Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive343

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

IdanST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

1 month block; see this thread on user's talk page.

Administrator imposing the sanction

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

2024-10-27

I was blocked for 1 month. I was not aware of the edits on which the admin ScottishFinnishRadish based the violations leading to this block because the admin failed to inform me. However, after a couple of weeks, I recently saw a comment by the same admin stating that the edits leading to the block "were [10], [11], and [12], which are also clear ECR violations."

I appeal on this block because I believe these were justified edits because:

1. This edit: violation WP:ECR. It's clearly an edit request under WP:ECR Section A.1. - pointing out on a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. The article presents Yahya Sinwar as the political head and Mohammed Deif as the military head, but for the opposing side, only Colonels are listed. Senior military officers like Brigadier General Avi Rosenfeld, General Yaron Finkelman, and Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi , all of whom participated, were omitted. I didn’t even include the political head, Benjamin Netanyahu. The admin deleted this edit request and used it, along with two other edits, as grounds for blocking me while violating WP:NPOV and WP:ADMINACCT.
2. This edit: violation WP:ECR. It's basically similiar to the first edit (request) under WP:ECR Section A.1., just in a reply in the "Talk" section, only this time I've added the political figures "defence minister Yoav Gallant and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu", in contrast with the political Hamas head Yahya Sinwar. However, I acknowledge that maybe these suggestions were not very comprehensive and clear and I'll try to improve my editing.
3. This edit: violation WP:ECR. I'll explain the background. Beforehand I've left a barnstar on this user as it's allowed, and even encouraged, under WP:BARN: "Remember, any user can give out Barnstars! You do not have to be an administrator!". Then, the same admin deleted my message ("reason: WP:ECR") and included that in a previous block for 1 week. Now, the same admin deleted this message and stating, again, "reason: WP:ECR". I've read ECR rules and there is no statement forbidding users with fewer than 500 edits from leaving messages or barnstars on others’ talk pages.

In conclusion, I strongly believe these 3 edits were justified.

Regardless of this appeal, I want to apologize to ScottishFinnishRadish for my behavior on my own talk page. I should not have acted that way, violating WP:NPA and being unprofessional. My belief that I was wrongly blocked, combined with the admin’s failure to specify my violations, does not excuse my behavior, and for that, I apologize. IdanST (talk) 14:14, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copying from IdanST's talk by request:

-Reply to xDanielx comment-

"Copied over by request. This was also appealed at AN previously. — xDanielx"

This was not appealed at AN. What I appealed at AN was the 1-week block, which I appealed after it expired, and it had nothing to do with the current 1-month block. IdanST (talk) 4:07 am, Today (UTC−4)Reply

-Reply to CoffeeCrumbs comment-

"There were more violations than listed here and it'd be an enormous stretch even to describe more than maybe one or two of them as having the character of a specific edit request"

I have replied regarding all violations that SFR stated were the cause of the 1-month block.

"Given the appeal at AN a few days ago got no support"

I have not appealed the 1-month block anywhere until now, at AE.

Valereee (talk) 14:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Included in that first edit that I reverted was this, which is a plain ECR violation. As for the initial edit, WP:ER says Any edit request must be accompanied by a detailed and specific description of what changes need to be made. As they were already blocked for ECR violations I would have expected them to familiarize themselves with the expectations of making edit requests. If not followed up by a clear ECR violation I would likely have left the initial edit as a good-faith borderline case. The barnstar is clearly a violation, and leaving the same barnstar for the same editor was part of the reason for the first block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, I blocked them for a week for ECR violations on October 4th, and then for a month on October 13th for further violations. Both times Doug Weller pulled their TPA for personal attacks. [1] They said during the AN appeal I want to clarify that I appealed the first block. I didn't appeal the second block yet because I am not aware of the alleged violations for which I was banned for one month. I'm not sure if this was an elaborate ruse to get two bites at the apple for appealing, or just unfamiliarity with our processes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Copied over by request. This was also appealed at AN previously. Edit: seems IdanST's intention was to appeal the initial 1-week block at AN, though others understood it as appealing the 1-month block. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is even a close thing. There were more violations than listed here and it'd be an enormous stretch even to describe more than maybe one or two of them as having the character of a specific edit request. I don't see the WP:BARN argument as having any merit either because WP:ECR doesn't claim to be an exhaustive list of the contexts in which a non-ECR editor is not allowed to discuss the topic; the controlling language is all pages and articles related to the topic area, with exceptions being noted, not inclusions. Given the appeal at AN a few days ago got no support and the filer wasn't that far from seeing increased restrictions based on the appeal, I'd recommend the filer retract their appeal while it's still only a month. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The filer insists the previous AN appeal was of the one week block, but the linked AN appeal is clearly of a one-month block and filed on October 22. The one-week block expired nearly two weeks before the 22nd (the 11th). There appears to be a bit of either lawyering or disorganization; the filer appealed the judgment of the second block and the second block's conclusion but talked about the evidence of the moot first block, but the supporting evidence that led to the second block was presented and evaluated by the commnunity as well. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first edit linked to, while not ideal per WP:EDITXY, is pretty clearly an edit request. The inferred request is "remove these people who are not of general rank from the list". To penalize an editor for a mere procedural issue in how they formatted their edit request seems to be heavy handed and non-constructive - as a similar example, would someone be penalized for making a well-thought out, sourced, and non-controversial edit request just because they didn't use the edit request template to make their talk page post? I hope not - so I would support giving this editor the benefit of the doubt on the first edit that they were trying to comply with the restriction and thought that pointing out a discrepancy/inaccuracy counted as an edit request.

Edits 2 and 3 are clearly against the ECR, however. Edit 2 is clear engagement in discussion that did not amount to making an edit request or clarifying a reasonable edit request the person previously made in compliance with ECR (such as adding a source or offering an alternative wording upon request). Edit 3 is not permitted by exceptions in ECR and the appellant seems to be trying to rely on other policies to attempt to justify the barnstar award. The confusion is somewhat understandable, but upon thought such understanding falls apart - in any other situation where there is a conflict between two requirements of equal stature (real life law, for example), people must abide by the stricter applicable requirement.

But it's unimportant to know that. What's important is that they've shown through their edits that they're unable to contribute constructively in this area - both through inability to wait until they're extended-confirmed before contributing, as well as through their incivility, accusations of propaganda, and other edits whether they were edit requests or not. There's a clear solution here - an indefinite topic ban that cannot be appealed until the editor is extended confirmed and such appeal will almost certainly fail unless they edit in other areas of the encyclopedia constructively first. This gives the user a clear cut rule - do not edit related to the Israel-Palestine conflict anywhere on Wikipedia - at all, while also giving them the opportunity to gain experience and show the community that, eventually, (at a minimum) after they're extended confirmed, they may be given a second chance to return to this topic area. I'm unsure if there's precedent for basically "increasing" a sanction at an AE appeal, but if the user is willing to agree to an enforced topic ban and abide by it, I would support removing the block and allowing them a chance to show they will abide by the topic ban rather than forcing them to wait a month (or the time remaining) then begin doing that. I support a topic ban regardless - otherwise the user will likely shoot themselves in the foot trying to edit in the topic area after their block expires. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• IdanST, I'll agree that the first diff you posted is an edit request. (And it would help prevent confusion in cases like this if you'd format such requests as formal WP:edit requests.) Your second two diffs do not appear to be edit requests. You are literally not allowed yet to discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia, including giving out barnstars to other editors for your hard work on Wikipedia and fighting propaganda made by other editors regarding Arab–Israeli conflict. You need to basically ignore all articles in that topic. Since you were posting about the topic at both article talk and user talk, the only real other choice the editors had was to p-block from talk space and user talk space, and a block from talk space necessitates a block from article space, too. So really an full block isn't much more restrictive.

Your statement tells me you do not yet understand what the block was about. If you haven't, please read WP:GAB. You aren't likely to convince people you should be unblocked if you don't understand the reason you were blocked, and from the diffs you provided it seems clear you don't. Valereee (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting IdanST has requested via email three days to allow them time to clarify. They've posted a couple of clarifications on their talk, which I will copy over. Valereee (talk) 14:42, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The way I read the contentious topic appeal procedures Idan could have chosen to appeal to AN or to AE. They choose to appeal to AN and had their appeal rejected days ago. As such I think they don't get to make this appeal again to AE - the consensus at AN matters and stands. They can choose to appeal to ArbCom via WP:ARCA and if Idan agrees, we can carry over the appeal for them there. This is different than someone appealing an indefinite sanction (e.g. topic ban), where there could be multiple appeals to AN or AE and could be switch between the two forums. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, IdanST is saying (in the clarification I just posted; maybe we had an EC) that this is an appeal of a different block than they were appealing at AN. Valereee (talk) 14:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no second block according to the block log. The AN appeal was for a 1 month block by SFR. That block is still in effect and so there can be no other block to appeal but the one which has already been declined by AN. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  RE:SFR's comment about the first vs second block, regardless of what Idan's intent was the bulk of the discussion (such as it was) focused either on Idan's second block or their overall fitness. I find that AN discussion to be a consensus to still be in force, which I should have made clear in the comment above. In fact, I find it as further evidence of the kind of boundary pushing and gaming the system which the contentious topic procedures explicitly prohibit. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would decline this appeal both on the merits and on procedural grounds, per Valereee and Barkeep49, respectively. And I note that if they hope to engage with this topic on Wikipedia, continually re-litigating the same matter does not bode well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been open for a week, and there is no appetite for granting this - as such I am closing this appeal as declined. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Pyramids09 (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#Discretionary sanctions, the consensus required provision at Zionism

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

1. 05:38, 31 October 2024 violation of the consensus required provision, restoring the edit that was reverted previously. Prior edits were this and this. It is also a dishonest edit summary, claiming that a substantive change to content was simply "Formatting and streamlining"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 24 October 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user was reminded of the consensus required provision on their talk page 25 October after they violated the 1RR (first revert, second revert). They said they would propose on talk page. To date the user has 0 edits on the talk page.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

Hello. I am not going to try to defend my actions, because I am clearly in the wrong. I did not familiarize myself with the rules around contentious topics, such as the I/P conflict. I have been informed of my mistakes, and am now going through the proper procedure about editing. Thank you. Pyramids09 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I should have been more clear with my edit summary, but there was no malicious intent to hide the edit. I just should have been more specific. Pyramids09 (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from response to Valereee in admin section) Yes, I should have gotten consensus, but saying that all Zionist organizations use similar methods to achieve their political goals is nonsense. The Haganah policy of Havlagah was completely different to the methods that Irgun and especially Lehi used in conflict. But once again, should have gotten consensus Pyramids09 (talk) 22:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the most experienced user, and the consensus-required restriction isn't obvious. I know it's one of the items in the edit notice, but it's visually similar to the usual extended-confirmed notice which we're all used to skipping over. Users probably need to be personally notified before we can really expect compliance. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XDanielx: Reported editor was advised in edit summary here and acknowledged the crp here along with a statement that they would seek consensus on the talk page. The subsequent reversion with a disguised edit summary simply ignores this. Still, at least now, they are making an attempt in talk. Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This is a clear-cut violation of the consensus-required provision. I would like to hear from Pyramids09 to determine what the most appropriate response would be. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm fine with the warning SFR proposes, but I'm inclined to think a page-block is also in order. Of the very many highly charged pages in this area, Zionism is possibly the most contentious - so if someone feels the need to be deceptive while editing it (which they still haven't acknowledged), a break from it feels indicated to me. A page-block is pretty mild, as sanctions go. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I normally go with a week pblock for a first offense. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So, a week pblock + logged warning? I can close with that in a little while if I hear no objections. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Plain consensus required violation, and I'm also not happy with the false edit summary when yet again reverting to their preferred prose. Normally I go with a one week pblock for first offenses like this, but the edit summary might be enough to step it up a bit. Waiting to see their statement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Pyramids09, can you explain your misleading edit summary here? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm thinking a warning for edit warring/violating consensus required, and for using disingenuous edit summaries, with a note that further violations will likely result in sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Pyramids09, you've edited since this was filed, so we can assume you've seen the notification. Would you like to make a statement? This is not something that will go away if you ignore it. Valereee (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pyramids09, "More clear" with the edit summary? I'm having a really hard time seeing it as simply not being clear enough. You changed:

  Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie primarily in their presentation and ethos, having adopted similar strategies to achieve their political goals, in particular in the use of violence and compulsory transfer to deal with the presence of the local Palestinian, non-Jewish population.

  to:

  Differences within the mainstream Zionist groups lie both in their presentation and ethos, as well as strategies to achieve political goals.

How is this simply "formatting and streamlining"? How is this simply not clear enough or not specific enough? It completely changes the content in a profound way. I think you should think about what you're telling us here. Valereee (talk) 22:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yes, I should have gotten consensus, but saying that all Zionist organizations use similar methods to achieve their political goals is nonsense. You seem to be saying "I wanted to change content at a CTOP because I knew that content was incorrect, but I didn't want to have to go argue about it first, so I decided to use a vague and disingenuous edit summary, hoping no one would check." Valereee (talk) 13:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Archives908 (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Archives908 has engaged in slow edit warring against multiple editors in National Assembly (Artsakh), resorting to POV-pushing (repeatedly adding controversial information about a dissolved entity still existing using questionable sources) before consensus is reached. They were warned that this behaviour was unconstructive and were asked to revert their edits while the discussion is ongoing [10] but disregarded the warning.

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

• [11] Archives908 is aware of AA2-related articles constituting contentious topics.

• [12] Archives908 was previously reported for mass-reverting edits in AA2 articles without regard for content (the report had to do with undoing the edits of a topic-banned user in violation of WP:GRAVEDANCE) and appeared to offer a sincere apology for doing so: [13], leading to the case being closed without sanctions.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14]

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.

User Parishan made one edit, which was reverted one time by myself on National Assembly (Artsakh). We have since been civilly discussing the edit on the talk page according to WP:BRD guidelines in an attempt to reach WP:CON. Neither of us have engaged in an WP:EW or violated either WP:3RR or even WP:2RR. I am utterly confused by this report. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in 2021, I was a relatively unexperienced editor and was unaware about the policies regarding reverting edits made by confirmed sockpuppets. I apologized, educated myself of those policies, and never violated those rules since. This old report, from almost half a decade ago, is in my opinion irrelevant to this topic as I have never "mass reverted edits" made by a sockpuppet ever since. Archives908 (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to provide additional clarification. Parishan made this edit on October 28. I restored the last stable version (only once) because Parishan's edit was factually incorrect. In Parishan's WP:ES, they used the word unlikely, implying uncertainty in their own edit. After the revert, we proceeded to have a very civil discussion regarding the status of the National Assembly of Artsakh. Parishan, at first, asserted that the body is defunct. Then on October 29, Parishan stated that the body does engage in "local media outreach". Yet, sources I found showed that the National Assembly has been actively operating in Armenia. From releasing official documents, organizing rallies, press briefings and protests, and meeting with leaders of the 2024 Armenian protests. It's significantly more then just "local media outreach". In any case, we were trying to reach a WP:CON. There was no WP:EW. As you see here ([15]) I even recommended a fair alternative by suggesting we create a new article which would be centered around the government-in-exile in Yerevan, while the current article could be focused on the former legislative body in Stepanakert. This would have been an ideal solution for both of our concerns, but my proposal was ignored. I abided by WP:BRD ethos. Parishan's "B"old edit was "R"everted, and then we both "D"iscussed. Parishan did ask me to revert my edit, but in all honesty, I skimmed the users message very fast that day and totally read over their request (by mistake). I should have taken time to read their response more carefully, and for that I do apologize. However, I acted fully in accordance with WP:BRD ethos and did not violate WP:2RR. I ask the Admins for leniency. I will certainly work on reading responses more diligently in the future. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm definitely not happy to see a long term WP:1AM edit war in a contentious topic. The number of reverts is over the top, so an only warning for edit warring is about the lightest touch I think we should use here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd support an only warning. Archives908, realize the other option is a likely tban from AA2, and that would be the likely outcome if you ended up back here again. Valereee (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm a bit surprised everyone's on board with just a warning for what happened here (including trying to pretend the issue here is from 2021 rather than diffs about 2024), but sure. I would just say that if this were to repeat we'd be going to an indefinite topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, my position is that the minimum we should do is an only warning. I'd be fine just going straight to a topic ban, but I figured I'd mention the lightest action we should take firs since I'm pretty sure I already have a reputation as a hanging judge. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any appetite to going straight to a topic ban in this case? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at their top edited articles, this editor is interested almost completely in Armenia. Could we do a time-limited topic ban rather than an indef? My reasoning is that an AE indef tban is incredibly difficult to appeal. With a stated caveat to the editor: we want you to show you can edit outside of Armenia unproblematically, so if you just stop editing for (length of tban) and then jump right back in to editing problematically there, I'd support an indef tban. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why I like time and edit limited tbans instead. 6 months and 500 or 1000 edits requires them to edit outside of the topic and gives those assessing an appeal something to look at. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would have also proposed a time limited topic ban (though I'd have done 3 months). This editor has 2700+ edits over the last six months and so I think a 6 month + 500 (non-gamed) edit sanction is reasonable in this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Works for me, either a 3- or 6-month, + 500 non-gamed. Valereee (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose a topic-ban at this time. The disputed edits relate to a single issue, and there is currently a discussion on the talkpage that should resolve the disagreement. Moreover, the broad scope of a typical AA2 topic-ban far exceeds what would be necessary here. A logged warning to move sooner to the talkpage when edits are reverted would be much more proportionate to the offense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think this rises to the level of a TBAN. Reverting different editors over a long period of time is what you expect to see if there is a popular misconception about something - my edit-history looks like this not infrequently. The latest revert is not ideal - they should have the discussion play out - but this is the same STATUSQUO vs ONUS problem we've seen elsewhere, and for that alone I'm not willing to sanction. The statement here is more of a problem - there is distinct disingenuousness on display. But taken in sum I would prefer a logged warning, or possibly a 1RR restriction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @ScottishFinnishRadish, Valereee, Barkeep49, and Newyorkbrad: It would seem we're not in agreement here. This has been open a while and we should move toward closure; absent consensus I would suggest closing with no action, but if any of you still feel strongly that a sanction is needed I'm open to hearing arguments for it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see a rough consensus for a logged/only warning, with the assumption that Barkeep49 is open to a lesser sanction if that is where consensus is headed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there any opposition to a logged/only warning? Valereee (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was only proposing a limited topic ban and while I think that better, have no real objections to a logged warning as long as we're in general agreement that if this behavior continues - particularly if there is further self-description of their behavior which is plainly contradicted by facts - that the next step might be a full topic ban rather than something more targeted. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That is the rub, getting a second chance with a warning means the next slip up, even if not terribly severe, will probably jump a ways up the ladder of sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing with a warning, and a note that a next offence will probably receive more stringent sanction. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Chess (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

CoolAndUniqueUsername (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:PIA4, specifically the implied ban on gaming edits to bypass the 500/30 rule.

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

CoolAndUniqueUsername has obviously gamed the system to get ECP.

1. Xtools contribution analysis CoolAndUniqueUsername put down 500 edits in July. After acquiring extended-confirmed on July 30th, this editor has switched most of their editing to commenting on talk pages and RfCs near exclusively in the Israel-Palestine conflict area.
2. July 31st The day after getting ECP, immediately starts editing Netanyahu's page.
3. October 22 October 22 Attempted to use their EC perms to canvass editors to an RfC on the Jewish Chronicle, saying I thought folks here might be interested, since I see Islamophobia is a top priority.
4. July 1 Samisawtak's guide for editors in the Tech for Palestine influence operation says From Ivana: This category contains almost 150k articles with small css errors that anyone can fix. If you click on a specific subcategory it tells you exactly what is wrong and how to fix it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:CS1_errors It's pretty clear that CoolAndUniqueUsername was following this guide given that most of their contributions to boost edit count involved fixing cs1 errors.

• Interaction analysis with Smallangryplanet List of common articles There is a considerable amount of overlap for someone that doesn't edit very often. More specifically, most of the talk pages[16] CoolAndUniqueUsername edited in the Israel-Palestine area are in common with Smallangryplanet. The exceptions are Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation, Talk:Palestinian suicide attacks, Talk:Benjamin Netanyahu, Talk:Gaza Strip, and Talk:Code Pink. But even on articles like Code Pink, there is tag-teaming behaviour. [17] [18]

@Barkeep49: The issue isn't socking, they're likely different people. The issue is there's an influence campaign offwiki run by Tech4Palestine. We know a member of that campaign has given guidance to that campaign to fix CS1 errors as a way to boost edit counts. CoolAndUniqueUsername shows up a month after this guidance and starts fixing a lot of CS1 errors. Then, 6 days after getting EC, adds onto the exact same section as Smallangryplanet on No Tech For Apartheid,[19] backing up a move review as an "uninvolved editor" on Gaza genocide for Smallangryplanet,[20] !votes on another requested move for SmallAngryPlanet, [21] and that's just within 7 days of getting EC.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: You're right. I would like to withdraw this request in favour of the massive WP:ARCA thread that'll potentially result in a new case. The more I start looking the more I realize I can't fit what I want to say into this thread. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More info at WP:ARCA: [22]

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

• Alert

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

They're clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Building up an account with hundreds of minor fixes in article space to get EC, then immediately quitting once hitting the EC boundary is very suspicious. It's more indicative of a person trying to farm edits on an account for the sole purpose of influencing discussions/content on-wiki.

The strategy of making several edits to fix CS1 errors then switching to POV-pushing is the MO of the "Tech for Palestine" Discord/influence operation so this is the biggest giveaway.

Fixing CS1 errors isn't the average beginner task. I think this user is part of an offsite influence campaign that uses EC accounts to swing discussions.

@Butterscotch Beluga: Thank you, I forgot them. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[23]

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.

Gaming ECR is not to be condoned, pretty sure that fixing maintenance categories is engaged in by more than a few, here's a recent example, the question arises whether there is actual evidence of reported editor being instructed by T4P (for ease of writing) rather than it being pretty clear.Selfstudier (talk) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A report of ECR gaming is now something else altogether? Are we going to run in parallel, a discussion at a potential ARCA and another here? Almost sure that's not the right thing to be doing. Selfstudier (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I need to comment here since months ago I shared a category with CS1 errors so that means anyone fixing them is my pawn. I'll just link to what I have already said in ARCA here. Thanks. - Ïvana (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went and notified Smallangryplanet at their talk page as they are currently being accused of tag-teaming & participation in an off-site campaign - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not sure why I've been pinged here. As far as I can tell it just looks like CoolAndUniqueUsername and I have similar interests, we've interacted on a talk page maybe once or twice? But again, it is not against wikipedia policy to be interested in the same things as other editors. This feels like WP:ASPERSIONS because of a coincidence, rather than a serious accusation. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• For me, this is firmly in the grey area of gaming and the offense is a few months old at this point. There were a lot of different small edits, de-orphaning, adding to lists, cs1, as well as some more substantial edits. Some of the maintenance work has continued after they gained EC, but since September almost all of their edits have been ARBPIA related. It's a real noodle cooker. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Chess, I think this user is part of an offsite influence campaign that uses EC accounts to swing discussions You'll need the regular Arbitration committee for that. AE tastes great, and has fewer calories, but it's not quite the same as the real thing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• EC-gaming is evident. The normal response would be to pull the EC flag, which I would support doing in this case. Absent other evidence of the substance of their edits being a problem, however, I don't see a justification for other sanctions. I also found their early edits suspicious enough to run a check, but I found nothing suspicious. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• For me this is more ECR box checking. Their intent is clearly to get ECR but the edits they did were of benefit to the encyclopedia; for me ECR gaming is doing things like clearly doing something in multiple edits which could have been a single edit or making and undoing your own work or messing around in userspace. I am also unsure how, if we pulled ECR, they would qualify to regain it. In my mind we said "here are the rules to be able to edit in this topic area" we have an editor clearly motivated to do that and they followed the rules, and for me they also mostly followed the intent of the rules. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The things that concern me are the string of CS1 fixes within days of registering an account, and the link additions that I think are quite likely bot/LLM assisted (see this, for instance). I have yet to find a clear-cut example of a violation of something more serious than OVERLINK, so perhaps you're right that the intent of the rules has not been broken. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In my several trips to AN related to EC gaming I saw a rough consensus that rushing to make minor edits and fixes, even if constructive, in an obvious effort to gain EC is seen as gaming. There's a lot of grey area, however. I looked at this editor in the past, but with the mix of CS1, linking, and some more substantial edits, as well as some questions, and a new article led me to let it slide at the time as not completely obvious gaming. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I ran a CU on this user even before Chess' most recent comment and found no technical evidence of any socking. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm willing to be persuaded that this is just the right side of the line. I have spotchecked other contribs and found no issues. Page overlap in and of itself tells us nothing - at the moment I would expect every ARBPIA editor to have interacted on a core set of pages. If there is private evidence of canvassing or other off-wiki coordination it needs to go to ARBCOM, nothing I have seen here is sufficient for sanctions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, I looked into this before and declined to act. There's no firm consensus among the community of where the line is, and this is far enough in the grey area, and months past the time for some action. Arbcom has Chess' statement, so I don't think there's anything for us to do here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I was the only one inclined to do anything here, I'm going to close with no action taken. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

GhostOfDanGurney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Southasianhistorian8 (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:ARBIPA

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

1. 00:22, 2024 October 26 Raises temperature of an existing talk page discussion discussion with multiple personal attacks, accuses me of "preemptive[ly] poisoning the well", of "nearing WP:BULLYING conduct" and "trying to muffle Indian viewpoints and opinions".
2. 00:38, 2024 October 26 Ignores WP:ONUS to restore content that was removed without first getting consensus to restore the content. Continues the "muzzle" PA against me in the edit summary.
3. 01:39, 2024 October 26 Second revert in an hour, reverts my attempt at a compromise with further personal attacks/WP:ABF in the edit summary about my motives ("and intentionally caricutrarizing [sic] his quote".
4. 01:41, 2024 October 26 Gives me a level-4 (!) template further accusing my attempt at compromise as "WP:POINTy" (aka disruptive editing).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 20:47, 2022 May 30 Indeff'd for abusing multiple accounts in the area of conflict as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Suthasianhistorian8/Archive. Unblocked in December 2022 following a standard offer.
2. 19:06, 2021 November 11 48hrs for edit warring in the area of conflict.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:31, 2021 November 27 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SAH appears to have little to no good faith towards me, making PAs and airing old dirty laundry in an article talk page discussion which prior to their arrival had remained focused on content(Permlink to version of talk page prior SAH posting). They take issue with my use of the phrases "sour grapes" and "cherry picked" when referring to content in my edit summaries, but then turn around and make PAs and aspersions in theirs. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm here because I don't know how else to respond to "repeated-PAs-on-CTOP-article-talkpage-into-level-4-template" and if the statement in defense of evidence of PAs being made is to exceed their wordcount entirely on the other party, then that is pretty clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that is not conductive to editing on this project. SAH's ignores their own behaviour entirely, bringing up misassumptions about stale behaviour, either twisting my words or outright fabricating them.

but you omit that you copied content that I had written in that article into Khalistan movement without attribution,[24] so I don't know why you're all of a sudden questioning my sincerity in there? - I restored content rather than adding it for the first time which I believed I had.[25]

"Ghost, in his own words..." not only is this stale, this is an outright lie. For it to be "in my words" I'd have to have actually said the alleged statement, which I did not nor did I even attempt to infer.

Reporting an unsolicited apology is a low blow, doubly so that it's stale.

SAH also accuses others of POV-pushing[26], so mentioning here about my general comment on how "pro-India skewing" should be a PA doesn't seem fair. They also call out others for not heeding WP:ONUS[27] so their failure to do so themself tonight is also dubious. These two diffs also happen to have both occurred at Khalsa, where SAH was trying to restore content critical of that Sikh community.

I believe, given the above information that a topic ban from Sikhism, the Khalistan movement and related topics, broadly construed for SAH be considered. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks for your time. My main issue that led me here is that yes, this was 100% a content dispute prior to SAH entering the dispute with diff #1 in which SAH wants me to discuss content, but with an entire first paragraph dedicated to a character assassination/repeated PAs towards me, then giving me a level 4 template on my talk page in diff #4 threatening to have me blocked for attempting a compromise on some of the content.

The Canada-India row relates to the murder of a Sikh man in Canada who advocated for an independent Sikh state in India. Canada has accused India of involvement in the murder. Pages related to the row have been attacked by IP- and low-edit-count-users, often adding content which pushes the POV of the Indian government

SAH's contributions show that they are a SPA with a focus on Sikh topics. They are heavily involved in removing content that they see as pro-Sikh,[28] and adding content that they see as anti-Sikh.[29], including content directly related to the Canada-India row.[30]

As an SPA (who has also taken the Standard Offer, which includes point 3), SAH should take care to not turn content disputes in their chosen topic area (which they are aware has CTOP status) personal by accusing those they disagree with of poisoning the well/bullying/etc in a post in which they are asking that person to engage on content. Rather, this can be seen as trying to intimidate another editor (me) out of the topic area, and I hope that isn't the case. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) What I should have done differently was explain to the editor (which, as you point out, only had four edits) how I felt that the content that they added amounted to "pro-India sour grapes", and with time to look back, acknowledge that I should have done this without using the phrase in question. However, SAH accusing me of "poisoning the well" on the article talk page in response to this is much worse because it is a direct PA directed at another editor at a venue which should be 100% focused on content. If SAH had an issue with my conduct, a message (NOT a template) on my talk page laying it out would have been much more appreciated.

2) Your "diff 2" is identical to your "diff 1" so I assume you're talking about this in response to this? The comments I added were said in this source which I mistakenly forgot to add and had been reverted and templated before I realized that error. Adding quotes verbatim is a common practice in Canadian politics articles (I point to Pierre Poilievre as an example), especially when content is disputed, so if it's against policy, fine, but again, a level-4 template is unjustified as a first warning. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[31]

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.

This is a completely unnecessary escalation, which I believe to be an extension of Ghost's firm convictions that Wikipedia ought to amplify pro-Canadian narratives and vitiate Canada's opponents. The bizarre thing about this conflict is that I'm a Canadian citizen myself, and have been living in Canada for over 95% of my life. My stance is that Wikipedia should not overtly amplify/muzzle pro-Canadian or pro-Indian narratives respectively, but neutrally explain both sides' arguments.

• Inflammatory edit summaries on 2022 Conservative Party leadership election-it's really something when Brian Lilley of all people is calling you out on your conspiracy BS, rmv garbage, Baber's another one who's gone down the conspiracy rabbit hole, using a juvenile nickname for a political candidate.

• Posted ridiculous, inflammatory content on his user page ("NEVER VOTE CONSERVATIVE FUCK THE CONVOY Resisting the Christo-fascist takeover of North America") and incited unnecessary arguments on the 2022 leadership election t/p-[32], yet has the audacity to scold others for affronting his biases and convictions.

• One the page Air India Flight 182, Ghost, was removing hard facts from the article on the basis that the edits affronted his pro-Canadian sensibilites-[33], contravening Wikipedia's policies on NOTCENSORED. He then extensively edit-warred with numerous editors, yet dishes out the same accusations against others-[34]

• He then basically admitted to following a user whom he was engaged in a dispute with, and left him a message on Twitter-[35]. It's fair to infer that the message he left was likely antagonistic in nature, given the heated edit war that preceded and his need to give an apology.

• On the page Hardeep Singh Nijjar, Ghost was tacitly vitiating a Globe and Mail report, which included some fairly unsavoury details about the subject at hand. Notable examples include this edit in which he removed details which were clearly written in the article. Here he added a disingenuous descriptor that would make it appear as though the relationship between Dhaliwal, an arrested associate of Nijjar's, and some mutual associates who admitted that Nijjar was involved in clandestine activities, was based on hearsay, contrary to the report's tone. Here, he disingenuously attributed the descriptor "un-credible" to testimonies from people in India's custody to the Globe report, even though the Globe report itself attributed this claim to a Canadian-Sikh organization

• Remarkably, while Ghost admitted to having a pro-Canadian bias, he regularly scolds others for "pro- India skewing", which should be regarded as a personal attack. While I did agree with some of Ghost's edits, his edit summaries, in which he was unnecessarily interjecting his disdain for "Indian narratives" left a grating impression on me. This is in addition to Ghost's slow edit warring on the page (yet ironically he accuses me of the same thing).

• Here he removed an edit of mine in which I added a relevant view of a prominent Indian diplomat, accusing me of cherry-picking and adding a claim without evidence (a personal attack which instigated this whole conflict), even though the claim was attributed and the Wikipedia page itself contains numerous claims from Canadian officials, whom as of yet have not yet publicly disclosed pertinent evidence.

• [36]- Here, he replaced my sentence which was neutrally worded and attributed, and replaced it with an obvious caricature of Verma's quote in a not so thinly veiled attempt to undermine India's position. He used this article, despite not citing it correctly, in which an interview transcript was provided below. It should be noted first and foremost that an interview transcript is a primary source, and the quote "I also know that some of these Khalistani extremists and terrorists are deep assets of CSIS. So I'm giving that accusation again; I'm not giving you an evidence.", or a summary or analysis of the quote was not provided beyond the transcript, hence rendering it unusable for inclusion in Wikipedia as per WP:PRIMARY. Secondly, if you read beyond that quote, it's clear that Verma was making the point that Canadian officials had not provided evidence implicating India's involvement in the murder, and he was basically using the same logic against them. It was an undeniable and objective violation of WP:NPOV, and it justified a harsh warning.

I also suspect that the last diff was GhostofDanGurney trying to bait me into reverting what was an obviously bad edit, so he could entrap me and report me. The diffs above are the tip of the iceberg, but I believe it is demonstrably obvious that GhostofDanGurney is far, far too aggressive and juvenile for Wikipedia.

Ghost has once again levied a false allegation against me, claiming that I copied content written by him on Hardeep Singh Nijjar to the Khalistan movement-This is an outright and outrageous lie. The paragraph starting with "According to a Globe and Mail report published one year after Nijjar's death," was my own summary of the Globe report, it was not written by Ghost. I was the one who originally added the following content to the Nijjar page right after the Globe came out-"The report further claims that some Canadian security experts did not believe India's claims about him, remarking that there was inadequate evidence to arrest Nijjar and that India had a "reputation for torqueing evidence to fit with political objective". This was done well before GhostofDanGurney's modifications.

Ghost is basically trying to kick me off a topic area where I've helped counter vandalism and POV pushing for the past 2 years, all because I disagreed with him and objected to his persistent personal attacks and rude edit summaries. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, I apologize if I went over the word limit as I have zero experience in A/E, but I strongly request you to take action against Ghost's allegation that I plagiarized his work. For Christ's sake, June comes before July, no? Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, thank you for your response.

With regards to GhostofDanGurney labelling me a SPA, it is important to note that I did make mistakes during my early time here on Wikipedia, no denying that, but I think context is crucial. Literally a week or so into my joining Wikipedia in 2021, another SPA called HaughtonBrit through his account MehmoodS began hounding me to an extreme degree, provoking me into frivolous content disputes, essentially just trying to make my time on Wikipedia as hellish as possible so he could perpetuate his relentless Sikh nationalist views. The harassment from that sockmaster only just recently abated after numerous SPAs were blocked from 2023-late 2024. How would any other editor feel if they were being stalked and harassed for 3 years straight?

This topic area, because it's unfamiliar to a lot of people, has a major, major problem with POV pushing, including fabricating claims to make it appear as if the Sikh religion militarily dominated other groups; the POV spans articles about battles in the 1600s up to the recent Insurgency in Punjab.It also includes the pushing of Hinduphobia and Islamophobia, particularly pushing anti-Afghan views and articles (whom the Sikhs fought for a period of time), and basically publishing hagiographies of certain religious figures through poor sourcing or other unsavoury methods.

I'm not claiming that I'm perfect but I do tend to carefully analyze sources and their reliability and only include content into pages once I'm confident that the source is high quality and is somewhat DUE. The diff in which GoDG claims I added content critical of the Sikh community-[37] is sourced through a prominent university press and the CBC, so I don't see a problem there, though I'm willing to engage on the t/p.

Regarding the C-I diplomatic row article, I do acknowledge that my initial response on the t/p and level 4 warning (the latter was unintentional as I have a hard time navigating the Twinkle box for warnings) probably wasn't the right way to go about things, but I was upset that Ghost made personal attacks against me in his edit summary, claiming I was cherry-picking, and I believe Ghost was using unnecessary edit summaries beforehand as well. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my ending bullet point above, the quote GhostofDanGurney used I'm not giving you any evidence of that was found in the CTV's article interview transcript, not in the main body of the article. Including a conclusion/implication from a selective quote in an interview transcript constitutes WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, because we have to rely on a reputable, secondary source to aggregate the information from the interview and concisely present the relevant information that hopefully does not misrepresent what was said and analyzes any statements through fact-checking. If the quote was in the main body of the article, it would've been a different story. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 11:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I striked some of my commentary on the t/p as it wasn't the right way to go about things. Also striked the level 4 warning on Ghost's t/p. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–India diplomatic row has been created just today and needs improvement. The highlighted disputes should be handled on the talk page without either of the users commenting on each other. It would be better if they can get along. I don't see any need for sanctions as of yet. Srijanx22 (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm looking into this now, but there's a lot to dig into. I'm not a fan of the level 4 warning, or a lot of the language used, but much of this seems to be a content dispute. This edit linked in the original report is interpretation of a primary source, but you're transgressing beyond reason isn't the right response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of this looks to be a content dispute, albeit a heated one with some less than ideal behavior. Maybe it is because of some of my unfamiliarity with the topic, but I'm not seeing any obvious POV pushing from the editor reported, or GoDG. I'm not a fan of pro-India sour grapes, but that was also a revert of what looks to me like POV pushing (even with bold text to show what you should be mad about) from an editor with four edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  GhostOfDanGurney, diff 1 contains some pointed (more so than I'd like) commentary, but that was after your characterization of other edits as pro-India sour grapes. Is your use of that phrasing any better or worse than I want to point out that it is unacceptable to cast aspersions in edit summaries, in what appears to be a preemptive poisoning the well tactic to dissuade others from adding content which you personally deem unacceptable.?

  Diff 2 was in response to this, where you added After Verma's expulsion, he alleged in an interview on CTV News that "some of these Khalistani extremists and terrorists are deep assets of CSIS", but explicitly told the interviewer, Vassy Kapelos, "I'm not giving you any evidence on that". with this source. That source doesn't mention that quote, so it does appear that you engaged in interpretation of a primary source, and the wording but explicitly told the interviewer is heavily loaded with implication not found in the source cited. Was that worth a level 4? Probably not, but I don't think it's severe enough an issue to sanction at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Andrevan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nableezy (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

I'm asking for civility. An RFC remaining at the status quo is not gaming the system. That is standard procedure. Accusing me of tendentious and disruptive editing is not appropriate. I am simply making normal edits and am not alone. It's an open dispute and I followed the advice of SFR in opening an RFC. That Snowstormfigorion happened to revert beforehand is not gaming the system, it's a classic "wrong version," and wiki veterans should know better. I don't see that I should simply put up with being accused falsely and aspersions cast in bad faith. See the discussion at the 1948 war talk page. See the history of the 1948 war article. The material was removed by several editors and restored by several editors. There's currently no consensus on what to do. It was suggested by SFR that I start an RFC which I did so. Nableezy accuses me of tendentious editing, gaming the system, and disruptive editing. I left a message on his talk page and on SFR's talk page and he did not clarify or modify his aspersions. Andre🚐 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Nableezy below, no. Starting a new RFC on a different article, as SFR suggested and confirmed [38], is not improper. WP:CCC, but in this case it's long-standing content that was in the article for years and the RFC being referred to was on a different article. It is not mentioned at all in the policy or guidelines on disruptive editing or tendentious editing, or gaming at all. I made a total of 12 reverts to that article [edited Andre🚐 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)], started an RFC and had discussion. Please explain how any of this is described by any behavioral guideline. It's incivil accusations and doubling down on it. Andre🚐 21:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to Barkeep's message, I agree with the point - a child article could have something DUE that isn't DUE at the parent. I would argue it does in this case. I would also argue that it's not terribly relevant to the civility of accusations of tendentious editing and disruptive editing, though. How could I be guilty of those charges with the record of editing to that article? I restored the material oncetwice separated by 7 days [edited Andre🚐 22:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)], and then I started the RFC at SFR's prompting. Even if Nableezy were right on the merits, which he isn't, an uninvolved admin said I should start the RFC so I did. How can this be gaming the system? Andre🚐 21:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WRT Huldra's message, the 2nd revert by Nableezy was his revert of me removing my post. Since he removed my reply and then I removed my entire post but he reverted that restoring my post. And yes I guess the diffs are slightly out of order but that shouldn't really matter since they are timestamped. That was not intentional, I suppose I can correct the order, shouldn't be too difficult. Andre🚐 22:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, I believe I fixed the diff order. Nableezy, if you agree that starting the RFC wasn't disruptive or tendentious or gaming, then nothing I did was gaming. The standard procedure is that when an RFC runs, you don't edit the part under RFC. Isn't it? Or has that changed? Things change all the time but last I checked, that is officially how things work. Andre🚐 22:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, one of your diffs is not a "new post" but a removal of the post. I did not post after being told repeatedly not to. The only reason why I posted at nableezy's page at all was to seek to resolve the dispute and clarify it before bringing it here. "Kindly take your leave" is not the same as "don't you post any more posts here." It is suggested to attempt to resolve disputes with users before escalating them which I have attempted in good faith to do. Andre🚐 22:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde, how am I selectively reading SFR's message? If there's no consensus the status quo remains, per NOCON. I do not have more than one revert. I had 1 revert to Nableezy's talk, removing my whole post. I didn't revert to restore. Please look again. Andre🚐 22:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I had two total reverts to 1948 separated by 7 days [39] [40], that's my mistake. Andre🚐 22:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huldra, I posted one more clarifying question since Nableezy referred to SFR's message and I sought clarification. Nableezy reverted it so I posted it to SFR's talk page. Contrary to your assertion, I did not post again to Nableezy's page. Nableezy did though respond to the thread on SFR's page. That all seems a bit silly. I didn't disrespect Nableezy's subsequent directive to stay off his talk page. And Vandamonde, I didn't selectively interpret SFR's post. SFR said to start an RFC. I said "No" to nableezy's repeated assertion that this was gaming the system. I didn't dispute SFR's statement that there is no consensus. If there's no consensus we retain the status quo for the RFC. I didn't edit war. I made 2 reverts separate by 7 days and I was not alone in doing so. Andre🚐 22:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep, I don't see how I was supposed interpret "kindly take your leave" as "do not post any clarifying further questions" nor was Nableezy's subsequent post to my talk page "necessary" as it came after I removed my post, not added a new post. Andre🚐 22:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep, I interpreted that as Nableezy wasn't interested in apologizing or modifying his accusations, not a blanket talk page ban. I don't see that I should interpret that so strictly as you seem to. It became clearer afterwards, but I wasn't intentionally flouting that. It seemed more sensible to continue the conversation with the followup question to SFR in-context. After it was made clear by Nableezy reverting that I did not post to his talk page again. My next post was to remove the whole thread. Andre🚐 22:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further regarding the issue of edit warring, it's clear that a number of editors tried to remove the material and a number of editors restored it. But I'm here about Nableezy's claims of tendentious, disruptive, and gaming. I didn't engage in those. I restored the content twice over the course of 7 days. Then I started the RFC at prompting from SFR. I did not engage in any disruptive behaviors. If some editors try to remove material and other editors are restoring material, are you trying to say that the correct action is to simply let the editors removing it leave it out? That's not how things have ever been done here that I know of. If an RFC is merited as an uninvolved admin suggested, and if the article scopes are different as an uninvolved admin suggested, then the RFC would have the status quo during the duration. That's always been the case in my experience. I'm rather disappointed that this is now about whether I violated nableezy's talk page or whether I edit warred. Even if you believe my 2 reverts are edit warring, pblock me from that page then. But how about Nableezy's sanctionable incivility? Andre🚐 22:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @ManyAreasExpert, thanks, but, I think there is a policy somewhere that permits such talkpagebans, although judging from Nableezy's last message and the one from BilledMammal (thanks, also) this should no longer be an issue. Also, the topic ban is from 9 months ago so it is expired. Andre🚐 23:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The policy @ManyAreasExpert, I found it, it's WP:USERTALKSTOP. Andre🚐 00:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ManyAreasExpert, I suppose that may be the case then that Nableezy violated their topicban in March of this year, though I'm not sure if there is some kind of statute of limitations on litigating old stuff here, and but I see no problem with someone looking into that. However, I wouldn't be surprised if that would be considered too old or a case of laches in common Wikipedia precedent, since all of Wikipedia's remedies are at least in theory based on preventing possible harm and not punishing technical violations (which, should also apply to the question of any edit war, since it hasn't been one since the RFC has been opened, as is customary). Andre🚐 00:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll add two more things. One, about edit warring. I do not think my bias for WP:PRESERVE is tendentious, or my 2 reverts defending the status quo slow-mo edit warring. When editors remove something without a valid rationale, it's not a violation to restore content that's been there since 2020 especially if more than one person is doing it, and when an uninvolved admin has agreed there is no consensus and a RFC is needed. Under Wikipedia norms, consensus, and PAG, that content is status quo, always has been unless someone can explain how that doesn't apply. It doesn't become a violation because I restored it twice. If it is considered edit warring though simply because I did so twice and not once, it's not necessarily tendentious, gaming, or disruptive. Those have policy definitions that aren't met by the simple act of restoring content which, if it's edit warring to restore it, it was editors edit warring to remove the content. It's a content dispute and there's nothing to show or say that my particular participation was disruptive or tendentious. And the second thing about the talk page guidelines. I was not hounding or harassing nableezy. I believe it is encouraged to try to defuse disputes. The alternative was simply to allow the incivility to stand. I don't see how that is justifiable. If nableezy had a problem with my behavior, the proper forum and venue is this one. Instead, nableezy persisted in making unfounded and incivil accusations. That remain unsubstantiated. I therefore really had no other choice, except dropping it, than pursuing it on nableezy's talk page. WP:SOMTP was the response. That itself may be problematic. Even if you agree that my 2 reverts were edit warring, I don't see how that changes the issue here. Aspersions require detailed diffs and evidence. Once SFR had confirmed there was no consensus and we needed an RFC, at that time nableezy should have agreed I was not being tendentious or disruptive. Andre🚐 00:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding again to Barkeep, as I said, I thought that since Nableezy referred to the statement by SFR I would ask SFR to clarify. That seemed simple enough and didn't seem like it would offend since Nableezy was the one who pinged SFR on the article talk to begin with. At any rate, if the subsequent message after the "kindly take leave" was unwelcomed, I apologize for that. Andre🚐 01:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Once again Nableezy invokes "the wrong version." But I didn't revert it back to that immediately before the RFC. Another user did that. I started the RFC. But either way, once SFR confirmed that an RFC was proper, the argument fell apart, yet you still fail to acknowledge or admit that. I was simply following the advice of SFR and not at all gaming anything. However, even if it hadn't been reverted by Snowstorm, it is the case that for 30 days (or however long the RFC runs) it is normal for the status quo to remain, even when it has no consensus, that's completely normal wiki procedure and not disruptive, tendentious, or gaming. Andre🚐 01:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TarnishedPath, I wasn't sure about that so asked about it on Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#ONUS_a_blank_check? and there was no consensus there, nor has there ever been in the past, that in general ONUS supercedes WP:PRESERVE, WP:NOCON, and WP:RFC. The standard has always been during RFCs not to edit the page. Andre🚐 01:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If the others aren't edit warring and I am because I had 2 reverts, I think a 1RR-7day restriction or a 1RR-14day restriction would be easier to comply with than a 0RR. I also don't think a 0RR is a fair sanction. Andre🚐 18:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The important diffs

1. accusation
2. accusation of tendentious and wikilawyering
3. ping to SFR
4. accusation of tendentious disruptive editing
5. gaming
6. defense of aspersions
7. accusation of distortion
8. revert my message
9. revert
10. request not to edit his talk page
11. Repeated aspersion of tendentious editing

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [41]
2. others in AE archives

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

• Nableezy is aware of CTOPs restrictions having been previously sanctioned.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[42]

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.

It *is* tendentious to make editors go through the same argument over and over again. We had a recent RFC on the exact same topic on the parent article. Anybody is justified in discussing and attempting to find a new consensus, but when we have already had that argument and there was a consensus established at the parent article demanding that the material be retained for 30 days because an RFC was opened *is* tendentious and it *is* gaming. That isnt an aspersion. If there is something about my reverting Andre on my own talk page or responding to his admin-shopped complaint at another talk page I need to respond to here lmk. But citing evidence for an accusation is the opposite of "casting aspersions". nableezy - 21:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, yes, something can be relevant in a child article where it is less important in the parent article, but that isnt the issue here. The issue is whether or not the topics are even related, with the established consensus being that the wars of 1947-1948 not being related to the mass emigration of Jews to Israel over the next decade. If it is not related to the wider war, it is likewise not related to something with an even smaller scope. The discussion at the parent article found a consensus that this was at most an indirect result of the entire conflict, it makes no sense that it would then be a direct, and major, consequence of the smaller scoped article. Ill also point to this comment by another editor saying the same thing. nableezy - 21:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, starting the RFC is not the issue. Starting it and demanding the material that does not have consensus for inclusion and that past RFC consensus against the very same arguments being offered for inclusion here *is* what I am saying is tendentious and gaming. nableezy - 21:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal it means that discussion has concluded and Id like the person to no longer continue it. When Andre ignored that I then asked that he no longer edit my talk page at all. I dont think his final two edits to my talk page are really an issue worth discussing. At this point though, yes I have asked him to no longer edit my talk page except when required. nableezy - 23:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Manyareasexpert I decline to engage with anything else you’ve written as I see literally no point, but please read through the end of the section of the link to my talk page that you posted to see that ban was reduced on appeal to 30 days. nableezy - 00:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andre, stay off my talk page was not the response, that came after you went from discussing with me to badgering me. Pinging an admin to my talk page after me asking you to end the discussion, removing the entire discussion on my talk page without my permission, that was what led me to ask you to stay off my talk page. Not your initial message, or your next message for that matter. You can say my comments were unsubstantiated, but I did substantiate them, I provided the reasons why I say those actions were gaming and disruptive. Aspersions are unsupported claims, not claims you disagree with. I do think you both edit warred and transparently attempted to game inclusion of what does not have consensus for inclusion and in a very closely related discussion has consensus against. I’ve given the reasons why I say that. Why didn’t I come to AE? Because every time I try to deal with any behavioral thing at AE it becomes an ungodly clusterfuck and I just don’t have that energy to give right now. But yes I think you are gaming and yes I think that is sanctionable. If the admins have any questions for me I’m happy to answer them but other than that idk what else there is for me to say here. nableezy - 00:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, that is neither true nor related. Both the status quo and the consensus of that discussion was to include in the lead. You yourself removed it from the lead and then attempted to claim that to be the status quo. I’m pretty tired of this throw whatever you can against the wall to see what sticks method of seeking sanctions, so unless an admin tells me I need to respond to something else here I am going to ignore it as noise. nableezy - 02:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. You removed it on August 19, when it had been in the lead unchallenged since April. nableezy - 03:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, there is zero cause for any interaction ban at all. Disagreeing with somebody doesn’t make it so there is no constructive communication. The idea that if people consistently disagree with each other the correct course of action is to limit any discussion between them is, to be blunt, childish. We are not children to be put in time out. We don’t have to agree, but others may find our points persuasive and from that a wider consensus may develop. How many people cited either of our views at the RFC on Hamas-run as a qualifier for the health ministry? Consensus development is not about the two of us agreeing or persuading one another, it is about us persuading other users, and by limiting any interaction you stifle that. nableezy - 12:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as who cares, due to another users repeated reverts, the articles lead now includes an outright false statement, not just an irrelevant one. You may not care about that, but I do. nableezy - 12:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as 0RR, I have made a grand total of one revert, and I did so on the basis of a highly related RFC consensus. If you are defining participant in an edit war as anybody who made a single revert and justified it then I think you and I are operating with different dictionaries. nableezy - 13:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may not care about that, but I do is now being offered as harsh language by me lol? You literally said But, really, who cares if that sentence is there or not for the duration of the RFC. That is just ridiculous. I answered who cares about including factually incorrect, and there is no dispute on that part, material in the lead of an encyclopedia article. I do. nableezy - 15:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont believe I participated in a multi-party edit war, I made the edit I made, and explained it, without even looking at the history of the article. I saw the discussion, and recalled the prior RFC, and saw people making the same exact argument that was rejected by consensus in that RFC. So I made a single revert. When it was restored I complained about a factual inaccuracy. Somebody else modified that, that was reverted to restore the inaccuracy, and Zero removed that because with the inaccuracy it was even less related to the topic. I do not think either of us "participated in a multi-party edit war", and I think if you are going to define edit-warring to include a single revert made with a justification on a talk page that needs to be made considerably more explicit. My past sanctions, a decade ago, were because I did indeed edit war. It is something I have not done for over a decade intentionally. Ive given others the same advice, eg here, where I advised a user if you make it a rule to instead of reverting an edit of yours that was reverted to go to the talk page and essentially convince others to revert it by consensus you will save yourself most of the administrative headaches in this area. I had no intention to edit-war, and would not have made any additional reverts. And as such I do not think it reasonable to portray my actions at that page as edit-warring. nableezy - 16:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 I think it certainly turned into that, but I don't really think it was when I removed the sentence. But also, I think the RFC from the prior article clearly applies to this same issue. It is the same issue with the same sources, mostly offered by the same users. To me this was a simple issue of math. If the set of consequences of A is the sum of the set of consequences of B and of C, than if something is not in set A it is in neither sets B or C. I think it is plainly obvious, if you review both discussions, that we already have a consensus on this topic. And so I removed a sentence once. When it became a prolonged back and forth yes it was a multi-party edit war, but I don't think it was when I reverted. nableezy - 22:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@the admins, if you're going to be looking at the entire history, Snowstormfigorion is even reverting tags about a false statement in the article. That is their now third revert, two of them inserting false statements that fail verification. nableezy - 15:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:GoToComment/c-Nableezy-20240311163900-Coretheapple-20240311163900 Thanks for demonstrating your inability to respond to math.

Edit: Special:PermanentLink/1204764975#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction so the editor was still under the topicban at that time? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually surprised this uncivility (and topicban violation, if I'm correct) complaint is down to how to interpret some requests to not to edit a user talkpage. A talkpage is a legitimate method to communicate between the editors. Including posting warnings if one assumes some Wikipedia rules are broken. Actually, one is encouraged to post legitimate warnings to user talkpage by the rules. This is how editors encourage others to adhere to the rules, and this is how we maintain the health of the community.

And nowhere in the rules I saw an option to "ban" somebody when I don't like their warnings. Actually, I would expect administrators to be wary about the repeated behavior of "banning" those giving warnings, as the editor did also for me User talk:Manyareasexpert#my talk page . If I understand the rules correctly, one simply cannot "ban" you from a talk page, it's contrary to the rules!

I would also expect administrators to be wary of the (repeated?) behavior of undoing the warnings without archiving them [43] with "lol".

Behaviors like these go against the collaborative spirit editors are supposed to work within the community. Somebody may even consider them offending. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, I'm not aware of the policy to restrict others from my talkpage, if there is such, please disregard the message above (and enlighten me with the policy, thanks). ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, given the editor has "banned" at least 2 other editors, and me, an uninvolved editor, who was not a target of their personal attack, we may have a WP:SOMTP case here: Except in specific and clear cases of WP:WIKIHOUNDING, such "banning" is highly problematic and an indication that the banning editor is having serious problems cooperating with others. How many other editors were "banned"?

The topicban was ending at the end of March 2024 and the editor participated in discussion on March 11.

Correction: as pointed out, the TB was appealed and shortened to the end of Jan 2024. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A' list for diffs are not chronological:

• 8) is 19:59, 28 October 2024 to N's talk page where N tells A. to "Kindly take your leave from this page. Thank you."
• 6) is 20:17, 28 October 2024 to N's talk page where N revert a new post by A
• 7) is 20:27, 28 October 2024 to N's talk page where N revert yet another post by A

Possible boomerang for keep posting on a user-page after you have been told not to? Huldra (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrevan yes, please get the diffs in a correct order, thank you, Huldra (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the following diffs are to N's talk-page:

• 19:59, 28 October 2024 N to A: "Kindly take your leave from this page. Thank you."
• 20:02, 28 October 2024 new post by A.
• 20:17, 28 October 2024 N reverted A's post with the edit-line: "you can ask your question somewhere besides my talk page"
• 20:23, 28 October 2024 new post A to N's talk-page (removal of stuff)
• 20:27, 28 October 2024 new revert by N, with edit-line "Please dont edit my talk page again"

Is it ok to post on a talk-page after been repeatedly asked not to? Huldra (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrevan wrote: "Kindly take your leave" is not the same as "don't you post any more posts here." Actually, that is how I would have interpreted it. At least, you shouldn't be surprised about curt language if you insists on posting again, Huldra (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that Nableezy doesn't interpret "So kindly take your leave from this page" as a ban from the talk page; instead, they appear to interpret it merely a request. See this clarification that they made when they used the phrase previously.

As note on the dispute itself, this discussion appears to contain a related issue.

Nableezy and a couple of other editors wish to include "In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel". The status quo is to not include, but based on their WP:INVOLVED reading of that informal discussion, they argue that there is a consensus to include it, and have repeatedly done so.

Nableezy, it was WP:BOLDLY added on September 11 and disputed immediately, and has continued to be contentious. It isn't the status quo.

That isn't the content currently being disputed, or the content I am saying is not the status quo. That content is the sentence "In its investigation on 20 October 2023, Forensic Architecture concluded the blast was the result of a munition fired from Israel", which is not in the diff you provided, and was added on September 11.

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding; now that this has been clarified, do you withdraw your objection that the inclusion of this content is the status quo? 03:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Unfortunately, your proposed method of restoring the status quo while an RFC is proceeding does not appear workable; see this test of it. BilledMammal (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I'll add that I previously tried something similar with WP:RMTR; an editor was repeatedly making bold moves, and rather than get into a move war I would go to RMTR to request that an uninvolved editor restore the status quo title. It almost never happened, with the uninvolved editor instead converting the technical request into a requested move proposing moving the article back to the status quo title.

Given the issues we've seen with the experiment here, as well as the issues I've seen with previous similar requests, I don't think this is a workable solution. BilledMammal (talk) 02:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0RR probably isn't the best solution to this common problem. A better solution is to treat reverts away from the status quo as different from reverts back to the status quo - treat the former as more disruptive than the latter, because they are more disruptive.

This would function as "consensus required", requiring editors to get consensus if their disputed bold edit is reverted, as well as providing a clear path to get the content back to the status quo. BilledMammal (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, if there is consensus then that is the new status quo, and reverting away from that will be the disruptive behaviour. BilledMammal (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS would suggest that once material is removed from an article and while discussion is occurring on the article's talk page that the content stay removed until such time as there is consensus unless there is some other policy reason for the material to be re-inserted. Per the policy, "[t]he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". TarnishedPath^talk 01:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the important thing here is a nebulous personal talk page ban that was or wasn't. Should have already been a case via ARCA, but I'm apparently in the minority. Arkon (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed sentence covers two separate issues 1) The total number of Jews that immigrated to Israel in the three years following the war and 2) Included within that, those Jews immigrating from the Arab world. The currently running RFC addresses only the second issue so the QUO argument should only be about that part, nevertheless, despite it being made absolutely clear on the article talk page that the material covered in 1) fails verification, Snowstormfigorion has again made another revert restoring this material claiming that it is subject of the RFC, which it isn't. Selfstudier (talk) 13:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase du jour is "multi-editor edit war" (by experienced editors), I suppose that might be an "improvement" over "tag-team edit warring" (by regulars) per the potential ARCA. I deliberately decided not to revert the changes being made, although I thought that they should be reverted, for fear of this dismal accusation being made once again and there it is. If we want this "behavior" (which I regard as being arguments over content) to stop, then the need is to define this "offence" clearly so that it is simply not an option anymore. How does it come about? There is a removal (usually, it could be an addition)), then it is reverted and off we go with the supposed regulars, typically supplemented by some irregulars, back and forth. OK, the first removal must not give simply ONUS as reason, there must be some substantive real reason for removal. If there is, then any revert requires an equally substantive, real reason. If that's so, then the only recourse is discussion starting on the talk page. That's a particular case of WP:BRD turned into a rule instead of an optional thing (not saying this "rule" doesn't need workshopping and tidying up). Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that we've learned recently about what appears to be a large-scale and well-organised effort to influence the Wikipedia coverage of the conflict (link, please see the part about the Discord channel used to coordinate Wikipedia editing), I think that it might be worthwhile to review the decisions taken recently in this topic area, including the closures of RfCs like this one. Alaexis_¿question? 22:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, for sure, my point was that opening an RfC in this situation wasn't disruptive. Alaexis_¿question? 23:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited that article only twice in more than two years. Any suggestion that I edit-war there is false. Moreover, I'm happy to justify either of those edits.

Only a fraction of reverts are to-and-fro between regular editors. A large number are reverts of new or fly-by-night editors who don't know the subject and come along to insert bad text in violation of NPOV or RS or the facts. This type of revert is a good edit and without it keeping the article in an acceptable state would be impossible. An inevitable result of hitting the most experienced editors with 0RR would be deterioration of article quality. Zero^talk 00:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: You ask a fair question, and if you study my record you'll see that I do that sort of thing hardly ever. If I'd thought for more than a few seconds, I would have decided against it. As far as I remember, my motive at that moment was that there was a recent RfC about exactly the same question and there was no talk page consensus to overturn it. So I felt there was already a consensus until someone established a different consensus, which is what I wrote in my edit summary. I also knew that the sentence I removed is factually incorrect, as Nableezy had pointed out on the talk page and I had checked. Zero^talk 14:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a consensus to change the status quo, and especially if there is an RfC to change the status quo, then reverting back to the status quo is obviously more disruptive than implementing the consensus. It negates the very purpose of consensus. So BilledMammal's latest idea doesn't pass scrutiny. Zero^talk 14:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that the editors mentioned in this complaint each have their own record, which could suggest the need for tailored sanctions. For instance, only three months ago, User:Makeandtoss, who took part in this edit war, was given their 'final warning' "for behavior that falls below the required level required when editing in contentious topics", with Seraphimblade writing that it should be given "with very clear understanding that any more problems will almost certainly lead to a topic ban". To me, it's obvious now that just giving more warnings won't make a difference. ABHammad (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Thank you for the ping, I had been seriously ill. As well-articulated by @Vanamonde93:, there are different aspects to this dispute. Removing material that had no consensus for its inclusion or keeping conforms with WP:ONUS, while constantly re-adding that contested material is in direct violation of it. WP:DON'T PRESERVE is actually the relevant guideline, rather than WP:PRESERVE, since the former's scope includes contentious material such as this one. WP:STATUSQUO is an essay. RFCs are a way of reaching broader consensus so they cannot be considered to have a freeze effect on contentious material that has no consensus, and this RFC was anyway belatedly opened at the end after the removals. Having avoided making further reverts myself and engaged extensively in the talk page and encouraged those re-adding the contentious material to seek proper dispute resolution, conformity with all the relevant guidelines and policies was maintained. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding the IBANs for the other editors I think it might not be helpful, since, during disputes, we need more communication, not less of it; disputes are often the result of a lack of communication. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Nableezy: - I have little patience for people who don't respect RfC consensuses. And I could understand the idea of saying "This was rejected as UNDUE at the child article, so it definitely wouldn't be appropriate at the parent article." But I would expect things to be appropriate to include at a child article, with a smaller focus, that would be wrong to include at a parent article with a larger focus. So, for instance, when I split YouTube and privacy from YouTube I covered stuff in the LEAD that I wouldn't think appropriate for the lead at YouTube. Can you explain what that wouldn't be true in this circumstance? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I find Nableezy's explanation reasonable for why the situation here is different than what I suggested above. I am also not impressed with Andrevan continuing to post on Nableezy's talkpage (other than required notifications) after being asked not to - Nableezy shouldn't have had to go to Andrevan's user talk to make that request, requesting it on Nableezy's user talk should have been more than sufficient. I hope to be able to look into the edit-warring piece soon. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andrevan how did you interpret Kindly take your leave from this page. Thank you. then? Barkeep49 (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Andrevan: The context BM provided matters in that it clearly has some wiggle room but I think the idea that Kindly take your leave from this page. Thank you. meant something for Nableezy and not you is just a really poor reading of things. Taking it as a cue to continue the discussion only seems likely to inflame tensions - as it did here with a more formal and complete request for you to absent yourself from his user talk. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• When a given piece of content is in dispute, the appropriate thing to do is to discuss it substantively. Edit-warring over what version of the content remains in place while said discussion occurs is battleground conduct - why did there need to be seven reverts after this initial removal? And while Nableezy's language on the talk page is harsh, I will note that Andrevan is the only one to have made more than one revert in that sequence. Andre is also selectively reading SFR's message in this post, and Nableezy's response is understandable at the very least. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For ease of others the chronology is:

  • 01:54, October 21, 2024 IOHANNVSVERVS removes
  • 02:00, October 21, 2024 Andrevan restores
  • 02:12, 21 October 2024 IOHANNVSVERVS opens talk page discussion
  • 13:48, October 26, 2024 Nableezy removes
  • 14:18, October 26, 2024 Alaexis restores
  • 03:45, October 27, 2024 Zero0000 removes
  • 04:19, October 27, 2024 Andrevan restores
  • 12:23, October 27, 2024 Makeandtoss removes
  • 21:17, October 27, 2024 Snowstormfigorion restores
  • 21:40, 27 October 2024 Andrean opens RFC

  Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So here we have yet another situation where there is no firm consensus on content which led to an edit war among multiple parties and the commensurate escalation of hostility. The RFC against inclusion is for a related article, but not the same article and arguments about DUE aren't addressed by an RFC on another article with a different scope. In descending order, the biggest issues I see in this situation is the edit warring, the user talk page behavior exhibited by Andrevan, and the lack of using established dispute resolution to just open an RFC and wait a month. If we're looking for the status quo while the RFC runs then it would include the sentence about Jewish migration, as that was the long term status quo. That is wasn't in the article around the time the RFC was opened is a function of a multi-party edit war. But, really, who cares if that sentence is there or not for the duration of the RFC? Was it really worth edit warring over for either side? Nableezy, as they often do, used needlessly aggressive language, but that's pretty common for the topic.
  Now, on to things we can do.
  • 0RR for anyone involved in this edit war that was also involved in another edit war discussed at AE in the past year. These multi-party edit wars instead of just following DR are far too common in the topic area and make an appearance at most AE reports
  • Iban Andrevan and Nableezy, which I should have done when I sanctioned them both a year ago
  • Iban BilledMammal and Nableezy, because as we can see in this report, they're not capable of constructive communication or collaboration (this isn't really related to the situation being reported, but it is evident from their behavior in this report)
  • Restore the article to the pre-edit war status quo ante and apply consensus required and everyone just waits out the RFC, which is what should have happened six reverts ago
  • Sternly wag our finger at Andrevan for their shenanigans on Nableezy's talk page
  • Yet again wag our finger at Nableezy's use of harsh language
• The Ibans should have a blanket exclusion for anything directly before Arbcom, e.g. a case request, a clarification/amendment request, or a case itself, and should also have a carve out to allow them to respond to an RFC created by the other editor, though only addressing the RFC question. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd hate to see either of these ibans; all three editors would have a very difficult time trying to avoid one another. I almost feel like it's asking them to game the system. I'd support 0RR for the edit war participants. These round-robin wars by experienced editors who appear to be gaming the system are disruptive, and I think we should actively discourage it. Support restoring pre-edit war version until RfC is completed. Fine with stern finger-wagging. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It obviously is fair for administrators to question the utility of warnings, but I think continuing to refer to formal warnings as "finger wagging" serves to undermine any utility they have. SFR, what you derisively call finger wagging just caused me to escalate something from a warning into a sanction in this topic area - to no small amount of pushback. I find what Andrevan did on Nableezy's usertalk wrong, lacking in collegiality, and failing to follow editorial and behavioural best practice. I would hope you do as well and would wish it to stop and if this is so, I would hope we could all act accordingly in the message we send to people about it. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You're right, I should treat the warnings with a bit more respect, despite my feelings about their overall utility. In this situation, Andrevan has been sanctioned in the topic area, and in my view that is a level above a final warning. I would support a formal warning, stern even, for Andrevan. I would support further sanctions, as well, up to an indefinite topic ban since I believe that misbehavior after a sanction demonstrates that the sanction wasn't effective. As for Nableezy, we're yet again at AE for what Vanamonde called harsh language, which they have been consistently warned about and they're yet again dropping You may not care about that, but I do. at AE which they were warned about, so I would also support a formal warning or further sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As the person being linked to there for a warning there I see a large difference in the decorum Nableezy showed there (and in fairness to them struck when asked, which is in-line with the revert when asked ethos you've promoted in this topic area) and what they did here. I see them explaining their actions to an uninvolved administrator. The explanation may be insufficient for participating in a multiparty edit war, but I don't find anything about the explanation itself to have crossed lines. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm willing to accept that my reading of that may have been more harsh than was intended. Nableezy, my apologies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nableezy so if we're not calling this a multiparty edit war, what should we call it? I called it that because it was the first phrase that came to mind but am very open to describing the sequence in a different way - it was definitely not the focus of my message. And from your perspective is there any issue with the history I captured above? From my perspective it is a problem. I'm wondering if you agree and if not why (so perhaps I can reconsider). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, you're right, we shouldn't be flip. Valereee (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Zero0000, you say you didn't edit war and you're happy to justify your edits. This is the edit I'm concerned about: you were part of a multi-editor edit war by experienced editors who know how to avoid individual sanctions. Why did you participate in an ongoing edit war? Valereee (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I personally find Andrevan's actions here - as the only person to appear twice on the timeline for removal/restoration - and for the actions on Nableezy's talk to be qualitatively different than anyone else we're talking about. It also seems to me that 0RR here would have resulted in an outcome that enshrines the "wrong version" (the analysis of which I agree with SFR) for the duration of any discussion and RFC and as such I'm not sure is the right response to what happened on that page. And if we're seriously discussing sanctions on anyone other than Andrevan and Nableezy, I think we need to formally notify them. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The difference in outcome with 0RR in place is there wouldn't have been seven reverts, and hopefully the issue would have followed dispute resolution earlier and with less acrimony. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For me the 0RR is to discourage this kind of ECR round-robin edit war where everyone takes a turn so nobody gets sanctioned. And I don't see it as necessarily enshrining a wrong version. Open an RfC and at the same time make an edit request asking for the edit to be reverted by an uninvolved editor while the RfC is running. That would turn it into IO removes, A opens an RfC and an edit request asking for an uninvolved reversion. Valereee (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sold on this being the right response yet, but want to think more about it since I hear what you two are saying. Since it's being seriously discussed I have notified the other 5 people about this thread and possible sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Alaexis that's so far into Arbcom territory it's reviewing checkuser applications. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• When examining this sort of slow edit-warring, a key question for me is whether editors are engaging substantively with the content, or making reflexive reverts. Having made reverts, Nableezy, Alaexis, Makeandtoss, and Zero have all participated substantively, and avoided making further reverts. Andrevan also participated substantially, but made two reverts, and there was the user talk fracas. Snowstormfigorion has edited the talk page, but their participation there leaves something to be desired - they clearly had not read the discussion before making a revert, and have not engaged since. As such the conduct of Andre and Snowstormfigorion is qualitately different from the others for me; I would not support 0RR on anyone else based on this evidence, though I'm willing to consider who else may have a history of edit-warring per SFR above. I would support a warning, but no more, for Nableezy for combative language. I don't believe successive warnings make them pointless. There is a spectrum of bad behavior, and the response needs to be proportionate - the examples discussed here merit warning, and I don't think a history of warnings changes that for me. I also don't think IBANs are a good idea. On the merits, I don't think the problem is that these editors bring out the worst in each other, it's the topic that does. On the practicality, for editors whose primary focus is PIA articles, with a contribution history as long as Andre, Nableezy, and BM have, an IBAN would lead to considerably more drama than it would avoid. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Makeandtoss, you haven't made a statement. You've been mentioned in Nableezy's statement, ABHammad's statement, and Vanamonde's comment. Would you like to make a statement?

Snowstormfigorion, ditto. Valereee (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that I have TBANned Snowstormfigorion for six months, given that they continued to revert - including reverting in content with verification concerns that had been acknowledged by others, and then reverting the addition a tag on the same, without any talk page participation. This does not change my assessment of the rest of the dispute. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Shahray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Shahray (talk) 10:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

ban for three months from editing anything related to the history of Ukraine and/or the Rus', see this thread [44]

Administrator imposing the sanction

Asilvering (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

[45]

I was topic banned by another editor for three months from editing "anything related to history of Ukraine or Rus', broadly interpreted". I was accused in "edit warring" in this topic. I acknowledge the fact that I was banned previously for edit warring, and understood the issue. But regarding this case, I believe I was wrongly banned, because of the following reasons:

1. This ban was initially appealed by Mellk. After a few responses on the talk page where I tried to discuss with them proposed changes in the article, they dropped out of discussion [46], refused to answer afterwards and headed to Asilvering's talk page instead, where they stated:"I still find it impossible to discuss with Shahray" [47]. Asilvering supported their behavior and even suggested to go to Notice Board, basing it solely on the fact that I was banned two times previously (one time by Asilvering). Mellk themself made some unconstractive reverts and edits with barely any explanation given [48] [49] [50], and even could respond to me from other editor perspective [51] without their approval first. I didn't have any such problem with other editors and followed the suggestions they've given to me [52].

2. I usually followed one revert rule everywhere and didn't continue to revert Mellk and tried to discuss instead.

3. Asilvering might unconstractively target me. Besides the support they gave to Mellk's behavior mentioned above, on their talk page, they ignored my comment and concerns about Mellk [53], and told them instead to "use it as evidence". Their block doesn't appears to be constructive either. I recently made RFC in Second Bulgarian Empire article about "Russian" anachronisms, but they removed it [54]even though there was not a single word about "Ukraine" or "Rus'".

I genuinely apologize where I could have made a few more reverts and didn't initially discussed. I won't revert (restore my changes) entirely if that helps. I will only revert changes done by other editors without reaching consensus. At least I am requesting to allow me to edit talk pages to broadly request comment from community for my changes like I did in Second Bulgarian Empire article.

• @Vanamonde93, what have you considered as evidence? What Mellk quoted in first sentence is my comment regarding this block [55], with time I looked back at my behaviour there and and understood that I was a bit too pushing with my edits. But it's not appropriate to take this as evidence for the current case, I tried to follow 1 revert rule everywhere and discuss, and I addressed this to Mellk [56], which they didn't apperently denied. Shahray (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ScottishFinnishRadish, no it's not reasonable. You haven't provided any arguments for it to be reasonable and ignored what I said or apologizes I provided. Please judge fairly and reconsider your decision. Shahray (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Comment moved to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade, I don't need to wait for 3 months, instead we can solve the problem quickly here and I won't do any disruptions again. I won't revert (restore my changes) at all if that helps, or revert only the changes other editors make which they haven't reached consensus for. My apologies for possible disruptions I have caused, but I promise I won't restore my content anymore without carefully reaching consensus. I hope for your understanding as well. Shahray (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much further to say, but happy to answer any questions. Please also see User talk:Asilvering/Archive 12#topic ban? -- asilvering (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Since the user does not seem to have understood why they were topic-banned, it might be a good idea to make the topic ban of indefinite duration, appealable in 3 months.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Shahray was sanctioned in response to this ANI discussion. The evidence there shows they are unable or unwilling to understand that they have not appropriately discussed contentious edits they have made, and bad conduct by other editors does not excuse that. I would decline this appeal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. This was a perfectly reasonable enforcement action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Shahray seems to be under the impression that "xRR" is an entitlement. Since this is a somewhat common misconception, I'll clear that up in hopes that in three months time things can go better. "xRR" means that "If you revert more than x times in 24 hours, you are almost certainly edit warring." It does not mean "If you revert fewer than x times in 24 hours, you are not edit warring." Repeated reverts, even if they technically stay under the xRR limit, can still be disruptive and cause for sanction. I don't see this as an unreasonable sanction, and would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Shahray's persistent inability to understand where to place their responses in an AE discussion does not inspire confidence that they suddenly understand the finer points of CTOPs editing. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. This is a singularly unpersuasive appeal, and is clear that the editor does not understand the reason for the sanction. Cullen328 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 : Snowstormfigorion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Snowstormfigorion (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

6 month topic-ban from the Arab-Isreal conflict, broadly construed

Administrator imposing the sanction

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Diff

The ban concerns two edits (first and second), as well as what the imposing-admin states to be re-inserting of content where verifiability is in dispute without engaging in discussion in the talk page; see here.

As I have explained to the admin, I did not participate much in the discussion as I truly had no strong preference for either of the options listed. And regarding the verification concerns, I was genuinely under the belief that the verification issue was a matter of debate between the two sides, rather than an established fact; had I known the latter, I would not have made the two edits restoring the original phrasing and removing the verification tags. The admin also mentions that I responded to being told I was inserting misinformation and that the tags were not removed by an editor, Andrevan, making the same reverts as I was. As with the former, I truthfully believed that the issue was a topic of discussion, and thus, that what I was told was a side of that discussion and that Andre was misled in this case; clearly, I was.

I understand the significance of administrators' role in ensuring a healthy environment for all users, and I very much respect your decisions. I have been on Wikipedia for just over a year, and have certainly made my share of mistakes, as shown on my talk page. I have only really started editing contentious topic articles this September, with all the regulations and protocols that apply to them being newfound to me and frankly somewhat intimidating. It was, wholeheartedly, never my intention to create conflict or undermine the efforts of others, I was simply trying to contribute to the topic based on my understanding at the time.

To that end, I have already taken the initiative to familiarize myself with the relevant policies and guidelines and best practices to avoid similar issues in the future, and, in the event that I do not adhere to the former, will be ready to accept any measure administrators deem necessary. I genuinely value the opportunity to participate, improve, and constructively contribute to the site, therefore, I ask for a last and final chance to demonstrate that I can be a positive member of the community.

@Valereee: As mentioned above, this is all new to me. I had never encountered this page before being pinged, and it all seemed, overwhelming. And as I was, falsely, under the impression that the two reverts I made did not violate any procedures, I did not comment nor make a statement. In hindsight, I realize I should have. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by this sanction. Snowstormfigorion was told "you are inserting false information", and responded to that claim, yet chose to both revert in the content where verifiability was in dispute and subsequently reverted even a failed verification tag. All of this was on a page they'd previously been blocked from for edit-warring, so this was a second offence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

• Continuing an edit war that is under active discussion at AE while also not engaging in the talk page discussion is disruptive. I would have probably gone with 90 days to start, but 6 months easily falls within discretion. I'm a decline on this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Barring any objections I will be closing this as declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowstormfigorion, you were pinged to ask for a statement, and you didn't show up? Valereee (talk)

• Snowstormfigorion, a topic ban from a single CTOP, even one this broad, is still an opportunity to show that you can be a positive contributor. Stay far, far away from Arab/Israel conflict and go edit in other places. I'd recommend -- for anyone -- that you just avoid all CTOPs in general until you understand the policy surrounding them better, as CTOPs are a terrible place to learn on the job.

It's unfortunate that the general area seems to be your primary area of interest, but I see that you've edited in/around regional food and music; many culture articles are not anywhere near the conflict; that's something you could discuss with Vanamonde on your talk page (and nowhere else, and with no one other than an admin). You can also edit on Simple English Wikipedia, which would ensure you didn't inadvertently violate the tban by getting too close to it and would show you can edit near the area without being disruptive.

I'm a decline, but no objection to another appeal after three months of active non-problematic editing. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

CarmenEsparzaAmoux has engaged in POV pushing, in the process systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view in violation of the UCoC.

CarmenEsparzaAmoux has repeatedly misrepresented sources, in a way that advances a Palestinian POV. This includes making claims not supported by the source, making claims in Wikivoice that the source attributes, and including only the Palestinian POV even when the source they use prominently includes the Israeli POV.

The following is a small sample of these edits; if helpful I can provide many more, although please be aware I only reviewed a small sample of their edits and there will be many I overlooked:

1. 05:16, 6 October 2024

   Source says that Israel will place "Hamas militants who remain in the area under siege"; CEA misrepresents this as place anyone remaining there ... under a complete siege.

2. 02:01, 23 September 2024

   CAE says Netenyahu considering ordering siege tactics against Gaza City. Source says "examining a plan to use siege tactics against Hamas in northern Gaza". Also a BLP violation.

3. 05:01, 17 September 2024

   CAE says that an Israeli sniper killed a UN employee in the West Bank. They neglect to mention the Israeli position, covered prominently in the source, which is that the man had been throwing explosive devices at Israeli soldiers.

4. 05:13, 13 September 2024

   CAE says Israel killed at least four Anera aid workers. The source doesn't say that they were part of Anera, or that they were aid workers. All it says that they were in an Anera vehicle, and that according to Anera the men "had not been vetted in advance", and their presence "was not co-ordinated with the IDF", but that they "had stepped in to take over the lead vehicle". Further, CAE neglects to mention the Israeli position, that the men were armed assailents who seized control of the vehicle.

5. 05:26, 12 September 2024

   CAE says that Israel has killed 207 UNRWA staff; the source doesn't say who is responsible, with the closest it comes being "mainly due to Israeli air attacks". While it may seem reasonable to assume that Israel killed all of them, we are not permitted to go beyond sources in this manner, and it neglects the fact that there have been incidents of friendly fire.

6. 21:29, 17 August 2024

   CAE puts the death toll of an airstrike in Wikivoice. The source attributes it.

7. 00:52, 18 August 2024

   CAE says that Israel ordered the evacuations of districts in Beit Hanoun and Beit Lahiya. Omits the fact, prominently presented in the source, that this was ordered due to rocket fire from those districts.

8. 00:59, 15 June 2024

   CAE said that journalists were arrested due to being attacked by far-right Israelis. The source says that a single photographer was attacked by far-right Israelis, who was later arrested. The photographer claims that a right-wing operative contacted the police and claimed he was a Hamas operative; the Israeli police claimed he had recently been banned from the Temple Mount. Either way, the source does not at any point suggest his arrest was related to him being attacked, and the final paragraph includes an explicit statement from the Israeli police denying that claim.

9. 20:03, 11 June 2024

   The source says that both the IDF, Hamas, and the PIJ were added to a "list of offenders who fail to protect children". On an article about Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict CAE only added that the IDF were.

10. 23:34, 10 June 2024

    CAE said, in Wikivoice, that 33 members of Palestine Red Crescent Society had been killed since the war begun. The source attributed this claim.

This issue has been raised with them previously, but it was not rectified.

CarmenEsparzaAmoux uses different words to refer to the Palestinian POV than the Israeli POV. This can be demonstrated by reviewing under which circumstances they add or remove the word "claim"; they consistently remove it when used in relation to the Palestinian POV, and frequently add it in relation to the Israeli POV.

This double standard can be seen in edits like this one, where in regards to competing positions they say that Hamas "states" while Israel "claims". It can also be seen in the differing ways they treat sources based on whether the content aligns with their POV; in this edit, they change the appropriately-attributed "New York Times reported" to the "New York Times claimed", while in this edit Al Jazeera "states" while Israel "claims".

In isolation, some, but not all, of these edits can be justified - but collectively, the pattern demonstrates a systematic effort to manipulate content to advance a specific POV.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 15 October 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Liz: The only connection between the two reports is the editor - the evidence presented and the activities I'm asking to be reviewed are unrelated. BilledMammal (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

04:30, 6 November 2024

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.

I am not here to "advance a specific POV." I am here to help build an encyclopedia. I do add statements by the Israeli government regarding their explanations for specific actions [57], [58]. In the last year, I have worked with a high volume of information and editing in this topic area, and I am sure I have made mistakes. BM has raised these concerns in the past, and I have tried my absolute best to improve my editing. I know I'm not perfect, but I'm not here to "systematically manipulate" anything. I take full responsibility for any edits that do not perfectly match the source or improperly use the word claim, but I categorically reject the notion that I'm here to push a POV or "manipulate" content. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the reported party has been blocked following a CU. I believe that this report can now be closed. FortunateSons (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Just noting that their is a current arbitration case request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area involving these same two editors. I know Arbitration and AE are two separate forums but I want to make sure there isn't "double jeopardy" or the same claims being made in two different noticeboards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

Nableezy has engaged in POV pushing, in the process systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view in violation of the UCoC.

Nableezy takes differing positions on whether to refer to an event as a massacre depending on who the victims are; they consistently support using the word when the victims are Palestinian, and oppose its use when they are Israeli.

They support this by applying double standards. For example, at Attack on Holit, they argue that massacre shouldn't be used because "attack" is more common in reliable sources. At Engineer's Building airstrike they argue that we shouldn't follow WP:COMMONNAME but should use a descriptive title, with them arguing that "massacre" is that descriptive title.

While individually these !votes can be justified, collectively they demonstrate a systematic effort to manipulate content to advance a specific POV.

Nableezy uses different words to refer to the Palestinian POV than the Israeli POV. This can be demonstrated by reviewing under which circumstances they add or remove the word "claim"; they consistently remove it when used in relation to the Palestinian POV, and frequently add it in relation to the Israeli POV.

While less blatant than the behavior of CAE or Iskandar, this manipulation is still clear. For example, at List of Palestinian civilian casualties in the Second Intifada, they changed B'tselem claims that 2,038 were civilians to According to the Israeli human rights organization B'tselem, 2,038 were civilians, correctly citing MOS:CLAIM.

Three weeks later, at Al-Shifa Hospital they Attribute to israel by adding "claim", and at Gaza Strip they add Israel has claimed that the blockade is necessary to protect itself from Palestinian political violence.

One week later, at Ahed Tamimi, they are back to correcting MOS:CLAIM violations by changing Her lawyer claimed that she was beaten during her arrest to her lawyer said she was beaten during her arrest.

In isolation, some, but not all, of these edits can be justified - but collectively, the pattern demonstrates a systematic effort to manipulate content to advance a specific POV.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 26 December 2023 - Topic banned for 30 days for battleground editing
2. 12 October 2021 - Cautioned to moderate their tone
3. 19 March 2021 - Warned to moderate their tone

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

• 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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

That source was published on November 14; ten days before your edit, and three days before the tunnel was discovered. The source used for the statement was published two days before your edit, and says in its own voice that the tunnels exist and that they have visited them.

However, the issue isn't the specific edits - the issue is the pattern, which demonstrates you apply different standards to claims aligned with the Israeli POV than you do claims aligned with the Palestinian. BilledMammal (talk) 05:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: For the most part, an experienced editor intending to POV push won't behave in that way; they'll be more subtle. The exception is "generally distorting our content relative to the body of published literature on a subject", but unfortunately that is almost impossible to prove as it becomes a content dispute.

Instead, what I am trying to demonstrate here is selective application of policies. Nableezy does that when they argue we should use "massacre" as a descriptive title when the victims are Palestinians, but that we should match the language used in sources when the victims are Israeli. Similarly, they do that when they strictly apply MOS:CLAIM to the Palestinian POV, but frequently diverge from it - even when the relevant sources makes the statement in their own voice - when it comes to the Israeli POV. BilledMammal (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 and Seraphimblade: Looking at the specific edits of the claim review, I believe there is evidence of the sort you ask for. In addition to the previously discussed Al-Shifa Hospital example, where they use "claim" to attribute a statement to Israel when the source put the statement in their own voice, we have:

• Israel–Hamas war - 2023-12-12T15:11:57Z

  Nableezy adds "Hamas has repeatedly denied the claims of sexual abuse". The source says "Hamas has repeatedly denied allegations that its fighters committed sexual violence during the attack — despite the evidence."

  In this edit, they represent the allegations as a "claim", despite the source being very clear that it is skeptical of Hamas' claim, not Israel's.

• Israel–Hamas war - 2023-12-10T17:34:12Z

  Nableezy adds The New York Times reported that the claim of Hamas fighters surrendering was made after video and photographs of "men stripped to their underwear, sitting or kneeling on the ground, with some bound and blindfolded" were seen on social media.

  The source says The Israeli military said on Thursday that it had apprehended hundreds of people suspected of terrorism, adding The New York Times has not verified the images or the video.

  In this edit, Nableezy presents the Israeli position with less credulity than the source, and at the same time presents the videos with more credulity.

• Gaza Strip - 2023-11-28T19:36:21Z

  Nableezy adds "Israel has claimed that the blockade is necessary to protect itself...", while the source says "The government said the purpose of the new regulations..."

  Again, they present the Israeli position with less credulity than the source.

(Note that I could continue - including with edits outside the narrow scope of MOS:CLAIM, but I'm already approaching the word limit and so would need a word extension)

In contrast, when Palestinian claims are discussed, they consistently reflect the language of the sources. I believe this demonstrates them misrepresenting sources, and distorting content to advance a particular POV - is this the sort of evidence you require? BilledMammal (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: The issue there is that your wording doesn’t reflect the incredulity that the source treats Hamas’ claims with. However, if you wish, we can focus on the other examples - "said" is not a synonym for "claim". BilledMammal (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: It is possible to argue that they are reasonable paraphrases - which is why I structured the evidence this way, because if they are a reasonable paraphrases and Nableezy is not POV-pushing, why do they never paraphrase Palestinian claims in that way?

There is an particularly insidious type of POV pushing, where individual edits can be justified (although the Al-Shifa hospital edit cannot, as you can't take a statement the source presents as fact and instead present it as a third parties claim), but when we look at the broader picture we see that an editor is consistently trying to push a particular POV by applying different standards and sourcing expectations. This is far harder to address than more blatant forms, and as a consequence far more damaging to the encyclopedia in the long run.

However, I understand that it can be difficult to act on this sort of evidence, so instead it it possible to get a word extension, so that I can present evidence across a wider scope that can better meet what Vanamonde93 is asking for? BilledMammal (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

04:30, 6 November 2024

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.

I can’t seriously believe I’m going to explain edits from 2023, but MOS:CLAIM isn’t a prohibition on using the word. Sources, such as the Associated Press, said of the Israeli claims that Shifa is Gaza’s largest and best-equipped hospital. Israel, without providing visual evidence, claims the facility also is used by Hamas for military purposes. Changing a sentence of Wikipedia using its own voice to present an unsupported claim by a combatant that sources have repeatedly said was lacking any evidence as fact and correctly saying that it was an Israeli claim is showing caution to only use the word where appropriate. The idea that Btselem was claiming something that no source has questioned is the equivalent of that is what is actually POV pushing. Given the low quality of the evidence here, if there is some specific diff that admins think I need to answer for, even if it’s from a year ago, let me know. But I’d advice them not to simply accept BilledMammals *claims* as they likewise fail even the slightest scrutiny. As far as move requests, I saw lots of requests for massacres in Israel that I saw no need to oppose calling massacre. I got involved in the ones I thought were an issue. But again, if there is something in this mishmash of diffs going back a year I should pay attention to please let me know. nableezy - 04:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that Btselem is Israeli lol. I don’t apply different standards based on whose claim it is, I apply different standards based on how credible the claim is according to reliable sources. I don’t intend to get into a back and forth with BM here, I think his evidence is tendentious and dishonestly presented (for example my support of massacre for the attack on the engineers building was based on the same argument being used for an attack on Israeli civilians being moved to massacre, but that’s glossed over as supports for Palestinians and opposes for Israelis, and my not participating in ones about Israeli victims that I did not object to is also treated as though it consistently opposes for Israeli victims). So, to cut off any extended dialogue here, if an admin thinks there is anything in here I should respond to please let me know. nableezy - 05:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, changing your comment after it’s been replied to is generally considered a no-no. nableezy - 05:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms for claim: allegation. If BilledMammals position is I used the wrong synonym for what a source called allegations I don’t know how this is not a tendentious report. nableezy - 12:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not a synonym, your example is just dishonestly presented. I reverted to a prior version there (search for "Israel has claimed" here) and made some additional edits. That I did not correct every issue in that prior version while reverting due to other issues may be a minor issue, but your claim that this is something I initially inserted is just made up. As Zero says below, the edit in Israel-Hamas war, several organizations immediately cast doubt on the claim by Israel, saying that what Israel said were "terrorists" were in fact civilians. Claim was appropriate there. Im not sure AE is the place to litigate content disputes from a year ago, but most of this evidence is distorted in similar ways as the first example here. (Oh, you still havent reverted your material modification of a comment already replied to). nableezy - 12:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the lol, at the time BilledMammal said I use different language for Israeli claims than Palestinian ones, and he presented me removing claim from an Israeli organization as proof of that. That literally made me laugh. I am not really sure how you all think an lol is rude but sure I won’t laugh again on Wikipedia. nableezy - 14:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But you can address it here, because these claims are either non issues or dishonestly presented. Even ignoring they are a year old. nableezy - 14:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes SFR, after other discussions were closed on the basis of massacre being an appropriate description without looking at the usage in sources for killings of Israelis I argued the same standard should be followed for the killings of Palestinians. You seem to think that arguing that we should be following a consistent standard, after other articles have set that standard, is inconsistent. For the Flour massacre article, when reliable sources flat out say something is a common name then that is the evidence needed for it to be a common name. The substantive part of my argument about the Engineer's building move was as you quoted, The idea that only when Israeli civilians are indiscriminately targeted and killed is what is a massacre is what is "far too POV". When we have articles that base their name being massacre on the number of Israeli civilians indiscriminately killed and I argue that if this is the case then it should also be the case for the killing of Palestinian civilians indiscriminately that is not taking an inconsistent position. An if then statement is one in which the the then depends on the if. I am not opposed to following any consistent standard for these articles, what I object to is the set up in which Israeli civilians are "massacred" and Palestinian civilians "die in an airstrike" independent of the sourcing. Yes, I referenced an RM that ignored the sources entirely to move an article to a title that contained massacre based on the number of (Israeli) civilians killed that when an exponentially higher number of (Palestinian) civilians are killed the same logic should hold. That isnt inconsistency, that is asking for systemic bias to be addressed. nableezy - 16:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And oh by the way, this move request has me suggesting a move target that did not contain massacre and was accepted by all. This is my criticizing the systemic bias in language Wikipedia uses in this conflict, Israelis are "murdered" or "massacred", but Palestinians are "killed" or "die in an incident" This is my asking for a consistent standard for all these articles. This is my saying that for this article reliable sources have already said that it is a common name. This is my saying that if we are following the standard of the Engineer's building airstrike then that same standard should be applied there. This is my saying I do not mind the change from massacre for the killings of Palestinians and what I objected to was not including the target of the attack, but that is dishonestly portrayed as my supporting massacre there. Over and over again the evidence you uncritically cite is bogus and falls under the weight of even the tiniest amount of scrutiny. My asking that the same arguments be applied evenly is not "inconsistent positions", and it is absurd to claim that my asking that the same standards be followed is POV-pushing. nableezy - 16:51, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No SFR, my argument is that personal opinions on what makes massacre an appropriate title was already being used for the killings of Israeli civilians. And if that is the case the same should apply to the killings of Palestinian civilians. And no, my objection at Al-Awda school attack was specific about it being an attack on a school, I made no comment on massacre at all in my vote there. I disagreed with the proposed title, so that means I must support it being at massacre? That is a simple logic fail, made obvious by my agreeing that a move from massacre was fine with me. BilledMammal suggested a name that concealed that a school was targeted and that was what I opposed, full stop. But Im not sure if you are playing the role of prosecutor or judge here, and as has often been the case in discussions between you and me this feels more like you throwing whatever you think will stick against a wall against me as has happened in the past. I dont find your characterization of my arguments to be in any way reflective of what they actually were, my position is there should be a single standard applied for both sets. Not the one that exists in which Israelis are murdered or massacred and Palestinians passively die in a strike on some random street. nableezy - 18:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually SFR from what I can tell all the admins have said this evidence is unconvincing and until you suggested punting to AC nobody had said any of the diffs brought were actionable. BM is totally capable of taking whatever he wants to the committee, but this complaint seemed to be being dealt with fine until you suggested taking it there. nableezy - 13:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABHammad's distortion of what happened at Samir Kuntar should honestly result in a boomerang. Taking a decision made by the US and Canada *after* I said that it was a registered charity in Canada to attempt to claim I was wrong when what I said when I said it was completely accurate is intentionally misleading. As far as EI, that is a. a BLPCRIME issue, and b. an OR issue. It is also something I raised on the talk page, a discussion that the two editors who put in this material have completely ignored, and that includes ABHammad. As far as JNS, I saw a completely unexplained deletion and reverted it. Seriously, can you all deal with the editors who so readily make things up on this board? Please? nableezy - 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be one of the weakest reports here for quite a while.

In the third example of BM's "claim" list, Nableezy added a sentence "Hamas has repeatedly denied the claims of sexual abuse." which BM classified as "Added 'claim' to content related to an Israeli POV (Advances the Palestinian POV)". Note that Nableezy added the sentence immediately after a sentence noting allegations of sexual abuse by Hamas, with no mention that the allegations were denied. Turning to Nableezy's CNN source we read "Hamas has repeatedly denied allegations that its fighters committed sexual violence". So Nableezy's hanging offence was to balance the POV with a close paraphrase of how the source balanced it.

In the next example, which includes "claim of Hamas fighters surrendering..." using "claim" rather than stating the surrendering as fact is in conformity with the NYT source, which explicitly says that it could not verify the account. Note also that Nableezy gave two additional sources that directly challenge the truth of the account. So this is a perfectly good (and, more importantly, accurate) use of "claim". Zero^talk 11:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's as far as I plan to look, but I propose that these are representative examples of this "evidence".

There's no secret that every regular editor in the ARBPIA area has a POV. Nableezy and BilledMammal have one, and so do I. A report here should provide some evidence of wrongdoing, not just evidence of a preference for editing certain content. Zero^talk 11:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleging" someone did wrong and "claiming" someone did wrong have exactly the same meaning. Moreover, editors have every right to extract the factual content of sources without bringing the opinion content along with it. Even more so when our article already states the opinion in the previous sentence. Zero^talk 13:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor ScottishFinnishRadish: "AE is too small scale to address the depth of allegations of this sort." — What depth are you talking about? This report is just one editor with a strong POV complaining that another editor doesn't share that POV. And BilledMammal's misleading RM statistics are at ARCA already, so why are they here again? Every single regular editor in every single contentious area will be in trouble if you pick their edits apart under a microscope. Zero^talk 11:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of WP:CLAIM is that it should not be used if it is undue. I take that as meaning it should not be used unless there is good reaon for considering what was said was false. On that basis I believe it is quite correct to use the word in statements like 'Al-Jazeera reported that the claims of babies being beheaded and were killed en masse were false' and to remove it from statements like 'B'tselem claims that 2,038 were civilians' when changing to 'According to the Israeli human rights organization B'tselem, 2,038 were civilians'. I see very little to dispute in the changes. I can see a person with an 'Israeli POV' might wish things were different but that doesn't mean they break NPOV. NadVolum (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to think that arguing that we should be following a consistent standard, after other articles have set that standard, is inconsistent. is the correct view. It's sometimes difficult to distinguish that from POV-pushing, but it's made easier by reading the explanations.

In Nableezy's case, BilledMammal's table shows consistent opposition to the term "massacre", then a flip to saying that the term "massacre" is fine after a series of losses. [59] From that point onwards, Nableezy only argues in favour of the term "massacre", until a loss at the Engineer's building RM forced Nableezy to re-evaluate their views. Nableezy uses the term "massacre" consistent with prior consensus but will only actively use that reasoning to benefit Palestinians.

It's unrealistic to expect otherwise because we are volunteers, and we devote our limited time to what we are passionate about. This can create a double standard when something conflicts with unwritten consensus and the closer doesn't recognize that. Oftentimes this happens when actual POV-pushers flood specific articles.

I would call the current system a failure of our existing guidelines. Nableezy, unlike the majority of people in this topic area, actually respects consensus and tries to create objective standards. A better way to utilize Nableezy's experience and credibility would be to collaborate on writing up an Israel-Palestine specific MOS for terms like "massacre" or "claim", and a central discussion board for the conflict. BilledMammal's skill at identifying examples of systemic bias could be more effectively used there.

Because global consensus trumps local consensus, we could ban "massacre" across all articles in the recent war. Then, when an influence campaign tries to POV-push, we can ignore that campaign citing WP:NOTAVOTE. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed the same conduct from Nableezy. Sharing here an example I also provided on another Wiki page: When I pointed out that Samidoun is an unreliable source (after another editor used it on the article for Samir Kuntar), writing him that they are a terror organization according to multiple countries, Nableezy responded with, Oh ffs, that a government says some group is a terrorist organization has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is a reliable source for some statement. The IDF is a proscribed terrorist organization in Iran, should we not cite it for anything? [60]. Nableezy also says that It’s just Israel that claims some connection to the PFLP[61] and calls them "a registered charity in Canada", [62] but both Canada and the US call them a terrorist entity, with the US Department of Treaury saying Samidoun is "a sham charity that serves as an international fundraiser for the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)."[63]

On two very odd consecutive edits, Nableezy also removed information on a British counter-terrorism investigation into Asa Winstanley, who is an associate editor of Electronic Intifada and removed that its Executive Director Ali Abunimah said Nasrallah gave his life to liberate Palestine [64]. saying it is undue, but this standard of thinking was not applied by them on Jewish News Syndicate, where Nableezy restored the assertion of the newspaper promoting Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian ideas in Wikipedia voice [65] even though it is not sourced. ABHammad (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Although I have said previously that content issues cannot entirely be ignored, I agree about the pile of complicated diffs issue. How about making better use of the Wikipedia:Template_index/User talk namespace#Multi-level templates, maybe make a new one for CPUSH, such that in order to bring a case to AE, several such warnings need to have been given (responses mandatory), with diffs (say two or three at a time). Then most of the work will have been done by the time it would get here.Selfstudier (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have yet to go through the evidence in detail, but I want to note that we achieve NPOV by strictly summarizing what reliable sources say, not by balancing both "sides" of a conflict. As such comparing !votes in different RMs is usually an apples to oranges comparison. What I would find persuasive evidence of POV-pushing includes source misrepresentation; supporting or opposing the use of a given source based on its POV in a particular instance; cherry-picking material from a source; elevating poor sources over ones Wikipedia considers more reliable; and generally distorting our content relative to the body of published literature on a subject. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Not too impressed with the "lol" style rudeness—Nableezy, you might want to give that a rest, whether here or elsewhere. Other than that, I largely agree with Vanamonde; I'd need to see more than somewhat inconsistent positions to support an accusation of sanctionable POV pushing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Seraph that the rudeness is offputting, Nableezy, but otherwise, I don't see that we can actually act on this. The second and third diffs are mostly reasonable paraphrases, if perhaps a bit less than what might be the "perfect" paraphrase - but that isn't ever really possible. The first is slightly more "worrisome" because it could be argued that the CNN source seems to come down on the side of saying that there is evidence of sexual abuse, but the source does not come out and baldly state that sexual abuse happened (they dance around it without outright coming out and saying it did happen) so the most that could be said is that perhaps a better paraphrase would have been "Hamas has repeatedly denied the claims of sexual abuse despite mounting evidence" or "Hamas has repeatedly denied the claims of sexual abuse despite mounting news reports that lend credence to the reports of abuse" or similar. But merely leaving out something is not distorting the source - it's just not providing all details. Given that the preceeding sentence at the time of the addition by Nableezy said "Israeli women and girls were reportedly raped, assaulted, and mutilated by Hamas militants." I'm not seeing how we can conclude that Nableezy was trying to remove the fact that such reports were made. BilledMammal - these types of reports, which try to get someone sanctioned for something that isn't actually against policy, are not helpful. They just add to the bad blood in the topic area. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• We should just refer this to Arbcom, as we did two and a half months ago. This type of case should be looked at by a committee, with many parties providing evidence and analysis. There's already the ARCA and the case request, do we really need more hands in this? AE is too small scale to address the depth of allegations of this sort. Also, Not too impressed with the "lol" style rudeness... I agree with Seraph that the rudeness is offputting while there's a section above with a rough consensus for another warning, and the history of warnings and sanctions. This will probably be the time they change their behavior, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, well, I've learned my lesson that no other admins feel that Nableezy's brusqueness rises to a level beyond a warning so I'm not sticking my neck out again on that particular situation. I've said my piece on where I think warnings should stop and sanctions should begin, but I appear to be out of step with the other admins that comment often here, so I didn't even bother. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As for the evidence, looking at User:BilledMammal/ARBPIA RM statistics provides, in my view, more than somewhat incosistent positions. I see, for instance it isnt even close on common name, attack is exponentially more commonly used than massacre, Only highly partisan or non-reliable sources use "massacre" as a title, which would only be allowed as POVTITLE if it were the WP:COMMONNAME, and several sources flat out say this is known as the Flour Massacre, it is the common name on one hand and per Talk:Netiv_HaAsara_massacre#Requested_move_10_October_2023 where editors successfully argued that the killing of a much smaller number of civilians meant that the article should be titled "massacre". Netiv HaAsara massacre had 22 people killed, here we have over five times the number of civilians killed. The idea that only when Israeli civilians are indiscriminately targeted and killed is what is a massacre is what is "far too POV". and Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024 June (the Engineer's Building airstrike section) on the other when arguing against COMMONNAME arguments.

  The thing is, as my colleagues have said, it takes a lot to prove this type of NPOV editing, and this is all way beyond the limits of what we should be looking at here. There are 24 discussions linked to at the RM stats evidence page, and the claim evidence against Nableezy is another couple dozen diffs and a thousand words. That is way over the AE limit, and we're talking about needing to see more. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nableezy, WP:POINT applies if you're using criteria you disagree with to ask[ing] for systemic bias to be addressed, especially if you're challenging one move because another move was closed in a way you disagreed with. This is changing your normal argument in these discussions away from criteria in order to address a perceived POV issue. Unfortunately WP:OTHERSTUFF exists and closures that we disagree with are made. I agree that arguments not based in policy shouldn't be weighed in consensus discussions, and I've had many appeals of my closures because of down-weighting or disregarding non-policy compliant arguments, but saying "the other side did it there" is just making a point.

  At Al Bureij killings you did suggest a move to killings after another editor did, and you also responded to a concern about the NPOV of the original title of massacre with And how would you describe the killing of ten civilians including three children?. At Flour massacre you supported per another editor who said With IDF statements acknowledging shooting at least 10 people on the scene, and multiple reports of dozens of gunshot wounds (with no other shooters alleged), I think we're in massacre territory even if the others killed turned out to have died in panic, from fearful truck drivers etc. Calling for parity in titles again is fine, but your argument was based on personal interpretation of what makes a massacre. Your other diffs are fine, or good. This is a reasonable compromise, although your first reply was fine remaining at massacre with no mention of COMMONNAME.

  This is why this needs looking at in a different venue. As Ealdgyth says in a section above, I cannot see how even with quadrupled word and diff allowances AE could possibly begin to investigate such a nebulous thing as is alleged here. There's simply too much here. We can't, with our limited setup, determine how often you argue for commonname versus I think we're in massacre territory. That's why this report should be handled in the venue designed specifically for that. To be clear, I'm not saying that you're violating NPOV, merely that there's enough evidence to make it worth looking at and that this isn't the venue to look at it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Zero0000, Every single regular editor in every single contentious area will be in trouble if you pick their edits apart under a microscope. That is why you have a committee elected to sort through and discuss such evidence and determine if there is a problem that needs solving, rather than leaving it up to the same 3-5 administrators at AE who have already told that committee that reports such as this are beyond what AE is set up to handle. Admins in this section have said they would need to see more evidence, but this report is already far over the permitted word and diff allotment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• When I saw Nableezy at AE pop up on my watchlist I figured this was going to be renewed attention to the long simmering report above. I am in general alignment with Vanamonde in both the fact that I haven't gone through this in detail and what NPOV means; if the sources are covering the two sides differently so should we. If the strongest evidence of Nableezy falling short on this stem from 10 or 11 months ago, I don't think there is anything for us to do in that regard. I'm a little more sympathetic to the "refer conduct that is at borderline warning level to ArbCom" (meaning conduct that just barely crosses, or doesn't, the line of conduct violation); on my mind is this finding of fact I largely wrote about AE enforcement in a similar topic area and where I expressed doubt that I would have done better as an AE admin when voting for it. That said I don't think in either this report or the one above we've just focused on the "easy" parts, I continue to find Nableezy not at all the worst offender - by a clear margin - in the previous report, and for me the conduct in this report we're all talking about is a "do better" outcome not even a "formal warning" outcome. But having guidance from ArbCom on how they want to see this enforced is why we have an elected ArbCom and so I suppose referring to them does make sense for this and the previous filing. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SEALIONING is incredibly tedious to prove -- it can easily take 20 diffs, and sometimes more to show that the issue is ongoing or widespread -- and even if you've brought those diffs here or to ANI, no one wants to assess them because that many diffs are daunting to go through. One almost has to be involved to get it. I don't know what the answer is to this. I don't know whether it's something AE can be expected to deal with. But it is a real and frustrating problem for well-intentioned editors working anywhere, much less at CTOPs, and as a project we need to find some way to handle this. Valereee (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Selfstudier, maybe? It requires dedication, probably...but maybe we have enough of that in CTOPs, at least? Valereee (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]