Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Initiated by Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) at 14:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Est. 2021 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Alex 19041 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [2]
• [3]

Because of a content dispute about the Israel-Hamas war, instead of using the article talk page, the user decided to come complain and straight-up lie onto my user talk page. First he said the statement I had restored into the article lead was unsourced (which is false), then he admitted it was sourced but said the sources didn't support the statement (which is false), despite it already being detailed in the body of the article (by someone else, not something I wrote myself). Since I was not discussing nor reverting his edits, I asked him to take that content dispute away from my talk page. In fact, the content dispute was not even between us, as I had never reverted his edits, nor I edit-warred Lisa (the user who actually removed the disputed statement)[4]. I never had a dispute about this topic, nor I ever had a dispute with this user before; I don't know him, we never discussed nor edit-warred about anything before, yet he felt the need to insist on my talk page despite I repeatedly asked him to avoid posting lies onto my talk page. I'm open to have neutral-toned content disputes with good-faith editors (hopefully on the appropriate article talks), but I am not open to being stalked with blatant lies by such a (Personal attack removed) on my talkpage. It's not about being right or not about the content dispute topic, we all can make mistakes, it's about the undesired insistence by this specific user on my talk page. I don't want further undesired messages by this (Personal attack removed). Feel free to discuss about who's right and who's wrong, but please keep in mind this is not about the content dispute and I just want this specific user to get interaction-banned from my user space because of his blatant lies.  – Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 14:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Maybe, but I think this is probably the best way to get deeper into it. I actually also have doubts about his account potentially being a sockpuppet, given his weird edit pattern and his sudden interest over that article lead, but I can't further explore that as I lack the tools to check it. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenneth Kho: I actually feel like I've had far too much patience, given the bunch of lies and accusations he wrote out of nothing onto my talk page, stubbornly ignoring my repeated requests to stop. I'll never be kinder than that to (Personal attack removed) trying to stalk and harass me straight-up lying onto my talk page. If that's what you expected, forget about it. I'm open to respect anyone, but I'm not here to bow my head (Personal attack removed). Feel free to report me for this stance. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: I followed your advice and filed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Alex 19041, but I don't know how to close this one. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I quite simply do not think POV editing, especially to that degree is acceptable on an article like this and I wanted to let the user know that I don't think it's acceptable. I did this in what I thought was a friendly manner to immediately be called a propagandist which I think says a lot about the other user involved here.

I wouldn't really differentiate between something being unsourced or the sources containing speculation or simply not containing what the Wikipedia article says it does. If he had wanted to add this POV into the article he can from the point of speculation as it just that rather than the actual fact it was presented as.

The only point I am willing to concede is that I could have discussed this on the article talk page but since it was just this user performing these edits I thought it was better to approach them directly.

I also am aware that I cannot edit on that topic but that doesn't mean my voice shouldn't be heard on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex 19041 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I maybe shouldn't have gone on his talk page but I am not the one accusing others of being propagandists. Alex 19041 (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that @Alex 19041: is not extended confirmed (Special:Contributions/Alex_19041), so does that not mean they should not be editing about this topic anyway?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Alex 19041, perhaps is to would not be too much to ask that you not post to Est. 2021's talk page, or ping them, or engage with them in any way? What Kenneth Kho says below. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 19041: Pretty sure it does mean your voice cannot be heard in this matter, especially given the, shall we say, tenor of that voice. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DFO high-fives Crunchy Serial below. @Alex 19041: please confine your posts to your own section. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Est. 2021: please confine your posts to your own section, Thanks. And yes, AN/I is better suited for this. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This case should be dismissed. An admin should warn the petitioner for filing an ArbCom case on their day one of PIA editing in addition to incivility, who should have known better for having 14500 edits. An admin should warn the respondent for ECR violation by PIA editing while having 20 edits. Both are reminded to sign their comments. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Est. 2021: If you just want an IBAN, file at WP:AN/I. That way, you only waste the time of a few commentators. Here, you're going to waste the time of the arbitration committee, the arbitration clerks, and a few commentators. Serial (speculates here) 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible, or likely, that this request was intended for WP:AE? It would seem an entire new arbitration case is overkill when it would be pretty easy to go to AE and ask that the ECR restriction on Israel / Palestine be enforced. Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Est. 2021 I would suggest you've been a bit on-edge at multiple venues today. I don't know what's going on with you that might be causing this but it might be a good idea to step back and take a breath here. That being said @Alex 19041 has now been informed about ECR by multiple editors and hopefully now understands they should not be editing I/P articles. In fact I've suggested they should learn the ropes of Wikipedia before involving themselves in any CTOP. Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This can definitely be taken care of at WP:AE, and looks to be a more straightforward case than a fair amount of what is typically evaluated at that board. The next arb to see this request should go ahead and close it, or else Est. 2021 can withdraw and re-file there. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• This should just go to AE. Any arbs object to just closing this? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't need more comments on a case that is obviously going to be declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Refer to AE. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]