Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive339

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

Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

Maybe presenting the diffs in a different way will make a difference. This and the other recent reports show HaOfa not just edit warring (my definition: repeating edits without consensus) but edit warring to remove from Wikipedia statements saying that:

• Palestinians are native or indigenous to Palestine
• the expulsion/flight was caused by Israel and not by "various causes"
• Israel annexed the Golan Heights, not "extended Israeli jurisdiction"
• Israel's occupation is illegal
• Israel is continuing to expand its settlements,
• Israel engaged in apartheid
• Zionists engaged in colonization
• Zionism as settler colonialism is not a fringe theory

At some articles, they edit war claiming (edit summaries diff'd/quoted in hatted section above) "ONUS", "FORCIBLY introduced", "start an RFC", "the rfc has just started, wait for it to conclude"; at the same time at another article, they repeatedly reinstate a bold change during an RFC. They incorrectly claimed "last stable version" while reinstating recent bold changes. They made changes with the edit summary "no consensus" while reinstating changes that had no consensus. Sometimes they did this at articles where they never edited or discussed before or since, like at multiple articles to reinstate a user-generated map with an unreliable source that failed verification.

In short: months of repeating their own and others' edits across multiple articles, violating WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:EW, with incorrect and contradictory edit summaries.

We don't need a panel of a dozen arbs for this. Reviewing admins can look at these diffs and say (1) yes/no do they violate V, NPOV, NOR, EW, or other policies, and (2) if so, what should be done if anything to prevent future violations. It's hard to answer the second question without hearing from the person being reported. The person being reported doesn't have a reason to say anything until the first question is answered.

If admins answer the first question as yes, there's no need to go to arbcom or anywhere else; see what HaOfa has to say about it. If the admins say no, then there's no need to go anywhere else, just close the report saying so. If admins disagree about whether it's yes or no, then it might be worth seeking additional input at another venue (although the decision of which venue should be left up to the editor(s) who intend to volunteer the time to present evidence).

As for the conduct of other editors, I strongly agree with Nableezy's comment that If an editor were to write 'Poland lost the majority of its Jewish population due to various causes' nobody would be talking about how there are two sides battlegrounding or edit-warring .... If someone can put together a list like the one above about some other editor, then they should post that to AE, and reviewing admins should answer the two questions about that set of diffs.

FWIW, from my perspective, AE has worked better than I expected so far, and I don't see why it shouldn't continue to work for this report or any other similar report. Levivich (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC) Edited Levivich (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a mistake to send this to arbcom, or take any action, without first hearing from the reported editors.

And if there are concerns about other editors, step one would be to file an AE case against those other editors. It'll be hard to show that the community can't resolve something when no effort has been made yet. Levivich (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Me: "It'll be hard to show that the community can't resolve this."

The community: "Hold my beer."

HaOfa hasn't edited since I filed this report five days ago. That hasn't stopped the rest of us from filling up most of this page, and now we've somehow gotten to the point where either BM and Nabs are sanctioned or this goes to arbcom. I've tried and failed to bring this back on track.

It took me a while to write both versions of this report. And I get that we're all volunteers, and if people don't want to read it, that's fine. Or if they read it and they don't think it amounts to much, that's fine, too. But please don't use it as a springboard to air pre-existing grievances about other editors. To everyone: if you have a problem with another editor, please file your own report (at AE, ARCA, RFAR, ANI, or wherever). Don't use my report as an opportunity to bring attention to an unrelated grievance between other people. Please respect the time I put into this. Unless it's about me, or HaOfa, it doesn't really belong in this thread, it belongs in a new one. That is, after all, what I was told when I brought up HaOfa's and others' conduct in the Nishidani thread (Further action related to anything here will need a separate report.). So I wrote a separate report.

And I ask again that we focus on that, and not on the sideshows (and my thanks to those who did focus on the report). HaOfa hasn't edited since I filed this report, which means there is no disruption ongoing right now, regardless of what people think about the diffs. So one available option is that this can be closed as moot; should disruption continue, I or someone else can ask for admin intervention again. And then other people can go write their own reports if they want to. Levivich (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Apr 17

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1239832951

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.

See also participation in this edit war [3] (same one as the case involving me above) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time to get upfront? This is the latest of multiple reports by the same editor, where unsubstantiated claims are being expressed repeatedly in what may feel like a constant threat to potentially scare off editors with different views. A substantial amount of the diffs presented are valid attempts to restore the last consensus versions in the face of constant additions of disputed content through edit warring regardless of consensus and in violation of WP:ONUS. Although it is best to assume goodfaith, this is certainly becoming cumbersome and perhaps even humiliating for these editors. We may need to consider a potential WP:BOOMERANG in this case. ABHammad (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron, I think the reverts from the two editors are very different in substance. The lead for Zionism was recently changed to include a very controversial definition ("colonization of a land outside Europe") that has not achieved consensus. HaOfa appears to be restoring the last stable version and advocating for further discussion and an RfC on talk, while Selfstudier seems to be reinstating a new, disputed change despite considerable opposition (which, I must admit, includes me). I think this context should be taken into account. ABHammad (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: What's that "warned for aspersions" about, please? Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Please change the misleading diff to reflect the situation. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: That's a pretty fair misrepresentation of what has occurred at the UNRWA allegations article, the first diff is me doing what was agreed to in talk page discussions that have been taking place over a long period of time, it wasn't a revert and no-one was objecting to it until Haofa/PeleYoetz showed up together out of the blue to revert it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Those discussions have been going on for months including prior to that and that is why there is also an RM in process to give effect to them. I am sincerely displeased that one editor has filed a complaint against two others and yet it seems that I am being put on trial by selective diff as a result.Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: You haven't reached this one as yet in your "content review". Look now at the developments with the UNRWA allegations article edits. The RM that I said was in progress has concluded as I wished it and the 2 reverts by these editors look now completely left field as both Levivich and myself initially pointed out. No need for an admin to decide any content issue, it has been decided.Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: If sanctions need to be spread more widely then so be it, but the totality needs to be examined not just selected parts of it. That my name would show up at these articles is hardly a surprise, I would be surprised if it didn't, as I have been attending these articles for years, not months. As I have specifically commented at the other related case, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Who was I tag teaming with, please? Did you mean PeleYoetz 07:38, 11 August 2024 and Haofa 09:10, 11 August 2024? Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Let me just parse that. The edits on the 10th are about different material than the edits on the 11th. Of the four edits on the 11th, I restored along with Tarnished Path while the actual reported editors here claimed to be restoring an earlier consensus version. It was my one and only edit for a month or more, so the answer to my question must be that I tag teamed with Tarnished Path, who I don't know from Adam. Are there any other examples of my tag teaming with Tarnished Path? Let me now go back to June/July. I made one edit in July, on the second, tag teaming with no-one, instead I was tag teamed by Vegan (now Tbanned) and Hammad (now 0RR). So nothing there. Let's have a look at June. On 6 June I presumably tagteamed with Unbandito against KentuckyRain(indeffed) and HaOfa (reported here). That's it, 3 edits. How on earth are those 3 edits construed as tag teaming edit warring??? Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: A simplification at least, no tag teaming. Except that now it is said that because I participated on the talk pages I must have been aware of earlier edit warring and that my revert therefore constituted a continuation of that edit warring (which I did not participate in) over a period of two months prior. I concede that I was aware of the prior edit warring, at least in general terms, but this construction strikes me as novel, to say the least.

Should I have not reverted and instead started an RFC myself? Well, I don't think so, not in the circumstances, which can be adduced quite straightforwardly at the relevant talk page section, per my contemporaneous comments on 11 August at Talk:Zionism#Recent additions done against consensus, and request to get collaborative. As yet, of those calling for an RFC none has attempted to start one.Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Seriously?? 3 totally unconnected diffs from 2022??? And a diff pointing to my opening an AFD in February this year? I really do need to get this straight. Levivich files a complaint against a couple editors for tag teaming and provides a bunch of diffs as evidence of that. I add a couple more. Then I am firstly accused of tag teaming with zero diffs/evidence of that based on a single revert that I made (my one and only edit to the article in over a month, followed up immediately on the talk page). Now, how does that work, exactly? Grateful for any coherent explanation. To reiterate, if someone wants to bring a case against me for tag teaming or for anything else, then they can do that, but not that a judge turned defense attorney attempts to find me guilty of I don't know what exactly, via selective historical diffs. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to do this properly, let's look at this editor interaction thing, I threw myself and Iskandar into it for 1 January to date (this year, not 2022), What's to see? Well, the first noticeable thing is that a large majority of the results are talk pages. And RSN. So let's leave those alone and pick out an article instead, the first one we come to is South Africa's genocide case against Israel, that's a controversial one, so let's have a look a the detailed timeline for that. Oh wait, I made 109 edits but Iskandar only made 2, should we discard it or take a closer look at the 2? Let's see, what about Zionism article, 9 edits by Iskandar and 4 by me. There you go, I put it out there for anyone that wants to build their case against me. You could try it with others besides Iskandar, Nableezy, etcetera. I'll wait. Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: If tag teaming is demonstrated, it should be sanctioned. One more time, waiting for anyone that wishes to bring a case against me for tag teaming using your diffs or any others. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is difficult in certain cases to entirely separate content issues from behavior, however desirable that might be in theory. There is certainly a continuity of both subject matter and editors between the two cases here (one case, really) and the Nishidani case, for example. Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The content review, the link for "On the apartheid edit..." is wrong, I think? Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC) @BilledMammal: That it? Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish: Levivich and myself did discuss such a filing during the Nishidani case but it never quite got off the ground. Not sure we're quite there with this either, part of the problem is that a case ostensibly about tag teaming has, somewhat unnecessarily imo, turned into another sort of case by osmosis or something. Not hearing from the editors in question doesn't help. If the party line is that tag teaming is too difficult to pin down, let's just say that and then we know. But let's not pretend that we're sending this case (or two cases) to Arbcom. If we did want a generalized Arbcom case, this wouldn't be it in my view.Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, edits which restore the "various causes" language following IOHANNVSVERVS' comments here probably deserve a more critical view. fiveby(zero) 16:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can add this quite balatant POV-push edit [4] where HaOfa unilaterally removed the Israel Defense Forces from the infobox of Sabra and Shatila massacre. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Zionism article has been targeted by numerous people using deception via sockpuppetry. Examples include

• Here come the Suns, Kentucky Rain24 (NoCal100),
• ElLuzDelSur,
• Aroma Stylish, BanyanClimber, SoaringLL (AndresHerutJaim/יניב הורון)
• ManOnTheMoon92 (Tombah)

So we know a) the article is being targeted by sockpuppets, b) socks edit war and c) the costs of sanctions for disposable accounts is precisely zero. Any decisions based on the notion of balance, sides/bothsidesism etc. should presumably take this into account because "sides" can't include accounts that are not allowed to edit at all. This is another reason why accounts reported (and commenting) at AE should have checkusers run on them, to avoid arriving at a false balance. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to the examples pulled up below regarding aligned edits by myself and Self, isn't the issue raised above by Levivich more about actual slow-motion edit warring, not just joint appearances on talk pages? I'm not saying that editors don't naturally overlap on watched pages, but there's quite a significant material difference between edit wars on page and contributions on talk. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: It appears that you have opened Pandora's box with your examples and now BilledMammal thinks it fit to post laundry lists of complaints. I'm not really party to this AE proceeding, so I would rather appreciate it if all of these off-topic shenanigans could cease and order be re-imposed. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: On the nitty gritty, since we're getting into this, I also only argued against the geographical rescoping on the Al-Awda talk, so that's a mischaracterisation. I simply didn't engage with any other aspect. Aside from that, you mention 8 discussions where I'm in line with the community consensus and 4 not – so a 2/3 super majority of me being in line with the community consensus. You basically have beef with me on the engineer's building, where my argument was coloured by the specific HRW finding of the event as being an standout war crime case study. Differences of opinion on the relevance of that are allowed. We must agree to disagree. You have also mischaracterised the first set of edits that you have presented from myself and Self as "restores", when they are quite clearly different edits, even if overlapping. They are nothing so simple as restores, however. You would also be better to strike the error pointed out by Zero, since merely editing the table once it has been referred to is probably going to make this back and forth more troublesome to understand for the admins (without them looking at the page history). Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Similar edits aren't "restores" in the conventionally understood sense, and blandly stating that it is is misleading. As for your accusations of POV pushing, there are serious conversations to be had about language use in the conflict, as RS have highlighted, but that purpose isn't served by your reductive analysis. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last stable version, last stable version, last stable version. No consensus, no consensus, no consensus. These folks need better material. And saying a thing does not make it so. (Point being, the constant repetition of stock phrases - ones clearly at odds with the facts, in my opinion - by fly by reverting account is telling you something) Dan Murphy (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 I had no intention of engaging in this request at all until an edit of mine was raised without my being notified. I only engaged at all because another editor was courteous enough to ping me to draw my attention to it. But Ill collapse this entire section and we can all get back to pretending that all reverts are the same and anybody reverting anything is edit-warring and/or battlegrounding. I wish the admins here would have learned something from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive336#Nishidani, where an admin was focused on "Civility concerns, Battleground concerns" and less so on the obvious bad-faith editing in which throw-away accounts are used to edit in direct opposition of what is supposedly the core policy of this place, one that is non-negotiable. But that lesson does not appear to have taken hold. Ah well, take whatever action you think necessary. And I mean that, Ive long thought you were one of the more judicious and considered admins here, so if you feel my presence on this project is a detriment then you should remove me from it. nableezy - 22:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my most decorous way, let me state that I continue to find SFR's complaints about me to be misinformed, and I cannot explain why he thinks I am the subject of this request. After he raised an edit of mine here, without pinging me or notifying me, he has then repeatedly focused on me here. While ignoring that, for example, BilledMammal has multiple times in this request made untrue statements, eg that Iskandar supported "massacre" at Al-Awda school attack when all they opposed was BilledMammal's attempt to obfuscate the target of the bombing by removing the school that was attacked from the title, or at a discussion they opened (WP:RFC/G) where he cautioned four editors for bludgeoning when one of those editors, again BilledMammal had nearly twice as many comments as another, me. And then BM presents, yet again, an inaccurate portrayal of what occurred after that cautioning, when he said I had made four comments compared to his 2, when mine were either in response to the caution or questioning why BM's continued arguing was being ignored. I cant say why SFR has this seemingly uneven focus on me, at least without once again falling afoul of the decorum requirements here. Maybe its because I dared to appeal a sanction of his, who knows, but I dont know why he keeps bringing me up. Especially when the subject of this report has not even deigned to respond to it. I am unaware of when I engag[ed] over behavior on talk pages since that warning. This is the forum for bringing complaints to uninvolved administrators, so it is curious to then complain about my doing so instead of engaging over behavior on talk pages when that was the warning. nableezy - 14:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero evidence of battlegrounding on my part, and I don’t see how my objection to how an administrator is acting here is in any way related to battleground behavior in the topic area. As far as tone, after having been silently accused of edit warring without notification, I spoke harshly but I also collapsed that section once Barkeep raised it. My raiding untrue statements by another editor is likewise not grounds for an Iban. SFR has repeatedly attempted to impose sanctions on me on shaky grounds, and this just continues here. I’m barely even involved in the request and I’m the one being proposed for a topic ban lol. If SFR wants a thread about me he should open it or he should do what he did previously and ban me on spurious grounds and I can appeal it. nableezy - 16:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my requesting that you actually treat people fairly, and not allow the one user who actually was bludgeoning that discussion to continue doing so, and my asking you if you felt an objectively dishonest portrayal of what occurred was in fact dishonest is not engaging in behavior on talk pages or battlegrounding. I was curious as to if you actually thought that comment was honest. But if we’re raising emails I’d be happy to discuss the ones you’ve sent me including the unprompted one that started with "If you want to talk outside of the restrictions and worry of Wikipedia and without the peanut gallery of WPO, I'm more than willing". For the record, my email to SFR said "just out of curiosity, do you think an edit like this is honest? you think that is a good faith portrayal of fact there?", linking to the same comment by BM I linked to here. That’s his definition of battlegrounding I guess. nableezy - 16:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’d request this go to arbcom so we can examine all editors conduct here, especially if we are going to be ignoring the actual POV pushing and tendentious editing occurring in this topic area. nableezy - 16:46, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Selfstudier requested it, I reviewed some of their and Iskandar323's edits from the past month, and found the following tag teaming/mild edit warring, as defined above:
Anti-Defamation League:

1. 09:12, 2 August 2024 Selfstudier added content to the lede
2. 17:45, 2 August 2024 Iskandar323 restored it
3. 13:59, 4 August 2024 Selfstudier restored it

Golan Heights:

1. 11:30, 31 July 2024 Selfstudier removed content from the lede
2. 14:33, 1 August 2024 Selfstudier removed it
3. 15:02, 1 August 2024 Iskandar323 removed it

They have also engaged in POV pushing. This is most obvious in "massacre" RM's since the start of the war, where different standards are applied to attacks against Palestinians and attacks against Israelis.

• S means they supported the use of massacre
• O means they opposed the use of massacre
• N means they participated but didn't express a position on the use of massacre
• Green background means the article covers attacks on Palestinians
• Blue background means the article covers attacks on Israelis

Iskandar323 in particular makes their POV pushing very clear. For example, at at Attack on Holit they said we should follow the sources, and that the arguments for massacre rely more on independent reasoning over the nature of the event rather than the sourcing. However, at Engineer's Building airstrike they the opposite, that more than 100 civilians were massacred with narry a shred of evidence of military motive in sight, making "massacre" pretty aptly descriptive.

See also this discussion, where they say we should counter systematic bias in reliable sources in relation to the use of massacre.

Selfstudier has done similar, although it isn't as blatant; at Nir Oz attack they said that we should only call an event a massacre when the weight of sourcing actually names it as massacre, but at Al-Tabaeen school attack they said the opposite, that while a plurality of English language sources do not call the event a massacre, that we should still use the term because they see it as systematic bias.

(I would also like to commend Vice regent for their position in these discussions; they have frequently participated in them and have consistently taken a neutral line.) BilledMammal (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: Oh, I see what I did - I initially wrongly listed Iskandar323 as having supported and Selfstudier having not participated. I then realized I'd missed Selfstudier and corrected it, but didn't realize Iskandar323 had not actually participated. Corrected, thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 08:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: At Anti-Defamation League, all three edits added something along the lines of It is known for and received criticism for its pro-Israel advocacy to the lede.

Regarding the massacre discussions, applying different standards - POV pushing - is disruptive even when you end up aligned with consensus. Arguably, it is even more so in those cases, as the question becomes whether POV pushing changed the result. BilledMammal (talk) 09:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Regarding your proposals:

1. As previously mentioned, I would support an IBAN - while I would prefer a voluntary one that expires at the end of the war, obviously the first half isn’t an option with Nableezy rejecting it.
2. I think a comment restriction would be more effective than a word restriction. This is because the latter would limit the amount of evidence an editor can post, and sometimes it is necessary and productive to conduct systematic reviews of sources or similar - for example, while I summarized it in about one hundred words, in a recent non-PIA topic area RFC I posted 750,000 words of evidence (in my user space), so that editors could verify my claims rather than needing to take them on faith.

   Because bludgeoning is such an issue in the topic area - many editors engage in it, and problematically I'm probably not even the worst - if this went to ArbCom I was planning to suggest a topic-wide anti-bludgeoning restriction. Specifically, that editors are limited to ten (or five, although at lower numbers issues start to occur with multi-question RFC's) comments per discussion. I would suggest/request than any anti-bludgeoning restriction imposed here use this form.

   Alternatively, the standard anti-bludgeoning restriction imposed at ANI is to limit editors to two comments per discussion per day. I’m not a huge fan of this form, as in theory it still allows slow-bludgeoning, but it does seem to have worked for some editors, so perhaps the enforced delay is sufficient to control the behavior.

3. I think some consideration of Iskandar’s POV pushing is also needed.

BilledMammal (talk) 16:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To editor BilledMammal:, where did Iskandar323 support "massacre" at Al-Tabaeen school attack? Zero^talk 08:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't find this, or the report above, terribly convincing. There are two sides involved in these disputes, and both are doing the same thing.

1. Genocide of indigenous peoples - Bluethricecreamman (currently open AE), Selfstudier (warned for aspersions), Bluethriceceamman again, M. Bitton (no talk page messages), Bluethriceceamman again.
2. Zionism - Selfstudier, TarnishedPath, Nishidani, DMH223344, DMH223344 again, Dan Murphy and more going back.
3. Israeli allegations against UNRWA - Selfstudier added, Iskander323, Selfstudier reverted.

• This doesn't actually prove anything except there is no consensus for a lot of these changes, and both sides engage in long-term edit wars for their preferred versions. We can tally up warnings and first times having edited an article, but that doesn't actually prove anything. Editors will show up at articles they have not yet edited, in fact every article that everyone has edited they had previously not edited, and huge numbers of editors have warnings and sanctions related to the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I was getting at Levivich's noting a partial list: editors who have been sanctioned recently or have pending reports at AE. I recently warned you and BM. Nish has a logged warning, Bluethricecreamman has an open report. Just because editors agree with someone who has been sanctioned or has a pending report at AE doesn't mean their position on content is a problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The discussion at Talk:Israeli allegations against UNRWA#Article development, I assume, where you, Makeandtoss, Iskander323, Nishidani and Kashmiri discussed it? I am not at all surprised that when it was noticed by an editor from the other side of the battleground that they reverted. You were still part of the edit war there, but I'll adjust my statement a bit to make it more clear how events flowed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Selfstudier, I'm not trying to put you on trial, but your name came up when I looked at a few of the articles in these reports so you got used as an example. What I'm trying to communicate is that the types of diffs presented by Levivich are not uncommon, and when we're dealing with relatively small groups of editors the same names are going to show up next to each other a lot. You're not on the hook for that, and I'm saying that other editors aren't either unless there is some evidence of malfeasance or bad faith editing. If we're going to start sanctioning these patterns the sanctions are going to end up widespread if applied even-handedly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I want to be clear to Selfstudier and Iskandar323 that I'm not proposing sanctions, this is just to illustrate my point.

  1. Selfstudier - Iskandar323's first talk page edit
  2. Iskandar323 contesting CSD on article they had just created - - Selfstudier also contesting the CSD ~20 minutes after article creation, their first edit to talk page
  3. Selfstudier - Iskander323 10 hours later to support, never edited article, first talk page edit
  4. Selfstudier nominates for deletion - 35 minutes late, first !vote in AFD is Iskandar323 supporting Selfstudier, first edit to talk page of article was an hour earlier supporting Selfstudier

  That was after a few minutes of looking. When people are active in the same topics this kind of thing is incredibly common. If we're going to ABF for these patterns then there is a lot of this going on and it should be evenly enforced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Selfstudier, again, not saying you're doing anything wrong, just demonstrating that if we're using the threshold of "edited the same page in support of each other without having first edited the page" than it's going to be an enormous problem.

  Levivich, those were picked at random from the editor interaction analyzer. I'm sure you'll find hundreds more examples like that, as 20% of Iskandar's 46,500 edits are to pages also edited by Selfstudier, and 60% of Selfstudier's 37,800 edits are to pages also edited by Iskandar323. People who edit in this topic area edit the same pages, and people with similar views support each other. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The UNRWA edit above
  2. A B
  3. B A
  4. A B (part of the same dispute on settler colonialism)
  5. A B
  6. A B
  7. A B
  8. A B

  That is without looking particularly hard. So do we want to start sanctioning for tag-team editing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Levivich, you were already over the diff limit with your initial statement, and now we've gone far beyond that. I think the venue you're looking for to judge when AGF isn't necessary, how many edits to an article insulates you from tag-teaming, if newly EC editors are allowed the same privileges as established editors, what amount of poor content or content one side disagrees with justifies tag team editing, if someone who made an edit was sanctioned does that mean reverting them isn't reverting, and if there is off-site coordination among new editors in the topic, isn't AE.

  If you have to provide ~35 diffs and links in your initial report and it still needs back and forth with deeper analysis it probably needs to be seen by a committee of some sort, maybe of diverse views and elected by the community to deeply analyze a wide body of evidence provided by editors addressing complex, long-running conflicts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Luckily, while this AE report is opened in part to look at edit warring at Israel no one is continuing the long term edit war. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nableezy, I didn't ping you because I was more concerned with showing that this edit war was still on-going to communicate the point that the editors reported here are not doing anything that is unusual or unexpected, and if we're going to sanction it there will be a lot of those sanctions going around.

  As far as your edit not being part of the long-term edit war, and instead just being a restoration of consensus, there is currently an RFC waiting closure on that point, and there has been a large number of versions of the Nakba/expulsion sentence in the lead. The version you restored is not a consensus version.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If the issue is that a certain group of editors is tag-teaming to get around 1RR, or that people like to engage in long-term edit wars to get the article to look their own preferred way by force, wouldn't imposing individual WP:0RR restrictions be a way to stop that? Can't really edit war if you can't revert. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will note that I am not generally a fan of imposing 0RR, as there is some natural back-and-forth to Wikipedia's editing that is often healthy. But if there are individuals in this area who:

  1. Write decent quality articles from the ground up;
  2. Engage in talk page discussions productively; and
  3. Nonetheless, have a habit of engaging in long-term edit warring in the topic area's established articles;

  Then, we may have a case that a 0RR would work. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Warn HaOfa and Selfstudier for the tag-team editing at Zionism. Being the fourth and fifth reverts, respectively, is beyond reason, and HaOfa actually participated in an edit war over the same exact content two months ago. Enough already. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why this and not for edit warring? Barkeep49 (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49: Sorry, i meant tag-team edit warring. If there are instances of them unilaterally edit-warring, I'd be happy to lump those in. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Selfstudier: No, I mean you. I thought you'd know that I'm referring to the edits to Zionism on August 10 and 11 where KlayCax removes some text, Nishidani restores it, PeleYoetz removes it, TarnishedPath restores it, HaOfa removes it, and you restore it. Looks like tag-team edit-warring to me, and not the first instance, but the third recent instance given that there were outbreaks of it in June/July. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ABHammad: I'm not even sure how to begin to engage with "my team's edit-warring is more justified because my team was doing it in the name of stability". Edit warring is destabilizing. Next time, ask an admin to lock down the page and start an RfC instead of doing that. Also, no, the last stable revisions were the ones before you made your edit to the page on June 10/before KlayCax made their edit on August 10. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  [M]y team was doing it in the name of stability is right up there with "they've edited the page before" in terms of justification. Add a dollop of "one of them is blocked for unrelated copyright violations" and we're cruising right along. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Selfstudier: in which case this is a continuation of the edit war over the lead sentence that began in June and has basically continued on-and-off since then. Given the extent of your participation on the talk page and at these AE threads, you were certainly aware that that edit war happened. In that case, your diff is still intentional edit-warring. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:51, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Levivich: I'm not sure I need to give AE an opportunity to address this before it's taken up at any other noticeboard is true. You could, instead, just go to the community, or, truthfully, go to ArbCom (perhaps via ARCA) since this is an area that ArbCom already has "jurisidiction" with. I will say that I think AE is pretty ill served to your desire to consider multiple editors' behaviors in relation to each other. I think both ANI and ArbCom do that better. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Along those lines, that seems like we may want to refer this to the ArbCom. After all, if there is another process that would handle this exact sort of dispute better, and if AE is ill served to review this evidence, why would we not just have the better process handle this? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 12:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's what I've been saying in the past few complicated reports. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd support – is the scope of the case the edit warring on the one page, or more broadly the battleground behavior? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The edit warring is just a symptom of the battleground behavior, so battleground behavior more broadly. We literally have, here at AE, an editor ^{Pinging Nableezy} saying If you want to even pretend to give a shit about the things that matter here, like not making things up in articles, that would be great. for an admin ^me pointing out that they were continuing an edit war, and they've already been sanctioned for battleground editing. That's about as battleground as it gets. If no one but me is interested in sanctioning for that type of behavior then Arbcom is the route to take. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there are three other admins in the thread interested in curbing it (i proposed a small warning above), but i do feel that ArbCom is better at breaking down long-term behavior like this. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not opposed to referring this to ArbCom; the only thing holding me back from being 100% supportive is Levivich's statement that he's prefer not ArbCom. Now we as uninvolved administrators can certainly reach a different consensus - especially given the way some non-parties have come in hot to this discussion (see my comment below) but want to note this thought before we send it along. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I will note that I find Levivich's new presentation of the material more compact and thus more helpful to reaching some conclusion here. I've looked through about half of it and I'd say only about half of what I've examined concerns me and virtually none of it is edit warring, but if those ratios carry through it will add up to a pattern of problems worth a sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at the amended report, I don't find the two edits to Palestinians and two to Talk:Palestinians overly concerning. In the article the break is over indigenous to Palestine, being descended from the various inhabitants of the region over the millennia, that are culturally and linguistically Arab. and descending from peoples who have inhabited the region of Palestine over the millennia, and who today are culturally and linguistically Arab., so the sticking point was using indigenous or native. There are sources provided in the talk page discussion that are from peer reviewed papers challenging the applicability of native or indigenous. It seems consensus has been formed, however, and the edits in this case were about two months ago.

  The three edits to the lead of Israel aren't great. Long term edit warring is a problem, especially as all three edits are while there is an active RFC on the topic. Linking to an article that says scholarly consensus today is that violent expulsions were the main factor rather provided that detail does appear to be intentionally burying the lead.

  The sources in Golan Heights that discuss annexation also use the phrasing extending Israeli administration over the Golan, and the article says On 14 December 1981, Israel passed the Golan Heights Law, that extended Israeli "laws, jurisdiction and administration" to the Golan Heights. Although the law effectively annexed the territory to Israel, it did not explicitly spell out a formal annexation. It obviously changes the framing, and the annexation phrasing looks to have been pretty stable. All that said, per the edit summary of the prior edit and their edit, it looks to have been a revert about US recognition in the lead, Rv, US view doesnt belong in lead, its elswhere in article followed by the world's leading superpower, I think it is worth a mention. Obviously, everyone is responsible for the full content of their edits and effects of their reverts, but this was a single edit and it appears to not have been the main thrust of the edit.

  As for Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though under international law East Jerusalem is Palestinian territory illegally occupied by Israel. versus Israel's governmental seat is in its proclaimed capital of Jerusalem, though Israeli sovereignty over East Jerusalem is not recognised under international law and only has limited recognition internationally., it should be summarizing the content in article, The Golan Heights and East Jerusalem have been fully incorporated into Israel under Israeli law, but not under international law. Israel has applied civilian law to both areas and granted their inhabitants permanent residency status and the ability to apply for citizenship. The UN Security Council has declared the annexation of the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem to be "null and void" and continues to view the territories as occupied. The status of East Jerusalem in any future peace settlement has at times been a difficult issue in negotiations between Israeli governments and representatives of the Palestinians.

  For the settlement issue, Israel has established settlements across the occupied territories, which is deemed illegal under international law, and has annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which is largely unrecognized internationally. remains the the lead. A partially duplicative paragraph, Israel has established and continues to expand settlements across the occupied territories, which is deemed illegal under international law, and has annexed East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which is largely unrecognized internationally. Since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel has signed peace treaties with Egypt, returning the Sinai Peninsula, and Jordan, and into the 2020s has normalized relations with several Arab countries. However, efforts to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict have not succeeded. Israel has been internationally criticised for its illegal occupation of the Palestinian territories, and been accused of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinians by human rights organizations and UN officials. was removed from the lead. The only information on the settlements that changed was the and continues to expand language. Was that an issue with removing duplicate information from the lead and overlooking moving those four words to the earlier use of the same prose, or an intentional whitewashing? This was also a single edit.

  On the apartheid edit, this has been a long running issue that was being actively discussed again at an RFC that ended with no consensus to include. Is the issue editors removing something that never had consensus, or repeatedly adding it?

  That's all I got in me for now, except to say that it certainly looks like we're asking admins at AE to decide which content is right. I'm not seeing black and white NPOV violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Selfstudier, link fixed. I formatted it like a wikilink and not an external link. :/ ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Levivich: the community has already shown it is unable to handle this topic area. That is why there have been four arbcom cases already. AE is not some community venue. It is instead an Arbitration Committee venue where ArbCom has delegated some of its powers to others - in this case uninvolved administrators. Those administrators saying "actually we are unable to handle this with the powers you've delegated" is not an unreasonable outcome (if not one I'd like to see yet). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nableezy, it's all bad, that's why I'm calling the entire thing an edit war. You said I am restoring material that already had consensus, despite there never having been a consensus for that. It was the phrasing edit warred in right as the RFC started, but that doesn't give it some special status, and especially doesn't make it consensus. Everyone should stop edit warring, but acting like the four edits to Israel in the original report are the real problem doesn't pass muster. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Nableezy I find your decorum here to be below what is expected of editors. I suggest you review the expectations, consider striking any statements you've made that do not meet those expectations, and adjust how you respond going forward. My understanding of why you're frustrated is what has stopped me for exercising one of the options presented there to uninvolved administrators. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks @Nableezy for your actions here. I'm trying to give what little time I currently have to things like this, but it's inadequate to doing a full job. And so that prevents me from having too many opinions at the moment; I hope if I spend more time I don't reach the conclusion that you need to be removed from the topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Barkeep49, what mystical incantation do we need to etch in runes on this page to refer this to arbcom? Do we just light some candles and repeat Arbcom, Arbcom, please take heed! More diffs and words and context we need! Restrained and ill attended is this place! Please heed us Arbcom, TAKE THE CASE! three times? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Selfstudier, it's not that tag teaming is hard to pin down, it's that it is so widespread between the two sides that it doesn't make sense to treat reports in a vacuum. Also, you're not requesting a case, we admins are saying that these reports are all related and need to be handled in a venue suited to looking at an entire topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Close it with that rough consensus and then fill out the paperwork at WP:ARCA. I will note I haven't given up all hope here though. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How would you like to move forward here? In my eyes there is POV pushing, battleground editing, and tag teaming, but it is coming from both sides. So we can a) do nothing, b) give out more stern finger waggings which are generally ineffective, c) start evenhandedly sanctioning for the reported behavior, d) kick it to the group designed to handle large, complex, multiparty disputes. In this section we have multiple editors who've already racked up warnings and sanctions but continue with the same behavior, so I don't see a or b as solutions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I will close this with rough consensus to send to ArbCom in around 12 hours. I understand that Barkeep has not given up all hope here, but all other admins here appear to see ArbCom as the best venue given the complexity of issues in this area, and I do see a rough consensus for such a close at this point. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 14:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What is your rush RTH? I think you closing this when at least 2 of the four admins are still trying to find consensus with each other is a mistake. It's not like I'm 1 against 6 or 7 admins here. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that this is now a struck comment, as the objection was withdrawn, but your criticism is fair. I will try to keep this in mind going forward. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My goal, since becoming re-involved at AE, has been to do C. Now you and I might disagree about what sanctions are appropriate; I think formal warnings are a sanction whereas it seems like you're characterizing it as stern finger wagging. I am not opposed to d if we get there but I would love to truly exhaust our ability to do c. I thought we had gotten there with this coupling of reports but now wonder if maybe it's not true. I'm hopeful I'll have some more time to reply to your evidence analysis today or tomorrow. And if taht doesn't happen then I'd have no objections to the referral. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I call the warnings generally ineffective because, as an example, Nableezy has been racking up warnings for years, agreed to a reduction in sanctions with an assurance from Nableezy that they will moderate their tone and bring concerns about editor behavior to an uninvolved administrator or AE rather than engaging over behavior on talk pages.[5] and here we are again with you saying I find your decorum here to be below what is expected of editors. I suggest you review the expectations, consider striking any statements you've made that do not meet those expectations, and adjust how you respond going forward. Surely this is the time it won't be ineffective finger wagging. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I with draw my objection to sending this to ArbCom. Nableezy's latest comment shows the complexity and the multiple editors involved (including perhaps SFR though I don't find those accusations all that convincing) in just this complaint. Multi-party complaints (as opposed to the serial/sequential complaints Levivich has been trying) and complaints of Administrator problems enforcing conduct in the topic area are poorly served at AE and so yes this should just go to ArbCom. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see this as either Arbcom or:

  • I-Ban between Nableezy and BilledMammal
  • Topic ban Nableezy for continued battleground/civility/tone issues
  • BilledMammal restricted to 500 words in any ARBPIA discussion
    • Probably a few other editors too. This isn't a standard remedy so it can't be placed by an individual administrator unless we dress it up as a topic ban from any arbpia discussion where you have already used 500 words. Just look how smooth this RFC went without the normal bludgeoners bludgeoning and opponents arguing.
    • Maybe even everyone is limited to 500-1000 words in any ARBPIA discussion. Probably need to request that at ARCA for blanket application, but we can do this at AE for pages or discussions
  • 0RR for pretty much anyone who has taken part in any of these long-term edit wars (including the subject of this report), which is going to be a lot of editors.

  I guess the benefit is we can do this without the huge time sink of arbcom with just a rough consensus. Do we want to try to do something drastic, or do we want to kick it up to Arbcom? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I stand by my statement above that I do not think AE is well equipped to handle multi-party complaints like this. As a procedural matter now that sanctions are being considered against BM and Nableezy I will formally notify them (though obviously both are already paying attention). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nableezy, you said I am unaware of when I engag[ed] over behavior on talk pages since that warning. immediately after talking about making multiple comments about editor behavior at an ARBPIA RFC, and as far as battleground editing you returned to that RFC to complain that they got the same "please disengage" as you did and made two additional comments, then emailed me about their correcting saying one reply to two replies. And that's just today. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with that assessment, and I think ArbCom would be the better route. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:25, 16 August 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) 23:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

Violating WP:1RR and edit warring at Genocide of indigenous peoples by repeatedly reinstating the same disputed content:

1. 17:49, 24 June 2024
2. 20:28, 5 August 2024
3. 13:21, 6 August 2024 (self-reverted 13:51, 6 August 2024 following talk page request)
4. 12:44, 7 August 2024

They refused to self-revert, saying that because they self-reverted 13:21, 6 August 2024 they were free to re-implement the edit. However, my understanding is that self-reverting, particularly when done only after the self-revert is requested, doesn't permit editors to ignore the most recent revert when re-implementing the edit and doing so comes across as WP:GAMING.

It is relevant that an RfC was held on including this content, which closed as "no consensus". As the content was only in the article for six weeks, insufficient to establish it as the status quo, this means it should be excluded until a consensus is found to include it and editors should not be reinstating it even when done without edit warring or 1RR violations.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:29, 19 January 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

23:42, 8 August 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.

• a) I've explained revert then self revert doesn't count towards the counter, but BilledMammal has been harrassing me and others in talkpage to self revert. Also like... wouldn't the applicable place for this report be the edit war noticeboard? WP:AN/EW. Bluethricecreamman (talk)
• Seen some folks argue that no consensus means removal. WP:NOCONSENSUS states specifically "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Obviously, after that May RFC fails, we should probably keep the version of the article that had been in place since March with the included paragraph. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to result: Glad to have been informed, will read the AC/CT more carefully next time. Will update my behavior accordingly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Doing a self-revert on last edit. Bluethricecreamman (talk)

I also noticed these problematic diffs, which seem to be part of a broader recent trend where disputed content is repeatedly inserted through edit warring in ARBPIA, despite being reverted multiple times. When asked to stop and wait for consensus, there are editors who reintroduce the disputed content anyway and insist that discussions should focus on whether the new content should be removed, rather than if it should be added in the first place. In some cases, they claim consensus exists, even when reverts indicate otherwise. Here are a few examples for these re-adds,leading to controversial content now appearing in the article:

• Genocide of indigenous peoples: beside Bluethericecreamman, the disputed content was also restored by others following the RFC closure as no consensus: [6], [7].
• Palestinians, where a new description as native/indigenous was introduced through edit warring: [8] [9] [10]
• Israeli allegations against UNRWA, where a scope change in all but name was introduced through edit warring, [11], [12], while a RM to move to "UNRWA and Israel" is now ongoing.
• Similar dynamics can be found also at Zionism. This is how its primary description as a "movement that ... aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside of Europe." was introduced, despite many reverts and substantial talk disagreement.

This seems why this may be part of the reason why Wikipedia is not pereceived as trustworthy anymore by some outside media when it comes to ARBPIA. ABHammad (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman: No, that noticeboard is only for normal edit-warring subject to 3RR in non-contentious topics. For edit-warring in designated contentious topics with stricter revert rules, this is the appropriate venue. Left guide (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

@BilledMammal: 6 weeks? Where's that from? (also see Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#WP:NOCONSENSUS where myself and others aren't in agreement with your rather simplistic take on this matter). As for who started it, that would have been yourself on 5 August, a month and a half (!) after the RFc closure on 25 June? Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A self revert does not reset the revert counter, in my opinion. Beyond that @Bluethricecreamman: I suggest you re-read the introduction to to contentious topics given your comments as from what I read here you to need edit carefully and constructively (emphasis in the original). In contentious topics Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and so this self-evert resets your ability to do other reverts. In general your response here - including the suggestion it's the wrong forum which it's not - indicates you don't understand what it means to be a contentious topic and don't understand that norms and policies being more strictly enforced are exactly about this sort of thing. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Given Blue's response I am ok closing this without further action. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a reminder that long term edit warring is still edit warring wouldn't go amiss, although that goes for most editors in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 12 August 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

The Kip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Bajaria (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

ARBPIA ECR, again

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

See the case still on this page above, but linked here for convenience. They received a two-day block after multiple warnings, and it subsequently took them three days to go right back to editing in the area:

1. 16:36 16 August
2. 16:57 16 August

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Blocked 48 hours on 11 August by @Theleekycauldron: for ARBPIA ECR violations, covered in the aforementioned/above case.

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

Copied from above:

• Initial CTOP notice given 07:47 on 4 August.
• Template:Welcome-arbpia given 07:55 on 10 August.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

As mentioned in the first case, Bajaria was given the CTOP notice on 4 August, given the ARBPIA welcome template and an additional warning by myself on 10 August, was aware and responded to the case above, and was blocked for the ECR violations. That they went right back to them, and that they were overly confrontational/didn't seem to acknowledge the repeated warnings that they aren't allowed to be editing in the ARBPIA area at the initial report, makes me wonder if CIR may come into play. Again, this really is a shame, because from their contribs it seems they could be legitimately productive if they properly worked towards XC status - they just don't seem to get that ECR is a hard-line rule. The Kip ^(contribs) 21:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified at time of report.

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.

• Blocked a week. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:28, 16 August 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

Raladic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Peckedagain (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/Gender and sexuality

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

1. 09:34, 13 August 2024 Edit-warring with continuous POV pushing as warned by User:Licks-rocks on their talk page
2. 11:45, 16 August 2024 More POV pushing and completely changing the prose of the lead making it appear as if it is contentious beyond just the UK. Reverted by User:Crossroads [13]
3. 12:20, 17 August 2024 and then they just reverted it again, placing their POV there
4. 16:01, 17 August 2024 more edit-warring of previously reverted content by User:Snokalok
5. 11:13, 13 August 2024 insertion of the very same editorialized edits they were warring over on the other article above, again POV pushing
6. 13:32, 17 August 2024 Deletion of large swaths of well supported RS
7. 21:04, 17 August 2024 Adding undue content trying to whitewash Conversion therapy#Gender exploratory therapy, violating NPOV, UNDUE
8. 21:57, 17 August 2024‎ Again, reversion against consensus of adding coatrack NPOV of prior undo from another user, reverted by User:Flounder fillet
9. 00:47, 18 August 2024 And now pushing their POV on another article without discussion, after having been warned about it on the other article's talk page and having responded to the AE here.
10. 21:00, 19 August 2024 - The user has now started WP:CANVASSing people who may share their views to this AE discussion
11. 23:15, 19 August 2024 NPA accusation without the receipts, the lead of Cass Review clearly supports the statement that it was commissioned for policies of the country
12. 23:40, 19 August 2024 BLP vio, defamation (was REVDEL'd)
13. 21:14, 20 August 2024 More POV pushing, it's getting pretty wild - can we strike a lot of this after enforcement?
14. 00:31, 21 August 2024 Second time making the same BLP vio on defamation (WP:REVDEL by admin)

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

• User_talk:Peckedagain#Introduction_to_contentious_topics

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor appears to be a WP:SPA that joined several months ago, coinciding with the UK's release of the Cass Review, which has been hailed by anti-trans organizations and the user has continuously tried to push anti-trans content in multiple articles since joining. They will often make far ranging changes without actual consensus that had to have been reverted by multiple users. At this point with the latest swath of bad edits that I've linked above that occurred over just the last few days, which were the final straw of why I'm now bringing this to AE (there would be many more that could be pulled up). I don't think this editor is making useful contributions to the GENSEX CTOP area, as they require countless reversions and corrections, so I'm requesting a Topic ban to stop the unconstructive editing of the user.

(On a side note, while this user has been particularly egregious, ever since the UKs release of the Cass Review, there has been a considerable uptick of anti-trans POV pushing happening on various articles, with some editors pushing these views often WP:TAGTEAMing on it, so as someone recently mentioned at ANI, there may very well be a time for a new ArbCom case to help curtail this anti-trans POV pushing that is becoming very WP:TENDENTIOUS.)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

22:23, 17 August 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.

edited 21 Aug - after Radalic's point 12 & 14

• Radalic has reverted my posts on Cal Horton talk - root cause was a quote from another Talk page: both reverts did not state this.
• see my [| my talk page]

Re the points:

• 1- @Licks-rocks has since praised my edits on that
• 7 The UKCP is a credible professional body: I quoted directly: "exploratory therapy must not be conflated with conversion therapy which seeks to change or deny a person’s sexual orientation and/or gender identity. Conversion therapy as so defined is harmful and must not be practised" Is that whitewashing ?
• 2 my edit is pulling up relevant detail from the page: before my edit the lead seemed to minimise that not all organisations supported puberty blockers. Radalic reverted, but could have engaged on Talk at the same time
• 4 after that reversion I opened a section on the Talk page, to invite comment on the importance of the UKCP statement. You have not given even 12 hours for Snokalok, or yourself, to share views there
• 6 Updated for: DanielRigal. Content was transferred to the PP page, apart from text stating what PP is. I checked now and I apologise, I did lose one sentence, starting: "They are also used in specific cases of hormone-sensitive cancers..."

In reply to "user's edits have mostly been unhelpful" by CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath: please see [this example] of constructive work, that took some time

In reply to new points:

• 8 - Ralidic also reverted positive work I did on the page - [Talk]
• But regards the James Esses case, I am at fault: I now realise it was inappropriate for the Cass page, even though the UKCP statement referred to Cass in their opening line.
• 9 - Yes I am at fault: I didn't read carefully enough that I was being invited to use the Talk page, not the page. I have now done that.
• 10: as the diff shows -the bulk of my comment was praising editors of all persuasions and invited them to help on another page.

Is Raladic coming with clean hands to this issue? In the Talk page, they yesterday stated a view that has been many times in Talk shown to be misleading, to be wrongly undermining of what Cass actually is: "The government of one nation has issued a review for use of policies in that country. That is the purpose of the Cass Review, not more, not less." That seems to be a rut they are in, where they are at odds with the consensus of the cass page editors.

Because the Cass review included all worldwide evidence: although it was commissioned by one country, its scientific findings on PB evidence is valid to all.

Is Nosferattus coming with clean hands? - they are being criticized by others for 'completely wrong' statements, and by me for digging up resolved, dead questions

I have not been following this closely but I saw the diff of the big revert, checked the history, and yeah, it looks like several days of edit warring in an attempt to add POV and remove other material from the Puberty blocker article by a (more-or-less) SPA. The big diff is 12.2KB but only ~8.5KB went into Precocious puberty so plenty of material would have disappeared had it not been reverted. Furthermore, moving it all into Precocious puberty doesn't make sense, as some of the material that was moved relates to the blockers in general and is not all specific to precocious puberty. The whole point of having a separate article about the blockers is to cover the medications in detail and leave Precocious puberty to focus on the condition itself, covering the blockers briefly, maybe with a little overlapping content but not too much. I feel that moving so much material about puberty blockers out of the article about puberty blockers has the effect of creating a void of factual medical information in that article, a void that can then be filled up with even more coverage of the trans related political "controversies" instead. That is not what we want in a medical article!

I had a quick look at Peckedagain's other edits. This was their very first edit which seems surprisingly advanced for a first edit. Maybe they edited anonymously before but clearly they had prior experience. Only a very small proportion of their edits are on topics other than transgender issues. Most of the edits I looked at showed signs tendentious editing to some degree. I think it is fair to call them an SPA.

I believe that a topic ban is justified. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following this too closely however I recently interacted with the user at Talk:Puberty blocker. I'm not super familiar with the whole arbitration process on Wikipedia so please mistake any knowledge gaps here. Based on my interactions with the user it seems that they have very fixed beliefs on the topic of transgender healthcare and those views seem to be getting in the way of them making constructive edits. Several users have taken the time to explain to them why some of their edits have been unhelpful and despite this, they continue to make similar edits. I think a topic ban is appropriate here as the user's edits have mostly been unhelpful and they don't seem very open to changing how they contribute. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 02:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of my statement was not to say that you have not made any quality contributions to Wikipedia; my point was that if we were to look at all of your contributions to Wikipedia and weigh them as being either helpful or unhelpful, the majority of your contributions would fall under the unhelpful category. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 01:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't plan on updating my statement but I think this diff really shows the user's real intentions here and their clear lack of a neutral POV. I do see that an admin has weighed in on the topic but it doesn't seem like a conclusion has been reached yet. CursedWithTheAbilityToDoTheMath (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been mentioned here twice now, I'll inform the court that I have seen this. Not much to add, besides that I concur this is a CIR issue and that I have advised Pecked on their talkpage to edit in other areas of the wiki to build some experience. There's definitely some IDHT-symptoms here as well. [14] --Licks-rocks (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to comment here because I thought everything I would say has been said but I think this users reaction to being bought to ae has increased their more problematic editing. As well as this one particular pov pushing diff #[15] caught my attention and was the main reason to comment. I really think the diff speaks for itself. I truly think pecked can be a productive editor and they have been praised for good editing previously. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peckedagain's edit history shows a pattern of POV-pushing on issues related to transgender health care. Their editing on this topic is not in line with the guidelines at Wikipedia:Contentious topics, particularly adherence to WP:NPOV, so a topic ban may be in order. Nosferattus (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The edit warring is almost enough for a topic ban on its own, and the POV pushing found here with extensive quotation certainly isn't a good look. I think some experience in general editing before they're allowed to continue in GENSEX is probably a good idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. We really don't need another POV-pushing SPA in this area, it's crowded enough with them already. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 21 August 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

Vanezi Astghik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

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

1. 15 August 2024: Reverts to their original POV WP:OR. The problem with these are: “Armeno-Georgian” or Mamikonian roots is supported by the sources in the article (including 3 in the lede), yet the user removes the “Armeno” part and adds doubt to Mamkionian roots for no reason (second time now), engaging in WP:TE and WP:OR.
2. 10 June 2024: Removes content based on “outdated” source Brosset, 1849. FYI, it's the same source that's used for Georgian origins [16]; apparently it's outdated for one thing, but can stay for another.
3. 10 June 2024: Adds “cn” templates to existing sources and adds unexplained doubt.
4. 15 August 2024: Removes material that's in the body; this after being specifically called out for selective POV-pushing in the previous edits and shown an additional modern WP:RS in the same comment (which was added to the article), RS that literally supported the info they removed.
5. 24 July 2024: Another WP:TE and WP:OR push by changing sourced material under the guise of “WP:NEUTRALITY violation”. If you read the book's page, it literally says; “These three men, Davit Soslan, Zakare and Ivane Mkhargrdzeli restored the kingdom to a position of conquest”.
6. 13 August 2024: undue Georgian POV with an “Agritourism guide” book despite the lede already having 2 sources, including a far better book from Oxford University that specializes in cheeses and states (including with a quote already in the ref); “Twisted string cheese, chechil panir, husats, or tel cheese are Armenian pasta filata cheeses,…”.
7. 15 August 2024: Reverts to their undue POV now with WP:PRIMARY Georgian government source; this comes after they were shown the quote from the better secondary source that’s in the lede already which doesn’t support their POV.
8. 29 June 2024: WP:OR removes any mention of Armenian from 1st paragraph and adds unexplained doubt, with OR opinionated summary “Armenocentric article”.
9. 5 July: Removes any mention of Armenian and adds WP:OR doubt, no explanation.

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 March 8, 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Lemabeta has been pushing heavy Georgian POV in Armenia-Georgia articles, while downplaying Armenia/Armenians, WP:OR changes of sourced material / adding WP:OR doubt to sources, disregard of sources, or removal of sourced material. I think it’s time AE reviews Lemabeta’s behavior; I’ve tried to talk with them but to no avail, usually they revert and restore their original problematic edits, or push new POV.

Makes personal attacks during AE; "If you could read, you would see that...".

Adds more unexplained WP:OR doubt [17] to a WP:RS during AE.

Response to [18]: I don't think saying the user seemed eager to be blocked was a threat as the user was edit-warring [19], [20] during AE despite not having consensus for changing stable version or adding weaker sources that were directly challenged on talk, thus violating WP:ONUS.

I believe this comment is content related which is intended for talk pages.

Lemabeta claims "I simply didn't look at the sources of other sentences...", but they literally put "cn" tags on everything in this section (even when mostly sourced) excluding the Georgian origins paragraph which had the most outdated source; funny how the only paragraph they "didn't look" suits their POV. And even after, when I added better (modern/expert) source and told them about it [21], they still removed content sourced by it [22] and then put doubt on it [23]. Vanezi (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[24]

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.

1)Cyril Toumanoff work is cited in the source, while Cyril himself never says that the Tumanishvili house was an Armenian house, but rather he says that the origins of Tumanishvili house go back to Mamikonians who Cyril considers to have originated in Georgia specifically in Zaneti region, he in his work mentions that the root of the last name Mamikonian - Mamik comes from the Georgian language theory which is also accepted by the famous Armenian historian - Nicholas Adontz, they both connected the roots of Mamikonians and therefore roots of Tumanishvili to Georgian - Lazs .^{[1] [2]} Which was deleted by the individual reporting me.

2-3-4)The Pro-Armenian POV pushing is visible from the 2nd reference link he inserted---> [25] as you can see the he wrote that the "The Albano-Armenian theory is mostly accepted today, Adarnase being the first independent sovereign of Hereti, which was most likely an Armenian territory beforehand and followed the Monophysitism of Albanians and Armenians instead of the Christian Orthodoxy of the Bagrationis" meanwhile adding a source of Brosset, Marie-Félicité who lived in 19th century, by what standards is this considered as a "modern historians" - plural. Moreover, theory of Brosset is denounced today as he wasn't aware of the medieval works of historians attributing Adarnase of Hereti to Chosroid dynasty of Caucasus, which i inserted in the newer changes, which was completely deleted by the individual reporting me.therefore theory that isn't accepted by most, shouldn't be in the leading.

While Heretian Georgians are still presentHeretians or Ingiloys descendants of a legendary Heros, he keeps changing the Kingdom of Hereti ethnic affiliation to "South Caucasian" to a broader term than Georgian is. Meanwhile in modern historiography Kingdom of Hereti is considered as a Georgian monarchy 5) reference which he inserted [26] --- Since when is NPOV wording of a sentence considered as Armenophobia? But he wants to make it look like Armenian and Alan were the only reason of success of Kingdom of Georgia.

6)-7) Now let's talk about the deletion of sourced material by the individual reporting me. [27] Whole sourced etymology section was removed, because it didn't fit the pro-Armenian narrative he's pushing. Moreover, on Chechili geographical indication is registered in Georgia, protecting the origins of Chechili, which i wrote according to the articles such as Champagne. Chechili origins and GI are protected in more than 30 countries.

8)Melikishvili-Melikov was never known as-Melikyan.Melikov was a russified form of Melikishvili after it was written by Heraclius II as part of Georgian nobility in treaty of Georgievsk^[3]

9)Wikipedia:No personal attacks violation by him "So you have nothing else to do but to edit war again after posting a ridiculous WP:OR rant on a clear scholar"[28] also violations are seen here by using offensive language[29]

"if you could read" isn't an insult. It's same as "If you may" or to politely ask someone. Lemabeta (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lemabeta (talk) 15:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[30] also the threatening to get me blocked "Seems like you're just eager to get blocked ot topic-banned" Lemabeta (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In reply to Rosguill's initial comment I simply didn't look at the sources of other sentences due to the busy schedule involving my masters degree exams. Now that i am aware of the poorly written article, i will take my part in and contribute to the richening of Adarnase Sumbatashvili page, especially because i am a direct descendant of his paternal line. Lemabeta (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In reply to Rosguill's comment So it's better to have an unargumentative and a provocational claim stated as an absolute fact in an article than to delete it? It should have been discussed in a talk page if there was something wrong with my edit instead of accusing me and reporting me of anything firstly.

Moreover, in the talk page [[31]] he had a problem over Kingdom of Hereti being refered to as a Georgian kingdom, thats where the problem lies, thats why he was writing King as "South Caucasian" and Kingdom as "South Caucasian" kingdom. If you want to topic ban me, do it. But my honor in front of god is clean and you can not change that--Lemabeta (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that this cheese is traditionally made in both Armenia and Georgia or that each country claims to be the origin. Something similar may be the case with Gruyere, which is certainly made in Switzerland and France although this is not quite reflected in the wp article on that cheese. See the following source Larousse gastronomique p534 English edition published by Hamlyn (London) 1988 translated from the 1984 French edition.ISBN 0 600 32390 0 More on this source later. .I do not have the sources OUP or the Tbilisi equivalent relied on by the two editors so I cannot comment. I have not seen any other articles on Armenian or Georgian subjects they may have clashed on. The online sources are inconclusive. At an early stage in the argument I put in a piece based on a British Government source showing that Britain recognised a kind of chechill was made in Georgia. I also found a general source which showed it was "a European and Central Asian cheese" suggesting it was made anywhere and everywhere from the west of Ireland an Portugal to Mongolia. I put a sentence in mentioning this but I am considering withdrawing this as it does not seem accurate. I am a cheese lover but I have never seen or tasted it in UK where I live nor any of the other western or central European countries I have been to (even Greece) The only other sources my Google search revealed were cheese selling sites which revealed the cheese was also made in US, Turkey (I think), Bulgaria.and South Africa! I have searched my copy of Larousse gastronomique-see above. The article on cheese does not mention chechil, nor does it mention Georgia or Armenia. Chechill does not have its own article as do many cheeses such as Gruyere, Stilton and Gorgonzola, nor do Armenia or Georgia. I also searched Russia as this is a 1984 book and both countries were part of the USSR . Here it says Georgia was home to a hard cheese called tuchouri.. No cheese is mentioned for Armenia. The only other "Russian" cheese mentioned is Sovietski which has its own article and which presumably is either no longer made or has been renamed.. I think both parties have shown intemperate, but both have made some valid points and surely a compromise article should be arrived at showing that the cheese is made in both countries. I am not sure if an origin can be stated with accuracy. Spinney Hill (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC) I think Tbillisi University is quite capable of having an independent unbiased publishing arm. It is no longer part of the USSR or even Russia.Spinney Hill (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vanezi Astghik, you're at about 670 words. Please trim to 500, and consider whether you'd like to save some words for future replies. Lemabeta, you're right at the limit; do not respond further. Both of you can request an extension, but I wouldn't recommend it at this time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• While at first blush I was tempted to say that this was just a content dispute and should be resolved via RfC, I am concerned by Lemabeta's responses. With regard to point 2 in particular, this is the state of the article as of when Lemabeta began to edit it. While it's valid to contest the validity of a 19th century source, it is glaring that this source already comprises 2/3 of the citations in the article, including, as noted in the initial report, the specific claims of Bagratoni/Georgian heritage. It's hard to assume good faith of the objections to the sourcing of other claims to these same sources. I'm also dissatisfied with Lemabeta's response listed as "6-7", as, irrespective of the merits of the underlying edits, in this context Lemabeta's addition of content could be taken as the continuation of an edit war for a matter actively, so accusing Vanezi of deletion of sourced material seems a bit off base--at this juncture, adding the material was not appropriate: it should have been discussed, and potentially resolved via RfC if a consensus could not be reached between the two of you and other editors watching the article. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Lemabeta, at AE replies are not threaded (except occasionally between admins); new comments should be placed in your own section (I have moved the substantive portion of yours already as a courtesy). You're also a bit over your word limit--rather than request that you retract or rephrase, I'm just going to issue Vanezi Astghik a commensurable 50-word extension so that you're both allowed the same amount. Please do not reply further in this case unless addressed directly for comment _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Having now actually reviewed the content of Lemabeta's response, I don't find this explanation persuasive at all given the length of the article at the time and the position of the content edited vs other content that had previously been the crux of the dispute. And even if it were persuasive, it would still be a violation of the WP:CTOP instruction to edit carefully--if you're so rushed that you overlook such an obvious issue with your edit, you shouldn't be editing this topic. I'd appreciate other admins' input, but am currently leaning toward a topic ban on history of the Caucasus, including the history of its cultural heritage, broadly construed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, although possibly only an article-space topic ban, leaving them an allowance to engage on talk pages, as there is no evidence of talk page disruption given. That said, bespoke sanctions of that sort seldom work, and create more work for the others in the topic area, so I'm also fine with the standard topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just based on the diffs coming since the awareness notice, I'm seeing actionable POV-pushing. The legalese OR at places like Talk:Chechil#Georgian origins of the cheese is disruptive enough that I'd favor a standard topic ban, though I'm happy to see it kept as narrow as Rosguill's suggestion. It is reflective of the problem that Lemabeta has worsened their word limit violation despite the direct instructions from myself and Rosguill. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers, @ScottishFinnishRadish, I’m not sure we’re interpreting my proposal the same way. My thinking was that the scope needs to be “Caucasus”, rather than Georgia or Armenia, because the pattern of editing suggests to me that if banned from those topics, they would likely continue similar disruption by editing to remove the claims of other neighboring culture groups that compete with Georgia’s. I included the extra clause about “history of its cultural heritage” as I anticipate that without such a stipulation we’ll see a breaching attempt at an article like Chechil with the argument that it’s “not history”. While of course such a move could be sanctioned (although in my experience more likely than not it would result in just a final stern warning), getting ahead of it now would save us some wikilawyering. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 12:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I interpreted it. I'd prefer that over an article-only ban. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish, is this option amenable to you, at least as a second choice? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:28, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm fine with that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:53, 22 August 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

Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

New three-month old account, same old edit wars.

• Zionism
  • Removals of "colonization" and similar (partial list: editors who have been sanctioned recently or have pending reports at AE): Kentucky Rain24 (KR) June 6, האופה June 7, KR June 8, ABHammad June 10 (another), O.maximov June 11, האופה June 12, ABHammad July 2, O.maximov July 3, האופה July 4, Icebear244 July 4, [fully-protected July 11-14], ABHammad July 21 (predicate edit for #ABHammad report), PeleYoetz Aug 11 - first and only edit to the article with edit summary Reverted to the last stable version ...
  • first and only talk page comment - There's clearly no consensus here ... I see 9-10 voices against the change.
    • Icebear244 Jul 4, filing the complaint against Nishidani: There is significant opposition to the proposed changes (at least 7 editors) evident on both the talk page and through repeated restorations of the last stable version.
    • Icebear244 later on Jul 4 clarifies it's 9, not 7: You seem to have overlooked @האופה, who also opposed using the term in the discussion, and it appears @Vegan416 did too.
    • האופה July 4: ... At least 7 editors clearly oppose this framing
    • Of the 9-10 editors, 3 have been blocked, 1 TBANed, 1 0RR, and 3 currently have pending AE reports
• Israel - "various causes" / "various reasons": ABHammad Jun 23, האופה Jun 23, O.maximov Aug 3 (predicate edit for #O.maximov report), האופה Aug 6, PeleYoetz Aug 8 - first and only edit to the article, with edit summary there is no consensus for this new change. No talk page posts.
• Israeli allegations against UNRWA
  • האופה Aug 7 - removes it entirely in their first edit to the article with edit summary this article is about UNRWA involvement in October 7, not the history of Israeli-UNRWA relations, removing recently added material that totally changed the scope
    • They had not participated in the talk page discussion prior to reverting
    • One talk page message immediately prior to the revert: 1; more after: 2, 3, 4
  • PeleYoetz Aug 7 - removes it entirely in their first and only edit to the article with edit summary the scope was changed without real discussion on the proposed change
    • They had not participated in the discussion on the talk page prior to reverting
    • Two talk page messages immediately prior to the revert: 1, 2

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

July 21

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Outside of the editors I've reported to AE, in this topic area, right now, I don't believe you will find other examples of what this report shows: two editors, "Editor A" and "Editor B", where Editor B:

1. Repeats Editor A's edits, votes the same way as Editor A, or otherwise "backs up" Editor A
2. Three times at three different articles
3. At articles they've never edited before
4. Where they've also never before participated on the talk page
5. Where they contribute nothing to the article except backing up Editor A
6. Within the first few months of editing

We can even drop #6, I still don't think there's another example outside of what I've posted at AE lately. @Vanamonde93: Would it change your mind if, instead of three times, it was six times? Here are three more examples: A, B; A, B; A, B. As a bonus, here's a seventh example, this time the order is reversed: B, A. This is not normal editing; this isn't something other editors do. But if we allow this to happen, if we say this is an OK thing to do, then others will start doing it, too. Levivich (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though PeleYoetz continued editing after I filed this report, they haven't edited since Van asked for their comment four days ago. FWIW I'm fine for this to be closed as moot if admins want to; if there is future disruption, I or someone else can ask for admin intervention if needed. Levivich (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1239832259

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 everyone,

I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure what's going on here. Most of my Wikipedia activity is focused on tourism and food-related topics. I've only made a few edits regarding the conflict, and since then, I've felt increasingly targeted. It began with Selfstudier questioning on my talk page how I found the UNRWA page, a topic that made headlines in my home country of Israel the same day (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APeleYoetz&diff=1239101772&oldid=1236281410). Then came this report by Levivich, which I still don't fully understand, and now I've received a strange question from Nableezy on my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APeleYoetz&diff=1240399865&oldid=1239832259). I’m getting the impression that my contributions on the conflict are simply unwelcome.

If I've made any mistakes or violated Wikipedia policies, I'd appreciate it if someone could let me know. I've read through many pages before editing, and I hope I haven't done anything wrong.

Thank you. PeleYoetz (talk) 10:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until recently I had no real involvement with this editor other than giving an awareness notice in July. Just to add to Levivich diffs:

At Majdal Shams, First of two edits (inconsequential second edit a minute after that) to the article, nothing on talk page, arrives 2 minutes after האופה (aka HaOfa) edit and changes the SD from Town in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights -> Druze town in the northern Golan Heights, an obvious POV edit.

At Masada myth, shows up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masada myth same day as nominated by HaOfa, no prior article edits or at talk page. Agrees with HaOfa.

Same pattern at Israeli allegations against UNRWA, no prior involvement and then consecutive reverts, HaOfa then PeleYoetz.

It is doubtful that this pattern is coincidental. PeleYoetz role appears to be as back up for HaOfa, to support their actions.

I wish PeleYoetz had decided to say nothing rather than write about being targeted, having strange questions and being unwelcome. Now I need to ask whether it matters that an editor with ~1050 edits spread over ~380 different pages has 175 pages in common with topic banned and blocked editor User:Gilabrand?

Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't see what action I could reasonably take here. The ideal approach to a content dispute is for all parties to engage substantively on the talk page until it's sorted, via RfC and outside input if needed. Across the ARBPIA conflict, editors don't do this; instead are slow-moving multi-party edit-wars, and considerable stonewalling on talk pages. When this behavior becomes egregious I'm open to sanctioning anyone and everyone involved, but I don't see anything here rising to that level. A lot of users could stand to engage better on the talk page(s). Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be interested to hear from PeleYoetz in light of the most recent diffs. As I've said elsewhere, agreement between parties heavily invested in the topic is to be expected; a similar pattern from editors not substantively engaged implies off-wiki coordination. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm generally addressing this at #האופה since it's basically the same report, but these types of patterns are wildly easy to find looking at anyone who is involved in the topic area. In less than ten minutes I found more damning "evidence" for two other editors active in the topic. As I said there, if we're going to sanction based on these patterns it would have to be evenly enforced and boy howdy it would be a mess. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think tag-team edit-warring is disruptive. If regulars aren't willing to not be disruptive, then yeah, they've kind of forced our hand. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Close with no action, hopefully addressed at Arbcom? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you suggesting no action is the appropriate outcome or are you suggesting that refer to arbcom is the right outcome but since we're already there nothing more needs to be done? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The latter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 19 August 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

Morbidthoughts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

TenPoundHammer (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/Conduct in deletion-related editing#TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)

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

1. 22:31, 25 August 2024‎: Using BLPN for WP:PROXYING: "Seems to have had his fingers in a few pies but nothing passing WP:GNG. Strongly suggest prod or AFD."

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• I don't see these types of prompts including the three that Nil Einne listed as being different from what got JPL blocked.[32] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[33]

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 see how my statements are my topic ban. It's why I backed off with the Jonathan Prince discussion. I know it's not the first time I brought something to BLPN with an implication that it be AFD'd, either. I agree that my topic-ban from XFD and BLAR is justifiable, and I'm trying to work within the limits of it, but I can see how taking something to BLPN and saying "anyone wanna AFD this" is dubious. Would verbiage on BLPN akin to "here's what I found or didn't find; what do you think should be done with this page?" be more acceptable?

I am considering drafting up an appeal to be submitted in due time and a game plan to tackle my history of XFD problems, although I'm not sure how something like this is going to weigh on it.

I think opening this discussion in this manner is way overboard, especially since I did catch myself and realize that what I was doing was dubious before I went any further. I move that this be closed as I feel this entire discussion is a massive overreaction and it seems I'm not alone in thinking so, as Barkeep49 and ScottishFinnishRadish pointed out.

I have no clear opinion on whether TenPoundHammer's editing is a violation but FWIW this isn't the first time they've brought articles to BLPN either directly mentioning AFD or deletion as a possibility [34] (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kristan Cunningham) & [35] (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive360#Rossi Morreale) or where they didn't but did suggest the article did not meet GNG [36] (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive360#Myrlin Hermes). In all of those other 3, at least one editor has seen enough of a problem that the article was deleted after AFD (in 2 cases) or BLARed (in 1 case). But while recognising unsourced BLPs are a problem, I've never been convinced of the wisdom of TenPoundHammer doing this in light of their topic ban. And IMO, at a minimum if it continues, TenPoundHammer really should disclose their topic ban when opening these threads so anyone reading the thread is aware of the circumstances. However I've never spoken to them about my concerns as I wasn't that active for most of it, and even now I'm trying to limit my activity. It looks like no one else has spoken to them either. Nil Einne (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think TPH should be able to post at BLPN. What they should not do is make what are essentially AfD nomination statements with a nudge for someone else to go and nominate. TPH needs to knock that off and perhaps just ask for their tban to be repealed or loosened. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, this is close enough to the edge that I wouldn't leap to an immediate sanction. A solid "Hey, knock that off" will probably be enough at this point. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I support closing this as TenPoundHammer is advised that they should not post comments suggesting an AfD. Johnuniq (talk) 04:42, 27 August 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

Lima Bean Farmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2020 § c-Dreamy Jazz-2020-12-19T12:38:00.000Z-American politics 2

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[37]

I am looking to appeal a topic ban on post-1992 American politics. These case would be more open and shut if there weren’t a more recent edit to this ban. The original ban was over 3 years ago for post-1932 American politics but was changed to post-1992 American politics over a year ago. I would like to edit in this section a bit more freely, and I have not faced any sanctions or other administrative action since then. I have made large structural edits to pages such as List of productions impacted by the 2023 Writers Guild of America strike and List of convicted war criminals, demonstrating my ability to work with other editors to come to consensus while also using reliable sources when and where appropriate. In summary, since my last appeal, I have demonstrated more frequent Wikipedia editing that follows guidelines, helps productive editing, and understanding consensus for the past year. Having knowledge in the topic of post-1992 politics, having this topic ban lifted would allow me greater freedom for productive editing. Thank you for your decision in advance! Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if it is appropriate to reply here, but I would like to address that the reason I was indefinitely blocked was for socking. I do acknowledge that using an alternative account most times, but especially to evade a ban or block is wrong. I can assure it won’t happen again and I can assure that it hasn’t happened in the past 3+ years. Please let me know if this addresses your concern. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe I already spoke on the part of editing (please let me know if you’d like me to further clarify), but the indefinite ban was due to socking. I will avoid this issue by never editing with another account, especially to evade or bypass a block or ban. I can assure that I haven’t done this in the past 3+ years since the ban and can assure you that I won’t do it again in the future. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ScottishFinnishRadish, I had to go back and check but it was a 3 month ban for “disruptive editing”. I believe this was due to a high volume of editing in this topics at that time and my edits/experience not being up to par. A mix of things caused this I believe, including edit warring/not using talk pages appropriately, not using edit summaries regularly, and adding unsourced content. All of these are things I have demonstrated at least some level of proficiency in over the past 3 years (although I am most definitely still learning a lot here) and have shown a commitment to becoming a better more productive editor. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a quick look from their contributions and what others have said at WP:ARCA, it seems that Lima Bean Farmer has been editing constructively elsewhere.

However, the text of this appeal does not directly address the reasons why the indefinite topic ban was placed. I would, personally, like to see some acknowledgement of what led up to the topic ban and a commitment to not repeat the mistakes of the past.

For example, in their last appeal they said please don’t hold a grudge when asked about a comment they made while appealing their block. I would like to be sure that Lima Bean Farmer understands that we need to see that they have changed, and therefore we are not holding a grudge but instead want to be sure that the topic ban is no longer necessary. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 06:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As to socking, I have not run a check. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 06:36, 16 August 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.

• I'm generally amenable to appeals made after a few years, but I'm interested in Dreamy Jazz's thoughts, as well as if there has been any further socking. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Lima Bean Farmer, can you please explain why the indefinite topic ban was placed and how you will avoid the same issues in the future? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And what were the issues that led to the original topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyone else? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless anyone else objects, I'll be closing this as a successful appeal with a note that there will be little patience for any further disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I support this outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be more enthusiastic in supporting the appeal if we weren't approaching the peak US political period. However, to move this forward I will support the appeal while noting that there won't be much patience in the area of post-1992 American politics for the foreseeable future. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 27 August 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

Number 57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:41, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Silvertide goldwaves (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

Silvertide goldwaves made a large number of Israel-Palestine conflict edits prior to meeting the 30/500 requirement. While this was potentially an inadvertent breach, there were several other issues with the editing, much of which was highly partisan, and also contained misleading edit summaries like this.

Although they have now passed the 30/500 threshold, their edits continue to be problematic. When some of their edits were reverted (by another editor who does not meet the 30/500 requirement), they reinstated them with disparaging edit summaries like this.

I noticed some of their pre 30/500 edits today and undid them on the basis that they were ARBPIA violations. They then reinstated the edits with the same disparaging edit summary as mentioned above. I followed this up with a notice on their talkpage and re-reverted a couple of their edits that I felt were of concern (and on the basis that the initial revert was exempt from ARBPIA4 on the basis that it was enforcing the extended confirmed restriction).

Despite now being aware of the 1RR restriction, they reverted for a second time with another disparaging edit summary. They have since followed me to football-related articles that I have recently edited and deleted entire sections (e.g. here and here).

While this initially looked like an ARBPIA sanction might be required, their most recent behaviour makes it look like it might be a WP:NOTHERE case.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

In response to the comments below, my "allergy" to reliable sources is due to them not supporting the claims Silvertide goldwaves is using them to make. Here they claim that the source states that Shimshit is "Jewish-only". In fact the source describes them as Jewish but not Jewish-only, and more importantly, the Central Statistical Bureau's census figures for Shimshit (which can be downloaded from here (just click on the Excel icon; Shimshit is row 1,232 in the resulting file)) confirm that it is not Jewish-only – it has a population of 2,441, of which 2,428 are Jews and 13 are non-Jews. The same is true for Givat Ela (which Silvertide has also claimed is Jewish-only; the census figures (row 268) show it to have a population of 1,896, of which 1,873 are Jewish, 4 are Arab and 18 are other). The latter contradicts their use of the source to claim the villages prevent Arabs from living in them. Number 57 02:47, 31 August 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.

"I noticed some of their pre 30/500 edits" which ones? Be specific. What is "problematic"? Be specific. Do not waste anyone's time by dancing around the heart of the matter - your allergy to inconvenient yet reliable, even academic sources - by operating in vagaries.

"Following" you or me is A-OK on Wikipedia, and unsourced information on Wikipedia should be removed. That I see pages you edit, that have unsourced information (potentially fiction), necessitates their removal.

Silvertide goldwaves' edits have indeed been problematic, and I'm sorry I didn't turn on the fire hose earlier. The 500/30 violations need to be seen in the light of the absence of CT notification, but the poor sourcing and aggressive behavior are harder to excuse. I also disapprove of the mass removal rather than tagging of sourceable-but-unsourced information even though the rules allow it. Number 57's comments on "Jewish-only" communities don't work because there are many small communities in Israel with policies against Arab residents which nevertheless have a small number of such residents. This has been legal since 2014 [38] but I don't know the situation in the communities named here. Obviously that comes down to sourcing and it seems that SG's sources were not sufficient. I don't think SG is likely to be a good contributor in the near future, but (perhaps optimistically) a time-limited block might provide an opportunity to cool the enthusiasm and learn our policies and practices better. Zero^talk 09:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just an observation, but Silvertide goldwaves' editing appears to act as an ECR violating probable-sock magnet e.g. here. Sean.hoyland (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I see some significant concerns here, including the fixed typos edit summaries for contentious substantive edits and the retaliatory deletion of uncontroversial material from unrelated football articles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The poor edit summaries, both attacking an editor and inaccurately stating fixed typos, along with the general hostility leads me to believe they should be removed from the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd tend to agree on the ARBPIA stuff. I'm not as concerned by the removal of unreferenced material from the football articles (unreferenced material is always subject to removal at any time), but the edits and certainly the edit summaries on the ARBPIA articles are needlessly nasty and inflammatory. I do not think this editor should be editing ARBPIA articles, and absent objection by an uninvolved admin within a day or so will close with a topic ban from that area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:32, 5 September 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

Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Zatinya (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:ARBPIA4 extended-confirmed restriction

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

1. 31 August 2024: Moved Virginia Israel Advisory Board (VIAB) to mainspace (this was before the CT alert)
2. 4 September 2024: Moved Virginia Coalition for Human Rights (VCHR) to mainspace (after the CT alert and speedy deletion nomination saying they aren't allowed to create articles in this area)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Given an alert on September 2, 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This seems to be a misguided Wiki Ed project. But the fundamental principle of Wiki Ed is that their editors should be treated by the English Wikipedia community the same way as others, so here we are. And in any event the most recent creation is a messy, poorly-sourced article with no evidence of meeting WP:NORG.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zatinya&diff=prev&oldid=1244362470

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.

• I've deleted the articles and given them a clear warning that further ECR violations will result in a block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]