editor agreed with adding only one. Since you didn't address my response for 2 weeks I thought you had no objections so I went ahead. When you returned you added the whole disputed content completely disregarding even the less contentious feedback of two other editors in the discussion: that a RS doesn't need an excess in-text attribution for merely reporting on verifiable statements of public figures corroborated elsewhere, suggesting that you aren't willing to compromise on even the minor things. Also the line you added "while Weiss stated that the hundreds of thousands of civilians were held hostage by the Tamil Tigers," isn't even supported by the page that you cited[*] and you never gave a proper justification why you even added that in such a way to combine two different issues to imply a conclusion, which would be original research and POV-pushing, another complaint I would like to add here on top of edit warring.

[*] Internet Archive has the book for anyone to check though the site seems down at the moment: https://archive.org/details/cagefightforsril0000weis ---Petextrodon (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE notification diff

Discussion concerning Kalanishashika

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 Kalanishashika

@Valereee, thank you for waiting for me. Yes, I am not a daily editor and did not see this till today. I was not ignoring it. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that I am surprised by this enforcement request, however then again, I am not, as Petextrodon mentioned this enforcement request is not the first time Petextrodon has attempted to get admins to sanction me. First of all, the content addition in question was done by me after Petextrodon a similar addition two weeks back on 17 September 2024 (content he had introduced on August 2024). This content was discussed in the talk page, however this discussion was going in nowhere so, I took a step back to allow for the things to cool off. However, Petextrodon after two weeks added the disputed content, two weeks later I expanded his edit with additional content in question. I am happy to revert my edit and apologize, however could I ask if Petextrodon's edit on the 17 September 2024 is correct, since I feel that it's the same as mine on 5 October 2024‎. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Petextrodon did mention this, for the record I would like to share the complete discussion User_talk:Aoidh/Archives/2024#Intractable_user and a similar issue was raised by Petextrodon Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive483, in which case both of us were warned not to engaged in edit warring. I feel that I try to abide by the warnings I have received, I am not sure if Petextrodon does. I might be wrong here; I will leave it to the admins to make a call on it and correct me if I have errored. Kalanishashika (talk) 15:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, when I meant correct, I did not mean content. As I understand the content discussion should take place in the talk page and this is meant for procedure. My question is, is what Petextrodon did (as explained in Petextrodon's reply) correct? Since I followed this same procedure. As I thought it was not a violation in general nor in particular per the warnings issued before. Finaly, I object to Petextrodon claims that the content they added was not in dispute. There was no final conclusion, my sincere attempt to compromise has been presented here as content not in dispute. Which I don't feel correct. Kalanishashika (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kalanishashika

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

Although the edit warring isn't particularly severe, they're an SPA and have continued pushing the same edit, often without discussion. I'm thinking a TBAN at this point as they've already been warned by admins. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, are you thinking TBAN from Tamil genocide or from Sri Lanka? I could see Tamil genocide, broadly construed, which would allow them to maybe learn at unrelated Sri Lankan culture or history, if they're interested primarily in Sri Lanka. Valereee (talk) 16:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with a tban from Tamil genocide, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I'll be closing with that topic ban if no one beats me to it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hoped this editor would come in here, but they don't seem to be a daily editor so maybe they haven't seen it. Kalanishashika, it would be much better for you to come in here and answer this than to ignore it. Valereee (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming in @Kalanishashika. Re: whether Petextedrom's edit is "correct", if you mean correct as to content, we don't get into that here. The only thing we get into here is things like whether an editor has violated a WP:contentious topic restriction. You're new here, so that probably doesn't mean much to you, but for what it's worth at this point, contentious topics are not a good place for brand-new editors to learn policy. There are warning banners at Talk:Tamil genocide, you've been warned about edit-warring and taken to the edit-warring noticeboard, and you've received an alert that you're editing in a contentious topic, so it looks like people have tried to work with you. Valereee (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a slightly wider TBAN, perhaps from "ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka". I am unimpressed by the slow edit-warring, but even less impressed by the conduct in this discussion. The genocide is arguably a subset of the civil war and ethnic conflict, and I don't think Kalanishashika ought to be editing about those. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is also a-ok by me. Any objections to this broader tban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather not a Sri Lanka TBAN but have no problems with the ethnic conflict (broadly construed) scope rather than just Tamil genocide. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is okay with me. Valereee (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ThatBritishAsianDude

ThatBritishAsianDude is indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Hinduism, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 11 October 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 ThatBritishAsianDude

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ThatBritishAsianDude (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/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation

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

9 October 2024 Presenting an article of faith as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice
8 October 2024 Same as previous.
Lengthy ongoing discussion, in which ThatBritishAsianDude persistently misrepresents multiple sources and bludgeons the discussion.
8 October 2024 Adds content not supported by source (source refers to the city of Ayodhya, not the site of the temple being discussed).
9 October 2024 Defends previous edit, adding some assumptions of bad faith for good measure.
23 September 2024 Edit-warring to remove maintenance tags added in good faith, with an active talk-page discussion [44] (ThatBritishAsianDude isn't the only offender in that discussion, to be clear). Edit is also based on a misconception; consensus isn't needed to add a maintenance tag.
22 September 2024 Edit-warring over the same maintenance tags as in the previous edit.
17 August 2024 As above.
17 August 2024 As above.
17 August 2024 As above.
17 August 2024 Misleading edit-summary used for content removal.
10 August 2024 Adding content not supported by cited sources.
Lengthy slow edit-war over South Asian Canadians, with no attempt to discuss issues on the talk page.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): Notified in December 2023.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The examples I have given are of the most recent issues; there is a lengthy history of warnings on ThatBritishAsianDude's talk page (please check history), including for mis-leading edit-summaries, poorly sourced content, and, in several instances, edit-warring. They appear to not be taking these seriously, and are being a net-negative in the topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My personal view is that Hinduism is theoretically not entirely covered by ARBIPA, but in practice tends to be: unlike ARBPIA, the geographic scope of these sanctions is huge, and the geographic scope of Hinduism more circumscribed than the Abrahamic religions. I do think - for instance - that the ritual practice of a Sri-Lankan Tamil is probably exempt and would need community consensus, but any areas where ThatBritishAsianDude has been a problem would be safely covered (demography of Hindus in Europe and the Americas, for instance, is covered, since those demographics are in large part immigrants from IPA countries). Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: True, and I was aware of that. My point was simply that ARBIPA by itself does not cover all of Hinduism, and I don't know that all of it is covered by the superset of existing CTs; you could of course TBAN from all of Hinduism that intersects with a CT (there are pieces of ARBAP2, for instance). An IPA ban seems simplest to me but of course I'm involved here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Notified. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning ThatBritishAsianDude

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 ThatBritishAsianDude

Honestly kind off suprised although this isn't the first time someone comes here based of a disagreement. It seems Vanamonde went all out to include things, I don't see how I broke any rules based of the mentioned recent edits from #1 to 5 and I'd suggest the admin concerning this issue to read that discussion on the talkpage, I did a lot of effort in that particular discussion while getting a lot of pushback from Vanamonde in particular, showing no signs of coming to a consensus. During the discussion I made no edits having learned from past disputes, I only made the edit after the discussion seemed dead and another editor seemed to agree with me.

As for #6 and 7, that discussion is still ongoing with there being many editors disagreeing with the tags added by that particular editor, saying these tags where added in good faith seems to be a word choice to just make me seem worse in this situation. As for #8 to 11, that had again to do with that particular editor, after received warnings I refrained from editing those pages after not feeling like putting in any effort in it anymore. #12 just seems to be Vanamonde's viewpoint since in the discussion following that (I didn't revert it after that), I asked many times where the consensus and these supposed sources came from still not having received clear answers. #13 just isn't right, since I made attempts to discuss it with that particular Editor.

Although this probably isn't the place, I think that Vanamonde has an Ideological bias on Wikipedia, mainly Anti-Hindu and Anti-Indian, I haven't been the only one to have noticed this through the years [45]. It is visible in the edit history and created articles alone. There also seems to be a small group of editors with a similar bias backing each other in related articles. To be clear I am not saying this with bad faith or Ill intent.

As for the contentious topics restriction that was notified, I don't think that is the best example since I got that notification after having only made one edit one that artcicle and i'd like to think I have grown a lot as a editor since then taking breaks when disputes arise or become to much. (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 I think you took that quote out of context, I don't actually think that now but was suggesting it since mainly Bangladeshi and Indian editors on that page where disagreeing with each other ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen And adding mythical without sources that mention it isn't ? If you read the discussion you can see that I am not Pro- or Anti-Hindu, I just thought that in this specific instance neutrality should be kept ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not that familiar with how it works, moved my comments up, might react to other comments but don't plan trying to defend myself against everything, i'd request users to look at the full picture ThatBritishAsianDude (talk) 21:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bluethricecreamman

Was curious about this account and saw this enforcement thread. here is a diff of arbitrary blanking of criticism of an organization associated with hindu nationalism movement.[46]

reason for blanking was suggestion that newspaper url was “not well sourced enough” in the edit summary Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning ThatBritishAsianDude

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

I am concerned by many of the diffs above. I am also concerned by the comment, In my opinion South Asian sources in general shouldn't be used here there is to much Recency bias and WP:COI going on here. I find dismissing an entire region of sources when writing about that region to be a problem in and of itself. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also concerned. Will have more to say later. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatBritishAsianDude I get what you're saying, but the next line was THe sources from India will obviously exaggerate while those from Bangladesh will do evertything to make it sound as good as possible. which doesn't help matters. I do appreciate you clarifying here your intent and your current perspective. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 Sri Lanka is its own contentious topic precisely because ArbCom decided it wasn't within IPA. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks quite clear from Vanamonde's diffs that ThatBritishAsianDude ought not to be editing about Hinduism. The persistent removals of the word "mythical" in articles, (when describing religious myths), and their bludgeoning insistence on removing it as "in bad taste" [sic] in this discussion is particularly egregious. There's a lot of wasting of competent editors' time and patience (which is Wikipedia's foremost resource) in that discussion. All the warnings on ThatBritishAsianDude's talkpage, (consult the page history for those), again by many competent editors, also speak loudly. I propose an indefinite topic ban. Not sure if a ban from Hinduism and Hindu nationalism would suffice (it might give rise to grey-area problems?), or if it needs to be from Indian subjects in general. Anybody? Bishonen | tålk 20:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
When I dive deeper into the diffs, I'll be on the lookout for hints about appropriate scope for a TBAN. Just from their comments here, which respond to the evidence provided with baseless allegations that V93 has an "ideological bias" that is "Anti-Indian", I'm having a hard time imaging a scope narrower than Indian subjects, broadly construed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a simple (perhaps too simple) solution would be to align the scope of a TBAN with that of the CTOP scope from WP:CT/IPA (which is All pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed,) though I'm not sure whether that inherently includes the religious scope to cover Hinduism as opposed to just the anti-nationalist scope. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've partially blocked ThatBritishAsianDude from Ram Mandir and Talk:Ram Mandir for a week for some of the recent conduct, especially the slow-motion edit-warring in the article and the very recent canvassing at the talk page. I see this as a minimum temporary measure, so please don't construe this as signalling that I think this enough. I considered a site block, but I'd like for them to participate here. If there's any more over-the-line or borderline conduct, I'm likely to block or unilaterally TBAN, though of course I'd love to see what the consensus view is here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A full ARBIPA ban would be good by me. But Swatjester's point is intriguing: does ARBIPA include Hinduism as such? I think it does. Bishonen | tålk 11:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
I would say that Hinduism wouldn't be covered explicitly, much as Islam and Judaism don't fall under ARBPIA. I would say that an IPA topic ban explicitly including Hinduism would be the ticket. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we can tban Hinduism under the contentious topics but a IPA wouldn't naturally cover it. I support IPA+Hinduism topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not thrilled with seeing a thread on X used as evidence that Vanamonde has an Ideological bias on Wikipedia, mainly Anti-Hindu and Anti-Indian, I haven't been the only one to have noticed this through the years. That's really troubling. TBAD, you are fairly inexperienced, but even with your limited experience I'd have expected you to understand that the opinion of one person on the internet isn't evidence. You should get more experience and understanding of policy before editing in contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raskolnikov.Rev

I withdraw this request. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:31, 15 October 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 Raskolnikov.Rev

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: XDanielx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Raskolnikov.Rev (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:PIA4

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

Recent incivility:

2024-10-11 "it is frankly absurd to pretend ..."
2024-10-12 "It seems like you're incapable of grasping ... I know it's embarrassing that you presented ..."
2024-10-12 "If you continue with this behavior, I will bring it up in arbitration. And I will revert your latest malicious edit ... do you think people will not bother to click on the links you provide?"
2024-10-09 "Since it's pro-Israel though I doubt you'll take that up ..."
2024-10-07 "PhotogenicScientist does not care about what the lede on the main page says ... this is merely a grasping at straws attempt to keep the padded references ..."
2024-10-03 "PhotogenicScientist quotes people out of context to make it appear they said something they did not say to maliciously edit pages ..."
2024-10-02 "However, that consensus will be implemented now that you decided to pad a side of the controversy that you believe is inherently superior ... be my guest, though I will add to my arbitration case against you"
2024-10-02 (edit) "... your previous desperate attempt at padding it ... consensus that you lost because no one bought your increasingly absurd arguments ... I know you think you're being very clever by desperately trying to find ways to pad the side you believe is superior to the other to violate NPOV, but that's not going to happen."
Date "Stop maliciously re-litigating this section ... Stop making malicious edits ... You will be brought to an arbitration case."
2024-09-30 "This is a bad faith actor who believes they can violate Wiki rules with impunity"
2024-09-30 "Nice try pretending it's just two editors who disagreed ... you bizarrely believe that Intel agencies from the West are inherently unbiased and more trustworthy"

As far as WP:AGF violations go, it doesn't get any clearer than calling multiple users "malicious" or a "bad faith actor", in forums that are not for dispute resolution. Other editors shouldn't have to tolerate such aggression.

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)

Given an alert about contentious topics, on 2024-07-31.
Threatened two editors with arbitration cases (see the quotes above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Raskolnikov.Rev's response seems sincere; I'm optimistic that this might be resolved without necessarily needing formal action. I'm open to just withdrawing this if that's an accepted/encouraged practice? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 22:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no objection (procedural or otherwise), I'm withdrawing this. Since Raskolnikov.Rev seems to sincerely intend to self-correct, it seems like no formal action is needed at this time. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 15:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2024-10-13

Discussion concerning Raskolnikov.Rev

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 Raskolnikov.Rev

I believe this is a reasonable complaint to raise, and I will make sure to not use emotive and needlessly abrasive language like that going forward, and always assume good faith. And to the editors who were on the other side of my barbs, I apologize, and I hope going forward we can all collaborate together with mutual respect to improve Wiki.

Here are some more detailed reflections on each cited case:

2024-10-11 "it is frankly absurd to pretend ..."

2024-10-12 "It seems like you're incapable of grasping ... I know it's embarrassing that you presented ..."

Here I was letting my emotions get the better of me, which again I'll make sure to not let happen again. To add some context: in the first case I was not referring to any specific editor, and it was part of a general statement where I cited extensive RS. Still, it was entirely needless to do that, and won't happen again.

Regarding the second one, @XDanielx initiated the language of being incapable of grasping something: "It seems like you haven't fully grasped...", but I shouldn't have mirrored it. That was a mistake that I will not make again.

2024-10-12 "If you continue with this behavior, I will bring it up in arbitration. And I will revert your latest malicious edit ... do you think people will not bother to click on the links you provide?"

Here I am referring to an edit by @XDanielx making an addition to a long-standing consensus text that was contested in Talk and did not have consensus, which they were aware of as they were a participant in said discussion.

Calling it a "malicious edit" however was entirely needless and unproductive. The second part of the quote is referring to a link provided that contains text which @XDanielx said was not contained in it, but again, it was needless and unproductive. I could and should have merely made the case without those remarks.

2024-10-09 "Since it's pro-Israel though I doubt you'll take that up ..."

Here an editor came into my talk to tell me to self-revert after misunderstanding Wikipedia policy concerning 1RR, as they later admitted. Another editor had actually violated it, and I was referring to that, but there was no point in doing that, completely needlessly abrasive. That will not happen again.

5 to 11 are from a lengthy debate where aforementioned editor violated 1RR, and repeatedly violated established consensus. My warnings were an attempt to persuade them to stop doing so, and they were not merely hollow threats, I have been working on a report concerning this editor.

But I realize that it is not constructive to say you are going to make a report about someone, and to refer to their edits as malicious.

If that is indeed the case, then it has to be shown in a report brought to arbitration, without the emotive language, and just the facts of the case.

I hope the admins can see that I invest time and thought into editing, and that my engagement with the various materials, though at times including needless emotionally charged language that I will immediately rectify and ensure will not happen again, is a good faith serious and constructive effort to help improve Wiki.

And I know I have to not only assume, but accept that that is also the case for others.

Thank you all for taking the time to read this. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan As I said on the page, I'm glad it was resolved and accepted your apology, and I hope you can also accept mine here. I shouldn't have brought up past issues that weren't pertinent to the case, and also shouldn't have made the other comment as I noted in my statement. Raskolnikov.Rev (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andrevan

As the respondent on diff 4, I agree that even though I was there making a mistake that I ended up striking and withdrawing, the response I received was hostile and bad faith, and accused me of disruption based on something that was grossly misinterpreted and flatly distorted from December 2023. I wasn't going to open an AE report on that alone but I was troubled by it and I'm glad that xDanielx opened a report so I can comment that yes, it was not an appropriate response to my polite, if completely wrong and mistaken message. Andre🚐 01:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Raskolnikov.Rev

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

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

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

[a]

[b]

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