User:Irtapil/Arby Sup Info

Head Notes
= Whole Conversation =

Statement
maybe ask to see enforcement archive for missing editors https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Sufa&action=history

testing the news source one of them added albeit lazily via a twitter link, lazy unless they were trying to get around depreciated block with the twitter link. This us just a random test article, not the same one.

Questions
I hope it's ok I coloured that? I kept having trouble finding my spot.

I have some questions about how this works?
 * 1. Am I allowed to link this discussion to other users to ask for advice?
 * 2. Are there any restrictions on how I approach others for advice like that?
 * 3. Am I allowed to reply to people below or only respond here?

Draft Response
user:irtapil/Arbitration-Requests-Enforcement

History
a recent related discussion

Statement by Irtapil

 * I'm currently composing a proper response. But I have two questions.
 * Am I allowed to link this discussion to other users to ask for advice?
 * And are there any restrictions on how I do this?
 * It seems like this should be fine, but I wanted to double check rather than risk causing further trouble.

I have not looked at this in detail yet, but responding briefly now based on what we have already discussed on my talk page over the past week or two.

For the majority of requests requests to self revert that user talk:BilledMammal made on my talk page I already responded. I usually within hours and complied with the implied self-revert request as soon as they clearly explained what they would consider a self revert. Most of the edits were old and many were complicated, so I wanted to be sure I understood what they wanted done.

I refused to self revert one edit, made on 19 January in multiple steps.

By my interpretation this counts a one revert made in multiple steps?

For this one revert I clearly explained what I was doing as I did it
 * in edit summaries
 * and in the talk page
 * and in a temporary header I added to the page while I was actively working on it, including an in use box and some additional notes.

As far as I can tell, This is the only "revert" I haven't already self reverted in a window of over ten days between now and 13:12, 14 January 2024 and now.

As far as I am aware, this edit was a self revert in the first place. I have asked BlledMammal whose edit I was reverting in the edit if not my own, and I've not seen an answer. That edit involves some weird politics and weirdly behaving templates, so I wanted to talk to the other editor about it if it wasn't me. But, as far as I know, nobody's was editing that section other than me. There was also a copyright bot that had me confused in that section, but i already discussed this with BlledMammal

citation needed

 * == reply to Galobtter ==

Galobtter

I wanted reply to what you said here check whether I'm guessing right about how to improve on the issue you raised. But I'm not sure if I'm allowed to reply to comments there? and this is a bit too peripheral to put in my main statement, so I'll reply to you here on my own talk page.

Most of the cite notes I put on my own stuff have enough information for someone else to finish what I started (or at least that's the intent) e.g. often it's a URL that just needs formatting (tricky on a small screen) or enough info that a specific familiar reference I have in mind will be the first Google hit from my description. Or if I am adding a link to another page sometimes I have left a

I thought these were a useful start others could build on easily? But maybe this is a bit messy or confusing and not helpful? I was doing it that way because people often put bare URLs in ref tags, which don't even show up, people doing that had been annoying me, I thought putting the URL in a cn Was an improvement? but maybe I was being even more annoying? Is a commented-out URL better than CN? As in
 * Supportable claim.

But someone has pointed out to me that I was over using that template, so I'll stop doing the main thing that led to that. I usually had the intention to replace it with a citation myself within hours, or minutes, e.g. saving a half-finished edit on my phone, intending to continue on a proper computer immediately, but sometimes I'd get interrupted, or side tracked, before I finished adding those refs, and a few too many were getting left too long.

So now, if I don't get time to finish it properly, I'll copy to a user space page instead of saving. Or I'll undo it if I've already saved and then it turns out I won't get time to finish it. I put in the CNs with follow up notes as a backup incase I got interrupted, but maybe I'm but to just undo the half finished edit until I've got time to come back and finish it properly myself.

Is a cn with enough info to find a relevant ref a constructive contribution in moderation? e.g. If I spot a small missing bit of info and I know where to find a ref to support it, but I just don't have it on hand at that moment I add the missing info and a note in where to find the ref? or am I best just to leave is alone and stick it ok my own to do list until I have the ref.

Maybe a lot of those "I can half help with this" contributions belong on the talk page? A few tips of how to fix a gap for someone to follow up on go there instead of on the page?

Is there a specific edit that "know[ing] citations exist" refers to? The only time I can recall saying something like that the comment was an "additional citations needed"? If I'm remembering the same one you mean, there was already a one sentence story and a matching citation there, but I knew a lot more information was available, so I flagged it a something needing follow-up with cn and the "reason=" explaining that more sources were out the.

Obviously "probs exists" is not enough to substitute a citation, but adding it addition to one seems different? I'm not sure if there's a separate template for this? The only one I found was a big header box to put on a whole page? So I just put "additional" as a comment on cn saying there was way more available of there.

Irtapil (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Irtapil
''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 Irtapil

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 10:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

WP:1RR violations: At List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war:
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) - Partial revert of
 * 2) - Partial revert of
 * 3) - Partial revert of
 * 4) - Partial revert of
 * 5) - Partial revert of
 * I requested they self-revert after the 22:20, 15 January 2024 edit. They did eventually revert, but not before making an additional 1RR violation at 11:05, 16 January 2024. Note that this edit was only problematic due to the 1RR violation; absent that I would agree with it.
 * 1) - Partial revert of
 * ,, , and - Partial reverts of
 * I requested they self-revert after the 11:11, 19 January 2024 edit; rather than doing so, they made an additional 1RR violation with the 12:42, 19 January 2024 edit. They still have not self reverted these violations.

Looking through a few of their edits, I see they have also violated 1Rr elsewhere, although no request to self-revert these were made, such as at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel:

From the discussions that took place on their talk page, my belief is that they want to comply with the 1RR restrictions, but they are struggling to understand what they need to do. I've seen similar behavior elsewhere; where they appear to intend to comply with the relevant restrictions, but for various reasons fail to do so.

For example, I previously raised with them, in which they added the claim that the Entire Population 2,375,259 of the Gaza Strip had been Captured, a claim that is both extraordinary and unsupported by the source they added which was from May 2023 and provided the population figures for the Gaza Strip.

When I warned them about it on grounds of NPOV, their explanation convinced me that they added this figure in good faith; that they believed the number of affected individuals needed to go somewhere, and they believed the "captured" column was the best of the various options. However, they should have realized that leaving it out was a better choice than introducing a serious WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V issue.

Similarly, other editors have warned them about adding content without citations alongside a "citation needed" tag. Again, their explanation convinces me that they are acting in good faith, with them intending to add sources later, but they should realize that they should add the sources and the content in the same edit - or at least at the same time.

Elsewhere, I've seen them misunderstanding

To summarize; I believe they want to contribute positively and within the restrictions to the topic area, but I'm not convinced they have the ability - or at least, I don't have the ability to provide the guidance necessary for them to do so, although perhaps some here will be able to.


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


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * I've added diffs of the edits they reverted per request from Galobtter; I'm happy to include a written summary of what they reverted as even with these diffs it isn't immediately clear, but I will need a few hundred extra words to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In regards to The what and why aren't just rhetorical flourishes, I want actual answers, I think what I said when I originally brought up the revert addresses your questions:
 * Admins, this takes me over the word limit; please revert if inappropriate. 06:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I realize I am already over the limit, but may I have an additional 100 words to document some new concerns of WP:HOUNDING? BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Since this report has been open Irtapil has turned up at my talk page at Wikipedia Commons, to participate in a discussion on a topic that they are not actively engaged in and, as far as I can tell, have never been engaged in. I don't have any other examples where they have turned up at a discussion they could only have found through stalking my contributions, but I find this one sufficiently disturbing to mention because it is cross-wiki stalking. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Since this report has been open Irtapil has turned up at my talk page at Wikipedia Commons, to participate in a discussion on a topic that they are not actively engaged in and, as far as I can tell, have never been engaged in. I don't have any other examples where they have turned up at a discussion they could only have found through stalking my contributions, but I find this one sufficiently disturbing to mention because it is cross-wiki stalking. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Irtapil
''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.''

was their reply actuate?
Am I allowed to link this discussion to other users to ask for advice?

Somebody on my talk page replied to that user talk:irtapil was their reply accurate?

Edit limit + Word Limit
Thank you @Galobtter I really wish someone had mentioned that about 2 days ago. But I was worried about even posting the question here in case it used up another edit. I feel silly misinterpreting that, but a rule against lots of statement revisions seemed plausible. Maybe re-word that bit of the instructions?

BilledMammal seems to be a lot more experienced at the arbitration process than I am.

I'm also finding it difficult to stay within the limit because the are many issues here that I don't feel I've been given a fair opportunity to self correct. Can the scope of this be somewhat reduced to at least exclude issues that nobody mentioned before raising it here?

I would like @SaintPaulOfTarsus or the arbitrators to please the paragraph beginning "The user has also added citation needed tags to already-sourced information, in order to speculate…" because the paraphrasing severely misrepresents what I said, and I don't think I can properly respond to that misquote without using up my most of my word limit.

But I would like to discuss this with @SaintPaulOfTarsus on my talk page because it looks like I'm sometimes expressing myself in a way that's prone to misinterpretation and I want to prevent that happening in future. Irtapil (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Word Limit for BilledMammal
@BilledMammal and arbitrators regarding I realize I am already over the limit, but may I have an additional 100 words to document some new concerns… I am happy for BilledMammal to have an increased word limit to respond to my questions but any "new concerns" belong on my talk page. As far as I understand it, issues are not supposed to raise for the first time in Arbitration Enforcement? Users should first discuss the issue and be given the chance or self correct to or otherwise resolve it without arbitration?

Draft Response
a recent related discussion

Talk page discussion User talk:Irtapil

Timeline

why I is good
Previously I worked on obscure topics
 * Rasm
 * Nastaliq

Or aspects of contentious topics that nobody else paid attention to, like the time I noticed that the "native name" listed for Ashraf Ghani was a string of obscenities that had been there for months. I'm still not exactly sure what that meant, but it seemed to be swearing in Dari or Pashto, and it definitely didn't say Ashraf Ghani.

There were no violations of 1RR left outstanding when BilledMammal brought this to arbitration.
For the majority of requests requests to self revert that user talk:BilledMammal made on my talk page I already responded. I usually within hours and complied with the implied self-revert request as soon as they clearly explained what they would consider a self revert. Most of the edits were too old to simply click "undo" and many were complicated, so I wanted to be sure I understood what they wanted done.

I refused to self revert  edit, made on 19 January in multiple steps.

By my interpretation this counts a one revert made in multiple steps?

For this one revert I clearly explained what I was doing as I did it
 * in edit summaries
 * and in the talk page
 * and in a temporary header I added to the page while I was actively working on it, including an in use box and some additional notes.

One revert in 10 DAYS doesn't violated 1RR
As far as I can tell, This is the only "revert" I hadn't already self reverted in a window of over ten days between now and 13:12, 14 January 2024 and now.

My one multi step revert came after a sudden series of approximately 60 consecutive edits by Billed mammal, most of which removed content (so they would count as reverts).

I am willing to define that as one (very big) multi step revert.

But in that case BilledMammal really had no basis to drag this to arbitration based on the series of edits I made when I reverted that 60-step revert.

Why I did that big revert
BilledMammal had deleted parts of every section of the page. They claimed it should be left deleted pending discussion on the basis of WP:ONUS, but it really would not be feasible to discuss such widespread changes in a timely manner, and I worried it would very quickly lead to forked versions becoming impossible to re-integrate if the discussion did come out in favour of keeping the version before BilledMammal did that.

They had mentioned some of the things they wanted removed on the talk page in the few days before that, but nobody agreed that it should be removed. I disagred, nobody else joined the discussion.

Why I did it in multiple steps
I regret doing it that way. What I should have done is just reset the page to the version immediately before BilledMammal started.

The reason I did it a bit at a time was I was trying to seriously consider some of BilledMammal's changes, I ended up keeping a lot of them.

I then read through her talk page comments and tried to accommodate some of her concerns by comprising on some of the things I had previously objected to.

If I recall correctly BilledMammal responded to my attempts to cooperate and comprise by continuing to harrass me with a series of alleged 1RR violations.

The other edit I didn't self revert was already a self revert
As far as I am aware, this edit was a self revert in the first place. I have asked BlledMammal whose edit I was reverting in the edit if not my own, and I've not seen an answer. That edit involves some weird politics and weirdly behaving templates, so I wanted to talk to the other editor about it if it wasn't me. But, as far as I know, nobody's was editing that section other than me. There was also a copyright bot that had me confused in that section, but i already discussed this with BilledMammal.

Reliable sources do descends them as further apart than the general "arms length" relationship between most political and militant wings, they're barely even on the same side anymore, if at all. So I wanted to talk to whoever made the prior edit if it wasn't me.

Questions for BilledMammal
Sorry I'm taking a while to get to some of these, those template links don't work on a lot of my devices.

"11:05, 16 January 2024. Note that this edit was only problematic due to the 1RR violation; absent that I would agree with it." (removed some detail of what had already been answered) Irtapil (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you tell me about an alleged 1RR violation if you didn't even want me to self revert it?
 * What DID you want me to do about it?



To clarify, I'm not trying to "get myself off the hook" (this probably makes my case worse) I'm genuinely worried about the pattern of behaviour intimidating numerous other users until they just "take a break from the topic for while" or she actually manages to get them banned.

Response to feedback on other issues
@SaintPaulOfTarsus I honestly appreciated your feedback earlier this week and took it on board. I do remember making some of those still unfinished edits and was I was meaning to find them and finish them or move them to my user space until they were presentable. I probably would have done that already if not kept busy and stressed by an endless stream of alleged 1RR violations. Irtapil (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC) edited a bit Irtapil (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * My talk page this week.png

@SaintPaulOfTarsus re "…culminating in a series of edits to Battle of Sufa last week I felt bordered on disruptive.

I agree I got too over-enthusiastically speculative with the belligerents data that week. I have made user:space pages for unconfirmed events now, a much more suitable place for them, pending a full story in reliable sources.

Again, I honestly did take the feedback on board, but i didn't get far through checking my old edits and improving them because I was kept very busy with alleged WP:1RR errors.

@SaintPaulOfTarsus I am a bit confused by what you said in the linked discussion about the un-referenced belligerents. I'm not sure why you didn't just remove it? Different editors seem to have contradictory interpretations of the etiquette and policy on that.

If your find any old errors where I've already agreed with constructive criticism, removing them for me when you see them seems helpful? Just let me know in case I want to add unfinished stuff to my user-space, or in case I have made similar old errors elsewhere.

@SaintPaulOfTarsus I also responded in the linked discussion, but i forgot to send it till a the next day.

Issues I have not been given a fair chance to self correct
@user:SaintPaulOfTarsus We discussed already this week that I have been over-using or misusing cn for "follow up" notes, and I probably would have fixed a lot of them by now if I haven't been stuck on the WP:1RR stuff.

The typical situation is cases where I'd added new material writing on my mobile or a tiny portable PC tablet, then saved it to move to a better computer to add and format references, these are usually references I know exist, it's just tricky on a small screen. I usually added cite needed notes for someone to follow up on in case I got interrupted for myself and in case I got interrupted, e.g. "the list of hostages published by Haaretz" or "on the wiki page this links". But too often I did get interrupted and the unfinished version got left there for weeks. I really want to be able to go back through my own old edits and fix them based on constructive feedback I've received.
 * From now on, if I don't manage to finish my contribution within a reasonable time (maybe an hour?) I will undo the unfinished edit.
 * For anything more than very minor changes I'll draft new content in my user-space. I had been doing this already, but possibly not enough.

The issues about citation notes I've added to existing content have not been raised before "Arbitration / Requests / Enforcement". I can see now that some of the ways I've been using them are unhelpful but I've not had an adequate opportunity to self correct.

Particularly issue of speculation in cite notes, I understand the problem now and I want to be given a fair chance to self correct it by fixing my old edits.

Also, those out-of-context quotes and inaccurate paraphrasing severely distort what I said.
 * Leaving out "might be worth researching some background to give this more context, as far as I can gather" from the first one of makes it sound like a very aggressive assertion, when it was actually a very timidly phrased pondering of a thing I didn't claim any certainty about all. (Deleted now, vague areas to look into belong on the talk page, but we are unlikely to find much on that one.)
 * The key part of what I said in the second was "The amount of scripture K. S. Al-Aqsa quote seems incongruous with "secularism" as a core ideology" but I will delete the vague speculation, the more important point is that the reference there, like the rest of the page, is over 15 years out of date and they seem to have dissociated further from the secular Fatah party since then. That whole page needs a maybe update.
 * In the last case @User:SaintPaulOfTarsus reshuffled what I said to look like I said almost the exact opposite of what I actually meant, and that quote is from a commented out section that starts with "I'm not sure if the following would help or just add more confusion?" The way to respond to that would be to say on the talk page for that article "yeah, the ISIS bit is a confusing a mess, definitely leave it out" any time in the past couple of months, not suddenly bringing it up here when we have never discussed it previously.

Statement by Selfstudier
This recent ANI discussion seems relevant, in particular the interaction between filer and defendant.Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by SaintPaulOfTarsus
I feel justified making a statement because a talkpage message I authored was linked above and discussed by admins.

I have had frequent interactions with the user starting in early December, mostly in ARBPIA. I quickly started experiencing CIR concerns like those Galobtter expressed below, culminating in a series of edits to Battle of Sufa last week I felt bordered on disruptive.


 * : addition of a section on media portrayals of the 7 October attacks (all the attacks, broadly speaking), which seems to have little direct relevance to this specific single attack.


 * : unsourced extension of the battle date in the infobox by four days. This was discussed on the user's talk page. I didn't come away from the conversation with any idea where the alternative date came from.


 * : unsourced addition of a new group as a belligerent in the battle. After I asked for clarity, a later edit added unsourced information (on Khan Yunis) that had no direct connection to the article's subject (Sufa). I addressed this on the article's talk page (last reply in linked section) after reverting it, but received no explanation.

In addition to what you previously read from me, the user deploys citation needed tags in other disruptive ways.


 * : addition of a citation needed tag to a portion of the infobox reading "Al-Qassam Brigades: 3,000 entered Israel." A comment attached to the template reads "is that 3000 militants or does that include people celebrating at the destroyed fence?" I opened the cited article and found that its fourth sentence read "The 3,000 figure in the latest assessment only includes armed terror operatives and not the waves of Gazan citizens who took advantage of the enormous gaps in the fence to also make their way inside later in the day."


 * : addition of a citation needed tag to the translated name of a military group: "Salafi Army of the Ummah in Jerusalem." In part, the user's comment reads "Please double check the citation supports that translation". I double-checked the citation and found that the second sentence of the referenced article read Its full name is 'Jaysh al-Ummah al-Salafi fi Bayt al-Maqdis' ('The Salafi Army of the Ummah in Jerusalem')."

These examples indicate a tendency to dispute content without checking existing citations. The user wouldn't have had to scroll far to have these questions answered.

The user has also added citation needed tags to already-sourced information, in order to speculate on whether Hamas likes Israeli Arabs less than other Israelis because they view them as "traitors", or on how often Muslims who want secular government quote the Quran, and includes commented-out speculation in articles on whether ISIS was involved on October 7, because "I've read half a dozen in depth articles on this, but i need to find them again."

Reading WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, I felt I had observed nearly all the listed examples from this user.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Irtapil

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


 * I'd appreciate if there was a link to the diffs you are saying Irtapil reverted, because otherwise it is very hard to follow sequence of reverts/verify the 1RR violations. I looked at the diffs at User_talk:Irtapil too, and it's hard for me to see where the revert is, especially since table edits are very hard to follow in a diff format. But it seems like part of the issue is Irtapil will try to partially revert an edit through a sequence of many edits, split over a long enough time that there will be interventing edits turning that one revert into multiple. We already discussed this on my talk page where I tried to explain why that counts as multiple reverts. It seems like Irtapil could avoid issues by fully reverting in one edit, and if they want to preserve part of the edit that they reverted then that edit can be safely added back over a sequence of many edits without any issue.
 * I'm more concerned about the other edits, especially adding edits with citation needed. Regardless of the issues with editing on their device, in this topic area every edit is going to be controversial and needs to include an inline cite with the edit, and cannot be based on "know[ing] citations exist".
 * I'm getting increasingly concerned Irtapil doesn't have the competence to keep editing in this WP:CTOP. Galobtter (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * BilledMammal, sure you can have an extra 100 words., the 20 diff limit is a limit of the number of diffs you can link to. It doesn't not stop you from editing your statement. Like Seraphimblade said, I would recommended trimming it a lot - sure you have a lot to respond to but I would keep it short and coherent. I tried reading it and couldn't make sense of what you were saying. One thing I will say is that 1RR has to be followed whether you are trying to do a good thing or not; this is why BilledMammal points out violations even if they agree with the edit. Galobtter (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * , you may only respond in your own section. Reaching out to other editors for advice is pretty close to canvassing. By informing them of this discussion by asking for advice you're essentially blocking them from engaging with this AE request.I've warned Irtapil at least twice now about personalized commentary. Along with the example BilledMammal provided, there is also this recent example of not understanding canvassing. Combined with the confusion about reverts and the citation needed issue I find myself in agreement with that they may not be net positive in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , the word limit for responses is 500. If you need a little more than that, you would probably be granted it if you asked, but you're currently over 1600. Please do some substantial trimming. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Irtapil
''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 Irtapil

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 10:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

WP:1RR violations: At List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war:
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) - Partial revert of
 * 2) - Partial revert of
 * 3) - Partial revert of
 * 4) - Partial revert of
 * 5) - Partial revert of
 * I requested they self-revert after the 22:20, 15 January 2024 edit. They did eventually revert, but not before making an additional 1RR violation at 11:05, 16 January 2024. Note that this edit was only problematic due to the 1RR violation; absent that I would agree with it.
 * 1) - Partial revert of
 * ,, , and - Partial reverts of
 * I requested they self-revert after the 11:11, 19 January 2024 edit; rather than doing so, they made an additional 1RR violation with the 12:42, 19 January 2024 edit. They still have not self reverted these violations.

Looking through a few of their edits, I see they have also violated 1Rr elsewhere, although no request to self-revert these were made, such as at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel:

From the discussions that took place on their talk page, my belief is that they want to comply with the 1RR restrictions, but they are struggling to understand what they need to do. I've seen similar behavior elsewhere; where they appear to intend to comply with the relevant restrictions, but for various reasons fail to do so.

For example, I previously raised with them, in which they added the claim that the Entire Population 2,375,259 of the Gaza Strip had been Captured, a claim that is both extraordinary and unsupported by the source they added which was from May 2023 and provided the population figures for the Gaza Strip.

When I warned them about it on grounds of NPOV, their explanation convinced me that they added this figure in good faith; that they believed the number of affected individuals needed to go somewhere, and they believed the "captured" column was the best of the various options. However, they should have realized that leaving it out was a better choice than introducing a serious WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V issue.

Similarly, other editors have warned them about adding content without citations alongside a "citation needed" tag. Again, their explanation convinces me that they are acting in good faith, with them intending to add sources later, but they should realize that they should add the sources and the content in the same edit - or at least at the same time.

Elsewhere, I've seen them misunderstanding

To summarize; I believe they want to contribute positively and within the restrictions to the topic area, but I'm not convinced they have the ability - or at least, I don't have the ability to provide the guidance necessary for them to do so, although perhaps some here will be able to.


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


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * I've added diffs of the edits they reverted per request from Galobtter; I'm happy to include a written summary of what they reverted as even with these diffs it isn't immediately clear, but I will need a few hundred extra words to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In regards to The what and why aren't just rhetorical flourishes, I want actual answers, I think what I said when I originally brought up the revert addresses your questions:
 * Admins, this takes me over the word limit; please revert if inappropriate. 06:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I realize I am already over the limit, but may I have an additional 100 words to document some new concerns of WP:HOUNDING? BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I realize I am already over the limit, but may I have an additional 100 words to document some new concerns of WP:HOUNDING? BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Irtapil
''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.''

was their reply actuate?
Am I allowed to link this discussion to other users to ask for advice?

Somebody on my talk page replied to that user talk:irtapil was their reply accurate?

Edit limit + Word Limit
Thank you @Galobtter I really wish someone had mentioned that about 2 days ago. But I was worried about even posting the question here in case it used up another edit. A rule against lots of statement reversions seemed plausible. Maybe re-word that bit of the instructions?

I'm also finding it difficult to stay within the limit because the are many issues here that I don't feel I've been given a fair opportunity to self correct. Can the scope of this be somewhat reduced to at least exclude issues that nobody mentioned before raising it here?

BilledMammal seems to be a lot more experienced at the arbitration process than I am.

canvassing + patterns
I haven't discussed this arbitration with anyone except the people below and an anonymous / random help me request, but as far as I can tell (from hard to miss things like the case directly below mine, and from looking through BilledMammal's edit history, as they appear to be deeply digging into mine above) BilledMammal has harassed and intimidated a huge number of people with alleged violations of WP:1RR.

Each allegation looks petty, but the pattern is terrible. But we're not allowed to contact each other - that's "canvassing" - so we are left in a one on one fight with an opponent who is much more experienced (due to repeatedly doing this exact same thing to numerous people).

@Galobtter but what is the purpose of the rule, what is it trying to achieve?

The problem isn't any of us are refusing to follow the rules, or "not understanding" what a revert is, they problem is that BilledMammal is repeatedly abusing this rule in a way that directly contradicts its intended purpose. The way BilledMammal uses it creates conflict and obstructs productive cooperative editing.

Most of the lists she generates seem to be from searching through people's edit histories looking for things that could be defined as reverts, mohesr

a recent related discussion

There were no violations of 1RR left outstanding when BilledMammal brought this to arbitration.
Talk page discussion User talk:Irtapil

For the majority of requests requests to self revert that user talk:BilledMammal made on my talk page I already responded. I usually within hours and complied with the implied self-revert request as soon as they clearly explained what they would consider a self revert. Most of the edits were too old to simply click "undo" and many were complicated, so I wanted to be sure I understood what they wanted done.

I refused to self revert  edit, made on 19 January in multiple steps.

By my interpretation this counts a one revert made in multiple steps?

For this one revert I clearly explained what I was doing as I did it
 * in edit summaries
 * and in the talk page
 * and in a temporary header I added to the page while I was actively working on it, including an in use box and some additional notes.

One revert in 10 DAYS doesn't violated 1RR
As far as I can tell, This is the only "revert" I hadn't already self reverted in a window of over ten days between now and 13:12, 14 January 2024 and now.

My one multi step revert came after a sudden series of approximately 60 consecutive edits by Billed mammal, most of which removed content (so they would count as reverts).

I am willing to define that as one (very big) multi step revert.

But in that case BilledMammal really had no basis to drag this to arbitration based on the series of edits I made when I reverted that 60-step revert.

Why I did that big revert
BilledMammal had deleted parts of every section of the page. They claimed it should be left deleted pending discussion on the basis of WP:ONUS, but it really would not be feasible to discuss such widespread changes in a timely manner, and I worried it would very quickly lead to forked versions becoming impossible to re-integrate if the discussion did come out in favour of keeping the version before BilledMammal did that.

They had mentioned some of the things they wanted removed on the talk page in the few days before that, but nobody agreed that it should be removed. I disagred, nobody else joined the discussion.

Why I did it in multiple steps
I regret doing it that way. What I should have done is just reset the page to the version immediately before BilledMammal started.

The reason I did it a bit at a time was I was trying to seriously consider some of BilledMammal's changes, I ended up keeping a lot of them.

I then read through her talk page comments and tried to accommodate some of her concerns by comprising on some of the things I had previously objected to.

If I recall correctly BilledMammal responded to my attempts to cooperate and comprise by continuing to harrass me with a series of alleged 1RR violations.

The other edit I didn't self revert was already a self revert
As far as I am aware, this edit was a self revert in the first place. I have asked BlledMammal whose edit I was reverting in the edit if not my own, and I've not seen an answer. That edit involves some weird politics and weirdly behaving templates, so I wanted to talk to the other editor about it if it wasn't me. But, as far as I know, nobody's was editing that section other than me. There was also a copyright bot that had me confused in that section, but i already discussed this with BilledMammal.

Reliable sources do descends them as further apart than the general "arms length" relationship between most political and militant wings, they're barely even on the same side anymore, if at all. So I wanted to talk to whoever made the prior edit if it wasn't me.

Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel


That article had been discussed for deletion less than two weeks before that, Articles for deletion/Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. I was one of the people arguing to keep it; the deletion discussion was closed with no consensus. Removing material from that can hardly be called a revert when there was no consensus on whether any of the article's content should be kept? And there was some degree of consensus that at least some of it needed to be scrapped.

Also, I was the only person who made major changes on the 5 January. Two other people change 1 and 3 words, and I didn't undo either of those changes.

The 1RR needs some limits to reduce disingenuous allegations
I think there needs to be some limits on who can raise complaints about 1RR violations.

Possibly it should need to be the person whose edit was reverted.

But, at the very least, it needs to be somebody who was working on the page at the time.

Questions for BilledMammal
Sorry I'm taking a while to get to some of these, those template links don't work on a lot of my devices.

"11:05, 16 January 2024. Note that this edit was only problematic due to the 1RR violation; absent that I would agree with it." (removed some detail of what had already been answered) Irtapil (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you tell me about an alleged 1RR violation if you didn't even want me to self revert it?
 * What DID you want me to do about it?

I suppose what I'm trying show here is that

Response to feedback on other issues
@SaintPaulOfTarsus I honestly appreciated your feedback earlier this week and took it on board. I do remember making some of those still unfinished edits and was I was meaning to find them and finish them or move them to my user space until they were presentable. I probably would have done that already if not kept busy and stressed by an endless stream of alleged 1RR violations. Irtapil (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC) edited a bit Irtapil (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * My talk page this week.png

@SaintPaulOfTarsus re "…culminating in a series of edits to Battle of Sufa last week I felt bordered on disruptive.

I agree I got too over-enthusiastically speculative with the belligerents data that week. I have made user:space pages for unconfirmed events now, a much more suitable place for them, pending a full story in reliable sources.

Again, I honestly did take the feedback on board, but i didn't get far through checking my old edits and improving them because I was kept very busy with alleged WP:1RR errors.

@SaintPaulOfTarsus I am a bit confused by what you said in the linked discussion about the un-referenced belligerents. I'm not sure why you didn't just remove it? Different editors seem to have contradictory interpretations of the etiquette and policy on that.

If your find any old errors where I've already agreed with constructive criticism, removing them for me when you see them seems helpful? Just let me know in case I want to add unfinished stuff to my user-space, or in case I have made similar old errors elsewhere.

@SaintPaulOfTarsus I also responded in the linked discussion, but i forgot to send it till a the next day.

Issues I have not been given a fair chance to self correct
@user:SaintPaulOfTarsus We discussed already this week that I have been over-using or misusing cn for "follow up" notes, and I probably would have fixed a lot of them by now if I haven't been stuck on the WP:1RR stuff.

The typical situation is cases where I'd added new material writing on my mobile or a tiny portable PC tablet, then saved it to move to a better computer to add and format references, these are usually references I know exist, it's just tricky on a small screen. I usually added cite needed notes for someone to follow up on in case I got interrupted for myself and in case I got interrupted, e.g. "the list of hostages published by Haaretz" or "on the wiki page this links". But too often I did get interrupted and the unfinished version got left there for weeks. I really want to be able to go back through my own old edits and fix them based on constructive feedback I've received.
 * From now on, if I don't manage to finish my contribution within a reasonable time (maybe an hour?) I will undo the unfinished edit.
 * For anything more than very minor changes I'll draft new content in my user-space. I had been doing this already, but possibly not enough.

The issues about citation notes I've added to existing content have not been raised before "Arbitration / Requests / Enforcement". I can see now that some of the ways I've been using them are unhelpful but I've not had an adequate opportunity to self correct.

Particularly issue of speculation in cite notes, I understand the problem now and I want to be given a fair chance to self correct it by fixing my old edits.

Also, those out-of-context quotes and inaccurate paraphrasing severely distort what I said.
 * Leaving out "might be worth researching some background to give this more context, as far as I can gather" from the first one of makes it sound like a very aggressive assertion, when it was actually a very timidly phrased pondering of a thing I didn't claim any certainty about all. (Deleted now, vague areas to look into belong on the talk page, but we are unlikely to find much on that one.)
 * The key part of what I said in the second was "The amount of scripture K. S. Al-Aqsa quote seems incongruous with "secularism" as a core ideology" but I will delete the vague speculation, the more important point is that the reference there, like the rest of the page, is over 15 years out of date and they seem to have dissociated further from the secular Fatah party since then. That whole page needs a maybe update.
 * In the last case @User:SaintPaulOfTarsus reshuffled what I said to look like I said almost the exact opposite of what I actually meant, and that quote is from a commented out section that starts with "I'm not sure if the following would help or just add more confusion?" The way to respond to that would be to say on the talk page for that article "yeah, the ISIS bit is a confusing a mess, definitely leave it out" any time in the past couple of months, not suddenly bringing it up here when we have never discussed it previously.

I would like @SaintPaulOfTarsus or the arbitrators to please the paragraph beginning "The user has also added citation needed tags to already-sourced information, in order to speculate…" because the paraphrasing severely misrepresents what I said, and I don't think I can properly respond to that misquote without using up my most of my word limit.

But I would like to discuss this with @SaintPaulOfTarsus on my talk page because it looks like I'm sometimes expressing myself in a way that's prone to misinterpretation and I want to prevent that happening in future. Irtapil (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier
This recent ANI discussion seems relevant, in particular the interaction between filer and defendant.Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by SaintPaulOfTarsus
I feel justified making a statement because a talkpage message I authored was linked above and discussed by admins.

I have had frequent interactions with the user starting in early December, mostly in ARBPIA. I quickly started experiencing CIR concerns like those Galobtter expressed below, culminating in a series of edits to Battle of Sufa last week I felt bordered on disruptive.


 * : addition of a section on media portrayals of the 7 October attacks (all the attacks, broadly speaking), which seems to have little direct relevance to this specific single attack.


 * : unsourced extension of the battle date in the infobox by four days. This was discussed on the user's talk page. I didn't come away from the conversation with any idea where the alternative date came from.


 * : unsourced addition of a new group as a belligerent in the battle. After I asked for clarity, a later edit added unsourced information (on Khan Yunis) that had no direct connection to the article's subject (Sufa). I addressed this on the article's talk page (last reply in linked section) after reverting it, but received no explanation.

In addition to what you previously read from me, the user deploys citation needed tags in other disruptive ways.


 * : addition of a citation needed tag to a portion of the infobox reading "Al-Qassam Brigades: 3,000 entered Israel." A comment attached to the template reads "is that 3000 militants or does that include people celebrating at the destroyed fence?" I opened the cited article and found that its fourth sentence read "The 3,000 figure in the latest assessment only includes armed terror operatives and not the waves of Gazan citizens who took advantage of the enormous gaps in the fence to also make their way inside later in the day."


 * : addition of a citation needed tag to the translated name of a military group: "Salafi Army of the Ummah in Jerusalem." In part, the user's comment reads "Please double check the citation supports that translation". I double-checked the citation and found that the second sentence of the referenced article read Its full name is 'Jaysh al-Ummah al-Salafi fi Bayt al-Maqdis' ('The Salafi Army of the Ummah in Jerusalem')."

These examples indicate a tendency to dispute content without checking existing citations. The user wouldn't have had to scroll far to have these questions answered.

The user has also added citation needed tags to already-sourced information, in order to speculate on whether Hamas likes Israeli Arabs less than other Israelis because they view them as "traitors", or on how often Muslims who want secular government quote the Quran, and includes commented-out speculation in articles on whether ISIS was involved on October 7, because "I've read half a dozen in depth articles on this, but i need to find them again."

Reading WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, I felt I had observed nearly all the listed examples from this user.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Irtapil

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


 * I'd appreciate if there was a link to the diffs you are saying Irtapil reverted, because otherwise it is very hard to follow sequence of reverts/verify the 1RR violations. I looked at the diffs at User_talk:Irtapil too, and it's hard for me to see where the revert is, especially since table edits are very hard to follow in a diff format. But it seems like part of the issue is Irtapil will try to partially revert an edit through a sequence of many edits, split over a long enough time that there will be interventing edits turning that one revert into multiple. We already discussed this on my talk page where I tried to explain why that counts as multiple reverts. It seems like Irtapil could avoid issues by fully reverting in one edit, and if they want to preserve part of the edit that they reverted then that edit can be safely added back over a sequence of many edits without any issue.
 * I'm more concerned about the other edits, especially adding edits with citation needed. Regardless of the issues with editing on their device, in this topic area every edit is going to be controversial and needs to include an inline cite with the edit, and cannot be based on "know[ing] citations exist".
 * I'm getting increasingly concerned Irtapil doesn't have the competence to keep editing in this WP:CTOP. Galobtter (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * BilledMammal, sure you can have an extra 100 words., the 20 diff limit is a limit of the number of diffs you can link to. It doesn't not stop you from editing your statement. Like Seraphimblade said, I would recommended trimming it a lot - sure you have a lot to respond to but I would keep it short and coherent. I tried reading it and couldn't make sense of what you were saying. One thing I will say is that 1RR has to be followed whether you are trying to do a good thing or not; this is why BilledMammal points out violations even if they agree with the edit. Galobtter (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * , you may only respond in your own section. Reaching out to other editors for advice is pretty close to canvassing. By informing them of this discussion by asking for advice you're essentially blocking them from engaging with this AE request.I've warned Irtapil at least twice now about personalized commentary. Along with the example BilledMammal provided, there is also this recent example of not understanding canvassing. Combined with the confusion about reverts and the citation needed issue I find myself in agreement with that they may not be net positive in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * , the word limit for responses is 500. If you need a little more than that, you would probably be granted it if you asked, but you're currently over 1600. Please do some substantial trimming. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

= Sup Info =

I have been very worried about ThePlatypus for a long time, but felt unable to addresses it.

Concerns about the process protecting repeat offenders
 * I believe it is unfair that strict rules on WP:Canvassing have meant I have not been allowed to consult with any other affected editors about.
 * I feel guilty that I have not even been able to ask the consent of anyone I am referring to, I will try to annonomize the data where feasible.


 * I originally recommend a topic ban, endorsing another editors suggestion endorsing another editors suggestion  on, I believe this is not unrelated to the above complaint 10:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC).

In between these ThePlatypus sent me of messages on my talk page accusing me of multiple alleged violations of WP:1RR
 * all of which were "partial" reverts
 * and one they even they admitted didn't need to be fixed

The last case is the most incriminating.
 * they didn't want it changed, so they're not pointing it out to improve the page
 * they don't even think it made the page worse, so they are not trying to improve my editing.

So the only reason I can think of for adding that to the already long list is to make me feel overwhelmed, threatened, and intimidated?

There is not other reason to point it out? Unless, possibly, ThePlatypus is just a bit obsessed with the rules and strictly enforces them to the detriment if the quality of Wikipedia, but causing a large number of v editors to just give up.

Requests
I will only recommend a warning for ThePlatypus (this is partly because of what happened last time I suggested a topic ban).

But what I would honestly prefer is a remedy to reduce the risk of ANY editor engaging in the same pattern of behaviour.

While WP:ONUS usually favours deletion, that rule should be reformed to prevent large amounts of valuable material disappearing (or arguably just clarified to better express the intent)
 * this rule should ensure that deletions are only at a scale and rate where it is feasible to discuss pending the material being re-added
 * major changes (one user changing every part of a page in a matter of hours) whether they additions or removals should favour prior version (this is probably already a rule that ThePlatypus is falling to mention.
 * deletions MUST be mentioned on the talk page, in general this would only apply to large deletions, but for "contentious topics" this should include even small things, such as a single reference.

An example of the last one is a controversial airstrike on the List of engagements during the Israel-Hamas war page had a reliable local casualty figure (matching the figure on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion main page) removed and replaced with a much lower foreign estimate.

Refernces
= Shortened a bit =

was their reply actuate?
Am I allowed to link this discussion to other users to ask for advice?

Somebody on my talk page replied to that user talk:irtapil was their reply accurate?

Edit limit + Word Limit
Sorry I haven't fixed the length yet.

I have only recently noticed the, may I have an extension on that to fix the word limit?

I've been trying to draft in my user-space because I must have already reached or exceeded 20 by now? but I figured i should say something here so you didn't think i had just abandoned it.

BilledMammal seems to be a lot more experienced at the arbitration process than I am.

I'm also finding it difficult to stay within the limit because the are many issues here that I don't feel I've been given a fair opportunity to self correct. Can the scope of this be somewhat reduced to at least exclude issues that nobody mentioned before raising it here?

Word Limit for BilledMammal
@BilledMammal and arbitrators regarding I realize I am already over the limit, but may I have an additional 100 words to document some new concerns… I am happy for BilledMammal to have an increased word limit to respond to my questions but any "new concerns" belong on my talk page. As far as I understand it, issues are not supposed to raise for the first time in Arbitration Enforcement? Users should first discuss the issue and be given the chance or self correct to or otherwise resolve it without arbitration?

Draft Response
a recent related discussion

Talk page discussion User talk:Irtapil

There were no violations of 1RR left outstanding when BilledMammal brought this to arbitration.
For the majority of requests requests to self revert that user talk:BilledMammal made on my talk page I already responded. I usually within hours and complied with the implied self-revert request as soon as they clearly explained what they would consider a self revert. Most of the edits were too old to simply click "undo" and many were complicated, so I wanted to be sure I understood what they wanted done.

I refused to self revert  edit, made on 19 January in multiple steps.

By my interpretation this counts a one revert made in multiple steps?

For this one revert I clearly explained what I was doing as I did it
 * in edit summaries
 * and in the talk page
 * and in a temporary header I added to the page while I was actively working on it, including an in use box and some additional notes.

One revert in 10 DAYS doesn't violated 1RR
As far as I can tell, This is the only "revert" I hadn't already self reverted in a window of over ten days between now and 13:12, 14 January 2024 and now.

My one multi step revert came after a sudden series of approximately 60 consecutive edits by Billed mammal, most of which removed content (so they would count as reverts).

I am willing to define that as one (very big) multi step revert.

But in that case BilledMammal really had no basis to drag this to arbitration based on the series of edits I made when I reverted that 60-step revert.

Why I did that big revert
BilledMammal had deleted parts of every section of the page. They claimed it should be left deleted pending discussion on the basis of WP:ONUS, but it really would not be feasible to discuss such widespread changes in a timely manner, and I worried it would very quickly lead to forked versions becoming impossible to re-integrate if the discussion did come out in favour of keeping the version before BilledMammal did that.

They had mentioned some of the things they wanted removed on the talk page in the few days before that, but nobody agreed that it should be removed. I disagred, nobody else joined the discussion.

Why I did it in multiple steps
I regret doing it that way. What I should have done is just reset the page to the version immediately before BilledMammal started.

The reason I did it a bit at a time was I was trying to seriously consider some of BilledMammal's changes, I ended up keeping a lot of them.

I then read through her talk page comments and tried to accommodate some of her concerns by comprising on some of the things I had previously objected to.

If I recall correctly BilledMammal responded to my attempts to cooperate and comprise by continuing to harrass me with a series of alleged 1RR violations.

The other edit I didn't self revert was already a self revert
As far as I am aware, this edit was a self revert in the first place. I have asked BlledMammal whose edit I was reverting in the edit if not my own, and I've not seen an answer. That edit involves some weird politics and weirdly behaving templates, so I wanted to talk to the other editor about it if it wasn't me. But, as far as I know, nobody's was editing that section other than me. There was also a copyright bot that had me confused in that section, but i already discussed this with BilledMammal.

Reliable sources do descends them as further apart than the general "arms length" relationship between most political and militant wings, they're barely even on the same side anymore, if at all. So I wanted to talk to whoever made the prior edit if it wasn't me.

Questions for BilledMammal
Sorry I'm taking a while to get to some of these, those template links don't work on a lot of my devices.

"11:05, 16 January 2024. Note that this edit was only problematic due to the 1RR violation; absent that I would agree with it." (removed some detail of what had already been answered) Irtapil (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you tell me about an alleged 1RR violation if you didn't even want me to self revert it?
 * What DID you want me to do about it?

Response to feedback on other issues
@SaintPaulOfTarsus I honestly appreciated your feedback earlier this week and took it on board. I do remember making some of those still unfinished edits and was I was meaning to find them and finish them or move them to my user space until they were presentable. I probably would have done that already if not kept busy and stressed by an endless stream of alleged 1RR violations. Irtapil (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC) edited a bit Irtapil (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * My talk page this week.png

@SaintPaulOfTarsus re "…culminating in a series of edits to Battle of Sufa last week I felt bordered on disruptive.

I agree I got too over-enthusiastically speculative with the belligerents data that week. I have made user:space pages for unconfirmed events now, a much more suitable place for them, pending a full story in reliable sources.

Again, I honestly did take the feedback on board, but i didn't get far through checking my old edits and improving them because I was kept very busy with alleged WP:1RR errors.

@SaintPaulOfTarsus I am a bit confused by what you said in the linked discussion about the un-referenced belligerents. I'm not sure why you didn't just remove it? Different editors seem to have contradictory interpretations of the etiquette and policy on that.

If your find any old errors where I've already agreed with constructive criticism, removing them for me when you see them seems helpful? Just let me know in case I want to add unfinished stuff to my user-space, or in case I have made similar old errors elsewhere.

@SaintPaulOfTarsus I also responded in the linked discussion, but i forgot to send it till a the next day.

Issues I have not been given a fair chance to self correct
@user:SaintPaulOfTarsus We discussed already this week that I have been over-using or misusing cn for "follow up" notes, and I probably would have fixed a lot of them by now if I haven't been stuck on the WP:1RR stuff.

The typical situation is cases where I'd added new material writing on my mobile or a tiny portable PC tablet, then saved it to move to a better computer to add and format references, these are usually references I know exist, it's just tricky on a small screen. I usually added cite needed notes for someone to follow up on in case I got interrupted for myself and in case I got interrupted, e.g. "the list of hostages published by Haaretz" or "on the wiki page this links". But too often I did get interrupted and the unfinished version got left there for weeks. I really want to be able to go back through my own old edits and fix them based on constructive feedback I've received.
 * From now on, if I don't manage to finish my contribution within a reasonable time (maybe an hour?) I will undo the unfinished edit.
 * For anything more than very minor changes I'll draft new content in my user-space. I had been doing this already, but possibly not enough.

The issues about citation notes I've added to existing content have not been raised before "Arbitration / Requests / Enforcement". I can see now that some of the ways I've been using them are unhelpful but I've not had an adequate opportunity to self correct.

Particularly issue of speculation in cite notes, I understand the problem now and I want to be given a fair chance to self correct it by fixing my old edits.

Also, those out-of-context quotes and inaccurate paraphrasing severely distort what I said.
 * Leaving out "might be worth researching some background to give this more context, as far as I can gather" from the first one of makes it sound like a very aggressive assertion, when it was actually a very timidly phrased pondering of a thing I didn't claim any certainty about all. (Deleted now, vague areas to look into belong on the talk page, but we are unlikely to find much on that one.)
 * The key part of what I said in the second was "The amount of scripture K. S. Al-Aqsa quote seems incongruous with "secularism" as a core ideology" but I will delete the vague speculation, the more important point is that the reference there, like the rest of the page, is over 15 years out of date and they seem to have dissociated further from the secular Fatah party since then. That whole page needs a maybe update.
 * In the last case @User:SaintPaulOfTarsus reshuffled what I said to look like I said almost the exact opposite of what I actually meant, and that quote is from a commented out section that starts with "I'm not sure if the following would help or just add more confusion?" The way to respond to that would be to say on the talk page for that article "yeah, the ISIS bit is a confusing a mess, definitely leave it out" any time in the past couple of months, not suddenly bringing it up here when we have never discussed it previously.

I would like @SaintPaulOfTarsus or the arbitrators to please the paragraph beginning "The user has also added citation needed tags to already-sourced information, in order to speculate…" because the paraphrasing severely misrepresents what I said, and I don't think I can properly respond to that misquote without using up my most of my word limit.

But I would like to discuss this with @SaintPaulOfTarsus on my talk page because it looks like I'm sometimes expressing myself in a way that's prone to misinterpretation and I want to prevent that happening in future. Irtapil (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

= Old Version =

Irtapil
''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 Irtapil

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 10:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

WP:1RR violations: At List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war:
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) - Partial revert of
 * 2) - Partial revert of
 * 3) - Partial revert of
 * 4) - Partial revert of
 * 5) - Partial revert of
 * I requested they self-revert after the 22:20, 15 January 2024 edit. They did eventually revert, but not before making an additional 1RR violation at 11:05, 16 January 2024. Note that this edit was only problematic due to the 1RR violation; absent that I would agree with it.
 * 1) - Partial revert of
 * ,, , and - Partial reverts of
 * I requested they self-revert after the 11:11, 19 January 2024 edit; rather than doing so, they made an additional 1RR violation with the 12:42, 19 January 2024 edit. They still have not self reverted these violations.

Looking through a few of their edits, I see they have also violated 1Rr elsewhere, although no request to self-revert these were made, such as at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel:

From the discussions that took place on their talk page, my belief is that they want to comply with the 1RR restrictions, but they are struggling to understand what they need to do. I've seen similar behavior elsewhere; where they appear to intend to comply with the relevant restrictions, but for various reasons fail to do so.

For example, I previously raised with them, in which they added the claim that the Entire Population 2,375,259 of the Gaza Strip had been Captured, a claim that is both extraordinary and unsupported by the source they added which was from May 2023 and provided the population figures for the Gaza Strip.

When I warned them about it on grounds of NPOV, their explanation convinced me that they added this figure in good faith; that they believed the number of affected individuals needed to go somewhere, and they believed the "captured" column was the best of the various options. However, they should have realized that leaving it out was a better choice than introducing a serious WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V issue.

Similarly, other editors have warned them about adding content without citations alongside a "citation needed" tag. Again, their explanation convinces me that they are acting in good faith, with them intending to add sources later, but they should realize that they should add the sources and the content in the same edit - or at least at the same time.

Elsewhere, I've seen them misunderstanding

To summarize; I believe they want to contribute positively and within the restrictions to the topic area, but I'm not convinced they have the ability - or at least, I don't have the ability to provide the guidance necessary for them to do so, although perhaps some here will be able to.


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


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * I've added diffs of the edits they reverted per request from Galobtter; I'm happy to include a written summary of what they reverted as even with these diffs it isn't immediately clear, but I will need a few hundred extra words to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In regards to The what and why aren't just rhetorical flourishes, I want actual answers, I think what I said when I originally brought up the revert addresses your questions:
 * Admins, this takes me over the word limit; please revert if inappropriate. 06:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I realize I am already over the limit, but may I have an additional 100 words to document some new concerns of WP:HOUNDING? BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I realize I am already over the limit, but may I have an additional 100 words to document some new concerns of WP:HOUNDING? BilledMammal (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Irtapil
''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 non-compliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''

was their reply actuate?
Am I allowed to link this discussion to other users to ask for advice?

Somebody on my talk page replied to that user talk:irtapil was their reply accurate?

Edit limit
I have only now noticed the 20 edit limit, may I have an extension on that to fix the word limit?

BilledMammal seems to be a lot more experienced at this process than I am.

Word Limit
(moved to my talk page)

Word Limit BilledMammal
@BilledMammal and arbitrators regarding I realize I am already over the limit, but may I have an additional 100 words to document some new concerns… I am happy for BilledMammal to have an increased word limit to respond to my questions but any "new concerns" belong on my talk page. As far as I understand it, issues are not supposed to raise for the first time in Arbitration Enforcement? Users should first discuss the issue and be given the chance or self correct to or otherwise resolve it without arbitration?

Draft Response
a recent related discussion

Talk page discussion User talk:Irtapil

There were no violations of 1RR left outstanding when BilledMammal brought this to arbitration.

For the majority of requests requests to self revert that user talk:BilledMammal made on my talk page I already responded. I usually within hours and complied with the implied self-revert request as soon as they clearly explained what they would consider a self revert. Most of the edits were too old to simply click "undo" and many were complicated, so I wanted to be sure I understood what they wanted done.

I refused to self revert  edit, made on 19 January in multiple steps.

By my interpretation this counts a one revert made in multiple steps?

For this one revert I clearly explained what I was doing as I did it
 * in edit summaries
 * and in the talk page
 * and in a temporary header I added to the page while I was actively working on it, including an in use box and some additional notes.

One revert in 10 DAYS doesn't violated 1RR
As far as I can tell, This is the only "revert" I hadn't already self reverted in a window of over ten days between now and 13:12, 14 January 2024 and now.

My one multi step revert came after a sudden series of approximately 60 consecutive edits by Billed mammal, most of which removed content (so they would count as reverts).

I am willing to define that as one (very big) multi step revert.

But in that case BilledMammal really had no basis to drag this to arbitration based on the series of edits I made when I reverted that 60-step revert.

Why I did that big revert
BilledMammal had deleted parts of every section of the page. They claimed it should be left deleted pending discussion on the basis of WP:ONUS, but it really would not be feasible to discuss such widespread changes in a timely manner, and I worried it would very quickly lead to forked versions becoming impossible to re-integrate if the discussion did come out in favour of keeping the version before BilledMammal did that.

They had mentioned some of the things they wanted removed on the talk page in the few days before that, but nobody agreed that it should be removed. I disagred, nobody else joined the discussion.

Why I did it in multiple steps
I regret doing it that way. What I should have done is just reset the page to the version immediately before BilledMammal started.

The reason I did it a bit at a time was I was trying to seriously consider some of BilledMammal's changes, I ended up keeping a lot of them.

I then read through her talk page comments and tried to accommodate some of her concerns by comprising on some of the things I had previously objected to.

If I recall correctly BilledMammal responded to my attempts to cooperate and comprise by continuing to harrass me with a series of alleged 1RR violations.

The other edit I didn't self revert was already a self revert
As far as I am aware, this edit was a self revert in the first place. I have asked BlledMammal whose edit I was reverting in the edit if not my own, and I've not seen an answer. That edit involves some weird politics and weirdly behaving templates, so I wanted to talk to the other editor about it if it wasn't me. But, as far as I know, nobody's was editing that section other than me. There was also a copyright bot that had me confused in that section, but i already discussed this with BilledMammal.

Questions for BilledMammal
Sorry I'm taking a while to get to some of these, those template links don't work on a lot of my devices.

"11:05, 16 January 2024. Note that this edit was only problematic due to the 1RR violation; absent that I would agree with it." Is that the one where you:
 * complained that I removed words identical to the column heading and identified it as an alleged 1RR violation
 * so I self reverted, explaining why I was doing such a weird edit in the edit summary, and identifying you as the person who wanted me to do it.
 * then said something like "I didn't actually tell you to revert it"

That on Earth did you WANT as a response?

Why tell me about an alleged 1RR violation if it is not a request to self revert?

You gave me a huge list of imaginatively interpreted alledged "reverts", self reversing that was one of the easiest to get off the list, and being so silly, another editor was very likely to fix it quite quickly.

If even YOU don't think that needed undoing, why list it?

How did it even count as an excessive revert? It was an edit we seem to both agree improved the page? And the result of removing the redundant words was not identical to any previous version of the page.

@User:BilledMammal The what and why aren't just rhetorical flourishes, I want actual answers, Irtapil (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Why did you tell me about an alledged 1RR violation if you didn't even want me to self revert it?
 * What DID you want me to do about it?

@User:BilledMammal

Response to feedback on unrelated issues
@SaintPaulOfTarsus I honestly appreciated your feedback earlier this week and took it on board. I do remember making some of those still unfinished edits and was I was meaning to find them and finish them or move them to my user space until they were presentable. I probably would have done that already if not kept busy and stressed by an endless stream of alleged 1RR violations. Irtapil (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC) edited a bit Irtapil (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * My talk page this week.png


 * @SaintPaulOfTarsus re "…culminating in a series of edits to Battle of Sufa last week I felt bordered on disruptive.
 * I agree I got too over-enthusiastically speculative with the belligerents data that week. I have made user:space pages for unconfirmed events now, a much more suitable place for them, pending a full story in reliable sources.
 * Again, I honestly did take the feedback on board, but i didn't get far through checking my old edits and improving them because I was kept very busy with alleged WP:1RR errors.
 * Irtapil (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @SaintPaulOfTarsus I am a bit confused by what you said in the linked discussion about the un-referenced belligerents.
 * I'm not sure why you didn't just remove it? Different editors seem to have contradictory interpretations of the etiquette and policy on that.
 * If your find any old errors where I've already agreed with constructive criticism, removing them for me when you see them seems helpful? Just let me know in case I want to add unfinished stuff to my user-space, or in case I have made similar old errors elsewhere.
 * At least I found it now, fixing now.
 * Irtapil (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @SaintPaulOfTarsus I responded in the linked discussion, but i forgot to send it till a few hours ago. Irtapil (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

too busy with BilledMammal 1RR allegations
@user:SaintPaulOfTarsus We discussed already this week that I have been over-using or misusing cn for "follow up" notes, and I probably would have fixed a lot of them by now if I haven't been stuck on the WP:1RR stuff.

The typical situation is cases where I'd added new material writing on my mobile or a tiny portable PC tablet, then saved it to move to a better computer to add and format references, these are usually references I know exist, it's just tricky on a small screen. I usually added cite needed notes for someone to follow up on in case I got interrupted for myself and in case I got interrupted, e.g. "the list of hostages published by Haaretz" or "on the wiki page this links". But too often I did get interrupted and the unfinished version got left there for weeks.

How I will fix the above
From now on, if I don't manage to finish my contribution within a reasonable time (maybe an hour?) I will undo the unfinished edit.

For anything more than very minor changes I'll draft new content in my user-space. I had been doing this already, but possibly not enough.

I really want to be able to go back through my own old edits and fix them based on constructive feedback I've received.

issues nobody mentioned before arbitration
The issues about citation notes I've added to existing content have not been raised before "Arbitration / Requests / Enforcement". I can see now that some of the ways I've been using them are unhelpful but I've not had any chance at all to fix them before it was raised here.

The

Those out-of-context quotes and inaccurate paraphrasing severely distort what I said. e.g. Irtapil (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * leaving out from the first one of makes it sound like a very aggressive assertion, when it was actually a very timidly phrased pondering of a thing I didn't claim any certainty about all.
 * and the last one has been rearranged to give an almost opposite meaning to what I intended.

I would like @SaintPaulOfTarsus or the arbitrators to please the paragraph beginning "The user has also added citation needed tags to already-sourced information, in order to speculate…" because the paraphrasing severely misrepresents what I said, and I don't think I can properly respond to that misquote without using up my entire word limit.

But I would like to discuss this with @SaintPaulOfTarsus on my talk page because it looks like I'm sometimes expressing myself in a way that's prone to misinterpretation and I want to prevent that happening in future.

In terms of the general issue of speculation in cite notes, I understand the problem now and I want to be given a fair chance to self correct it by fixing my old edits. Irtapil (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

content somebody moved

 * I would like this response to stay next to the comment where what I wrote has been misleadingly paraphrased, please.
 * @SaintPaulOfTarsus I'll get rid of the misused cite notes and/or unnecessary commentary in them, those out-of-context quotes and paraphrasing severely distort what I said!
 * Leaving out "might be worth researching some background to give this more context, as far as I can gather" from the first one makes it sound like an aggressive baseless assertion, when I was actually very awkwardly trying to describe a topic I am very unsure about. But I'll just delete it, from your reading of it I can see I articulated my point in a way that was very open to misinterpretation, and it's a misuse of a cite note anyway.
 * The key part of what I said in the second was "The amount of scripture K. S. Al-Aqsa quote seems incongruous with "secularism" as a core ideology" but I will delete the vague speculation, the more important point is that the reference there, like the rest of the page, is over 15 years out of date and they seem to have dissociated from the secular Fatah party since then. Reliable sources do descends them as further apart than the general "arms length" relationship between most political and militant wings, they're barely even on the same side anymore, if at all. That whole page needs a maybe update.
 * In the last case you've reshuffled what I said to look like I said almost the exact opposite of what I actually meant, and that comment starts with "I'm not sure if the following would help or just add more confusion?" The way to respond to that would be to say on the talk page for that article "yeah, the ISIS bit is a confusing a mess, definitely leave it out" any time in the paste couple of months, not suddenly bringing it up here when we have never discussed it previously.
 * Irtapil (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier
This recent ANI discussion seems relevant, in particular the interaction between filer and defendant.Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Statement by SaintPaulOfTarsus
I feel justified making a statement because a talkpage message I authored was linked above and discussed by admins.

I have had frequent interactions with the user starting in early December, mostly in ARBPIA. I quickly started experiencing CIR concerns like those Galobtter expressed below, culminating in a series of edits to Battle of Sufa last week I felt bordered on disruptive.


 * : addition of a section on media portrayals of the 7 October attacks (all the attacks, broadly speaking), which seems to have little direct relevance to this specific single attack.


 * : unsourced extension of the battle date in the infobox by four days. This was discussed on the user's talk page. I didn't come away from the conversation with any idea where the alternative date came from.


 * : unsourced addition of a new group as a belligerent in the battle. After I asked for clarity, a later edit added unsourced information (on Khan Yunis) that had no direct connection to the article's subject (Sufa). I addressed this on the article's talk page (last reply in linked section) after reverting it, but received no explanation.

In addition to what you previously read from me, the user deploys citation needed tags in other disruptive ways.


 * : addition of a citation needed tag to a portion of the infobox reading "Al-Qassam Brigades: 3,000 entered Israel." A comment attached to the template reads "is that 3000 militants or does that include people celebrating at the destroyed fence?" I opened the cited article and found that its fourth sentence read "The 3,000 figure in the latest assessment only includes armed terror operatives and not the waves of Gazan citizens who took advantage of the enormous gaps in the fence to also make their way inside later in the day."


 * : addition of a citation needed tag to the translated name of a military group: "Salafi Army of the Ummah in Jerusalem." In part, the user's comment reads "Please double check the citation supports that translation". I double-checked the citation and found that the second sentence of the referenced article read Its full name is 'Jaysh al-Ummah al-Salafi fi Bayt al-Maqdis' ('The Salafi Army of the Ummah in Jerusalem')."

These examples indicate a tendency to dispute content without checking existing citations. The user wouldn't have had to scroll far to have these questions answered.

The user has also added citation needed tags to already-sourced information, in order to speculate on whether Hamas likes Israeli Arabs less than other Israelis because they view them as "traitors", or on how often Muslims who want secular government quote the Quran, and includes commented-out speculation in articles on whether ISIS was involved on October 7, because "I've read half a dozen in depth articles on this, but i need to find them again."

Reading WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, I felt I had observed nearly all the listed examples from this user.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Irtapil

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


 * I'd appreciate if there was a link to the diffs you are saying Irtapil reverted, because otherwise it is very hard to follow sequence of reverts/verify the 1RR violations. I looked at the diffs at User_talk:Irtapil too, and it's hard for me to see where the revert is, especially since table edits are very hard to follow in a diff format. But it seems like part of the issue is Irtapil will try to partially revert an edit through a sequence of many edits, split over a long enough time that there will be interventing edits turning that one revert into multiple. We already discussed this on my talk page where I tried to explain why that counts as multiple reverts. It seems like Irtapil could avoid issues by fully reverting in one edit, and if they want to preserve part of the edit that they reverted then that edit can be safely added back over a sequence of many edits without any issue.
 * I'm more concerned about the other edits, especially adding edits with citation needed. Regardless of the issues with editing on their device, in this topic area every edit is going to be controversial and needs to include an inline cite with the edit, and cannot be based on "know[ing] citations exist".
 * I'm getting increasingly concerned Irtapil doesn't have the competence to keep editing in this WP:CTOP. Galobtter (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * , you may only respond in your own section. Reaching out to other editors for advice is pretty close to canvassing. By informing them of this discussion by asking for advice you're essentially blocking them from engaging with this AE request.I've warned Irtapil at least twice now about personalized commentary. Along with the example BilledMammal provided, there is also this recent example of not understanding canvassing. Combined with the confusion about reverts and the citation needed issue I find myself in agreement with that they may not be net positive in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * , the word limit for responses is 500. If you need a little more than that, you would probably be granted it if you asked, but you're currently over 1600. Please do some substantial trimming. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)