Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:36, 23 July 2024

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

Salfanto

Salfanto blocked indef (diff) as a regular admin action (no AE enhancements). El_C 12:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Salfanto

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBEE

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

12 June 2024 Adds in WP:WIKIVOICE that the perpetrators of a missile strike on civilians were the Armed Forces of Ukraine, complete violation of WP:DUE.
27 June 2024 Uses Twitter/X and other non WP:RS to claim the deaths of volunteers in Ukrainian military unit.
18 June 2024 Uses Facebook to reference another death on the same article as above
13 June 2024 Uses butchered Facebook reference to name commander of Ukrainian military unit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

21 February Blocked by El C for persistent addition of unsourced content.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 3 April 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

In response to JDiala: After editing for over two years and recieving countless notices about these policies, I don't think the ″new editor″ excuse flies anymore. We're all new at some point, but you're still expected to start following guidelines when they have been pointed out to you. Not even a block got the point across in this case, so either there is an inability or unwillingess to edit in line with policy. Your second point seems like a bit of a tangent, we're here to discuss the editor being reported, not about project-wide issues, both inexperienced and experienced editors can face consequences when engaging in POV pushing, which I would think you would know given that you have a topic ban. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JDiala Then you should stay on topic, which is the editor conduct of Salfanto. TylerBurden (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Salfanto You have been continuing to use Twitter/X as a source for adding content claiming deaths of WP:BLP, and that is well after you have been both informed about and blocked for referencing policies. TylerBurden (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support an indef block as discussed below, since they are continuing to make the same kind of edits even while this report is up, seen for example here. The source makes no mention of desertion (abandonment of military duty without permission) yet Salfanto adds their own WP:SYNTH about it. They either do not care or do not understand referencing policies. TylerBurden (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2 July 2024

Discussion concerning Salfanto

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

Statement by Salfanto

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

Statement by JDiala

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

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

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

Statement by ManyAreasExpert

I'm still waiting for the editor to explain their edits here Talk:Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion#Assessed by the ISW . Another edit, where they add ambiguous This claim was assessed by Institute for the Study of War on 7 November 2023 , is [1] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found another piece from the editor [2] where they spread poor- or unsourced Russian propaganda as a thing actually happening. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another misrepresentation [3] where the source 'War in Ukraine is like WWI but with drones,' says foreign fighter | Euronews says Bjørn reckons that of the recruits end up at the front, 20 % leave after 2-5 missions because they realise that “war is hell” but it becomes "20% desert". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SaintPaulOfTarsus

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

Result concerning Salfanto

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

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

Aredoros87

Aredoros87 indefinitely topic banned from AA2. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Aredoros87

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: Aredoros87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

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

16 June 2024 Re-adding contentious content that was previously reverted and never reply to the talk discussion
24 June 2024 Removes the development projects for being "unsourced" when there are in fact multiple sources (see Philanthropy and social entrepreneurship section, which Aredoros87 also edited in [4])
22 June 2024 During an AFD likely to be redirected (which happened two days later), Aredoros87 heavily expands the article and says they will add the content elsewhere if the article is redirected
24 June 2024 Moves the AFD article content to this article, with a number of WP:NPOV violations, such as using the word "occupation" for a town (Shushi/Shusha) that wasn't part of the occupied regions
30 June 2024 Further POV pushing use of "occupation" for Shushi, with partisan low-quality sources

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

29 December 2023 Arbitration enforcement sanctions, including temporary AA ban and an indefinite restriction requiring to obtain consensus to readd any content that has reverted in any article related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed.

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

Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 29 December 2023 by Callanecc (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[6]

Discussion concerning Aredoros87

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

Statement by Aredoros87

False. When the content was removed by Vanezi, I started a discussion on talk page.[7] He said "more sources would be needed"[8]. And I added 3 new sources for that specific content under the edit summary "added Kökçe version with extra sources per discussion".[9]
I removed an unsourced claim. Even if there is information in the body of the article, we still need to have references for the statements in the intro. This could have been restored with a proper reference. Deleting unsourced claims is not a violation.
That particular page is being edited by a number of random non-EC, newly registered users. Even I had to request for protection[10]. This edit was also done by a person that I reported here[11]. Just one day after it's being closed, Vanezi made this report.
Not correct. The page was proposed to be deleted or redirected just because it was unsourced and duplicate as mentioned by the nominator.[12]. I added sources and left a comment saying: "I added sources and pics to all items in the list...Technically speaking, I would support redirecting,..If the consensus will be "Redirect", I will move the content as well. Otherwise, I will extend the article."[13]. In the end article was redirected, and I moved the content there.[14]
The result of the AFD was to redirect. That doesn't mean the sourced content cannot be reused in the redirected article.
I simply moved content from the deleted article, without checking the wording. If there's problem with the wording, Talk Page is the place Vanezi should discuss first. -- Aredoros | 17:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Vanezi never challenged reliability of the sources. As you can see from the talk page[15], he complained about WP:WEIGHT, and asked for more sources, and I added.
Please pay attention that, in this report, initially, Vanezi claimed that I re-added a content without a discussion, now he/she is challenging sources.
2. From MOS:LEADCITE: Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.
3. From WP:DISCUSSAFD: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination which is what I did. If there's a problem with the sources Vanezi could start a discussion first.
4. On talk page, arguments should be presented first to challenge the sources.
5. As I mentioned in this edit summary (copy from the revision)[16] I just moved content from this revision[17] which was redirected without any discussion.
Also, stating that Shusha was occupied is not POV pushing. Some international organizations, such as PACE, considered Nagorno-Karabakh an occupied territory. From PACE report: "Nagorno-Karabakh and the other occupied territories of Azerbaijan".[18].
We could have a discussion to decide whether to use "occupied" or "controlled", but Vanezi never started a discussion. Aredoros87 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish,

1. On 10/05, I started a discussion. On 17/05 Vanezi replied me saying more sources are needed. On 16/06 I found new ones and added. Why Vanezi didn't challenge the reliability of the sources for 18 days? What was he waiting for? Isn't it weird?

The user also ignored talk pages on other articles as well. Please see the conversation there. Vanezi just ignored section #3.

2. But there's no ref tag next to it. MOS:LEADCITE says controversial subjects may require many citations

3. All you mentioned in green text already exists in article. I just added missing part. And I want to note, the article was heavily edited by user who declared it's connection to the subject[19]. Originally this article had almost no critical information about Vardanyan, despite critical reports in major Western media. Aredoros87 (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Aredoros87

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

This seems to have gotten somewhat missed; ARBPIA threads like the one below have a bit of a habit of sucking all the air out of the room. I'll try to read through this when I can, but just commenting here to keep the bots at bay. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I too will try and come back and look through in the next few days. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Having looked at the diffs above before I saw SFR's post I came to the same conclusion that #1 is a violation of the restriction and that the editing to the Ruben Vardanyan article is problematic. It also worth noting that in the original thread which lead the sanction Aredoros87's editing of the Ruben Vardanyan article was a large part of the problem. I agree that a TBAN from AA-related topics is an appropriate way forward especially when considered in the context of WP:ARBAA3#Administrators encouraged. I'd also suggest noting that if a future appeal of that TBAN is successful it should come with a TBAN from Ruben Vardanyan. Given it was my original sanction I'm willing to do the TBAN but I'll wait a couple days for others to weigh in. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- After reading your response I have decided to issue a topic ban from AA2. Whether you can excuse it or not this is a clear break of the consensus required restriction which requires you to seek consensus for challenged edits not to make them and hope for consensus. Regarding the other two, your reason does not justify the actions you took or are not relevant to the problem behind your editing.

This is a clear violation of their sanction to not re-add reverted content without consensus. This removal was clearly sourced in a section, and this fails NPOV as cherry picking and is a overly-close paraphrase from the source, which says (machine translated) "Why Ruben Vardanyan Can See the Future" was the title of an article published in GQ magazine in 2017. In it, Vardanyan is portrayed as a philanthropist and visionary, which is what he tried to portray himself as in the 2010s, after he made his fortune in the 1990s. During those years, he launched charity projects, invested in the Skolkovo business school, where, according to his idea, personnel for Russian business should be forged, and built a school in Dilijan, Armenia, with a unique educational methodology that should “unite people, nations and cultures in the name of peace and a sustainable future.” The source runs nearly 5000 words. I see a topic ban as a reasonable response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

A bunch of socks/compromised accounts blocked. Further action related to anything here will need a separate report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Nishidani

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:General_sanctions

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

Complaint by account compromised to evade a sanction
[20] Restoration of an extremely contested, recently added content, despite lacking consensus and ongoing discussions. Commented "revert patent abuse by barely qualified IP editors" (all editors involved appear adequately qualified). [21] Repeated restoration of the same controversial content.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Complaint by account compromised to evade a sanction

On February, warned against using unconstructive or unnecessarily inflammatory language in the topic area, for using highly inflammatory language ("dumb goyim beware") [22]
Week-long block for personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: [23],
Day-long block for violating the consensus required sanction [24]
Day-long block for personal attacks or harassment [25]
Week-long block for personal attacks or harassment [26]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Comments by account compromised to evade a sanction

Nishidani and other editors persistently and forcibly and disruptively push a much-disputed definition of "Zionism" as colonization, despite ongoing discussions aimed at consensus. There is significant opposition to the proposed changes (at least 7 editors) evident on both the talk page and through repeated restorations of the last stable version. I read on their talk page [27] that just yesterday another editor asked them to withdraw their uncivil commentary and self-revert but they declined to do so. They declined my request too. [28] Such behavior discourages participation and unfairly dismisses contributors as "unqualified," yet upon checking, each one of them has made substantial contributions over a significant amount of time on Wikipedia. It is concerning that experienced editors, who should set an example for newer ones, appear to not only misunderstand the concept of consensus but also resort to attacking editors attempting to reach consensus and uphold neutrality. From their block log, it appears that Nishidani has received multiple sanctions in the past related to both personal attacks and consensus issues, which are the same issues under consideration currently. Icebear244 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani, let me correct you. You seem to have overlooked @האופה, who also opposed using the term in the discussion, and it appears @Vegan416 did too. My count shows it's nine, which calls for further discussion before any disruptive editing, edit-counting, or uncivil commentary continues. This diff, by the way, is also worth reviewing [29], as attributing views to others appears to be another issue. Icebear244 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk sure. I did some browsing and was surprised to see that we define Zionism, in WP:VOICE, as colonization. I wondered how there could be a consensus for this and checked the edit history. It quickly became clear that there is no real consensus, but rather a forceful imposition of a controversial view by multiple experienced editors, with Nishidani being especially aggressive. Then I noticed that Selfstudier, who has just written to me on my talk page, is no less severe, constantly using intimidation and edit warring to force their views while discussions and even RFCs are ongoing. These editors are acting together and defending each other even in this discussion, which highlights how serious the problem is.

Despite being aware of the potential WP:BOOMERANGs and the risks involved, what I saw was so dire in my opinion that I would not mind receiving sanctions, as long as it finally prompts someone to take action (@ScottishFinnishRadish, even if a topic ban is totally unfair after just one possibly problematic edit and edit summary, as opposed to decades of unsanctioned violations discussed here). Banning me honestly won't solve the problem, since I have made just a few edits in this topic area. In fact, it might make the problem worse by driving neutral people away, who won't report violations now seeing the consequences. I hope the admins here won't turn a blind eye this time. This is the time to act. Icebear244 (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[30]

Discussion concerning Nishidani

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

Statement by Nishidani

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

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

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

@Icebear244. No, no mistake. I made my tally of the figures analysing the edit history of the article. User:האופה ( 1,262 edits, registered just after 7 October 2023) made a brief off the top of the head talk page comment. Vegan is the only one identifiable with the position of the 7 who, quite properly, abstained from reverting the passage he contests on the talk page.

The essence of what happened is that 19 editors over a month engaged, mostly, with one revert each (with notable exceptions, Unbandito made several and מתיאל made five. I followed the page but, apart from providing several sources when a cn note was posted, did not intervene. I made one revert whenI reverted O’maximov (1,010 edits in 5 months). Note that he was reverting Zero0000, who is perhaps the most meticulously knowledgeable student of the scholarship on Zionism we have). I'd made my revert, and left it at that.

Some days later out of the blue you (Icebear244) joined the six other editors who reverted to the minority-supported version with the following, plainly false edit summary about the state of the consensus'The next to restore this disputed version, against consensus and every possible wiki policy, will be reported for edit warring and disruptive editing'.

I would accept that from an administrator (while noting on their page that they had restored the version that had less support), but we peons are not allowed to join one or another side in a dispute, in a blatantly partisan manner, and dictate a ukase, forbidding any challenge under pain of an AE sanction. And in singling out me, you ignored all the evidence that several of those whose reverts you favoured were multiple reverters, not, like myself, engaged until then in a single revert. That was such an outrageous assumption of authority, the use of threat language to support a minority view and make it the default text, that, well, if I see intimidation, I don't buckle. I undid it, particularly because you never made any comment on the talk page in support of the minority but just barged in. Note that in your complaint all of the behavioural defects you cite could be applied equally, at the least, to editors on the side you joined.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos Black Kite's comment. I did think of jotting a note to the effect that this is the third of three AE complaints against me since February jist this year. And that in the context of a further two cases involving the incidence on wikipedia of outside interference in the way we edit these articles ((4) 4th (5)5th). But I decided not to make the point BK just made, preferring to drop the temptation, and go to bed and read a novel. It would have sounded like whingeing, a pathetic intimation that I deserve some immunity- No one can expect extraordinary sanctuary here or special rights. Still, I do 'worry', to the degree that I 'worry' about such gossip (I don't), that the 'no-smoke-without-fire' psychological syndrome will kick in against me if this barrage persists. Nishidani (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk. True, if you trawl through the dozens of AE complaints emerging from reactions to my 96,000 edits over 18 years, you will get a score or two of remonstrative cracks expressive of the frustration at finding that the several hundred book and scholarly article sources which it is my main interest in supplying to wikipedia are often reverted or disputed by a handful of editors who prefer talkpage challenges which, in my view do not reflect the ideal I cited in your citation of the Tamzim thread ('the self-conscious, deliberative use of reason as an instrument for the strategic pursuit of truth.'Josiah Ober, The Greeks and the Rational:The Discovery of Practical Reason, University of California Press 2022 ISBN 978-0-520-38017-2 p.1.') So yes, I should be perfect, and bear up. And when dragged into extensive threads where complaining editors show little knowledge of the subject (they do not cite any scholarship in rebuffing the data culled from it, but have decided views of what can or cannot be said) I should keep my nose to the happy grindstone and not react. But every now and again, it would be refreshing if these endless plaintiffs' records were examined to see if they add useful scholarly sources regularly or, as it strikes me, spend an inordinate amount of time singularly on talk pages, at ANI/AE or tweaks/reverts of what others add. Nishidani (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk. About you proposal, I don't really object, though in the several cultures I have lived my various lives in, I've never been called uncivil. To the contrary (but no one need take my word for that). (The proposal will of course mean that the on average 3 AE complaints per year (it seems) that I have to face will multiply, because every edit I make will henceforth be closely parsed to see if some word, some 'attitude' there can give warrant for an AE report Several times, after an editor has repeated the same argument while sidestepping the evidence of RS provided in a discussion, I write 'yawn'. The superfinessing of AGF will make remarks like that evidence of incivility.) It will change the chronic targeters focus to advantage) Wikipedia is one further culture, and since civility rather than actually contributing serious content, is a preeminent concern, with very particular protocols, it could well be that here the general impression is that I am uncivil, aggressive, bullying. I would just make one point. The accusation you trace back to a diff in the 2009 permaban, was totally unsupported by the diff history cited to that end. In short, Arbcom slipped up, at least on that. And that ruling of incivility has been endlessly touted as proof in the dozens of complaints made against me since. Perhaps since then, things have changed. That is not for me to judge, but for my peers. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am learning something about myself with every lame insinuation this complaint has raised the opportunity to throw my way. Some of them are taken seriously, several just pass under the radar (JM's grievance, because I, deeply ironical given this complaint about my chronic 'incivility' , failed him for his ignorance of the 'niceties of polite usage').

agitator.'someone who tries to make people take part in protests and political activities, especially ones that cause trouble.' (Cambridge D.)
'One who keeps up a political agitation. After the Bolshevik Revolution freq. applied spec. to Communist agitators.'(O.E.D.1989 vol.1 p.258 col.1)

Look, I know what the verdict will be, without these extra bits of 'evidence' being added about my putative manner of endlessly bullying my way round wikipedia. There's enough there to justify taking the serious measure that has been asked for repeatedly, mostly unsuccessfully, for a dozen years. I'll take no umbrage if one simply closes it thus, because, given the atmosphere and the forseeable sanction, these farces are only going to recur with the same regularity as they have in the past, and one should move on and bury the issue once and for all.Nishidani (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus. Point taken that 'I know the outcome' might look as though admins are predictable, which they certainly aren't. What is predictable is that for the rest of my wiki life, the pattern of the last decade, of being complained of relentlessly at AE, will, somewhere along the line, reach a tipping point. That is in the nature of things.Nishidani (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan Murphy. I know my linguistic punctiliousness can be annoying, but though ageing can cause odd bodily charges, I can't see any evidence in the shower that I have undergone a gender change. That is 'burn the witch' should be 'burn the warlock', which, also, because it contains 'war' is more suited to the casus belli here, even if 'war' etymologically in warlock has another root, meaning 'covenant' (covenant-denier':)Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ ScottishFinnishRadish. It is contrafactual, the meme that this area is 'toxic' for the reasons you give. Since 7 October large numbers of articles have been created, my impression is that scores and scores of editors new to the IP zone, of all persuasions, have entered to work them, and remain. Not a peep here out of most of them. I myself haven't even troubled to follow a score or so articles in any close detail other than making occasional edits or comments, and I think this is true of most of the veteren editors. The real work on those articles can only be done when, not current newspapers, but secondary scholarly reports come in. One waits for that.

Only a manic hyperactive, 24/7 sleepless POV pusher could chase down and try to 'control' everything. No new editor who (a) argues respecting solid RS, and adds to them (b) works with care to discuss rationally any issue will, as far as I remember, encounter some 'toxic' enmity from a small 'mafia' of the kind insinuated as congenital to the whole 1/P area in the kind of AE complaint we are dealing with here. Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ ScottishFinnishRadish. Sorry if I misread you. My reply would exceed the word limit we are bound to respect. It's late here, but I will outline on my page the response that is due, tomorrow, and provide a link, in order to keep matters tidy and succinct here. Nishidani (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

BM. Thanks but that is no improvement. Your corrected diff (this one) is immaterial to civility accusations. Israel admits publicly to investing heavily in its hasbara machine and its (dis)information, depending on POVs, can prove highly influential when blindly relied on and recirculated.(Saree Makdisi's study is just one of many that state this. See their Tolerance Is a Wasteland:Palestine and the Culture of Denial, University of California Press ISBN 978-0-520-34625-3 pp.176ff.). In noting this well-documented phenomenon, I did not finger any editor. The only prophylactic against being sucked into these I/P propaganda show-downs is to avoid where possible newspapers in the 24/7 news cycle and harvest serious studies.That is what our optimal RS policy commends.Nishidani (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]
@ TarnishedPath. Ah, finally the complaint has yielded something useful for wiki, i.e. we need an article on male witchcraft. A half a century ago I collected, for a study of paranoia in history, quite a lot of material, historical and anthropological, on witchcraft persecutions. True, overwhelmingly women were targeted, but around 10% hung or burned or however, were male. Prosecution of males suspected of it was briefly strong in Nordic countries (e.g., Kolgrim and Jón Rögnvaldsson) where a whole nomadic population, the Sami was pursued and a score of wise men executed for it. But at least 6 men were executed on that suspicion in the Salem witch trials (George Burroughs, George Jacobs, Giles Corey, John Proctor, John Willard, Samuel Wardwell). There is a magnificent book on one overlooked aspect of this persecutorial mania complex, Carlo Ginzburg ‘s I benandanti. Ricerche sulla stregoneria e sui culti agrari tra Cinquecento e Seicento, (1972). Note to self: I can’t find my copy, must have lent it to either my niece or the local tailor. I see now we have something on it The Night Battles.Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Selfstudier

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

The other editors, all of them that are involved in the discussion, should be named and notified. Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating how a content dispute is leveraged into a civility issue for purposes here.Selfstudier (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: Complainant received standard awareness notice on 9 May following edits to the Rafah offensive article. 03:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Not sure if everyone is addressed just to other admins. However, it is true that statements and accusations of one sort or another have been made that appear only indirectly to do with the matter at hand and arguably constitute exactly the type of behavior that the accusers are themselves complaining of. In my view, if one believes that one has a valid case of some sort, then one should actually make that case in some suitable forum and not merely talk about it en passant, merely because the opportunity to do so exists. Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Re the Zionism article (in some sense, the root of all this, it seems), how would one open a separate thread to figure out what to do about it? Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: How about it? Shall we file a case and name everyone, including ourselves? Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

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

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

@ScottishFinnishRadish the aspersions I objected to are Most of the users responding here frequently show up to defend their pro-Palestine wikifriends or attack their pro-Palestine enemies whenever they see the chance, and vise versa. I'd like if this would be considered evidence of disruptive battleground behavior. If it is, I'll start collecting diffs. and Topic banning any or all of these disruptive users would improve the ability of other editors to improve articles in this area. This user previously accused me of being deceptive, without the slightest bit of evidence. They have been repeatedly agitating for others to be topic banned based on their incredibly absurd belief that having certain views is disruptive. Yes, repeatedly claiming others are disruptive on the basis of things like how often they vote in RFCs a certain way that they decide is pro-whatever is casting aspersions. nableezy - 12:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you all needed convincing of what is actually happening around here, I would have thought this little episode would have enlightened anybody who was paying attention. It is not the "pro-Palestine and pro-Israel wikiwarriors battlegrounding and POV-pushing". It has never been that, there has never, so far as I have been reading these talkpages (and I started from very early archives), been the "pro-Palestine" and "pro-Israel" editors. There is no such thing as a pro-Palestine group of editors in the way there are editors pushing extreme fringe POVs aligned with one of the parties of this conflict. Red-tailed Hawk brought up Nishidani's past record, and included in that the ban issued in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria. And Im glad he brought that up, because it turns out to mirror this melodramatic episode at this board here and now. We had then two groups of editors, one pushing for identifiably right-wing Israeli POV language, and another pushing for an internationalist language. The "pro-Palestine" POV was never on the table. We had users arguing to use, in Wikipedia's narrative voice, the chosen language of a fringe sized minority of sources, and no users arguing to use the POV language of the other fringe sized minority of sources. That is nobody argued that Tel Aviv should be introduced as being in "occupied Palestine", whereas Ramallah should be introduced as being in "Judea and Samaria". And what brought it to arbitration? The incessant edit-warring by two socks of an already banned user (NoCal100 and Canadian Monkey being socks of Isarig, now Former user 2). But the ArbCom of the time, like some of the admins below, only saw this as two equivalent "camps" of editors. They did not see one group of editors editing in defense of Wikipedia's policies and ideals, and another attacking them. That is what that was, and that is what this is. It is not, despite the claims of Thebiguglyalien or whoever else, two opposing groups who should just be shut out irrespective of their fidelity to the policies that matter here. And what happened as a result of that case? Most of the editors who were editing in defense of Wikipedia's policies are gone, NoCal100 however never left us. Because the dishonest editors that stoke these edit-wars and bait the honest users in to these enforcement threads that have admins willing to dredge up 10 year old sanctions that were bullshit based on bullshit but somehow add up to a problematic record dont actually lose anything when their latest sock account is blocked. It's the editors who are editing with fidelity to the sources and our policies who are too honest to just run up 500 edits on a new account to start all over again that are actually lost. nableezy - 19:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by 916crdshn

Sockpuppet

I've been following the ARBPIA topic area from my hospital bed, and in all honesty, I'm surprised by the number of infractions committed by experienced editors. They consistently disregard consensus-building and stubbornly restoring their preferred edits, even while discussions are still ongoing. I also saw this behavior from Nishidani and attempted to persuade him to revert his edit yesterday. Selfstudier, who responded to this complaint, unfortunately exemplifies this issue. I've observed similar actions from them as those of Nishidani. For instance, they've reintroduced disputed content still under discussion [31], [32]. In this case, they and others removed a POV tag while discussion is still ongoing [33]. In this case, they even restored a controversial edit while RFC was ongoing on its inclusion [34]. However, this one surprised me the most: [35]. In this case, you can see how they, along with another editor, bombarded a user's talk page with accusations of 'tag teaming' and oh so many diffs "for whatever whoever wants to use it for", while in fact, all these editors were doing was to restore the last stable version while discussions were ongoing. I also see Selfstudier just spamming every new editor with the strongly worded version of the 'contentious topics' alert. I think this just scares away good editors. In all honesty, there appears to be a pattern of established users employing bullying tactics to stifle the influence of other contributors. Where do we draw the line? 916crdshn (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

References

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

Statement by BilledMammal

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

A few other examples are:

3 July, in a discussion about the intent of Zionism:
Has anyone objecting here ever read the founding documents of Zionism? I have the eerie impression this is like discussing the origins of Christianity with people who haven't read the New Testament.
18 June, criticized editors for rejecting a source as unreliable, and then focused on their grammar:
So you've read as far as the title. And 'it's' is not how the possessive 'its' is written. It means 'it is' and as you spell it, it produces an ungrammatical sentence:'it is reliability'.
They also doubled down when an admin told them to knock it off.
21 May Wrote a long comment, starting with The editing of this zealous article is too incompetent to be reliable, to which the primary author's response concluded with As for the rest of your argument here I'll reply at length tomorrow. Nishidani's reply was:
Don't worry about replying at length, because I already find the article itself, which will prove briefer than the threads, unreadable. I had to force myself to read it once, and noting the constant misuse of sources. I haven't the time to waste on it.
1 May, in response to an editor questioning the use of Counterpunch:
That lazy approach means editors do not need to read carefully and evaluate the quality of any piece: all they need do is look at the publisher, note wiki editors have suggested caution, and jump at that pretext to hold anything at all from such sources to hostage.

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

It is ridiculous. It shouldn’t be this easy to find examples of them attacking editors rather than focusing on content, and the fact it is suggests there is a real issue here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland: If you have reason to believe ABHammad is Dajudem/Tundrabuggy/Stellarkid/Snakeswithfeet, I suggest you file a SPI. Merely saying they resemble that user is an WP:ASPERSION.

(I haven't interacted much with ABHammad, and I don't know who Dajudem/Tundrabuggy/Stellarkid/Snakeswithfeet is, so I can't comment on how likely that is to be true). BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Sorry, I linked the wrong diff. I've now linked to the correct ones, which included the quoted lines. BilledMammal (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

Here is the most recent and ongoing discussion regarding this content dispute [36], and note that this was also discussed recently in this discussion here [37]. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Statement by Vegan416

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

Statement by Dan Murphy

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

Wait! What?! Nishidani once described someone gloating on a talk page about their success at getting an opponent blocked by arbs as "soporific" (I know, I should have placed a trigger warning) and another time described people who have clearly either not read or pretended to not read any primary, secondary, or tertiary sources on early Zionism as "people who have not read much about Zionism?!" I withdraw my support. Per Raddishfinis: Burn him! Burn the ~~witch~~ necromancer! Dan Murphy (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the Icebear account has been indefinitely blocked by a checkuser. The account's email and talk were also disabled. Shocked, shocked!Dan Murphy (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why this hasn't been closed is beyond me. But the 916crd account (speaking of "aspersion") was created in 2021, spent about 2 years completely dedicated to the city of Corona, CA, left, and then returned this June entirely devoted to talk page and notice board complaints about editors on Israel/Palestine articles (18 out 20 edits; one edit to previously uncreated userpage, one revert at the Golan Heights article.) The only 2 talk page comments the account made prior to its hiatus provide an interesting contrast. [38]Dan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The now blocked Nocal sock Kentuckyrain, which shares the same style and views of the now blocked sock Icebear who opened this complaint AND the same style and views as the now blocked sock 916crd (which backed up Icebear and Kentuckyrain), was HIGHLY active and abusive on the Zionism talk page in destabilizing the article and exhausting the patience of the actual people of good will. Same shit, different decade. And y'all still reward it.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskander - Two of them, particularly the one that started out looking like a paid editor for small businesses, reek to the heavens.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Unbandito

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Parabolist

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

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

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

My thoughts in no order:

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

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

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

Statement by The Kip

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

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

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

@Sean.hoyland re the "pioneer species" comment - a valid point, yes, but in my opinion it can't possibly be worse that the toxic, POV-ridden, edit-warred, propaganda-filled environment that currently exists.

The active participation of editors without a specific POV to push, that're more interested in creating a comprehensive/nuanced encyclopedia, has become active discouraged by the area becoming overrun by battleground conduct perpetuated by more than a few of the editors in this AE report, backing both sides of the conflict. Speaking from personal experience, outside occasional dabbling at WP:RSN or here, I effectively quit editing the area upon seeing that my opinions would be disregarded if I didn't fully align with either the pro-Israel or pro-Palestine blocs of editors. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich (Nishidani)

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

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

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

That Palestinians are not native to Palestine 1 2 3 4 5
That all of Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem) is part of Israel Talk:Israel#Tel Aviv (contrary to WP:RFC/J, continuing scholarly consensus, and reality)
That the idea of Zionism as colonialism is WP:FRINGE 1. This is such a common myth, Ilan Pappe's Ten Myths About Israel has a chapter about it.
- User:916crdshn, who comments above (and has more deleted edits than non-deleted edits per xtools for whatever reason), has one and only one (non-deleted) article talk page comment--guess what it's about?
- The filing editor's only edit to Zionism is about this. Also, note the edit on this list that is different than all the others.
That Zionism as settler colonialism is WP:FRINGE 1 2 3 4
That Nur Masalha, and New Historians like Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim are WP:FRINGE 1
The long-debunked (since 1980s) "endorsement of flight" theory 1 2

User:מתיאל was a disclosed paid editing account in 2021 1 2 3; the disclosure was removed from their userpage in April 2024. They made about 50 (non-deleted) edits between Sep 2021 and Mar 2024 (xtools). Top edited pages for User:ABHammad [39] and User:O.maximov [40], aside from Israel/Palestine, are articles about businesses. User:Galamore: Jan 2024 UPE ANI (blocked, unblocked); May AE "Galamore cautioned against continuing long term edit wars, especially when those edit wars have been the target of sockpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing."; May ANI for gaming 500.

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

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

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

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

I don't mind doing a separate filing if it's going to get looked at (and I won't be boomeranged for forum shopping, or some such). Any feedback on what that filing should focus on or how it should be framed (or should there be multiple filings, one for each editor?), would be welcome. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Oleg and I looked at some sources just now at Talk:Zionism#Round 3 and I think we've come to some understanding about what is the mainstream v. significant minority viewpoint on this issue. Levivich (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Still going: 1, 2; 1, 2. Levivich (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Galamore

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

Statement by Zero0000

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

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

Statement by JM2023

Going off of what BilledMammal said, from the sole interaction with Nishidani that I can recall, this was my experience. This was in January. After I commented on another user's talk page, Nishidani appeared and removed my comment, saying You had your say. Go away [41]. I believed it was a violation of talk page guidelines, so I took it to Nishidani's talk page, resulting these instances:

I see you are very young, so perhaps you are not quite familiar with good manners and accused me of speaking to the watchlist [42].
So, there's a good laddie. Off you go. [43]
Edit summary: Please desist from the soporific cant on this page [44]

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

Statement by Loki

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

Statement by berchanhimez

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

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

Statement by Iskandar323

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

@Doug Weller: I was also tempted to simply join the refrain and go in for an encore of: "Burn the witch!" It hit the nail on the head. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of weird activity right now. It could be accounts being handed over, or it could just be sleeper accounts being booted up. I rather suspect the latter: if you're a clever, long-term sock, it's not hard to leave a trail of account profiles behind you over the years. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're not going to get a burning, can we at least dunk Nishidani in a pond and see if he floats back up or not? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A very rational response to this thread, and the blocking as socks of two of the editors involved in the original edit-warring, as well as another account that weighed in here, would be to conduct a check-user on the other low-count accounts. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller)

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

Statement by TarnishedPath

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

@Iskandar323, I think they only did that to witches and not warlocks. From memory the burning and the dunking was very gendered. TarnishedPath^talk 13:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland, I am Jack's complete lack of surprise that yet another editor involved in the content dispute, who seeks to remove colonialism from the article, has turned out to be a sock. TarnishedPath^talk 09:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with @Nishidani that socking should not be rewarded by reverting to a version that does not reflect consensus. TarnishedPath^talk 13:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LilianaUwU

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

Statement by Tryptofish

I don't think I'm just some random newish account, and my one extended interaction with Nishidani was at Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism last year ([45], for example). Based on that, I have no doubt of his erudition, but I was also painfully aware of his, well, snottiness towards anyone with whom he disagrees. Whether that's a matter for AE is above my pay grade. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (user)

Result concerning Nishidani

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

@Nishidani: Can you clarify specifically who you are referring to with barely qualified IP editors? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to sanction history, filer seems to have a few holes. I will note that the block from 2009 brought up by filer was not actually a week long due to ensuing community discussion after it was issued. There are also additional sanctions given to respondent at AE that filer did not include:
1. 2023, warned for battleground behavior at Zionism, race, and genetics.
2. 2019, indefinitely banned from creating or making comments in AE reports related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except if they are the editor against whom enforcement is requested, per AE. Sanctioning admin notes that this was for the user misusing Wikipedia as a battleground and casting aspersions on others in the thread.
3. 2017, 1-month TBAN from Arab-Israeli conflict after banning admin observed that the user personalize[s] disputes rather than focusing on the content.
4. 2012, 1-month long TBAN the Israel-Palestine area after violating 1RR.
5. 2009 ArbCom-imposed topic ban, which was later successfully appealed in 2011
Problems with your civility have date back to 2009, when the ArbCom found that you had engaged in incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. I don't think it appropriate to refer to other editors as barely qualified IP editors when they are not IP editors. At a baseline, it is not civil, and it comes off as a personal attack. You were already warned against using against using unconstructive or unnecessarily inflammatory language in the topic area earlier this year, and this sort of thing is another example of that.

If you are going to stay in this topic area, you need to remain civil. This is a core pillar of Wikipedia. If warnings are not doing the job, and civility issues are not improving despite all this time, then more restrictive sanctions become the only option to solve the problem. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking a bit more on this, I think something outside of the standard set is required. With respect to respondent’s long-term civility issues, reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project require something more narrowly crafted than a topic-wide TBAN, but something that is more substantial and concrete than yet another warning.

The solution I am propopsing, and would request other admins here consider, is something like that which the community endorsed for BrownHairedGirl, a prolific and productive longtime editor who had exhibited chronic civility problems over many years. At a 2021 ANI thread, the community placed BHG under a form of civility probation. This allowed BHG to continue to make productive edits, while also enforcing a tight leash on civility issues. An analogous proposal that would apply in this case is as follows:
If, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Nishidani violates WP:CIVIL within the WP:PIA topic area, Nishidani may be subject to escalating blocks, beginning with a 12-hour block. These blocks will be arbitration enforcement actions—they may not be lifted without a successful appeal at the administrator’s noticeboard, at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, or to the arbitration committee. The restriction is indefinite, and may be appealed at WP:AN, WP:AE, or WP:ARCA in six months.

I believe that this balances the ability of respondent to contribute positively to this topic area (something a topic ban would prohibit), while also providing for clear consequences should civility issues continue. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 18:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ask this question only on behalf of myself and without having talked to or consulted anyone else. A consensus of admins at AE can impose whatever restrictions they want. But Nishidani (and every other AWARE editor editing within PIA) can already have blocks that function as arbitration enforcement actions with-in the topic area of PIA and those blocks can be for anything that not follow project expectations, including anything which violates WP:CIVIL. With BHG there clearly was a change - civility blocks went from easier to overturn to harder to overturn, but I don't understand what is "new" with this restriction? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the “new” part is that it provides clear expectations for future behavior and for how admins will deal with it. Unilateral AE actions are already available, but a set framework to deal with this user’s incivility in particular would serve to dissuade future incivility in a way that the general existence of the CTOP for the Arab-Israeli conflict has not. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 20:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CTOP notice provides clear expectations of behavior. It's not as if there is some new information in policies that everyone here isn't aware of. The framework already exists with AE/CTOP. All this does is restate the rules that we're here to enforce, only with arbitrary block time limits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RTH (or RTS) for idea, and not opposed to the concept. However one concern: agree with Barkeep49 that this is already within the scope of AE enforcement, and I wouldn't want to create an informal expectation that escalating blocks weren't an option for CTOP-warned editors unless there was a subsequent AE decision to formalise a regime for them. I know that's not strictly what is proposed but we risk creating expectations of it if we start imposing this formalisation for anyone repeatedly brought to AE. Mildly, we also risk rewarding efforts to weaponise this noticeboard via repeated specious filings. Be good to have further discussion on how these issues might be addressed. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Not sure I agree that an outcome is determined wrt the original complaint. The only outcome with consensus at this point is a topic ban for the filer. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani, yes this is a reasonable conclusion, if a somewhat depressing one. Weaponisation risks are a side effect of AGF. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've come around to the view that these kind of paroles are not very effective. At this point I think we need to decide if the behavior was incivil, and if so do we think a warning will be effective at preventing this in the future? As far as weaponization goes, yeah this circumstance isn't great, but the editor qualifies for editing ARBPIA. Do we risk adding another tier of ARBPIA editing where you can only make an AE report after reaching some arbitrary threshold? Do we want to tell editors new to the topic area that they can't report behavior by editors with a sufficient amount of edits? We should be promoting new editors (although not this one) in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: With respect to... Most of the users responding here frequently show up to defend their pro-Palestine wikifriends or attack their pro-Palestine enemies whenever they see the chance, and vise versa. I'd like if this would be considered evidence of disruptive battleground behavior. If it is, I'll start collecting diffs, if people are attempting to abuse the AE system in order to unjustifiably purge people along ideological lines, I think that would be something worth considering. But that sort of material would be so complex that an Arbitration case might be the better venue. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be the only person that is getting bored with these semi-regular editors queueing up to report Nishidani (to be honest, I'm getting really bored with a significant number of editors that are trying to weaponise AE, RSN and other venues). If I was assuming bad faith I'd think there's almost off-wiki co-ordination going on. So just to be clear, the filer made this edit note the edit summary, which was their first edit for three weeks, and then came here to complain about it? Sorry, no. Nableezy's comment is relevant. Black Kite (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to know how Icebear244 became involved here. I have gone through their contributions, and I found that had never edited the Zionism article until they made this edit, which more or less kicked off this thread. I also don't see all that much prior editing of related topics; I could only find a ~~sole~~ edit to a related talk page (though I could be wrong, since that's a bit harder to catch by scanning through contribs). (Upon further review, there are edits to Antisemitism and higher education in the United States which might be somewhat related that I had missed on my initial go-through) — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Along those lines, @Icebear244: Can you explain how you came to the make the revert on Zionism? Were you alerted to the page somehow, or did you naturally encounter it? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien, it's not fear, it's the enormous opportunity cost. There are several actions I would take if I had the dozens of hours necessary to implement and defend them.
Are we okay with battleground editing making the topic area toxic and making it less likely that anyone without a strongly held POV will want to get involved leading to an even more entrenched battleground? I say (only partially in jest that we look at the last dozen or two ARBPIA AE reports and start looking at who shows up more often than not to rep their colors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Icebear244 should be topic banned. Clear POV pushing, added a section called Islamist Terrorism citing a source that did not say Islamist or terrorism, but did say a group they'd never heard of said, In a statement, the group described Mr Kipper as an Israeli agent and said his killing was in retaliation for what it called massacres in Gaza and Israel's seizure of the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, which also happened on Tuesday. Add that to the change of the prose about the humanitarian toll and it's pretty clear. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd concur with you here on the topic ban for the filer. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with indefinite topic ban for Icebear244. The storyline of their progress from uninvolved editor to vehement AE filer is doubtful at best. And to paraphrase, the approach of "sure, sanction me but take down my enemy too" is battleground at its finest. They're not the only editor in this thread who needs a break from this topic but at this point they're the most obvious. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I even wonder if an account that goes from pretty much exclusively editing cartoon articles for years, straight to various hot-button topics such as AP and Russian/Chinese disinformation, might not be compromised (or has been handed over to someone else)? Black Kite (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or went from high school to college? Or watched the news? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, possibly, which is why I'm wondering about it rather than stating it. It just seemed like a very abrupt change. Black Kite (talk) 11:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share this concern. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A concern which turns out to be correct. What a surprise. Black Kite (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, is everyone cool with this? Regarding the comment by Thebiguglyalien, this isn’t the first time an editor has mistaken their own views for those of the community, but at a certain point the repeated claims of disruptive editing against others users without evidence constitutes casting aspersions and should be dealt with appropriately. Makes a claim of disruptive editing about another editor, says that such claims should be dealt with? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must be missing some context - isn't this simply an allusion to the practice of weaponising dispute resolution? If so, it doesn't seem a particularly controversial thing to say. Euryalus (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It reads to me as accusing another editor of disruptive editing, although I could be misreading it as a statement about tbug. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thebiguglyalien's comment starts with "Nishidani is a long-time agitator in this area, where their enforcement of a pro-Palestine point of view through battleground behavior and hostility outweighs any improvement to the encyclopedia" (diff of comment). Nableezy is saying that that comment is an aspersion because TBUA makes the statement as their opinion, presumably believing it to be a view of the community and therefore not requiring evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I read it, and that would make this isn’t the first time an editor has mistaken their own views for those of the community an unsupported aspersion as they're calling for action because of the repetition of casting aspersions. That Nish is a net negative is subjective, but the long history of sanctions and warnings presented with the report is evidence of someone being a long-term agitator. Agree with the conclusion or not, it's not an unsupported statement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't edit, or oft administer, in the IP area and from that perspective/ignorance what I see in this AE report is a fairly inactive editor making a drive-by edit with a provocative edit-summary to a highly contentious article and, on being reverted, immediately rushing to this board. By their own admission, Icebear244 doesn't care about Boomerang sanctions or topic-bans from an area that they don't normally edit in any case, as long as it sparks action against the editors who are actually active (editing and discussing) in this topic area. Hard to imagine a more explicit example of WP:GAMING and WP:BATTLEGROUND.

Participation from "non-regulars" in a topic-area is (potentially) very valuable if either their knowledge of the subject allows more sources and perspectives to be considered or their distance from the subject allows them to moderate existing debates. Getting more "outside" editors to participate in tag-teamed edit-wars or to set up a pawn-for-piece exchange at AE is worse than useless and should be actively discouraged.

I don't know if action is warranted against Nishidani or other editors who are active at Zionism etc but by indulging this complaint we would be setting up some perverse incentives that will be exploited in this and other CTOP areas. Abecedare (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also commenting as someone who's only ever been involved on the fringes of the IP area, so take it with a grain of salt, but I'm pretty surprised to see anyone taking this report taken seriously. I'm also surprised to see Red-tailed hawk suggesting with a straight face that Nishidani has "long-term civility issues" based on diffs no more recent than 2019 and as old as 2009, with years between each of them. If I'd been editing in an area as controversial as this for 15 years, I'd be content with a block log ten times longer. @Red-tailed hawk: Concerns were raised (by myself and others) about an overly punitive and unempathetic approach to dispute resolution at your RfA just a little over six months ago, and you're really here at AE now, proposing sanctions on an experienced editor working in our most difficult topic area, because they called a nonspecific group of editors "barely qualified"? Did you reflect on that feedback at all? – Joe (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I have considered that feedback, Joe. I would ask you to simply read the full thread; I am sad to see that you seem to have missed the warning from earlier this year when arguing that my analysis was merely based on diffs no more recent than 2019. (The warning was included by filer, which is why it was not included in a list of additional sanctions given to respondent at AE that filer did not include that I provided above). I believe that my approach is preventative, not punitive.

I do, however, hesitate to do anything more than what has been done here in light of the conclusive block of filer by an Arb for being compromised. If there is the sort of manipulation that requires CU tools to address or Arb tools to address, then I do feel like the CU corps or the ArbCom would be the appropriate venue to handle them since the regular admin corps may be missing relevant evidence. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 21:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we have:
1. Civility concerns
2. Battleground concerns
3. Off-wiki coordination/UPE concerns
4. Concerns about accounts possibly having been handed off for use in this topic
5. Concerns about toxicity keeping uninvolved editors from engaging in the topic
6. Concerns about weaponizing processes
A mixture of these come up in almost every report here with mostly the same editors involved and AE simply isn't equipped to handle it. We should just refer it up to Arbcom, where there is a structure for many editors providing evidence and building complex cases. Piecemeal solutions are fine for the obvious bad actors and the simple cases but they don't work for entrenched long-term editors. And we should topic ban Icebear because that's what AE actually handles well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, I just provided a summary of what comes up in many of these AE reports. Looking at this report as an example, we have accusations unrelated to the report going in all directions. We're at the point where dealing with a report against an established editor, like yourself, has to take into account a laundry list of other considerations. We can take each incident in isolation or we can use the process that exists to address if there are paid editors intentionally baiting you, if there is a toxic environment, if there is an entrenched battleground mentality, to what extent are processes being weaponized. All of that has to be looked at together and AE isn't the place for it. If you look at my first response here, that's what it was about, doing something about the battleground that makes itself evident at almost every AE. Not topic banning you, only the person who made the report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support (again) the Icebear244 topic ban. They don't really edit in this area other than this sudden battleground-like rush to AE so I doubt they'll care. But warranted nonetheless. There's also merit in a more detailed investigation of the offwiki coordination/handed off accounts issue, for which there's a reasonable starting point of evidence. AE is not the ideal place but where is? Not sure the rest needs anything further at this point. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need do anything beyond TBANning the filer, and for the avoidance of doubt I don't think we need refer this to ARBCOM. I don't see an intractable problem here; I see an editor who, unable to get their way via good-faith discussion, is attempting to use AE to clear the decks of their opposition. A boomerang TBAN is the appropriate response. Given that this thread has spiraled I don't think it is the right place to evaluate anyone else's behavior either, but I find Levivich's diffs more concerning than anything posted by the OP, and would suggest a separate filing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting (as someone else did above) that the TBAN has also fallen by the wayside as Ice-bear has been blocked as a sock. Potential remaining issues include UPE/handed-off accounts, weaponisation of this noticeboard, and what further might be done to reduce the battleground approach of all "sides." However these are wider issues than Icebear's views on Nishidani, and it seems odd to piggyback their resolution on this specific complaint. Perhaps we can close this as no action without prejudice to pursuing those other issues elsewhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted, I saw on WP:AN that the OP has been blocked as a compromised account. No opinion on the other points in this complaint. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like 916crdshn (talk · contribs) has now also been CU-blocked as a compromised account. DanCherek (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have collapsed the comments by the checkuser-confirmed accounts, which also includes the filer of the complaint. Per WP:PROJSOCK, editors are not permitted to use undisclosed alternate accounts to edit project space, and the special sanctions were implemented at least in part to stop exactly this sort of brigading behaviour, so these comments are invalid and should not be considered further. Some other editors have provided their own evidence regarding Nishidani's behaviour, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with most everything in this area, this invariably becomes a mess. To the primary complaint: Can Nishidani be a little crabby? I think we all know the answer to that. Can he go overboard with that sometimes? Well, I've sanctioned him a couple of times myself. Is "a little crabby" the worst we have to contend with in the ARBPIA area? If that day ever came, it would be cause for celebration. Would the ARBPIA area be better off without Nishidani's participation? I'm not convinced of that at all. I am certainly not inclined to in any way reward people who compromise accounts and (presumably) use said compromised accounts to evade blocks or sanctions their other accounts are under, and to try and get other people sanctioned. So, I think close this without action, and then if an editor who is actually in good standing is willing to put their name on a complaint of this type, we'll evaluate that at that time. I would caution said editor that your own hands better be really clean indeed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish, Red-tailed hawk, Seraphimblade, Barkeep49, Vanamonde93, Abecedare, Euryalus, and Joe Roe: Nishidani aside, I'm not sure we're doing what we need to be doing to address the conduct in the page history at Zionism. A partisan tag-team edit war is not acceptable conduct for any editor, and regulars in the topic area should absolutely know better. The edit war is still ongoing – do we want to open a separate thread to figure out what to do about it? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Call me old fashioned but, if there's a long-running edit war limited to one page, then just fully protect it? You don't even need a one of those new fangled see tops for that. – Joe (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to protect it, but usually we warn or sanction editors when they break policy. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, but I have no plans to weigh in substantively as I trust the great group of admin who are handling this. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the protection stops the disruption, I don't see what the point would be. – Joe (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, warnings and sanctions are used to prevent disruption from recurring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

follow-up ping to Vanamonde93, last one didn't go through. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: Probably a new AE thread, with a scope specifically on the edit war and a larger list of parties. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can try another AE thread, though we might be better to Refer to the Arbirtration Committee if one AE thread wasn't enough to handle things. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the last stable version and implement consensus required. If we're trying to do an omnibus report, that's what Arbcom is for. I don't foresee any sanctions based on a single revert, and any examination will require looking at the behavior of named editors (or parties) in the topic area. Sounds like Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected the article in the current version to allow for discussion. I've done it indefinitely so that the article doesn't auto unprotect itself but was intending it to last around a week so that editors can discuss in the various threads on the talk page. It's a normal admin action so anyone should feel free to modify it to something else (eg SFR's restore and consensus req) but I feel like we're at a point where some admin action is necessary. If edit warring continues after the protection is changed back to ECP (around a week) we can look at individual sanctions for those continuing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs)

78.147.140.112

Respondent (now editing as BRMSF (talk · contribs)) is sternly reminded to avoid misleading other editors through the use of multiple accounts and/or through logged out editing. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning 78.147.140.112

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: 78.147.140.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

The user is now editing as BRMSF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Further problems include:

False statements such as "claims about coincidental suffocation or heart failure as the primary cause of death and not the assault are purely conjecture and are not based the forensic evidence", when the post-mortem specifically gave three possible causes of death, skull fracture caused by being pistol-whipped, asphyxiation or heart attack.
Apparent original research, with "observations based on the facts" regarding cause of death
Dismissal of reliable source claiming "This indicates the author of the article may not have been in command of the full details of the case" when saying natural causes (presumably the heart attack option suggested by post-mortem") as a possible cause of death
Reverting most of these changes with a misleading edit summary (note the RFC isn't concluded, and only covers the lead anyway)

Kathleen's bike (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you know with 100% certainty (since you quoted the book in your post) Lost Lives says "Post-mortem reports showed he had two skull fractures, one of which could have caused death. Examination revealed it could have been caused by a blow from a Browning automatic pistol. The post-mortem suggested he could also have died from asphyxiation or a heart attack". It does not say the heart attack was caused by the assault. Kathleen's bike (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, what? It was me that added the three possible causes of death in the first place, replacing the existing unsourced, incorrect version. It was you that reversed that change without any good reason. If anyone is "laser-focused" on any possibility, it is you since you attempted to dismiss there being multiple possible causes of death with nothing except your own opinion. Kathleen's bike (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning 78.147.140.112

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

Statement by 78.147.140.112

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

Statement by BRMSF

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

You yourself are contradicting the sources you provided; for example attempting to assert heart failure rather than physical assault; when the source you were relying on stated that these were possible alternative causes of death after mentioning the blunt force trauma injuries. I am not at all convinced you are acting in good faith. BRMSF (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are laser-focused on the possibility which makes the IRA look the least guilty, rather than acknowledging the other potential causes. One of the accused plead guilty to manslaughter, meaning that one of the perpetrators admitted responsibility in a court of law. Remember when you said a person does not get to "relitigate a criminal trial based on your own opinion of the events"? BRMSF (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have backed up everything I have said with sources, you just so happen to disagree with the sources, including the ones you offered. BRMSF (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Statements moved to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by JackTheSecond

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

Statement by Star Mississippi

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 78.147.140.112

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

This IP's first edit was to WP:ANI, which leads me to believe that this is logged out socking. ANI is project space, and logged out or alternate account participation there is not permitted. I'm rather inclined to block them given that. If the IP editor wants some other result, you will need to log in to your actual account. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{checkuser requested}}: Is there evidence of WP:LOUTSOCKing here from a technical perspective? The behavioral evidence in this tread also leads me towards suspecting it as plausible, but I would want a bit more. This is because the CIDR range is a /15, and one of the related /16s do appear to show some recent awareness of projectspace outside of this instance (see: this IP's comments on ANI last month). We obviously cannot connect to a specific master publicly, though NewPolitician (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) appears in last month's ANI thread, and appeared to have an interest in the politics of the United Kingdom. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's at least Likely that all three of the IPs (including the two below) are the same user. Dynamic IPs are not inherently forbidden, but it meets the definitions of WP:PROJSOCK and WP:LOUTSOCK to take advantage of changing IP addresses to give the appearance of being multiple editors, and I think PROJSOCK compels an editor who edits from dynamic IPs to make an effort to disclose the connection. This user has not, and appears to have claimed the opposite on at least one occasion (see point 3 in the complaint). I'll leave it to the other reviewers here to determine if that merits a sanction. I saw no indication that they are also participating with an account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that lying about not having previously made an edit is worthy of something. But if a stern warning to not WP:LOUTSOCK going forward is all that is needed to prevent that sort of disruption in the future, then that is all the something that we should pursue. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least as a first resort, hopefully "Don't do that again" will suffice. If it proves not to, we can always take further action then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absent anyone else relying in the next 18ish hours, I will close this thread along those lines. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Seraphimblade. The IP editor can either use their regular account, or create one in the unlikely scenario that they are genuinely a new user. It is hard to AGF given their apparent attempt to deceive (see the sequence: [46], [47], [48]) when editing from other IPs including:
- 92.30.6.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and
- 82.16.150.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

If the current problem persists, the article pages can be semi-protected and (if necessary) even their talkpage can have pending changes enabled. Abecedare (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the IP has created an account and the issue is being discussed on the article talkpage, I believe that this AE report can be closed for now with just a reminder/warning. I would advice both User:BRMSF and User:Kathleen's bike to tone down the rhetoric and be mindful not to bludgeon the RFC; best to state your respective case once (with sources) and then let others weigh in. Abecedare (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ustadeditor2011

Appeal declined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

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

Sanction being appealed: Block from the page Amaravati with an expiration time of 02:06, 20 September 2024

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

Notification of that administrator: [49]

Statement by Ustadeditor2011

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

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

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

Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 10:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I will not do that Now. I will not attack anybody. Ustadeditor2011 (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Moved responses to own section. Please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel Case

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Ustadeditor2011

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Ustadeditor2011

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

Ustadeditor2011, you have provided no rationale for why the sanction was either placed in error, or why it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. If that is not shortly provided, this request will be closed with no action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the reason for the block. You were blocked for edit warring on the article, and then the block was extended after you stated you intended to continue. Your rationale does not address the fact that you were edit warring, nor any indication that you will avoid doing so in the future. So, I would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As above, thanks for the reply but it doesn't address the reason for the block. I note also the personal attacks such as those at User_talk:Daniel_Case#Amaravati. If these persist the block will likely be extended. Overall, agree with Seraphimblade that the appeal should be declined. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waterlover3

Indeffed as a normal admin action by me because I got to it first. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Waterlover3

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Significa liberdade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Waterlover3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/A-I

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

8 June 2024 Waterlover3 made two edits to the page 2024 Nuseirat rescue operation (one linked), a page directly related to the Arab–Israeli war.
24 June 2024 Across three edits, Waterlover3 added significant history and context for the Ghoul rifle article, primarily focusing on its use in A-I conflicts.
1 July 2024 Waterlover3 made edits to Elbit Hermes 900, an Israeli aircraft used for tactical missions.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2 June 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Waterlover3

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

Statement by Waterlover3

Statement by FortunateSons

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

Statement by Selfstudier

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

Statement by Levivich (Waterlover)

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Dan Murphy

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

Result concerning Waterlover3

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

It is a bit unclear to me why this is being brought nearly a week after the last edit by respondent that might plausibly violate this restriction. I think it would be appropriate to give the account a specific reminder about the 30-500 restriction in this topic area, including a clear explanation as to the scope of this topic area; it is not always obvious to new users that the scope of ECR applies to articles that are not primarily about the Arab-Israeli conflict, even if the edit itself is related. The user has already been told about the existence of the 30-500 restriction twice, but another interaction with a good faith editor may have come off as encouragement to continue some editing in this area in a way that is not compatible with WP:ARBECR, and I don’t see any substantial clarification on the user’s talk page about the exact scope of the area beyond the initial CTOP notification template. Any of their edits in this topic area, except for edit requests, may be reverted in line with WP:ECR.
I will separately note that this interaction is quite strange, but does not appear actionable at this point.
— Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich:
The IOF comment was made by an IP from Vietnam, not by the respondent (unless the two are the same person, in which case it becomes much worse).
My understanding of “o7” is that it is an emoticon representing a salute (see:wikt:en:o7), rather than an endorsement of the October 7 attacks. I had not considered the possible double entendre.
I had missed the response to the copyright argument while going through the user’s talk page history, and looking at this a bit more it does appear that there is a pattern of incivility here that might warrant more than a mere reminder to address.

— Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that Waterlover3's most recent edit, to Assassination of Bachir Gemayel on 7 July, also violates ECR. That article concerns the killing of a Lebanese politician by Syrian rebels, which occurred during Israeli occupation in the 1982 Lebanon War; the article also describes Israel's subsequent occupation of the city. The sanction's scope is the Arab-Israeli conflict, not limited to Palestine, although the same article also describes a related massacre of Palestinians. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit hesitant to label the assassination of a Lebanese Christian militia leader from Lebanon by a Syrian Social Nationalist Party member in Lebanon while there was an ongoing ceasefire as being within WP:PIA, both because it apparently lacks Palestinian involvement and because it lacks Israeli involvement. Parts of the Lebanese Civil War are surely in scope, but not all parts, and I don't think this part is. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 13:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should have a better read of WP:BROADLY; like most things in this conflict, it's not so simple. The incident was in the context of a war in which Israel invaded Lebanon under the auspices of "rooting out" the PLO, and in which the IDF had been supporting Gemayel as a "counterbalance" to the PLO in Lebanon. The day after he was killed, Israel violated the ceasefire and illegally occupied West Beirut, then allowed Lebanese Christian forces to slaughter Palestinian civilians in a refugee camp (the Sabra and Shatila massacre), an attack which has been labelled a genocide and which Israel was later deemed responsible for. One might argue that only parts of the article directly related to the occupation are covered by ARBPIA, but I think we're playing with fire by drawing those sorts of distinctions in this topic area. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you on this. There is so much intertwined that viewing it broadly is necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even without the 50/300 violations, the conduct I'm seeing here, so far as ignoring and mocking people who try to give them advice, and the general nastiness, lead me to believe this editor is NOTHERE. I'd be inclined to block as such, even if just as a normal admin action rather than AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to that as an ordinary admin action. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's probably the move here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Levivich in that we allow editors to edit in spite of holding abhorrent views, but we do not let them express those abhorrent views on Wikipedia (c.f. WP:NONAZIS). Waterlover3's user page currently introduces themselves as "i am waterlover 3, Proud Lebanese from northern lebanon and i hate the IDF. i dont edit much articles other than stuff that relates to weapons or the resistance. [sic]" While they obviously hold a bias, who among us doesn't? Yet the vast majority of us are capable of editing productively in spite of our personal biases. This is a sensitive topic, one where a new user with "I hate the IDF" at the top of their user page making personal attacks against editors who don't hold the "right" point of view is, to put it mildly, going to be a net negative. We can rely on ARBECR for new editors who haven't established an editing history, but editors who demonstrate that they are going to be a disruptive element in the topic aren't going to spontaneously improve after they make 359 more edits. Waterlover3 should be topic banned. Side note: the "disgusting pig" comment was directed at a drive-by account named "Zi on this", which probably should have been WP:DISRUPTNAME blocked, but they've only made that one edit. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amayorov

Closed with no action. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Amayorov

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on July 3 2024 by IOHANNVSVERVS

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Discussion concerning Amayorov

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

Statement by Amayorov

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

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Amayorov

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

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

JoeJShmo

JoeJShmo (talk · contribs) is topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict for 6 months and 1000 edits by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning JoeJShmo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kashmiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

8 July 2024 Commented on a response to their edit request on a page designated as CT
11 July 2024 Continued discussion in defiance of warnings and a long thread on their own Talk page in which they participated
11 July 2024 Continued discussion in defiance of the above
12 July 2024 Continued discussion in defiance of the above

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 3 July 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

JoeJShmo, a non-XC editor, has been warned about CT restrictions in force on certain pages related to Palestine–Israel conflict. In particular, they were explained that they can only place edit requests[50]. As can be seen, they immediately opposed. Even though several established editors and an experienced admin Doug Weller tried to reason with them, they didn't report or sanction them after a repeated violation, this effort has unfortunately failed – JoeJShmo continued to post on a CT-restricted page Talk:Mossad. I have no idea what is needed to stop them.

@JoeJShmo, I'm not sure that it helps you to mention here your uninivited comments on a several month old discussion on my Talk that you were no part of, and you waded in solely to accuse me of anti-Semitism (as you also did below), unconnected with ongoing editing and most likely as a revenge to my first revert of your CT violation. Are you certain this presents your ability to collaborate and follow Wikipedia standards in a good light?

@ScottishFinnishRaddish, I will next time, thx. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's unbelievable that after so much of explaining, JoeJShmo still keeps arguing for their mistaken interpretation of CT restrictions even here... Maybe it's a WP:CIR matter at the end? — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeJShmo, in response to your most recent comment, here's another page for you to read: WP:ASPERSIONS. FYI, my report here was prompted solely by the disruption you've been causing – your apparent determination to take more and more of community's time on arguing with you on the policies you kept violating. I encourage you to read this behavioural guideline: WP:POINT. — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoeJShmo: WP:ARBECR policy is unambiguous. What editors agreed with you is that the information page WP:Edit requests is not very precise. Still, you were told that you need to follow Wikipedia policies and explained what precisely they are in this instance. Yet you keep bringing up an information page to justify your repeated breach of policies. Is there a way to make you understand the rules of participating in this project? — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Discussion concerning JoeJShmo

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

Statement by JoeJShmo

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

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

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

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

Hey selfstudier, that's an unfortunately misleading statement, as I am always open to discussion. I believe the point in contention was defining what exactly the policy encompassed. If you read the discussions again, I'm confident you too would come to the conclusion that no editors displayed any reluctance in the matter of generally follow the rules. JoeJShmo^💌 10:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri I was only giving context to the situation to users that may have been confused by your motive in raising a complaint, considering the spectacularly uncontroversial nature of the discussion in question. I'd love to assume good faith and think that you are a regular in raising complaints in Arb over questionable, minor, and harmless possible violations of policy, but your history shows otherwise. JoeJShmo^💌 11:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish I apologize about the waste of time that was had here. Just to be clear, are you establishig that consensus is that replies to edit requests, even in the way of clarification/explanation, are not allowed, or are you simply of the opinion that the policy's wording makes no room for such exception (in which case, I might point out, anyone contributing to the discussion l Iinked above seems to disagree, at least in the matter of its ambiguity)? JoeJShmo^💌 11:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish: Thank you for the clarification. For the record, I've never called the user in question anti-Semitic and I sure hope they aren't. I did, at one point in the past, ask them about something anti-Semitic they had blatantly implied. However, I am of the belief that any person's one time slip-up need not define them.

And Kashmiri, your questioning my continued discussion about the violation in question is uncalled for. The policy is ambiguous, and there is still an ongoing discussion to build consensus. Your refusal to acknowledge that is concerning. JoeJShmo^💌 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per Nableezy's comment: see User talk:Nableezy#Reverting my edit JoeJShmo^💌 13:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

per the questions on my edits on the war crimes article- please start a new arb request if you are concerned. I am concerned that a ban following separate issues raised in the replies here, without the proper process of a new discussion and relevant statements, would not be justified. JoeJShmo^💌 10:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

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

Statement by Nableezy

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

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

Statement by TarnishedPath

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JoeJShmo

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

Kashmiri, feel free to just ping me to a discussion on their talk page or leave a note on my talk page. No need for a full report on something like this.

JoeJShmo, any further violations of WP:ECR will result in sanctions. Stop it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus through practice is that such replies are not edit requests and not allowed. As further discussion is part of the consensus building process it falls under ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and JoeJShmo, stop your personal attacks such as calling other editors actions antisemitic. That will also result in sanctions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked JoeJShmo for 31 hours for casting aspersions after a warning for NPA as a standard admin action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy for this to be closed with a commitment from JoeJShmo not to do anything in this topic area other than file an edit request until they are extended confirmed. If we can't get that a topic ban seems reasonable. Noting that either way blocks (as a blunt instument) will need to be used to enforce this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we're past that now, add they've violated ECR again. Perhaps a topic ban until we've seen more editing and can be confident there will not be disruption? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JoeJShmo: You do not seem to understand the extended-confirmed restriction, despite it having been explained to you several times. You have continued to edit in the area anyway. Because you do not understand the very narrow exception, I will provide something more clear:

Until you obtain extended confirmed rights, which occur ordinarily when you have 500 edits and have had an account for 30 days, you are hereby topic banned from making any edits that relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed) anywhere on Wikipedia. This includes requests on talk pages, discussions in the "Wikipedia" namespace, and anything anywhere else on Wikipedia that reasonably may relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I am imposing this as a unilateral topic ban. Any future violations will lead to escalating blocks; please find something else to productively edit about in the meantime. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So now they have blasted through a load more gnoming edits to reach EC, and on their 504th edit started unilaterally removing content from War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war. Another red flag, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have topic banned JoeJShmo (talk · contribs) for 6 months and 1000 edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dadude sandstorm

Dadude sandstorm (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as an ordinary admin action by Callanecc (talk · contribs). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Dadude sandstorm

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: DanCherek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dadude sandstorm (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/American politics 2#Contentious topic designation

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

Special:Diff/1234557380 (Destiny (streamer), 15 July 2024): this edit (and edit summary) to the lead sentence of a BLP pretty much speaks for itself...
Special:Diff/1234564355 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump raised fist photographs, 15 July 2024): Biased IP user with a low IQ take eh? is a unsubstantiated personal attack against an IP user in an AfD discussion

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

Alerted about contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 13 July 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I gave the CT awareness alert after noticing a problematic history of edits in the topic area, including Special:Diff/1234357835. Today's edit to Destiny (streamer) linked above left me speechless, though. Dadude sandstorm is incapable of contributing productively to this topic area and possibly beyond. DanCherek (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(in reply to Dadude sandstorm) Actually, everything in your series of edits to the Destiny article was a flagrant violation of the policy on biographies of living persons. You're weaponizing Wikipedia articles to attack people you dislike, as you've also done with Michael Moore, Ana Gasteyer, and Michelle Goldberg. DanCherek (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1234574296

Discussion concerning Dadude sandstorm

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

Statement by Dadude sandstorm

My sincere apologies for this lapse in discipline. I got annoyed seeing the dismissive comment, which when added to the fact that the comment was from an IP user, incensed me. I offer to redact that comment/edit it to be more conducive to maintaining a good atmosphere on wikipedia.

On the other hand, I strongly feel those changes to the Destiny article + the edit summary are nothing better than what such a subject deserves. Having openly outed himself as a quasi-fascist by supporting political assassinations and murder within a day, the article needs to be more strongly worded. while i do admit the (objective correct but inappropriate) mention of 'cuck' was the wrong thing to do, the rest of the changes were but simply stating his actions from the last 24 hours.

I'm assuming it was the rather unseemly (although might i remind you, factually correct) mention of 'cuck' which left you speechless. I apologize as it was done in a moment of haste and anger after going through the subject's tweets. The aforementioned 'problematic edit' however, was not malicious, but simply a statement of fact as at that moment, the 'staged' tweet was circling around democrat circles, while the 'inside job'/other conspiracy theories by Republicans/right-wingers had been mentioned in the article, from what I can remember.

Again, my apologies to this hasty and inappropriate raft of edits. daruda (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Isabelle Belato

I'm surprised they weren't indef blocked after this egregious edit. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dadude sandstorm

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

Blocked indef as a normal admin action for BLP vios and NPA. No issue with an AP2 TBAN too if other admins think that might be useful to have if there's an unblock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're already indefinitely blocking the user, then I think we can evaluate unblock conditions when the user makes an appeal. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is fairly boneheaded and aggressive to add "left-wing extremist" with no citation to the list of descriptions in the article of a streamer, but I guess it is something that could conceivably be done in good faith by somebody totally unfamiliar with our policies. I feel like following it up with "cuck" is not, and this is far from the only obviously deliberate act of trolling. Like, what is this? What is this? You cannot just accuse people of grotesquely heinous crimes and then have the reference be a shrug. I think people really need to understand that when they have a Wikipedia account they really are editing the article, in real time, for the whole world -- it's not like it is some kind of joke site and then we have a separate part that's the real Wikipedia. This is the only one. If someone cannot be trusted not to write insanely libelous stuff about people into their own encyclopedia articles because you feel like it, it is crucial that we do not have them around with access to the edit button. I am opposed to this guy being unblocked. jp×g 🗯️ 12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that adding "cuck" to the first line indicates a deliberate act of trolling, as does this edit.
With respect to this edit: before Rosenbaum was killed by Rittenhouse, he was convicted on multiple counts of sexual contact with a minor (according to Snopes, the minors were boys between ages 9 and 11) and was found guilty on disciplinary charges of asssault and arson while behind bars. And while the edit appears to not be libelous, per se, I think that the relevant principle that we cannot just accuse people of grotesquely heinous crimes and then have the reference be a shrug is something the user should have been familiar with 300ish edits in and after having received multiple warnings to this effect. If the user is to be unblocked, I would want them to explain in very clear terms what their understanding of our minimum referencing standards are, as well as an explanation as to their state of mind during the edits that have been brought up here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I mean is that regardless of whether it's true it needs a source, it can't just be "trust me bro". jp×g 🗯️ 06:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by JoeJShmo

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: JoeJShmo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – JoeJShmo^💌 23:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the subject of Arab-Israel conflict for 6 months and 1000 edits, imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Results concerning JoeJShmo, logged at WP:Arbitration enforcement log#2024 (CT/A-I)

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

Notification of that administrator

[51]

Statement by JoeJShmo

I request the topic ban to be lifted.
Background: An Arb request was opened with concerns on violating ARBPIA as a non EC editor. I explained at length in multiple discussions that I never violated the rules intentionally; I hadn't been clear on what exactly was not allowed (see my statements here, also see my responses on my talk page). Red-tailed hawk ended up giving me a topic ban until I reached EC, asserting that I don't seem to understand the restriction. I thought that assertion was off the mark, but I didn't appeal as I was about to hit EC. There was no gaming the system in hitting EC; every edit was either a part of productive discussion[52], or contributed to build Wikipedia. When I hit EC, I performed a bunch of edits that I had had in the back of my mind in the IAC topic, in what were good-faith contributions. Editors raised concerns with these edits at my talk page and at the Arb request, and shortly after, ScottishFinnishRadish enforced a 6 month 1000 edit ban. Their reasoning reads: "...sanctioned for lack of understanding of WP:PAGS, NPOV issues, and a technical 1RR."[53]
The edits in question are edits to the War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war article. My first edit was to remove a small subsection that I believed was in the wrong section. I do realize now that I could have opened a discussion first, or moved it to where I thought it should go instead of just deleting it. That was a mistake on my part. My second edit was adding context to a human shield instance. I believe that edit was fully warranted; the only source for the incident was the shopkeeper himself (from the video alone it could've been explained as a detainment), who is quoted in the sources as saying he was used to deter stone throwing. Even if there would've been room to disagree, I cannot see this as an example of violating NPOV or PAGS. My third edit I believe similarly warranted, and I didn't realize it would need a discussion, though I learned quickly that more things than usual need discussions in this topic area. However, this does not reflect a lack of understanding and adherence in the above policies. My fourth edit mostly falls in the same boat as the third, as I didn't realize anyone was reverting until I had complete my edits. However, also in the fourth edit, I made a mistake in changing a word from 'stated' to 'claimed'; see the following discussion on my talk page, where a couple of editors helpfully informed me of the terms of the mistake, and I thanked them.[54] This is the discussion SFR pointed me to to back his claims of a violation of NPOV[55] (he stopped responding after we had exchanged a couple messages). However, this doesn't reflect a lack of NPOV, as I actually made the different phrasings consistent with one another, per NPOV, although I now know I should have had both read 'stated' instead of 'claimed' per the discussion linked above. Part of my fourth edit, and my fifth edit, have not been challenged so far. As for 1RR: common practice is not to treat status quo edits as reverts. In this case, it had been nearly 6 months. See discussion here.[56] I believe I've demonstrated in the past a pattern of mindfulness of NPOV, along with a willingness and desire, to accept new information and guidance. I do often seek clarification from editors on the exact problem they are raising, and it is possible that some may have misconstrued that as being 'argumentative'.
In conclusion, I don't believe there's any evidence of POV or a lack of policy awareness to the point of justifying even a temporary topic ban. Some editors may believe I have been too hasty to edit, and I will be slowing down in the future, as I noted above. However, the concerns outlined by SFR do not exist.

Note: The amount of edits counted towards EC that were violations of ECR is negligible, although there were plenty of discussion following the violations where I became better informed. I don't see why discussion wouldn't count towards EC, and even if that is the issue at hand (it isn't), a blanket EC status removal for ~100 edits would've been the answer, not what we have right now. A great majority of my edits have been completely unrelated. JoeJShmo^💌 00:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say one last thing. I realize I am getting too emotionally involved in this topic right now. Though I don't agree with the 6 month restriction, whatever happens, I'd like to voluntarily take a one month topic ban in the article pages (not discussion), and 100 edits. I'm not here for any one topic, and I enjoy other tasks far more; lately I've been working on making a template for a series of articles. I'd like to thank all the editors who gave me helpful advice so far in editing and following policy: DougWeller, Wordsmith, starship.paint, SFR and RTH (sorry if I missed anyone). As @DougWeller pointed out to me, I realize I can be passive aggressive when I'm under pressure. That's something I'm working on, and I hope to have a positive relationship with everyone in the future. Thank you for hearing me out. JoeJShmo^💌 07:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick response to SFR. Per 1RR, as I told him on my talk page, I didn't notice anyone was reverting until after I had completed all my edits, and I explained my language in the summary. it's disingenuous not to acknowledge my response. Per MAGS, even if it were true that I didn't have the necessary experience, SFR hasn't demonstrated that I am a overly disruptive editor; and I am EC already. SFR agan references POV violations, but I have yet to see someone demonstrate POV from my edits there. Vague handwaving and linking my edits is not going to cut it. JoeJShmo^💌 19:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear: as I am EC, without gaming the system, there would need to be a separate community wide discussion with consensus, to justify handing out topic bans based on a perceived 'lack of experience'. The bar was set, and I've reached it. Adjustments to the requirements of hitting EC is a different discussion. JoeJShmo^💌 19:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

The topic ban was placed because the editor clearly does not have the necessary experience and grasp on WP:PAGS to contribute constructively in the topic area. I brought up the technical 1RR violation as it demonstrated that they immediately jumped into removing, even after being reverted, prose that they disagreed with. They did this claiming NPOV violations, and demanding that their edits not be reverted[57][58]. We don't need more stonewalling POV warring going on in the topic area. The discussion at User talk:JoeJShmo#WP:CLAIM demonstrates a lack of a clear understanding of WP:PAGS which is necessary to edit constructively in this incredibly contentious topic. This comes after a block and a topic ban for behavior in the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

No comment on the sanction itself other than I think appellant largely brought this on themselves. As I have indicated before, think we ought to try and avoid that non EC editors end up at this board at all, that's not going to help someone new get to grips with the way WP works, not in a CT. Selfstudier (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JoeJShmo

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

Statement by BilledMammal

A major issue in the enforcement of the ECP restriction is the inconsistency. Whether editors are sanctioned for violating it appears to be entirely based on chance. For example, several months ago I reported IOHANNVSVERVS and Osps7 for gaining ECP primarily through ECR violations, but no action was taken. (To date, neither appear to have made more than 500 edits outside the topic area.) Since then, I've declined to report other such editors, as I've been under the impression that it is not seen as an actionable issue.

I think we need to be consistent in how we treat editors who gain extended-confirmed status through violations; either we sanction all of them or none of them, and if we are going to sanction them we impose comparable sanctions. Personally, I think some level of sanction is appropriate, but it needs to be consistently applied, as to do otherwise would be unfair for editors like JoeJShmo.

See also Redefinition of ECP and Redefining ECP, which are about how to address good-faith edits that work towards extended-confirmed status; the rough consensus of the community appears to be that we should not adjust ECP to make it more difficult to work towards, and nor should we fault editors for working towards it unless they do so through bad-faith edits. BilledMammal (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

The sanction looked very measured to me given that the editor had not long before received a block for 31 hours for NPA. This topic area needs less disruption, not more. 1000 extra edits and 6 months will give the editor sufficient time to understand WP policies and guidelines. In that way the sanction is purely preventative. TarnishedPath^talk 11:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Kip

While I do agree with BM’s concerns about applying ECR in a consistent manner (and/or redefining it), I concur with those above in that I really don’t see an issue with this particular sanction. As I recently told another editor, hopefully the TBAN results in moderated/refined behavior that they need to develop before any potential return to the area. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by berchanhimez

From what I've seen, there is no consensus whatsoever on what even counts as gaming EC. And that seems to be the crux of this topic ban - a belief that the editor "gamed" EC and is still not ready, so it is being "reset" to basically start counting over. While I appreciate administrators are given wide latitude to impose sanctions for Arbitration Enforcement purposes, I do not believe such a "reset of EC" is in line with current lack of consensus on what gaming is (or even if it's a problem to begin with). That said, I don't see any reason that, given the edits after the appellant reached automatic extended confirmed being applied, that a regular topic ban (indefinite or time limited), without a number of edits, for a specific topic area would not be appropriate. I realize that this may be contradictory - I don't believe a "until you redo extended confirmed requirements" topic ban is something that should be applied - yet I also think that a regular topic ban shouldn't be avoided just because the user recently got extended confirmed. There is also the question of what the "extra" restrictions of edit count and time frame mean for appeals. Is it intended that the appellant in this case can't appeal it before 1000 total edits and 6 months? Is it intended that appeals before that time should just be declined, or looked at more carefully? Is it intended to automatically expire at that time, and who is responsible for "assessing" the 1000 edits and 6 months criteria to decide if it's expired? What if the user gets to 900 edits, creates 3 new articles in other contentious topic areas (that they aren't topic banned from) without any issue whatsoever? Best to just make it a regular topic ban, either time-limited or indefinite - and let the user follow normal appeal processes as anyone else if/when they feel they have shown their competence enough to get it removed. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Doug Weller - EC is only enforced by the software on pages protected with that level of protection. The question to ask here is whether other editors are supposed to know, if they don't use hover-boxes (or whatever the technical gadget is called), that this editor is "not" extended confirmed. And even still, it doesn't sound like they are having extended confirmed removed - because this is a single subject area topic ban. Hence why I feel this is, for all intents and purposes, no different than an indefinite topic ban that can be appealed at any time. The addition of the edit/time restriction serves virtually no purpose, unless it is to mean that an appeal "should be" accepted at that time - but any appeal of it would be considered on the merits and we will be back where we started - so there is no use for the edit/time restrictions. Just make it indefinite and allow the user to appeal whenever as any other topic ban. Either they have gained experience and will be able to show it, or the appeal will fail and be handled as normal for those appealing before a removal is warranted. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 07:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by JoeJShmo

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

In principle, I think that the topic ban issued by ScottishFinnishRadish is appropriate given the series of events that led to here, though I would like to hear the admin's response here to clarify the reasons that this topic ban was given. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the ban to have been appropriate per the arguments given above by ScottishFinnishRadish which is confirmed by my own experience in trying to advise JoeJShmo. The purpose is to help them gain experience with our WP:PAGS. Reaching the 6 months and 1000 edits won't automatically expire so they will have to reach out to an Admin to restore EC, but I believe that this should be granted then without relation to edits in other edits or the quality of their edits. Any problems in other areas should be treated separately. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with concerns above about consistently enforcing EC restrictions, and responding consistently to gaming ECR; but that does not change my assessment that this editor needs to gain more experience - and hopefully learn restraint - outside this topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tobyw87

Tobyw87 topic-banned indefinitely by ScottishFinnishRadish. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Tobyw87

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Starship.paint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tobyw87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

Violates WP:AGF, WP:NPA, casts aspersions. Quotes below. starship .paint (RUN) 12:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

05:14, 20 July 2024 Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia
05:01, 20 July 2024 (bolding done by starship.paint) Again you are fact-free and proud. As this is my own talk page I am free to say what I want (unlike the rest of the entirety of Wikipedia which is clearly pro-Hamas and pro-murdering as many Jews as possible) … knows more about the ICJ than any of these Wikipedia editors who would rather cite in favor of terrorist sympathizers than the truth … so you can continue to lie about it all you want but it changes nothing at all. Eventually the truth will win and your hateful/bigoted narrative will lose.
19:02, 18 July 2024 Your comment and the comments of many others are indicative of the extreme anti-Israel (Jewish) bias going on on Wikipedia right now
21:55, 12 June 2024 by the looks of of this verbiage it seems like editors here want to vilify Israel using a different lexicon
19:05, 9 June 2024 You just want to push a narrative instead of saying the obvious, which is Hamas and the IDF share blame here.

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 17:29, 9 June 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 05:28, 14 July 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Tobyw87

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

Statement by Tobyw87

I did not personally attack anyone and if my statements are construed that way, that is my mistake. This is a very contentious issue and there are obviously many different valid perspectives in the literature and in media and all should be reflective on Wikipedia. I believe the pro-Hamas perspective is currently dominating on Wikipedia and I am entirely free to think this and say it if I want to. In fact, there have been many media articles citing Wikipedia's overt anti-Israel bias---here, here, here, and here to cite just a few. ~~From my perspective, this "Arbitration process" is in the furtherance of this very well documented bias~~ . I have zero interest in silencing the pro-Palestinian position and respect many of the articles that have been written here that adequately reflect both sides.

The editor who submitted this request is the one who is engaging in personal attacks---assuming that I am not in good faith, assuming that I do not know how Wikipedia works, etc. I don't believe I've attacked them even one time and yet I am the one being sanctioned for it.

I believe the mission of Wikipedia is important and as this is a community that operates on the basis of consensus, I will respect any ban going forward and cease all editing on Israel/Palestine topics. I am extremely biased by my own admission and if the community judges I am not capable of editing Wikipedia adequately according to its standards I will 100% accept this judgement. Thank you.Tobyw87 (talk) 20:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri I have media and academic articles supporting my views that Wikipedia is biased on this topic. If you have an issue with this claim, I am not the one to levy that against. Jewish lives are at stake so I take it very personally. I retract nothing. Tobyw87 (talk) 23:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kashmiri

Thans @SP for filing. Yeah, the editor doesn't seem to understand what Wikipedia is and how it works, esp. re. sourcing. I'm not personally offended, and my Jewish friends will have a good laugh, but both the attack and the user's editing history suggest that the user may be incapable of editing objectively in the Palestine–Israel topic area. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobyw87: To call the large number of editors who faithfully summarise reliable sources ~~and don't simply parrot the Likud propaganda~~ – to call them "pro-Hamas" is a slap in the face. I suggest you retract your accusation asap. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SFR: OK, perhaps that went too far, or too much of a mirror it was. Crossed out. It's okay for me to complain about a Pro-Palestinian bias. But deliberately conflate Palestine and Hamas is perhaps too much. — kashmīrī ^TALK 02:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tobyw87

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

I've indefinitely topic banned them from ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kashmiri, To call the large number of editors who faithfully summarise reliable sources and don't simply parrot the Likud propaganda – to call them "pro-Hamas" is a slap in the face. You're doing the same thing that you're saying they're doing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say before this is closed that had I seen this sooner I would have done the same. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dtobias

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

Request concerning Dtobias

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Dtobias (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: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

(Diffs below)

Anytime there’s a discussion involving an article that falls under GENSEX topics, User:dtobias comes in and more or less just rants about the evil transgenders and trans activists in a way that contributes nothing to the article’s talk page and only serves to espouse his views on trans rights devoid of any relevance to editing the article.

He also frequently either directly accuses or through a paper thin pretense accuses other editors of being trans activists without the wiki’s best interests at heart. This includes saying that properly gendering trans people in line with MOS:GENDERID is comparable to a Muslim user forcing his religious beliefs on Wikipedia, and accusing users of trying to discount any source that’s not PinkNews even when the sources in question are very demonstrably unreliable and/or employ the use of anti-trans slurs. On at least one occasion, he has also made edits to GENSEX articles themselves, referring to trans women using he/him pronouns.

[59] Unasked for rant about how Trans activists are prone to throwing tantrums when they don't get their way. WP:NOTFORUM WP:DIS

[60] Irrelevant WP:NOTFORUM tangent about how There certainly is a set of beliefs, principles, doctrines, and philosophies being promoted by trans activists, so the whole concept that "there's no such thing as trans ideology" is ludicrous.

[61] In response to being told to follow MOS:GENDERID, he goes on a whole WP:NOTFORUM thing about newspeak and thoughtcrimes.

[62] Another WP:NOTFORUM thing about “trans ideology”, this time comparing trans people to people who think they’re Napoleon and are thus entitled to all of Europe.

[63] WP:NOTFORUM ramble about the rise of “transgenderism”.

[64] WP:NOTFORUM rant about the term “TERF” + comment saying that trans men are women.

[65] WP:AGF WP:DIS reply saying that asking editors to follow MOS:GENDERID is comparable to a Muslim editor forcing his religious views on Wikipedia.

[66] Accusing editors of trying to POV-push for saying that a source that used slurs to refer to trans women wasn’t reliable. EDIT: Sorry, the slur one was below. This one was just basic AGF POV accusation. I have no idea why I got the two mixed up or why I thought they were the same response. That’s on me for sloppy proofreading, sincerest apologies.

[67] Ditto. I think he just copied and pasted his response.

[68] Editing a trans woman’s BLP to refer to her by he/him pronouns in violation of MOS:GENDERID.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[69] Him being taken to ANI previously over his behavior on GENSEX topics

[70] The thread being moved to AE, where he was given a caution over his behavior.

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

The AE thread linked above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint: I was advised at ANI to file this here instead. I’m not filing this because of his personal POV on GENSEX topics. There are plenty of editors with such views that still contribute positively to GENSEX articles, even if I personally disagree with them. I’m filing this because of the way he deploys said views on talk pages and articles in a way that contributes nothing to the page and instead just seems to use said page as a forum to vent his feelings about trans people, often towards trans editors.

EDIT: Sorry if I’m at all awkward at this! This is my first AE thread.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [71]

Discussion concerning Dtobias

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

Statement by Dtobias

I stand by the truth (as I see it) of everything I said, if not necessarily the civility or appropriateness in context. This subject brings out the worst in everybody it touches. I will abide by whatever decision the community makes in this action. I do hope that those who look into this matter look at the behavior of all people involved in the discussions the above diffs were part of, and not just at mine; those articles might be better off if a number of people whose views are too strongly held and expressed to make them well-suited for dispassionate encyclopedia creation would step back a bit.

To mention a few of the above diffs where further comment is needed:

[72] was in response to a comment saying that pretty much all of the UK news media should be dismissed as unreliable because people have criticized their "transphobia".

[73] I wasn't "ranting" there, just quoting part of an academic paper being discussed, where it mentions the definition and usage of "TERF", which had also been under discussion on that page.

[74] I wasn't "being told to follow MOS:GENDERID" because I hadn't violated it; the discussion was between others, which I jumped into with my own two cents (er, "tuppence" since it was about a UK subject) about how being compelled to use language based on one side of a controversial issue limits ability to debate. This doesn't mean that I would ever intentionally break Wikipedia style rules, whether or not I agreed with them; see below for where I self-reverted when I accidentally did so (much later than this debate).

[75] An error on my part which I immediately corrected, the final edit here being, as of this writing, the most recent edit on that page, so nobody has yet found it in need of further correction or alteration. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a double standard in effect, where people on one side of the issue can use all the forceful and biased language they wish usually with no repercussions, but the other side needs to walk on eggshells. Even saying that there's such a thing as transgender ideology gets you in trouble, as seen in comments below. *Dan T.* (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re LightNightLights: No, nobody should be banned from commenting about a subject due to their personal characteristics or beliefs. But if they are using hyperbolic, violent rhetoric aimed at others of opposing beliefs, one can call into question their objectivity and professionalism on the subject and their suitability for rendering judgment as an uninvolved party. I note the rhetorical technique of using analogies (in this case black people to trans people) to make a point; this is a very commonly done tactic, and one that I'm being rebuked for here.

Re Abecedare: I appreciate your comments even if they're not always what I want to hear. Neat username! Interesting user page quote! Seems like you truly practice what you preach, given your user history as far as I've looked shows absolutely no involvement in culture warring on any side. Can you explain why my use of analogies is "inapt" while others' may not be? I'm not just being argumentative here; I actually care what you think. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

I don't think Dan's statement that he does "not necessarily [stand by] the civility or appropriateness in context" is enough here. The quoting of 1984 was pretty egregious. At the time, we were discussing a tough issue. An activist was objecting to the circumstances surrounding an OB/GYN doctor who is a trans woman. The article text had described the doctor as "a male transgender doctor", which I objected to. Another editor proposed a change to "a transgender doctor", with other participants objecting to that. Finding the right option in these disputes is tough work. So many good editors have been pushed away due to the acrimony in this topic area. We deserve people that won't step into a tough content dispute to contribute only a newspeak accusation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

Certainly Dtobias needs to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric and stop with all of the comparisons. But Snokalok's report needs refinement - misreading a quote (that was literally put in Template:Quote frame) as a "NOTFORUM rant" and noting an instance of misgendering that was literally corrected by Dtobias one minute later. Meanwhile the "Unasked for rant" was a direct response to an editor who called for sources such as The Times, The Guardian and the BBC to be found to be not generally reliable on the topic based on the reporting of sources including the LGBT magazine Them. starship .paint (RUN) 04:15, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: - I throw _____ into the sun. YEET certainly could be interpreted like a death threat. I would expect an admin to recuse in that topic area for ______. starship .paint (RUN) 23:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

I agree with Starship.Paint. To add to what they said, Snokalok said that Dtobias accused editors of trying to POV-push for saying that a source that used slurs to refer to trans women wasn’t reliable, which seems to mischaracterize the discussion. Slurs do not appear to have been mentioned at any point, and Dtobias' comment appears to be pushing back against considering The Times, The Guardian, and The BBC unreliable.

Snokalok also says that Dtobias said that asking editors to follow MOS:GENDERID is comparable to a Muslim editor forcing his religious views on Wikipedia.

In this discussion, the context to which is a situation where both sex and gender need to be identified in order for a reader to make sense of the content, Snokalok argues, somewhat uncivilly at times (don’t go asserting nonsensical conventions) that sex is mutable and we should refer to a trans-woman as female. In response to this, which as it relates to sex and not gender appears to be unrelated to MOS:GENDERID, Dtobias' asserted that this was a system of belief (for context, reliable sources generally hold that sex is immutable). This discussion is also where the 1984 quote was made.

BilledMammal (talk) 06:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by berchanhimez

Initial comment hidden because I incorporate/clarify it below

I do not agree with the statement by Isabelle below that the use of the terms "transgender ideology" or "transgenderism" should have any impact on this case, nor should they be surprising. They are perfectly valid terms for the things they describe. To be clear, I am fully supportive of those who believe that the solution to feeling as if they were assigned the wrong gender at birth being given all possible forms of treatment for the mental health problems they have because of those feelings. But that does not mean that there is not an "ideology" surrounding it in a political sense, nor does it mean that "transgenderism" is an inaccurate term to describe the concept of someone being transgender. A quick review of the diffs presented by the originator of this complaint - I agree that dtobias may be able to tone down the rhetoric a bit. But let's not ignore the fact that the originator claimed User:dtobias comes in and more or less just rants about the evil transgenders and trans activists without providing any evidence of dtobias calling them "evil transgenders". It seems that the originator may need to take a step back and look at their own rhetoric - legitimate discourse regarding transgender topics cannot be stifled just because someone disagrees with another, and misrepresenting what someone else has said should not be tolerated. To be blunt, I think dtobias may have been correct in saying Trans activists are prone to throwing tantrums when they don't get their way - this appears to be one of those tantrums intended to get an editor that is disagreed with removed from the topic area. In reviewing the "not a forum" complaints made, there seems to be none that are using the talk page as a forum - those comments (from my view) are all relevant to the discussions they were made in.

Ultimately, this appears to be based primarily on one content dispute that the originator of this complaint feels strongly about. I have no opinion (at this time) as to whether the issues raised (over MOS:GENDERID and how we refer to transgender persons in their articles) merit further/wider discussion - but I do not see any action being needed here aside from perhaps a warning to the originator that disagreeing with someone does not mean you can ignore their opinions and try to silence them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 08:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed my initial comment as it was very general and I have expanded on it (including directly identifying the diffs I was commenting about) below, I hope this is/can be allowed. The diff analysis below itself is slightly over 500 words, with approximately 450 words of analysis following it. I believe that both of these parts are crucial to examine this issue fully - both dtobias' conduct itself (the diff analysis) but also the analysis and identification of wider problems in the area. I would greatly appreciate being permitted a retroactive extension to permit my comment that follows in its entirety, and if an administrator has questions/requests a reply from me a further allowance of 200 words to form that reply. Apologies if I missed instructions on how to request a pre-emptive extension of the word count - and if I cannot/will not be permitted one retroactively to cover this I will likely simply have to avoid the diff review.

I will begin with analysis of the evidence provided:

Diff 2 is a valid point to make in a discussion over a political viewpoint being reported on by a source.
Diff 3 is a discussion over how to identify the subject when discussing things for which them being transgender is important. In the discussion, it was actually Snokalok who initially went off topic - rather than discussing the improvement to the article in question, they said Male and female are obviously gendered and you are well aware of that. Another user (not dtobias) had further questions over that, and Snokalok continued to attempt to shut down any opposing viewpoint, rather than attempting to explain where MOS:GENDERID comes from and our consensuses on the issue - eventually saying Then don’t go asserting nonsensical conventions that allow an editor to refer to trans women in articles as males. And this is when dtobias stepped in and pointed out that this was, in effect, attempted censorship based on viewpoint - to which Snokalok replied with yet another veiled threat of That’s worked out for the last thousand editors who’ve done so.
Diff 4 is an example being provided to explain the difference between "being trans" and the politics surrounding transgender education/etc. Was it a great analogy? No. But it is not inflammatory to attempt to explain oneself using analogies.
Diff 5 is a reply to a discussion thread that yet again was started by Snokalok - not a NOTFORUM violation. it is a discussion over the historical prevalence of the concepts and thus a look to avoid recentism bias in assigning due weight. Now Snokalok is claiming it's "irrelevant" because they didn't like the reply to their bringing the issue up.
Diff 6 is nonproblematic - there was a post by Void if removed that presented a possible source, and dtobias pulled out a footnote to discuss further. In no way should quoting a source to discuss whether it may be useful or not be problematic.
Diff 7 completely misrepresents what was being replied to - it was in fact Snokalok that turned the discussion away from what Wikipedia policies/guidelines say and to personal viewpoints. Dtobias pointed out that Wikipedia doesn't care what the personal viewpoints of an editor/editors are.
Diff 8 is an accurate "what if" - it cannot be denied that there is much more of a push against the reliability of "anti-trans" sources on Wikipedia than there is against the reliability of dubious "pro-trans" sources such as Pink News. Of note, Snokalok clearly has an opinion on this - a source that uses a term they don't like can't be reliable according to their explanation of the diff presented. And that completely ignores the lengthy discussion that was had regarding the source - but also makes dtobias' reply retrospectively reasonable - since it is clear that Snokalok wishes for sources that use words they don't like to be prohibited.
Diff 9 is a valid criticism of someone that aspoused a similar "if they use words I don't like, burn the source" viewpoint.
Finally, diff 10 has already been admitted to have been a mistake, has not been repeated, and was swiftly corrected.

So what are we left with? One minorly problematic diff where dtobias claims that trans activists are prone to throwing tantrums when they don't get their way as the worst statement in it. To be quite frank, that is an accurate representation of what is going on here. Snokalok is unhappy that dtobias won't sit back and accept censorship of sources based on using the "wrong terminology", is unhappy that dtobias is trying to critically evaluate sources and our articles from all angles and ensure that all things are considered, and so they have now come here to "throw a tantrum" trying to get them removed from the topic area. In doing so, they have found the support of many of the same editors who, in the discussions that led to the "evidentiary" comments, espoused the same sort of "ban people who say words I don't like" views. Whether this is considered a "first shot wins" situation, or simply an "unclean hands" situation, it would be improper to sanction dtobias for this report.

On the terminology argument, I cannot accept that "sometimes offensive" on wiktionary is grounds for a word being considered "improper" - much less effectively banning it from use under penalty of being sanctioned. Nor can I accept as offensive the act of calling a political viewpoint an "ideology" - which is what was being discussed in the cases that dtobias used that phrase, not the existence of transgender people as a whole. In the grand scheme of things on Wikipedia, discussions every single day contain much more "offensive" or inflammatory language - in fact the originator of this complaint has (inaccurately) stated that dtobias thinks there's evil transgenders. Further, multiple other users on the talkpage in question (Talk:LGB Alliance) have described the "anti-trans" (or similar) viewpoints as "ideolog[ies]". Trying to limit the verbiage used by "one side" of a discussion when permitting the same verbiage to be used by the "other side" is flat out antithetical to the purpose and principles of Wikipedia - and should only be considered where the language being used is either completely inaccurate/misleading, or is so extreme or widely considered offensive so as to have zero purpose whatsoever. And that's not the case with what dtobias has said.

This is a contentious topic, yes, but that does not mean that those supporting a viewpoint that get the most "likes" should be allowed to silence their critics, nor freely roam Wikipedia attempting to twist and turn Wikipedia policies to fit their desired outcome of limiting alternate views being reported in articles. And they certainly should not be allowed to start discussions about their views that are questionably relevant at best, then use someone trying to engage in legitimate discussion about such comments as "evidence" against them. That is what is primarily disruptive here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Sweet6970)

I see that Isabelle Belato has said This is a topic already fraught with hostility. This is, indeed, true. And I do not think that an admin who until recently had an image on her User page which included the slogan: I THROW TERFS INTO THE SUN yeet is a suitable person to be sitting in judgment on this matter. (It looks like the only reason this image is no longer visible is that it has been centrally deleted. [76] ) Sweet6970 (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the final diff quoted in the complaint above [77]. Without any input from anyone else, this was corrected one minute later. [78]. This edit is part of a series of edits, which started with an edit where ‘Wadhwa’ was misspelled as ‘Wradha’ [79]. This was corrected in the next edit, one minute later: [80]. Dtobias is obviously correcting himself as he goes along. To present the final diff in the complaint out of context is misleading, to put it politely. I think that Snokalok needs a formal warning not to behave like this. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: Yes, of course, someone who endorses threats of violence against anyone is not fit to sit in judgment on them. And your comparison of feminism to racism is inflammatory. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist: Regarding your latest comment: WP:NOTFORUM, and this kind of discussion is particularly unsuitable to be held at AE. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

wikt:transgenderism:

(sometimes derogatory) A purported ideology behind transgender identities, trans activism and trans rights movements; transness as an ideology. (Compare homosexual agenda.)

transgender ideology and gender ideology link to Anti-LGBT rhetoric and Anti-gender movement, where more context is given for RS considering these offensive and deliberately vague buzzwords seeking to portray trans people as ideologically driven.

Now, DTobias knows these are offensive phrases, because at WP:NOQUEERPHOBES (an essay written by myself and other queer editors to address rampant queerphobia on Wikipedia) they objectd on the grounds that: In particular, it's quite a useful thing that one of the prime tenets of gender ideology is that there's no such thing as gender ideology; that nips any opposing arguments in the bud! The aim of Newspeak was to ensure that expression of dissident opinions was impossible due to all relevant words being either eliminated or redefined. Modern social-justice crusaders are making great progress at achieving this, particularly in the area of sex and gender.[81]

It's only after these kinds of phrases are noted to be offensive they argue things like Ideology means a "Doctrine, philosophy, body of beliefs or principles belonging to an individual or group." There certainly is a set of beliefs, principles, doctrines, and philosophies being promoted by trans activists, so the whole concept that "there's no such thing as trans ideology" is ludicrous.[82] He gleefully continues to insist that "trans ideology" is a real thing even above: Even saying that there's such a thing as transgender ideology gets you in trouble, as seen in comments below.

There's also snide comments arguing the mainstream media is unduly saying trans people are marginalized: particularly when a lot of the media keeps hammering in the idea that this group is highly marginalized (which kind of contradicts the idea that all of mainstream society favors them, but never mind...). [83]

I was thinking of giving this user a warning on his talk page following this comment at LGB Alliance: Activists call everything "transphobic" if it doesn't ask "how high?" when the activists say to jump[84], because I'd also noticed these forum-style rants and found them offputting.

And there is a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality evidenced in comments like: If one side attains complete victory in this battle, they are likely to win the war, since their side is thereby unanimously supported by reliable sources (because all differing sources have been deemed unreliable) in reference to the Telegraph discussion, what should have been a discussion about the reliability of a source is argued to be warring sides in a battle.[85]

This user repeatedly, in every situation they can, deliberately uses provocative and offensive language - comparing trans people to people who think they're Napolean, religious beliefs, Authoritarian Orwellianism, and generally using language that frames being transgender as a powerful ideology.

To all those who think this isn't problematic - would you argue the same if he repeatedly referred to the "homosexual agenda" and "gay activists calling everything homophobic" and called being questioned on such language evidence of Newspeak? WP:RGW behavior for sure. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WRT those calling Isabelle Bellato into question, would y'all argue "I toss race realists into the sun YEET" disqualifies admins from arbitrating race and intelligence? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sweet6970 - I suppose we can agree to disagree on how publicly anti-bigotry you can be. I'm a little confused, are you arguing DTobias is a TERF?

your comparison of feminism to racism is inflammatory. - Trans exclusionary radical feminism is a very minor branch of feminists, defined entirely by their opposition to transgender people's civil liberties, considered by the majority of the worlds feminist and LGBT watchdogs to be transphobic. You know this. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Isaidnoway

I do agree with the statement by Isabelle below that the use of the terms "transgender ideology" or "transgenderism" should have an impact on this case. And it doesn't "surprise me" either because it is terminology (ideologically-motivated ... ideological objective), Dtobias frequently uses when editing in this CT area. Two of the diffs below are three years old, but it shows a pattern, along with the multiple diffs above.

Diff – But what else but an "ideology" can you call a set of beliefs about sex and gender that include such things as "Trans Women Are Women" (quite often used as a thought-terminating cliche, like when it's chanted mindlessly by activists trying to drown out all opposition) (May 2024)
Diff – Sometimes I feel I've woken up in the looking-glass world or the Bizarro World, where perfectly normal terminology in use for centuries and defined in dictionaries is "POV" and "fringe", while ideologically-motivated neologisms are "NPOV" and standard. (Oct 2021)
Diff – But that wouldn't accomplish the ideological objective of forcing everybody to think of it as if it's an arbitrary assignment instead of a biological fact. (Oct 2021)

From a personal viewpoint, I believe that comment in the first diff is insulting and denigrating Transgender Women. See also: "Gender ideology". Isaidnoway (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LightNightLights

Regarding this edit: Sure thing. Let us ban black people too from speaking about racism just because they are anti-racism. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LunaHasArrived

I also think it is relevant that on multiple of these edits (1,3,5) Dtobias was reminded about notforum, and yet decided to ignore this policy and continuing in this behaviour. Also all of these diffs are from within the last month, they seem to have done 50 contributions in this time period so this controversial editing contributed a significant part of their recent editing history. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dtobias

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

This is a topic already fraught with hostility, and some of their highlighted comments do nothing but add heat. While comparing the use of gender inclusive terms to Newspeak is a tired one, comparing trans people to people who believe they are Napoleon Bonaparte is a new one to me. That they'd use terms such as "transgender ideology" and "transgenderism" does not surprise me. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 03:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Berchanhimez: the issue with those terms is that they add up to the inflammatory language used by Dtobias, and which has been shown here by the OP and Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist. There is a clear pattern of battleground behavior, which the user has already been warned about. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A reminder that all editors are supposed to comment only in their own section and have a limit of 500 words and 20 diffs, unless they request and are granted an extension. So please keep your comments focused and to the point.

I have deleted comments by editors in sections other than their own (I also deleted some responses by BilledMammal in their own section, which though wouldn't have made sense with other comments removed). @Snokalok: if you now believe that some diffs are not relevant to the complaint, you can strikethrough them. Abecedare (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I have reviewed all the diffs presented in the original complaint: one was a misgendering error that was quickly corrected and a few others ([86], [87], [88]), while non-ideal, arguably fall in the grey/AGF area given the context of the respective discussions. The same cannot be said about the other diffs where either the snark ([89], [90]), belittling language ("throwing tantrums", "screams of activists") or inapt analogies ([91], and especially [92]) served only to inflame the discussions.

Given that similar issues were previously raised at AE regarding Dtobias's participation in this area, when they were issued a reminder about their tone, I believe a WP:GENSEX-topic ban is now justified and needed. Abecedare (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not impressed with a lot of their behavior, but when an editor invokes the ol someone thinks they're -insert inane thing here- so everyone has to agree with them? canard and has already been warned for their behavior they're ripe for a time-out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Emdosis

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: Emdosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Emdosis (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: for WP:ECR violations, imposed at

      Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2024#c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240721163500-User_sanctions_(CT/A-I),

logged at

      16:34, 21 July 2024

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

Notification of that administrator: Yeah, I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Emdosis

I was about to post the following to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee when I saw I got banned. I'll post it here instead:

 (topic:ECR)

"The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed"

I'm guessing it's so broad that it includes user talk pages, and going even further, that it would allow a non-admin to remove an edit on another user's talk page (even though that would clash with WP:UP#OOUP). (To be very clear, I absolutely did not add that comment on Joe Roe's page knowingly violating ECR rules)

Original block was unlawful:

Definition of the "area of conflict"
4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Bada bing... Emdosis (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Just noting that I have indefinitely topic banned them as well, for WP:BATTLEGROUND editing and casting aspersions.[93][94][95] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Emdosis

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

Statement by BilledMammal

Emdosis made a comment that was in violation of ECR, it was reverted, and they reinstated despite discussion on their talk page saying they shouldn't. Reasonable block.

Emdosis, if I can give you some advice; this sanction is the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. I suggest that you withdraw this appeal and instead accept it. In a week, when it expires, you can return, make 200 productive edits and non-trivial edits in other topic areas, and join this topic area if you are still interested in doing so. Don't earn yourself a more permanent sanction over trying to contribute to the topic area a couple of weeks early.

I realize you're only 100 edits from ECR, but I suggest 200 just to avoid any controversy in the future over the edits you made within the topic area contributing to you earning ECR.

In addition, I see you cited WP:IAR; for inexperienced editors, IAR is a trap that will only get you in trouble. Eventually you'll realize when it's appropriate to apply, but for now, especially within contentious topic areas, I suggest you stay well clear of it. BilledMammal (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

I know that in theory all blocks are appealable but I will say it again, non EC editors arguing about EC restrictions should not have any standing at this board. By the time we are done here, the block will have run its course. Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Emdosis

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

ABHammad

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

Request concerning ABHammad

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ABHammad (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

"Tag-team" edit warring at Zionism over "colonization", a continuation of the edit war discussed above at #Nishidani, which closed July 11 ("A bunch of socks/compromised accounts blocked. Further action related to anything here will need a separate report."). I won't repeat what I wrote there at #Statement by Levivich (Nishidani).

Removals of "colonization" and similar (partial list): מתיאל June 6, Kentucky Rain24 June 6, האופה (not to be confused with User:מתיאל) June 7, KR June 8, ABHammad June 10 (another), O.maximov June 11, האופה June 12, Galamore June 12, מתיאל July 1, ABHammad July 2, O.maximov July 3, האופה July 4, Icebear244 July 4, [fully-protected July 11-14], ABHammad July 21
For context: they've made 16 edits total to this article [96], they are (not in chronological order):
- The 4 edits linked above
- 5: removing a source (The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine) and replacing it with {{dubious}}
- 6, 7: making a bold edit and later reinstating part of it
- 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: adding "we were here first" content
- The remaining 4 are innocuous: 13, 14, 15, 16
2 talk page edits [97], both in May: first one claims that Nur Masalha and New Historians like Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim often present fringe views; the second one doubles down.

Discussion concerning ABHammad

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

Statement by ABHammad

I cannot speak for the other editors mentioned, but I can confirm that I have no connection with them. It seems that Levivich's complaint is simply pointed at those who disagree with Levivich's point of view. This is evident from his recent, deeply inflammatory comment that we are "We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism", and their edit warring, both leaving no question regarding their views on the IP conflict.

Levivich's complaint appears to be exactly over what Wikipedia expects its editors to do: debate content, and when it comes to POV-pushing, reject the disruptive addition of controversial information forcibly added without, or before consensus is reached. The reverts Levivich shows were made in response to:

Attempts to push the controversial framing of Zionism as colonialism in Wikipedia's voice, despite the lack of consensus on this matter. This was done anyway due to consistent edit warring by several editors, including Levivich ([121], a revert which also saw them attacking other accounts just for being "new"). The article now uses colonization in Wiki voice at the very first sentence.
Attempts to remove maps of ancient Israel and info on Jewish identity
Attempts to describe the events in Gaza as genocide in Wikipedia's voice, unfortunately also successful

If anything, the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Wikipedia, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose them. This complaint is just the latest in a series of attempts to silence opposition and force a single, biased pov over all of the Israel-Palestine area in Wikipedia, which truthfully, has lost all neutrality due to the above conduct. ABHammad (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

@ABHammad: the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Wikipedia, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose them. If this is the real issue, then evidence, please. At the moment it appears from the evidence presented that it may be yourself that is engaged in WP:CPUSH rather than others. Perhaps comment at the same time re User talk:ABHammad#1R breach about your edit blatantly promotes false information and User talk:ABHammad#Enough already about You are going against consensus and the principles of collaborative editing. Taking it to my talk page instead of collaborating on the talk page instead feels like bullying and harassment. Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint (2)

@ABHammad: you say that It seems that Levivich's complaint is simply pointed at those who disagree with Levivich's point of view. - but this complaint is about you, instead of pointing to anyone else who disagrees with Levivich. Your response fails to dispel the notion of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. starship .paint (RUN) 14:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland: is absolutely right, in fact the offsite recruitment on Israel subforums has already occurred multiple times in the past week. See [122], [123] and [124]. starship .paint (RUN) 23:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with KoA, I am not at all impressed by the jumping to conclusions and doubling down by Vegan416 at this venue. In the very same week where the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel had "an obligation to cease immediately all new settlement activities and to evacuate all settlers", Vegan416 is claiming that settlement disbandment means the dismantling of Israel. starship .paint (RUN) 23:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan416 stressed that it is worth considering [Levivich's] motivations when evaluating the case. Even after the strikeouts, Vegan416 stresses that Levivich is apparently trying to push his ... anti-Zionist views, and still discussing whether Levivich does wish for the end of Zionism. What is the relevance of this? Sanctioning ABHammad (or not) will not end Zionism, does not dismantle Israel, and does not dismantle Israeli society. Separately, let's say editor X has a personal view that there should be a one-state solution to the conflict, combining all inhabitants of Israel, Gaza, Jerusalem and the West Bank as equal citizens of one new state: Isgazjerubank. Should editor X never file reports at WP:AE then for being 'anti-Zionist'? starship .paint (RUN) 15:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

As a general point, beliefs resembling the "If anything..." statements by ABHammad are essentially conspiracy theories. They are corrosive. They are used to rationalize all sorts of non-constructive and destabilizing activities in the topic area like sockpuppetry, edit warring, tag-teaming, non-compliance with ECR, email canvassing, vote stacking and off-site campaigning and recruitment. They are self-sustaining beliefs used to justify rule-breaking that have a long association with disruption here. They should probably be actively suppressed.

Statement by xDanielx

@Selfstudier: with regard to the Zionism dispute in particular, I think the evidence @Vegan416 collected makes it pretty clear that we have diverged from a neutral viewpoint. It is surprising to see Zionism referred to as colonization, in wikivoice with no qualifications, when there's a long list of notable scholars who take issue with that characterization.

That said, NPOV issues should be fixed through consensus-building discussions, and ABHammad's recent contributions do seem to involve too many reverts with too little discussion. Since this is recent and their broader history seems more constructive, I think they should be given a chance to change this behavior, but it seems they may need a reminder that edit warring is not limited to 1RR/3RR. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vegan416

I object to this AE request as I had objected to the AE request against Nishidani. In this case, it is clear that Levivich is just trying to push his ~~extreme eliminationist~~ anti-Zionist views~~, exemplified by his statement "We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism"~~.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I'll just put here a fuller quote of Levivich here: "The return of left-wing parties to power is just one election away, and settlement dismantlement will soon follow. We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism". It looks to me that he wishes for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israel which he regards as a colonial "settlement". Of course, if I misunderstood him he is welcome to clarify his words. Until that happens I don't see any reason to rephrase. Vegan416 (talk) 20:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I notice that you still do not say explicitly that you do not wish for the end of Zionism. And when you promote the view that Israel is the outcome of settler-colonialism and then speak of "settlement dismantlement" in the singular it is natural to think you are talking about dismantling of Israel. All in all, your language here about the last gasps of Zionism, which is completely disconnected from reality, doesn't sound like a report about reality, but rather as wishful thinking that reminds one of Iranian rhetoric like that one "Israel Drawing Its Last Breaths, Says Iranian Commander Behind Foiled Drone Attack" (update: especially when you link it to the "last gasps of Zionism"). And thanks for reminding me of your false accusations about my entering a debate just to bludgeon it, including some fancy libelous hints (which I refuted) about how I came into that discussion in the first place. I still ask for an apology for that. Vegan416 (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to various new comments: 1. I reject the false accusation of McCarthyism. I didn't say that any administrative actions should be taken against Levivich. In fact, as I have proven in the recent Nishidani AE, I am firmly against taking administrative actions against editors, even when their opinions are loathsome to me, and even when their behavior is problematic (except for cases of extreme abuse, which none of the involved parties here, from either side, seems to be implicated in). 2. I only say that when someone is trying to initiate administrative actions to suppress other editors, as Levivich does here, it is worth considering his motivations when evaluating the case. 3. We can see that one veteran editor here explicitly wishes for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israeli society, and another veteran editor seems to see that as a legitimate wish. So the possibility that yet another veteran editor holds this view is not far-fetched, and Levivich himself still uses equivocal language about this issue. Despite that, I'm willing to give Levivich himself the benefit of the doubt, so I stroke some of the words in my initial comment. Vegan416 (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: 1. "Nobody said anything about dismantling Israeli society". Apparently, you missed RolnaldR statement here: "And, for the avoidance of any doubt, I do wish for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israel's colonial settler society." 2. Your argument about trolling is just as false. This is a serious argument. 3. If you felt that my statement was drawing focus from your request, then you could just ignore it. After all, we humble editors don't have any vote in here, only the admins. Or you could simply have said from the beginning that you don't wish for the end of Zionism. That would have finished the discussion. That's what I do when I think someone attributes to me something that I don't think. Instead, you are just lengthening the discussion with your still evasive language. Vegan416 (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: You are continuing the discussion even as you complain that it is a distraction. I responded to you on my talk page here, so that you don't falsely accuse me of bludgeoning and trolling again, and I suggest that we continue the discussion there if you are interested. Vegan416 (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: As for your question - I didn't say that anyone should be blocked from requesting AE. But if someone asks to "punish" editors who oppose his views, then I think his motives should be considered when deciding whether to accept his request. And I see that in the recent AE request about Nishsidani, there was a discussion about the motives of the complainer, and it didn't look irrelevant to most participants. But anyway, I trust the admins to decide what they consider relevant. And if they think that my argument is irrelevant then they will ignore it. Which is fine by me. And with that I end my participation in this discussion here (unless someone will insist on involving me again).

Statement by KoA

Not involved in the subject, and honestly I've been at odds with Levivich with behavioral things in the past, but it's apparent to even me that Vegan416's comments here towards Levivich are pretty inflammatory as a sort of potshot/aspersion or an attempt at a rhetorical gotcha as Levivich describes it. That does come across to me as Vegan416 being at least one editor raising the temperature in this topic. There's a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude in those comments, and usually CT designations are meant to help keep such editors out of controversial areas.

Even I know referencing Zionism is a charged word that anyone editing the topic should know better than to use it loosely in rhetoric. Maybe Levivich's "last gasp" comment had a tinge of a POV to it or was a little forumy, but the way Vegan416 grabbed onto the Zionism mention to make a leap to assertions on dismantling Israel and asserting that in a "Maybe I'm wrong, but . . . [insert potshot here]" style comment without evidence really rubs me the wrong way. I do feel like you'd have to have a chip on your shoulder to make that jump from what I'm actually reading in Levivich's comments. If Levivich was actually doing what Vegan416 claims (I sure don't see it), then they would have presented actual evidence of it and how that has affected the topic rather than the type of assertions I'm seeing here. Instead, Vegan's comments to ScottishFinnishRadish leave me concerned they'd just double down in the future instead. KoA (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

We are not supposed to be discussing our own or others personal political beliefs, but I for one find outrageous the McCarthyist I notice that you still do not say explicitly that you do not wish for the end of Zionism, and further object to the idea that wishing such a thing is somehow either relevant or incompatible with participation here. So what if he does wish that? You ever wonder why we have no Palestinian editors in this topic area? Things like this. nableezy - 23:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dan Murphy

"... Iranian rhetoric like that one 'Israel Drawing Its Last Breaths, Says Iranian Commander Behind Foiled Drone Attack.'" Subtle! Dan Murphy (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RolandR

It is not only Levivich that believes that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of the Zionist project. In a recent article in New Left Review, Israeli historian Ilan Pappé argues that "We are witnessing a historical process – or, more accurately, the beginnings of one – that is likely to culminate in the downfall of Zionism." Vegan416 is entitled to disagree with this assessment, but not to smear and delegitimise anyone who shares it. And, for the avoidance of any doubt, I do wish for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israel's colonial settler society. It is a perfectly legitimate belief. RolandR (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ABHammad

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

The edit-warring is concerning, but more concerning is what appears to be removal or negation of a priori reliable sources without apparent justification besides ideological leaning. ABHammad, your entire argument as presented here appears to be that your conduct was justified because you believe yourself correct on the ideological issues, which is not a persuasive argument if you wish to continue editing this topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vegan416, perhaps you'd like to rephrase Levivich is just trying to push his extreme eliminationist anti-Zionist views, exemplified by his statement "We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[3] Schuessler, Jennifer (2024-01-22). "What Is 'Settler Colonialism'?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-07-08.

[4] Shlaim, Avi (2014-05-14). "The Idea of Israel and My Promised Land – review". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-07-08.

[5] "Far Left historian Ilan Pappe says he is good friends with Haniyeh". The Jerusalem Post | JPost.com. 2007-02-13. Retrieved 2024-07-08.

[6] Parker, Fiona (2023-11-18). "Exeter University professor 'admires courage' of Hamas 'fighters'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2024-07-08.

[a]

[b]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 1,382: / Line 1,382: @@
 :{{tqq|one veteran editor here explicitly wishes for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israeli society}} is another example of the rhetorical gamesmanship/twisting of words, now aimed at another editor. Nobody said anything about dismantling Israeli society. Equating "the end of Zionism" with "dismantling of Israeli society" is no different than equating "settlement dismantlement" with "dismantlement of Israel." Basically it's an attempt to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Sound familiar? I believe it's nothing other than trolling/baiting. The point is to derail this report and take the focus off of the reported editor by creating new endless arguments, just like Vegan's bludgeoning behavior I complained about earlier. Admins, please put a stop to this. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 13:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
 ::{{tqq|the dismantling of Israel's colonial settler society}} is not the same thing as {{tqq|the dismantling of Israeli society}}. There is more to Israel than settler colonialism; neither Israel nor any other Jewish homeland needs to be a colonial settler society. Calling for an end to Israel's occupation and apartheid is not the same thing as calling for an end to Israel itself. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 15:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
+:::FTR, still continuing with this ideological purity test, now on [[Special:Diff/1236234946|another page]]: {{tqq|And still above all you simply refuse to say the simple words "I don't wish for the end of Zionism". Why is that?}} I'm of course not going to take this bait, my political beliefs are irrelevant, but I should not have to put up with this in response to filing an AE complaint. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] ([[User talk:Levivich|talk]]) 16:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
 ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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