Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ =Requests for enforcement=

Trilletrollet
''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 Trilletrollet

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 03:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality


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


 * 1) 2024-06-30 Edit summary for a !vote on whether The Telegraph is a reliable source for transgender topics is unsurprising that the same shit heads who support the Gaza genocide would also support transphobia
 * 2) 2024-06-15 The term "Khamas terrorists" makes fun of the accent Hebrew speakers pronounce "Hamas" with.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 2023-10-19 Editor has been previously warned (by a non-admin) for incivility in the Israel-Palestine topic area.


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


 * 2024-06-25 Reverted someone citing WP:ARBPIA restrictions by name.

Trilletrollet does not view their behaviour as incivil. After brought this up on Trilletrollet's talk page, Trilletrollet's response was At least I'm on the right side of history  and a promise to disengage from the Israel-Palestine topic area. The last time 2023-10-22 Trilletrollet was confronted about alleged bad behaviour in the Israel-Palestine topic area, they said Just wanna say that I'm taking an indefinite break from this topic area.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

A formal warning from an uninvolved admin would make it clear to Trilletrollet that comments like these are unacceptable, and make it easier to take action in the future if this becomes a larger problem. Since Trilletrollet acknowledges a wish to avoid the Israel-Palestine conflict area but is unable to do that on their own, a voluntary topic-ban may help as well.
 * Trilletrollet does not believe the edit summary is a personal attack because It wasn't meant as an attack on any particular editors, just a general observation. Is this an accurate interpretation of WP:NPA?
 * I notified (the editor you mention) of this discussion so they can provide greater input. As far as I can see, creating redirects   or disputing the usage of "Hamas-run health ministry" is not inherently disruptive. The issue I chose to focus on is that Trilletrollet often uses disruptive edit summaries or makes her point in an aggressive way e.g. posts on her userpage that Zionism is a cult of death. . This extends to other areas she feels strongly about (e.g. this chain of edit summaries with a later-blocked IP editor fuck off  it's infested by you  look in the mirror bitch ). To answer your question, a single re-revert on Nakba denial isn't WP:TAGTEAM to my knowledge, and the only other interaction  has with  is in this thread. I define WP:POVPUSH as disregard for our content policies to advance one's point of view, and based on the diffs I see, that isn't the main issue.
 * A t-ban could allow for Trilletrollet to edit again when tensions surrounding the current Israel-Hamas war are less. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 05:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't add more w/o breaking wordcount, but I agree with BilledMammal & Sean.Hoyland. If nothing else, a warning should identify what behaviour is problematic, so it isn't disputed later. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * While the initial comment was ambiguous, Trilletrollet clarified in a follow-up that she meant to call out other editors. Reddit, a common source for memes, describes the term "Khamas" as making fun of an Israeli accent.  I don't buy that it's ok because it's just a meme and not "directed incivility"; is your standard that I can post memes making fun of a group's stereotypical accents onwiki as long as I am not directing the memes at specific editors? If not, when is making fun of a group's accent not acceptable onwiki and why doesn't "Khamas" meet that standard? Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 06:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

2024-06-30
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Trilletrollet
''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 Trilletrollet

 * Just to clarify, I don't have any inherent problem with Israelis, Azeris, the British or any other national groups, but I do have a problem with ethnic cleansing, genocide and similar things. And it makes me kinda angry when people constantly try to downplay or deny such crimes. It just comes off as incredibly heartless, as if some human lives don't even matter. I've never tried to downplay the 7th of October attacks, because I actually have moral principles that I try to follow.
 * But I agree that some of my comments have broken our civility rules, and that's what matters in the end. I really have no interest in doing more edits to this topic area at the moment anyways. —  Trilletrollet  [ Talk &#124; Contribs ] 10:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Iskandar323
There isn't a clear civility issue in the diffs provided, which both outline general statements not directed at any editor or anyone in particular other than broad institutions. The first is directed at the Telegraph, which for sure is a race-baiting rag that well merits all sorts of colourful language being thrown at it, even if throwing colourful language at it on Wikipedia is somewhat needless. The second is directed at Israel through reference to what is now a very widespread meme. Neither really amounts to any form of directed incivility: if others take offense by proxy then it is more of an eye-of-the-beholder-type situation. The "s" word is generally best avoided, as with any other expletives, but beyond this, I'm not sure what there actually is to sanction here. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Chess, @BilledMammal: A couple of points. The Telegraph diffs relate to the trans topic area discussion, and the subsequent responses are likewise more about that topic area. Then the IP-related diffs from Chess and some of the other examples from BilledMammal appear to be related to Azeri-Armenian content. So that's already quite a lot of non-Arbpia content that suggests this is more of a general behavioural complaint about inappropriate edit summaries more suited to ANI than AE. With regards to the "kh" meme, "khamas" with a "kh" means "violence" in biblical Hebrew, so the pronunciation is a widely understood wordplay, much as Arabic speakers prefer "daesh" as a term for Isis due to its pejorative connotations. Since I doubt that you have any reliable sources stating that there is nothing political about the choice to use the "kh", even though people in Israel have little issue saying other foreign "h" words like "hi", I would be very careful about raising the spectre of prejudice over other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Sean.hoyland
Given that Trilletrollet said 'Ok, I'm terribly, terribly sorry about my actions.', information that was not included in the AE report, it seems likely that their views are more complicated than not viewing their behaviour as "incivil". I would argue that thinking some people are shitheads who support genocide is not a good reason to avoid the PIA topic area. It shouldn't matter if the editor can follow the policies and guidelines. On the other hand, thinking there is a legitimate reason (in Wikipedia's terms) to say things like that to specific people, a 'reason to be "incivil"' to editors, is probably a good reason to avoid the PIA topic area. I would encourage Trilletrollet to try to stick around in the topic area if they think they can cope with the content and behavioral constraints and the occasional intrusive thoughts because of their personal views. For me, question #1 for access to the topic area should be, is this editor using deception i.e. are they a sock? Honesty is probably grossly undervalued in the topic area given that it is an essential requirement for building an encyclopedia. And every time we lose an honest person, regardless of what we think of their personal views, we increase the proportion of dishonest editors who use deception via sockpuppetry. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the diff #2 cited by BilledMammal as a civility issue. Some interesting context. What truly motivated the editor who requested the move is unknown. What is known is that they were subsequently topic banned as part of the ArbCom canvassing case - "Based on information from the checkuser tool and on information received, the Committee determines that Homerethegreat most likely participated in discussions due to canvassing and made proxy edits for a banned editor." (canvassing that is evidently ongoing). So, another way of describing the statement could be that it was unnecessarily speculative. I wonder if the statement would appear different if Trilletrollet had made exactly the same comment after the ArbCom case and topic ban rather than before. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * - This move request is just a callous attempt to discredit the opinion that Israel's actions constitute genocide by cloaking it in 'both sides' language.

Statement by BilledMammal
FYI, they have declared awareness of ARBPIA prior to this month, such as on.

Iskandar323, if someone made a comment mocking the way Indians speak, we would probably interpret it as a personal attack against Indian editors, and might even ban them for racism. Why would mocking the way Israeli's speak be treated any differently? Regarding the first diff that Chess provided, by Trilletrollet seems to make it clear they are referring to editors participating in the RfC, not to the Telegraph.

Red-tailed hawk, although I would agree that they suggest there is an issue beyond civility, I actually rose those primarily as civility issues. By saying that it is "Hasbara" or "Zionist propaganda" to refer to the Gaza Health Ministry as "Hamas-run" or similar, despite the designation being common in reliable sources and endorsed in multiple RfCs, is to suggest that editors who have added that designation or supported it in RfCs are Hasbara or pushing "Zionist propaganda".

Civility issues are also quite common for them. Examples in addition to the ones provided by Chess include:
 * 1) - Off-topic ranting, the whole thing is a disgrace to our encyclopedia
 * 2) - This move request is just a callous attempt to discredit the opinion that Israel's actions constitute genocide by cloaking it in 'both sides' language.
 * 3) - Asked JM2023 Do you agree that Palestinian lives matter, and when JM2023 did not respond, saying apparently not.
 * 4) - Describes editors raising issues with their user page as literally 1984
 * 5) - How will the Azeri pov-pushers explain this? (This one supports Chess' point that this extends to other areas they feel strongly about, as it is within Armenia-Azerbaijan)
 * 6) - you're trying to whitewash such a bigoted extremist group

Note that while some of these diffs are old, they are very recent in terms of the number of edits. For example, 13 April is their 100th most recent edit to talk space, and 16 November is their 54th most recent edit to project space. BilledMammal (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Iskandar, it mocks how Israelis speak - since when have we tolerated editors mocking cultural characteristics like accents, even when accompanied by the justification "I thought it was intentional"?
 * As for whether it is intentional, a few Twitter posts etc might claim that it is, but given those Twitter posts talk about Jewish "trickery" and invoke antisemitic passages from the Quran as evidence, and given that in Hebrew the closest transliteration of the first letter in Hamas is ח‎ (khet or chet), which naturally causes the mispronunciation, I think we need to reject that theory.
 * I think AE is the right location for this, as those are all contentious topics; WP:ARBAA, WP:GENSEX, WP:ARBPIA, with the issues being most common in the last. I also think you’ve misunderstood the Telegraph diffs; they apply to both GENSEX and ARBPIA. BilledMammal (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias
Looking at this user's contributions, I see they are mostly regarding adjusting categories of prehistoric animals. This is, I presume, tedious but useful work at making the encyclopedia better in that area, so good for you. However, whenever the subject matter turns to something more contentious such as Israel/Palestine or gender, things get rougher, and this user starts arrogantly proclaiming "the right side of history" and using playground-bully style namecalling. Perhaps this user would be better off sticking to prehistoric animals. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Aaron Liu
Please, let's all chill down here. TT (sorry bud I dunno what short name to call you) crossed a line here, yes. But this was a single incident that she didn't back down for a bit about that she has since apologized for. Otherwise, I see incredibly and invariably sporadic incidences cited here, with only two incidences (incl. the aforementioned) picking up in the past weeks, the evidence seemingly compiled overall for civility instead of a single topic notwithstanding. As argued in WP:PUNITIVE, sanctions should be preventative and not punitive. The editor has expressed willingness to disengage, so I believe at most, a big warning would be enough. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Trilletrollet

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


 * WP:ENFORCEMENT notes that when an editor violates the community standards described in policies and guidelines, other editors will warn the person to adhere to acceptable norms of conduct, though editors will resort to more forceful means if the behavior continues. In general, if an editor cannot conduct themselves within a topic area in a civil manner, even after being warned, then more forceful means (such as topic bans) become reasonable. But I'm not quite sure we're merely dealing with a civility issue here.I am also noticing regarding respondent's conduct within WP:ARBPIA is that an editor left a note on respondent's talk page regarding several edit summaries that appear to principally be objected to for reasons other than civility: 10:48, 15 June 2024; 09:06, 23 June 2024; 09:16, 23 June 2024; and 09:18, 23 June 2024. Filer refers to an ANI archive from 2023 where concerns about tag-teaming/POV-pushing were brought up, and respondent said they would stay away from the topic area indefinitely.Keeping that in mind, are you explicitly concerned about long-term POV pushing from this user more broadly? And, if so, do you have additional diffs that you would like to present?  —  Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What I am seeing more than anything isolated to a specific topic area is that the respondent has had general issues with civility (particularly in edit summaries) across a few, including Armenia-Azerbaijan and the Arab-Israeli conflict. If the issue is not that the editor is misbehaved in one particular area, but has general civility problems across a bunch, a topic ban doesn't quite work.
 * We're left with two options to address the civility issues: blocking the user outright or warning the user to knock it off and be civil. I am not going to indef the user at this point, and I don't think a time-limited block issued now would be better at preventing future disruption than a warning. So, I'm leaning towards a logged warning to remain civil in contentious topics areas, particularly with respect to AA2 and ARBPIA. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would agree to a logged warning for civility in CTOP areas, with the clear understanding that the least future sanction if that does not happen would be a TBAN. If the type of behavior this editor has engaged in continues to take place across multiple areas, the remedy would likely be an indefinite block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me. No objection if you'd like to close this out. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorabino
''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 Sorabino

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 11:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
 * WP:ARBMAC


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava


 * 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, for example User talk:Sorabino

I am an involved administrator here so I can't formally warn or otherwise sanction this user myself, so I'm requesting help from others.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

This user has been furthering a content dispute at this article for many years now, on a question of how much due weight should be given to describing a medieval title and in turn a polity. This relatively minor historiographical issue has clearly been escalated into a modern-day political talking point, as a separate article gives some sort of prominence to the Serb nature of the place at the time. Multiple other editors have gone through multiple rounds of explaining that the justification for having a standalone article is insufficient, and it's not commensurate to what the consensus of reliable sources say about it.

This last flared up in 2021 at Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2, and it flared up again this year.

We should stop endlessly tolerating this kind of advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle and abide by our own rules against it.

This isn't as severe as the case of Antidiskriminator, but it's close.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Responses to questions


 * The pattern of behavior is the problem, not the individual edits. I can go and copy&paste you a slew of individual diff links, and they're still going to be on the whole too long and/or too subtle. The trick is to see through the forest, realize how the endless wikilawyering on the Talk page is not accompanied with producing properly referenced content, or indeed actually building consensus, and that it's a pattern of behavior going back multiple years. --Joy (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Seraphimblade JFTR I'm not telling anyone to read everything, I'm just saying I already read everything, yet my hands are tied because I tried to reason with them already. If this is not the right forum where admins can get assistance on arbitration enforcement, perhaps we need a better one. --Joy (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Okay, let me try it like this, I'll summarize with dates and outcomes so you can observe the bludgeoning:
 * March 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 1 Makes extraordinary claims based on a 1923 book with explicit quotes around that title in a section title, and a single cursory mention of that in a 1953 encyclopedia article about that. These assertions are immediately disputed. Appeals to authority, no discussion about the quality of this, no real answer.
 * March 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 1 More assertions, no proof whatsoever in several comments. Discussion mentions numerous historian works, Sorabino zeros in on a Vego 1953 book where there's a nuanced discussion of the terms Herzegovina and whatnot, but Sorabino ignores the nuance and just uses this mention as justification to keep pounding his party line. He pastes the phrase Službeno se zemlja zvala Ducatus Sancti Sabbae no less than three times in the same thread. After some more back and forth, Sorabino finally posts a bunch of links to articles in support of their claim, which are immediately panned by Santasa99, and a cursory examination shows why - it's a bunch of cursory mentions, some in footnotes, some under double quotes, in papers that don't always focus on the topic area but something related. There's actually maybe proper single mention in a 2019 paper about the same noble family, as well as a link I can't follow any more, and a Google Books search that doesn't show up any more but the search string says it's just an alternate name for the name Herzegovina (defeating the point of the argument). This is the aspect that reminds me of Antidiskriminator - mindless pasting of Google search results with no real analysis, which doesn't stand up to elementary scrutiny.
 * April 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2: explicitly re-posts the three claims made in the previous section. No new sources or anything of actual substance. User DeCausa joins to say the same thing, is met by more walls of text. Finally, we go "back to the sources", and then a 2005 article is cited as if it's in support, but it's actually a nuanced discussion by a historian about how the nobility used this title just like the nobility next door ('Herzog of Split' Hrvoje Vukčić Hrvatinić). Repeats the citations again in the same thread, and Santasa99 tells them - no followup to that. Then another mention of the term in Ćirković 1989, again zero context, disputed, no response.
 * April 2021 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2: another unsourced rant, and at this point I start explicitly warning against this. No new contribution that would resolve the issue.
 * January 2023 Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 2: I point out the double quotes in the 1923 book (first item mentioned above). Zero response from Sorabino, other users argue a bit.
 * April 2024 the latter thread is briefly revived, but we see no improvement (another user requires a rehashing of the Herzog of Split comparison too). I recommend a merge, Santasa99 implements it.
 * June 2024 Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 June 28 Sorabino notices and starts claiming improper merge, repeats claims about the 2019 source, creates Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava, repeats more extraordinary claims about that source.
 * Since I filed this, there's been more discussion at the latter link, but it's more of the same. Now I noticed there's a 2020 German paper mentioned, which has a couple of cursory mentions of these terms likewise. Sorabino is still desperately trying to construct a narrative for a standalone article based on obviously flimsy sourcing. That is simply not what the standard of contributions in this contentious topic area is supposed to be. When this kind of a thing is done once, twice, three times, fine, let's not bash the newbie. But after so many years, we need to stop spending valuable volunteer time on nonsense.
 * --Joy (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade Sorabino is not acting upon a content dispute using reasons based in policy, sources, or common sense (WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS), he's instead misinterpreting sources to advocate for policy violations. The problem here is not a content dispute, but persistent misconduct. --Joy (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * the fact that the title existed during the time of one ruler is immaterial to the matter of how to properly describe this polity. The term Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation probably existed for many many more years, but we don't have a WP:SOAPBOX article specifically about it. That's the disruptive part, the excessive insistence that a single fancy title is worth making a point about over the course of so many years. --Joy (talk) 07:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Levivich also, if you want to cast aspersions like that I'm the one gaming the system here, while admitting you do not know enough about the Balkans to understand the POV implications of all of this, well, let's just say that I don't understand how you think that is the right way to approach this WP:ARBMAC issue. If this whole series of events, and the quality of these discussions and source evaluations from the side advocating for "Duchy of Saint Sava" have been enough to convince you that all is well with the multi-year campaign to maintain this sham of a separate article, maybe you need to actually learn something about the Balkans topics on Wikipedia, for example by reading the stories of Antidiskriminator and Sadko to see how all of this actually works. I can't say I appreciate the fact that my multiple decades of working on keeping all these various nationalist POV pushers at bay and learning the way they operate and abuse Wikipedia and trying to address it through the proper forums can be so casually dismissed and in turn claimed to be abusive. If one wanted a way to alienate and demotivate the scarcely few volunteer admins in a difficult topic area, this would be it. --Joy (talk) 11:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * there is nothing unilateral about this other than the process by which Sorabino has persistently disrupted consensus-building about this topic. In general, I will remind of the discussion about Sadko, where you and I already had a disagreement about what constitutes proper behavior in the Balkan topic area - what you claim is mere "expressing views" about a topic is what I see as slow-burn nationalist POV pushing and gaming the system. We've seen it with Antidiskriminator, we've seen it with Sadko, it's not novelty by any means. --Joy (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Sorabino
''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 Sorabino
Thank you for the notification. For now, I will abstain from commenting, since my accuser is yet to provide particular edits or some other evidence that would demonstrate my allegedly inappropriate behavior. Sorabino (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Several factual errors and misrepresentations have been posted here by my accuser. Starting from the top, he claims that I have been furthering a content dispute at this article for many years now. That is unfair and untrue, at least. My previous involvement in those discussions occurred only once, back in 2021, during the debates that lasted from march to may. Those debates ended with no consensus, and the article was kept, with its long standing scope and title, and that was the only proper outcome. During the following years, some users tried to reopen the debate, but no additional sources were presented that would justify abolition or merger of that article. I did not take part in those debates at all, as they also ended without consensus, and the article was kept unchanged. After more than a year of total silence on the talk page, discussions were renewed on 25 April 2024. Within a day, on 26 April, an involved administrator Joy (my accuser here) proposed to another specific user to merge this article, and that was executed on the same day! So, it was done only a day after the discussions were reopened, in spite of long standing disputes and without any notification to opposing users. To make it worse, the "merge" was used to abolish the very essence of this article, and then another radical step was made, on 28 June (here), when the remaining redirect was proposed for deletion, thus leading to the possible deletion of the entire history of those disputes. At that point, it was obvious that some questions should be raised in regard to recent actions and only then, three years after my first and only participation in 2021 debates, I decided to return to the talk page in order to raise the question of an improper merge. This is my first response, and the rest will follow. Sorabino (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The claim of my accuser that in 2024 debates I repeated some sources (repeats claims about the 2019 source) is not true and might be an oversight from their part. None of the sources that I introduced in 2024 were ever mentioned in previous discussions. Thus, there were no repetitions, on my part. All newly introduced sources are scholarly papers from non-Serbian experts on medieval history (Croatian, Hungarian, German). Those papers are clearly showing that in scholarly circles there is no doubt regarding the historicity of the title in question (Duke of Saint Sava) and the existence of the late medieval feudal polity (Duchy of Saint Sava, 1448-1482). Articles on that very subject exist on 13 (thirteen) other Wikipedia projects, under the same title. Regarding some repetitions in 2021 debates, there indeed are some, but not in a copy-past mode, since the context of the debate was such that some sources were disputed, and therefore some source quotes were repeated, by various users. There are several other aspects of this entire debate, but lets hope that it is obvious by now now that this is in essence a content dispute. Sorabino (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Since responses of my accuser already exceed 1000 words, please would you allow me just another post here? Several users have raised questions related to citing and sources, but 500 word limitations are preventing me from answering. If allowed, that would also be my final post here (just by re-posting my attempted post). Sorabino (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Thebiguglyalien
I have a procedural concern as an uninvolved observer. If this is going to be challenged on insufficient evidence, then it would help if there's a clarification on what standard of evidence is expected. Would several diffs showing editing that favors one side be enough to justify a sanction on its own, or would these diffs need to demonstrate something beyond simply favoring a POV? And in turn, what would be expected of the accused in their defense if these diffs are produced? The big ugly alien ( talk ) 19:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Amanuensis Balkanicus
I was notified to this dispute because I have the page in question on my watchlist. Santasa99 is being disruptive here, not Sorabino, and I'm puzzled how anyone can come to a different conclusion.

Back in April, Santasa and Joy agreed between the two of them to merge the Duchy of Saint Sava article to Herzegovina without inviting the wider community to discuss what was (as I think is now very clear) a highly contentious move. Perhaps, instead of unilaterally deciding to merge the article, had Santasa or Joy initiated an RfC then about its future, an editor like myself may have chimed in and provided them the reliable secondary sources for which they were asking which attest to the Duchy's existence, notability and naming as such. Instead, it has come to this.

Santasa's effective destruction of the Duchy article back in April, and their attempts to get over half-a-dozen redirects deleted (!) for completely spurious reasons are themselves extremely tendentious. The peddling of outright falsehoods is also deeply unsettling. Take, for example, the claim that "These redirect titles are misnomers; it does not exist in scholarship on the subject in this form." This is completely untrue, as I demonstrated in my comment at the ongoing redirect discussion by providing eight academic sources (one published as recently as last year) which do discuss the Duchy and verify the historicity of its existence. 

In contrast to the picture painted by Joy of a user prone to tendentious editing, Sorabino reacted to Santasa and Joy's recent actions by starting a discussion on the TP. Thus, Sorabino is effectively being reported for holding a discussion and in that discussion expressing views that Joy does not agree with (in a content dispute Joy is involved in). Joy, expressing views about an article's title that differ from your own is not an ARBMAC violation, and continuing to hold those views for many years does not constitute a "pattern of disruptive behavior". Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Santasa99
Following could be a crucial point, these two (three) moments in 4 years long discussion:
 * after one of their many such scrapings around Internet for phrases I asked Sorabino to read the paper they ref and come and explain to me "what this "duchy" labeling means, how is that feudalna entity a "duchy", why is "duchy" and not something else, who calls it that way, when, in what context." They never even tried to explain; (on 1 July 2024)
 * and following DeCausa's two head-on tackles:
 * 1) "Should this article exist? There’s virtually nothing about this Duchy in the text of this article. It seems to be merely a vehicle to acknowledge the existence of the title. it’s almost entirely about Stjepan Vukčić Kosača with a little on Vladislav Hercegović both of which already have articles." (on 4 April 2021);
 * and 2) "Sorabino, for years (literally) merging has been discussed and you have been the only editor that was against it. You responded by claiming the article could be saved by improving the existing and adding new contents, referenced by scholarly sources, that are abundant for the subjects in question, particularly in modern regional historiographies. So, I said Sorabino, just do it in a sandbox and post the link here. But you never did and you never did a thing to improve the article and justify its existence. This is the diff showing the state of the article when I posted that in April 2021 compared to what it was four years later when it was merged. Nothing's been done - not a thing - to improve it and address the point I made. I conclude there is nothing in the sources that justifies it as an article and I fully support the merger that has happened." (on 30 June 2024) -- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  18:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I posted this just to add depth to @Joy's discussion regarding bludgeoning, because Sorabino never responded to concrete inquires and questions, they would go and add new walls of text recycling the same arguments with eventual addition of more scraping from Internet. DeCausa was, to say the least, flabbergasted, and i am simply exhausted. ౪ Santa ౪  99°  20:38, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I have following questions for User:Levivich, now that they shifted the blame on Joy and me:
 * who are those editors who were against moving article to redirect;
 * who are editors who supported moving article to redirect;
 * and, now that you support claim that RS exists, I would like to hear what in those sources warrants another article on the same subject - we have four: Herzegovina, Zachlumia, Stjepan Vukčić Kosača, and small article on Kosača noble family - I would like to hear the usual WP: DUE WEIGHT arguments that give those sources enough wight for creation of an article with a dubious title and scope. I would like that editors who claim RS support arguments for creation of an article, explain what is in them that will give me an explanations and proper description of that articles subject ?
 * (I suppose you can explain this last on the article's TP, not here)

You, of course, can't answer why Sorabino never answered on these kind of questions, asked countless times over the years, by Joy, Mikola, Mhare, Tezwoo, Surticna, DeCausa, and myself, but you dug through those discussions in Archives, and you should have noticed how Sorabino never produced an answer to a specific inquiry and concrete question. And let's not forget, you also can't make edits and rv's based on your opinion that "duchy is a polity ruled by duke", because sometimes it is and sometimes it is not, let alone that "Duke Levivich" means "Duchy of Levivich" exists.-- ౪ Santa ౪  99°  02:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Funny how easily, from the position of righteousness and knowhow, you are spreading aspersions, Only "flat lie" is your justification for revert in the middle of two board discussions, and it include, list of names I asked you to name (who was pro and who was against) where someone who was digging through that discussion like you did could list Mhare and Thhhommmasss as ambiguous because "you couldn't tell from their posts" - their posts are everything but ambiguous, especially Mhare who said that what Sorabino was doing is a "dirty trick"; and your misdirecting answer to my direct question to explain how sources support argument for the existence of article - your answer and flat-out accusation of me lying, are more in line with Sorabino's bludgeoning and misdirection - as the discussion you were digging through testifies. Instead of using accusing me of lying (I guess in attempt to draw attention on me in another round of shifting the blame) and Joy gaming the system, you should provide us with diff's where Sorabion answers directly and explains how, why and what, on many inquireies by Joy, DeCausa, Mhare, Mikola, and myself - like one I already linked above but here's again (this is but one of such unanswered/unexplained inquiries). And the last but not the least, the only support for article and Sorabinos argument came from blocked and locked IP abuser Great Khan, who received it for abusing that very discussion. -- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  19:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich
I got curious after reading this and started digging, which led to me to reverse the bold redirection of the article and vote at the related RFD. Here's a summary of the history as I understand it:
 * For those who aren't familiar, a duchy is the territory or polity ruled by a duke. So if there exists a "Duke of Levivich," that means there exists a "Duchy of Levivich" and vice versa.
 * The content dispute at issue has the typical Balkans undertones of whether a particular piece of land is Bosnian/Serbian/Croatian/etc. The Duchy of St. Sava may have encompassed land that is in modern-day Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, and/or Serbia. A Bosnian named Stjepan Vukčić Kosača held the title "Duke of St. Sava" (at least according to a 1982 book written by historian Marko Vego, p. 48, cited in the related articles and talk page discussions). Saint Sava was Serbian. "Duchy" is an English word of course; Kosača took the title "Herceg of St. Sava"; "Herceg" comes from the German "Herzog," which means "duchy," and it's where the word Herzegovina comes from. So it's a Balkans content dispute.
 * The article apparently started in 2007 as Duchy of Herzegovina. I have a hard time following page/move logs, especially with history merges, but some series of moves happened in February/March 2011 involving the pages Duchy of Herzegovina, Dukedom of Saint Sava, and Duchy of Saint Sava. Joy apparently did a history merge in March 2011. A move/edit war ensued between "Duchy of Herzegovina" and "Duchy of Saint Sava". Joy posted what looks to be the first talk page message, including: "...the editor(s) with a Serb nationalist slant place too much emphasis on the Serb qualities of this domain..." (full thread in Archive 1). "Duchy of Saint Sava" 'wins' the edit war around April 1, 2011.
 * Ten years later (because this is Wikipedia) in February 2021, Santasa99 starts a discussion about the page title. Santasa moved the page from "Duchy of Saint Sava" to "Dukedom of Hum" and restyled it as the "Duchy of Hum". Sorabino reverts and objects on the talk page and points to some sources, and later, more sources. Hard to follow the histories but there is some kind of move/edit warring involving Duchy of Saint Sava, Dukedom of Hum, Duchy of Hum, Humska zemlja, and probably some other titles. Socks and IPs disrupt the proceedings. This all peters out around May 2021, and takes up Talk:Duchy of Saint Sava/Archive 1 and Archive 2.
 * Almost 2 years pass, and in January 2024, Joy posts about the title again on the talk page, which Santasa responds to in March; some discussion ensues (full thread).
 * In April, Joy writes: It doesn't look like anyone pinged Sorabino to the discussion.
 * Santasa does as Joy suggests, redirecting the article to Herzegovina
 * On June 28, Santasa nominates at RFD "Duchy of Saint Sava," "Duchy of Herzegovina," and a bunch of related redirects
 * On June 29, Sorabino objected to the move and voted keep at the RFC. Joy's response was aggressive, and I think may have been her his first message to Sorabino about this in two years (I could be wrong about that). (full thread on talk page)
 * On July 1, Joy opened this AE.

I don't know enough about the Balkans to understand the POV implications of having an article about a Bosnian's Duchy named after a Serbian saint (except by process of elimination, I assume Croatia might object), but I would be shocked--shocked!--to learn that one or more editors' motivations was nationalist POV pushing. I am even more shocked that nobody at any point apparently opened up a proper WP:MERGE discussion or started an WP:AFD and voted "redirect." Joy is an admin with an account that's 22 years old; Santasa99 has an account that is 16 years old; Sorabino's account is 8 years old. The claims on the talk page, RFD page, and here, that either the "Duchy of Saint Sava" did not exist, does not appear in RSes, or that Sorabino has not posted RSes, are patently false as evidenced by the talk page archives and the sources discussed therein (by Sorabino and others, including Vego 1982 but also several from the 21st century). Joy's and Santasa's posts at this AE do not accurately convey the relevant facts. This looks like WP:GAMING and "weaponizing AE," and these editors should know how to properly resolve this content dispute vs. improperly. Joy's and Santasa's actions here were improper, and should be addressed.

Sorry this is over 500 words; I don't plan to add anything unless there are questions. Levivich (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Re Santasa99's questions:
 * I can't tell from their posts what the ultimate opinions on merger are of User:Thhhommmasss 1 ("I somewhat agree that this article should perhaps be part of the Hum or Herzegovina articles, but then again..."), 2 ("It's true that a quick google revealed few recent sources referencing the Duchy. Yet ... On the other hand, ...") or User:Mhare 1, 2 ("... I'm not entirely sure ..."), 3. Same with the IPs User:31.223.145.207 example and User:185.125.122.60 example. User:DeCausa removed some of those IP comments here citing "Long-standing socking," I don't know if that was correct; there are some blocked sock accounts who commented on the talk page, but I don't see any blocks in the block log of those IPs.
 * In favor of redirecting are (apparently) Joy, Santasa99, User:Tezwoo, and DeCausa. I don't know who "Surticna" is; I can't find a user with the username or that word in the talk page archives.
 * Whether the sources "warrant" an stand-alone article about the subject is a content dispute; AE is not the place to discuss that.
 * "Sorabino never produced an answer to a specific inquiry and concrete question" is a flat lie; the article talk page archives are filled with Sorabino answering questions, providing sources, quotes from sources, etc. Other editors have also provided sources, quotes, etc. on the article talk page and at the RFD.
 * Levivich (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @admins: I don't think anything more is needed to resolve the content dispute beyond somebody starting a proper WP:MERGE or WP:AFD discussion, either of which is likely to result in a consensus (based on my reading of the talk page archives). Neither RFC nor DRN is the right tool for this job, nor is consensus-required or any other page restriction necessary. Levivich (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by DeCausa
I was pinged by Levivich - which is the only reason why I'm posting. It seems to be about why I removed some IP posts based on socking. The article and talk page has been plagued by socking, particularly by banned user Great Khaan. See Sockpuppet investigations/Great Khaan/Archive. They have a very distinctive style and regularly posted on the page: WP:DUCK for the IP. I also noticed Levivich asking who "Surticna" is. This is a well known editor in multiple history topics. Although I've no interest in getting involved in this, since I'm posting here i'll make one comment. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Levivich has got completely the wrong end of the stick. I got "accidentally" involved in this in 2021. I don't know how exactly the underlying nationalist POVs play out in this. What I do know is that Sorobino (plus assorted Great Khaan socks) have pushed to maintain this article for many years with no other support. If you read the article it's apparent that there is very little in it about a "Duchy of St Sava". It was a title that may or may not (but probably was) used by a Grand Duke of Bosnia for a little over a decade or so. That's why the article is mainly about that individual. The sources that Sorabino claim (which I looked at in 2021) are just passing references (as you would expect from an adjunct title). So this has been gone over and over multiple times in the talk pages. I've lost track of the number of times I've said to Sorabino: produce a draft article from these sources that gives a substantive account of the history of a "Duch of st Sava". He's failed to do that every time. I conclude because it's not possible. FWIW, i think Sorabino's contribution has been WP:TENDENTIOUS and both Sorabino and Santasa have an inability to avoid WALLOFTEXT and won't drop the stick. If they are both PBLOCK'ed from the article and talk page it would be a net positive. (347 words) DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Just to focus in on my last 2 sentences above, I notice the comments that this is a content dispute and RfC/AfD etc is thataway. I'm sure that's right. But you only need scan the current talk page and the talk archive to see how Sorabino and Santasa have WP:BLUDGEONed the discussion for years. It's literally gone round in circles for a decade or more. Now I happen to think that Sorabino has the edge on tendentiousness amongst that, but even leaving that aside if the two of them participate in an RfC/AfD or similar it will just be a mess. Some conduct imposition would help greatly. (now 456 words) DeCausa (talk) 10:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Sorabino

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


 * , this report seems to be alleging a pattern of tendentious editing over time. That could be valid grounds for a sanction, but no diffs are provided, just a link to a discussion started a few days ago. Could you please provide actual diffs of particular edits which you believe demonstrate this pattern? Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As the filer of this request is unwilling to provide any evidence besides "Just go read everything and you'll see what I mean", I am inclined to close this with no action. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , this is certainly the place for help with arbitration enforcement, but you have to do your part of it. None of us can read your mind; you need to specify particular edits that you think are demonstrative of the problem. (It need not even be exhaustive, just representative.) I can't know what anyone is referring to unless they're willing to say, and equally importantly, the editor being accused of such misbehavior needs the opportunity to respond to specific things and give their explanation for it. If you're not willing to do that, we can't proceed, because there is nothing with which to proceed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , the answer is that there isn't an easy answer to that. AE (and admins in general) can't make binding decisions on content, only conduct, so of course we always have to be very careful not to step over the line of saying what position someone "should" be supporting in terms of content. The question, then, is when "advocating for your position" crosses the line into "disruptive behavior in general". If I ever find an easy answer to that, I sure won't keep it hidden, but I don't think there really is one. We can say that making a hundred longwinded talk page posts in a day is almost certainly disruptive, and making one civilly worded one almost certainly is not, but there's a lot of grey area in between those extremes. So, evidence should go to show that the editor has gone beyond just advocating for what they think, and is engaging in disruptive behavior. How exactly you do that depends on how exactly you think they've crossed that line, so I don't have a "one size fits all" answer to that and I doubt one even exists. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the material now provided, this seems to be a longstanding content dispute about how best to interpret sources. That's outside the scope of AE, and AE does not make binding determinations on what content should be. Has there ever been any use of dispute resolution such as a request for comment to gain input from the wider community on the proper interpretation of these sources? I think that would be a lot more productive than an AE filing. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * In lieu of diffs to explain the general scenario from start to finish, are you able to provide something like a set of diffs that demonstrates bludgeoning? If the user is repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion, we should be able to point to specific diffs/comments where they are repeating themself over and over, or be able to get some rough count on how many times they are participating in a particular discussion (with some explanation as to why that would be bludgeoning). — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Unless any uninvolved admin objects in the next day or so, I will close this with no action. This is clearly a content dispute, and should be getting resolved by RfC, not AE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nihil obstat. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 02:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. WP:DRN may be more fruitful than WP:RFC though given the complexity of the issues; WP:RSN may also help for certain elements. Secondly, I think a ""consensus required" restriction for moving, BLARing, or merging the Duchy of Saint Sava article would be a good idea given the messy article history. Abecedare (talk) 16:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * By RfC, I more mean dispute resolution in general, though I don't share your optimism that DRN would be fruitful, especially since all parties must voluntarily participate. I do think it's an excellent idea to put the brakes on those things with the article; maybe that will help lead to a better discussion on what should be done with it rather than fights over it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would give a general reminder that it can and will happen that editors receive sanctions based upon their conduct at an AE thread. Many editors are over 500 words; if you need an extension please ask, but further posts without extension for those who have exceeded the limit will likely be removed. Extensions may be granted if you have additional useful evidence, but not just to fight over it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Salfanto
''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 : 19:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 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 :


 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 27 June 2024 Uses Twitter/X and other non WP:RS to claim the deaths of volunteers in Ukrainian military unit.
 * 3) 18 June 2024 Uses Facebook to reference another death on the same article as above
 * 4) 13 June 2024 Uses butchered Facebook reference to name commander of Ukrainian military unit.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) 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):


 * 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)


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

2 July 2024
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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)

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)
 * 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)

Statement by ManyAreasExpert
I'm still waiting for the editor to explain their edits here Talk:Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion. Another edit, where they add ambiguous This claim was assessed by Institute for the Study of War on 7 November 2023, is. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Found another piece from the editor where they spread poor- or unsourced Russian propaganda as a thing actually happening. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Another misrepresentation 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)

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)

Result concerning Salfanto

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


 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. ⇒   SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 02:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This was brought up at my talk page and I addressed it here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Aredoros87
''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 : 09:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 16 June 2024 Re-adding contentious content that was previously reverted and never reply to the talk discussion
 * 2) 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 )
 * 3) 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
 * 4) 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
 * 5) 30 June 2024 Further POV pushing use of "occupation" for Shushi, with partisan low-quality sources


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 * 1) 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):
 * Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 29 December 2023 by.

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)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * 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.
 * 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)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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
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.
 * 1) False. When the content was removed by Vanezi, I started a discussion on talk page. He said "more sources would be needed". And I added 3 new sources for that specific content under the edit summary "added Kökçe version with extra sources per discussion ".
 * 2) 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. This edit was also done by a person that I reported here. Just one day after it's being closed, Vanezi made this report.
 * 3) Not correct. The page was proposed to be deleted or redirected just because it was unsourced and duplicate as mentioned by the nominator.. 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.". In the end article was redirected, and I moved the content there.
 * 4) The result of the AFD was to redirect. That doesn't mean the sourced content cannot be reused in the redirected article.
 * 5) 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, he complained about WP:WEIGHT, and asked for more sources, and I added.
 * 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) I just moved content from this revision 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".. 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)
 * @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. 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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)
 * 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)

Nishidani
''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 : 16:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: General_sanctions


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


 * 1) 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).
 * 2) Repeated restoration of the same controversial content.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) On February, warned against using unconstructive or unnecessarily inflammatory language in the topic area, for using highly inflammatory language ("dumb goyim beware")
 * 2) Week-long block for personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: ,
 * 3) Day-long block for violating the consensus required sanction
 * 4) Day-long block for personal attacks or harassment
 * 5) Week-long block for personal attacks or harassment


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

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 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. 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)


 * @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, as attributing views to others appears to be another issue. Icebear244 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @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)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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)
 * @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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * @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)
 * @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)
 * @ 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)
 * @ 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)

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)
 * BM. Thanks but that is no improvement. Your corrected diff 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)
 * @ 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)
 * @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)

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)


 * 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)


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


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


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

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)

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)
 * @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)
 * 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 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, now ). 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)

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)

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)

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)

, 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)

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)

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)

I agree with 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)

Statement by 916crdshn
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,. In this case, they and others removed a POV tag while discussion is still ongoing. In this case, they even restored a controversial edit while RFC was ongoing on its inclusion. However, this one surprised me the most:. 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)


 * 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, and references controversial scholars like Ilan Pappe  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)

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, saying a user of how to closely parse texts, describing a talk page discussion as an  , and suggesting editors of the article Calls for the destruction of Israel are.

A few other examples are:
 * , in a discussion about the intent of Zionism:
 * 1) 18 June, criticized editors for rejecting a source as unreliable, and then focused on their grammar: They also doubled down when an admin told them to knock it off.
 * 2)  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:
 * , in response to an editor questioning the use of Counterpunch:
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. Dan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * @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)

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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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 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.
 * 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? The big ugly alien ( talk ) 01:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 03:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * @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)

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:
 * 1) That Palestinians are not native to Palestine 1 2 3 4 5
 * 2) That all of Jerusalem (including East Jerusalem) is part of Israel Talk:Israel (contrary to WP:RFC/J, continuing scholarly consensus, and reality)
 * 3) 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.
 * 4) *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?
 * 5) * 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.
 * 6) That Zionism as settler colonialism is WP:FRINGE 1 2 3 4
 * 7) That Nur Masalha, and New Historians like Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim are WP:FRINGE 1
 * 8) 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 and User:O.maximov, 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)


 * 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)

We now have a 6th revert in the "recent example" string above, from, 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)


 * 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)
 * Update: Oleg and I looked at some sources just now at Talk:Zionism 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)

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)


 * Still going: 1, 2; 1, 2. Levivich (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @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)

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)

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. Zerotalk 15:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

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. Zerotalk 09:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

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. I believed it was a violation of talk page guidelines, so I took it to Nishidani's talk page, resulting these instances: 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)
 * 1) I see you are very young, so perhaps you are not quite familiar with good manners and accused me of speaking to the watchlist.
 * So, there's a good laddie. Off you go.
 * 1) Edit summary: Please desist from the soporific cant on this page

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)

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)
 * 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 - 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)

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)


 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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. TarnishedPathtalk 02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Iskandar323, I think they only did that to witches and not warlocks. From memory the burning and the dunking was very gendered. Tarnished<b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 13:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @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. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 09:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with @Nishidani that socking should not be rewarded by reverting to a version that does not reflect consensus. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 13:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

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.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 01:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

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 (, 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)

Result concerning Nishidani

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


 * Can you clarify specifically who you are referring to with barely qualified IP editors? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 17:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * 2023, warned for battleground behavior at Zionism, race, and genetics.
 * 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.
 * 2017, 1-month TBAN from Arab-Israeli conflict after banning admin observed that the user personalize[s] disputes rather than focusing on the content.
 * 2012, 1-month long TBAN the Israel-Palestine area after violating 1RR.
 * 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)
 * 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. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 18:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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, 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)
 * 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. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 20:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Along those lines, 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)
 * , 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)
 * Oh, and 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)
 * I'd concur with you here on the topic ban for the filer. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Or went from high school to college? Or watched the news? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I share this concern. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 18:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A concern which turns out to be correct. What a surprise. Black Kite (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 suggesting with a straight face that  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.  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? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Ok, so we have:
 * Civility concerns
 * Battleground concerns
 * Off-wiki coordination/UPE concerns
 * Concerns about accounts possibly having been handed off for use in this topic
 * Concerns about toxicity keeping uninvolved editors from engaging in the topic
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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 <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like has now also been CU-blocked as a compromised account. DanCherek (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * If the protection stops the disruption, I don't see what the point would be. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally, warnings and sanctions are used to prevent disruption from recurring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * follow-up ping to, last one didn't go through. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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
''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 : 20:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


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


 * 1) 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
 * 2) 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
 * 3) 00:34, June 24, 2024 Denial by 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.
 * 4) 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
 * 5) 22:24, December 30, 2023 Repeats previous edit
 * 6) 02:07, January 3, 2024 Repeats previous edit
 * 7) 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"
 * 8) 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"
 * 9) 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"

n/a
 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

Notified at previous IP, including 1RR notification on December 31, 2023 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.
 * If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP):
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

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&#39;s bike (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The user is now editing as . 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&#39;s bike (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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&#39;s bike (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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&#39;s bike (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Notified
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Statement by JackTheSecond
Procedural comment: An ANI discussion on this topic was opened be the accused party, regarding the filer at wp:ani. 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)

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)
 * 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 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)
 * It's at least 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Agree with . 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:, , ) when editing from other IPs including:
 * and
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Ustadeditor2011
''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 sectionsbut 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 :


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


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

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) 10:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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.''

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.


 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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)

Waterlover3
''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 : 03:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 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 :
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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):
 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2 June 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

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.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Notification
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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 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 ) 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)

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)

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 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)


 * @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)

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)

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.— <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 14:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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: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.
 * — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)"> Red-tailed sock (Red-tailed hawk's nest) 15:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * No objection to that as an ordinary admin action. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 23:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably the move here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Amayorov
''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 : 20:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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


 * 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 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#ARBPIA_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)


 * @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)


 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

JoeJShmo
''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 : 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4


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


 * 1) 8 July 2024 Commented on a response to their edit request on a page designated as CT
 * 2) 11 July 2024 Continued discussion in defiance of warnings and a long thread on their own Talk page in which they participated
 * 3) 11 July 2024 Continued discussion in defiance of the above
 * 4) 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):


 * 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.

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. As can be seen, they immediately opposed. Even though several established editors and an experienced admin 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.
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :


 * @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  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  11:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  11:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @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  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  11:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @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  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  12:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJoeJShmo&diff=1234354020&oldid=1233536763
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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), 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.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 10:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 11:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @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)?  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 11:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * per Nableezy's comment: see User talk:Nableezy  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 13:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 10:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier
Also see Village pump (policy). 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)

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)
 * 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)

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. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning JoeJShmo

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

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


 * 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)
 * Oh, and, 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)
 * 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)


 * I'd be happy for this to be closed with a commitment from 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I have topic banned for 6 months and 1000 edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Dadude sandstorm
''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 : 02:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2


 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :
 * 1) 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...
 * 2) Special:Diff/1234564355 (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):
 * Alerted about contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 13 July 2024

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)
 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * (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)

Special:Diff/1234574296
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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)

Statement by Isabelle Belato
I'm surprised they weren't indef blocked after. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 02:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Well, what I mean is that regardless of whether it's true it needs a source, it can't just be "trust me bro". <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, what I mean is that regardless of whether it's true it needs a source, it can't just be "trust me bro". <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 06:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

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 sectionsbut 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 : –  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 23:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Topic ban from the subject of Arab-Israel conflict for 6 months and 1000 edits, imposed at WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, logged at WP:Arbitration enforcement log


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

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, 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." 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. This is the discussion SFR pointed me to to back his claims of a violation of NPOV (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. 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.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 00:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)


 * 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.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 07:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 19:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 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.  Jo e J Sh mo 💌 19:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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. We don't need more stonewalling POV warring going on in the topic area. The discussion at User talk:JoeJShmo 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)

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)

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)

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. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 11:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)
 * 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)

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 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)
 * I consider the ban to have been appropriate per the arguments given above by 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)
 * 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)

Tobyw87
''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 : 12:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4


 * 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)


 * 1) 05:14, 20 July 2024
 * 2) 05:01, 20 July 2024 (bolding done by starship.paint)
 * 3) 19:02, 18 July 2024
 * 4) 21:55, 12 June 2024
 * 5) 19:05, 9 June 2024


 * 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 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)


 * @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)

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  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  12:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @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  <sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK  22:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @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  <sup style="color:#80f;font:small-caps 0.8em 'Candara';">TALK  02:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)

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 : 00:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Accusing editors of trying to POV-push for saying that a source that used slurs to refer to trans women wasn’t reliable.

Ditto. I think he just copied and pasted his response.

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 :

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

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):

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.


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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:

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".

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.

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).

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. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

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. &#42;Dan T.* (talk) 05:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

Statement by starship.paint
Certainly needs to tone down the inflammatory rhetoric and stop with all of the comparisons. But '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)

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)

Statement by berchanhimez
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)

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)