Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive337

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kashmiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

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#Awareness of contentious topics)

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

JoeJShmo, a non-XC editor, has been warned about CT restrictions in force on certain pages related to Palestine–Israel conflict. In particular, they were explained that they can only place edit requests[1]. As can be seen, they immediately opposed. Even though several established editors and an experienced admin Doug Weller tried to reason with them, they didn't report or sanction them after a repeated violation, this effort has unfortunately failed – JoeJShmo continued to post on a CT-restricted page Talk:Mossad. I have no idea what is needed to stop them.

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'd be happy for this to be closed with a commitment from JoeJShmo not to do anything in this topic area other than file an edit request until they are extended confirmed. If we can't get that a topic ban seems reasonable. Noting that either way blocks (as a blunt instument) will need to be used to enforce this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So we're past that now, add they've violated ECR again. Perhaps a topic ban until we've seen more editing and can be confident there will not be disruption? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @JoeJShmo: You do not seem to understand the extended-confirmed restriction, despite it having been explained to you several times. You have continued to edit in the area anyway. Because you do not understand the very narrow exception, I will provide something more clear:

  Until you obtain extended confirmed rights, which occur ordinarily when you have 500 edits and have had an account for 30 days, you are hereby topic banned from making any edits that relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict (broadly construed) anywhere on Wikipedia. This includes requests on talk pages, discussions in the "Wikipedia" namespace, and anything anywhere else on Wikipedia that reasonably may relate to the Arab-Israeli conflict. I am imposing this as a unilateral topic ban. Any future violations will lead to escalating blocks; please find something else to productively edit about in the meantime. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• So now they have blasted through a load more gnoming edits to reach EC, and on their 504th edit started unilaterally removing content from War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war. Another red flag, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have topic banned JoeJShmo (talk · contribs) for 6 months and 1000 edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Starship.paint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tobyw87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

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

1. 05:14, 20 July 2024 Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia
2. 05:01, 20 July 2024 (bolding done by starship.paint) Again you are fact-free and proud. As this is my own talk page I am free to say what I want (unlike the rest of the entirety of Wikipedia which is clearly pro-Hamas and pro-murdering as many Jews as possible) … knows more about the ICJ than any of these Wikipedia editors who would rather cite in favor of terrorist sympathizers than the truth … so you can continue to lie about it all you want but it changes nothing at all. Eventually the truth will win and your hateful/bigoted narrative will lose.
3. 19:02, 18 July 2024 Your comment and the comments of many others are indicative of the extreme anti-Israel (Jewish) bias going on on Wikipedia right now
4. 21:55, 12 June 2024 by the looks of of this verbiage it seems like editors here want to vilify Israel using a different lexicon
5. 19:05, 9 June 2024 You just want to push a narrative instead of saying the obvious, which is Hamas and the IDF share blame here.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I've indefinitely topic banned them from ARBPIA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Kashmiri, To call the large number of editors who faithfully summarise reliable sources and don't simply parrot the Likud propaganda – to call them "pro-Hamas" is a slap in the face. You're doing the same thing that you're saying they're doing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to say before this is closed that had I seen this sooner I would have done the same. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Snokalok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

(Diffs below)

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

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

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

[3] 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.

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

[5] 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.

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

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

[8] 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.

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

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

[11] 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

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

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

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

The AE thread linked above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14]

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

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:

[15] 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".

[16] 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.

[17] 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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I will begin with analysis of the evidence provided:

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

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

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

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

I see that Isabelle Belato has said This is a topic already fraught with hostility. This is, indeed, true. And I do not think that an admin who until recently had an image on her User page which included the slogan: I THROW TERFS INTO THE SUN yeet is a suitable person to be sitting in judgment on this matter. (It looks like the only reason this image is no longer visible is that it has been centrally deleted. [19] ) Sweet6970 (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the final diff quoted in the complaint above [20]. Without any input from anyone else, this was corrected one minute later. [21]. This edit is part of a series of edits, which started with an edit where ‘Wadhwa’ was misspelled as ‘Wradha’ [22]. This was corrected in the next edit, one minute later: [23]. Dtobias is obviously correcting himself as he goes along. To present the final diff in the complaint out of context is misleading, to put it politely. I think that Snokalok needs a formal warning not to behave like this. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

wikt:transgenderism:

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

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

Now, DTobias knows these are offensive phrases, because at WP:NOQUEERPHOBES (an essay written by myself and other queer editors to address rampant queerphobia on Wikipedia) they objectd on the grounds that: In particular, it's quite a useful thing that one of the prime tenets of gender ideology is that there's no such thing as gender ideology; that nips any opposing arguments in the bud! The aim of Newspeak was to ensure that expression of dissident opinions was impossible due to all relevant words being either eliminated or redefined. Modern social-justice crusaders are making great progress at achieving this, particularly in the area of sex and gender.[24]

It's only after these kinds of phrases are noted to be offensive they argue things like Ideology means a "Doctrine, philosophy, body of beliefs or principles belonging to an individual or group." There certainly is a set of beliefs, principles, doctrines, and philosophies being promoted by trans activists, so the whole concept that "there's no such thing as trans ideology" is ludicrous.[25] He gleefully continues to insist that "trans ideology" is a real thing even above: Even saying that there's such a thing as transgender ideology gets you in trouble, as seen in comments below.

There's also snide comments arguing the mainstream media is unduly saying trans people are marginalized: particularly when a lot of the media keeps hammering in the idea that this group is highly marginalized (which kind of contradicts the idea that all of mainstream society favors them, but never mind...). [26]

I was thinking of giving this user a warning on his talk page following this comment at LGB Alliance: Activists call everything "transphobic" if it doesn't ask "how high?" when the activists say to jump[27], because I'd also noticed these forum-style rants and found them offputting.

And there is a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality evidenced in comments like: If one side attains complete victory in this battle, they are likely to win the war, since their side is thereby unanimously supported by reliable sources (because all differing sources have been deemed unreliable) in reference to the Telegraph discussion, what should have been a discussion about the reliability of a source is argued to be warring sides in a battle.[28]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This is a topic already fraught with hostility, and some of their highlighted comments do nothing but add heat. While comparing the use of gender inclusive terms to Newspeak is a tired one, comparing trans people to people who believe they are Napoleon Bonaparte is a new one to me. That they'd use terms such as "transgender ideology" and "transgenderism" does not surprise me. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 03:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Berchanhimez: the issue with those terms is that they add up to the inflammatory language used by Dtobias, and which has been shown here by the OP and Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist. There is a clear pattern of battleground behavior, which the user has already been warned about. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:09, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A reminder that all editors are supposed to comment only in their own section and have a limit of 500 words and 20 diffs, unless they request and are granted an extension. So please keep your comments focused and to the point.

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

• Ok, now I have reviewed all the diffs presented in the original complaint: one was a misgendering error that was quickly corrected and a few others ([29], [30], [31]), while non-ideal, arguably fall in the grey/AGF area given the context of the respective discussions. The same cannot be said about the other diffs where either the snark ([32], [33]), belittling language ("throwing tantrums", "screams of activists") or inapt analogies ([34], and especially [35]) served only to inflame the discussions.

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

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

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

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

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

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

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[36]

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[37], 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."[38]
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.[39] This is the discussion SFR pointed me to to back his claims of a violation of NPOV[40] (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.[41] I believe I've demonstrated in the past a pattern of mindfulness of NPOV, along with a willingness and desire, to accept new information and guidance. I do often seek clarification from editors on the exact problem they are raising, and it is possible that some may have misconstrued that as being 'argumentative'.
In conclusion, I don't believe there's any evidence of POV or a lack of policy awareness to the point of justifying even a temporary topic ban. Some editors may believe I have been too hasty to edit, and I will be slowing down in the future, as I noted above. However, the concerns outlined by SFR do not exist.

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

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

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

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

It looks like the consensus is to keep the ban. I have taken note of everyone's concerns and will continue to work on learning policy, and as I mentioned above, I understand much more now than I have in the past, and any past issues will no longer be a problem going forward. I'll probably appeal the topic ban in a couple weeks, or whenever I deem appropriate. This process has inspired me to commit to explaining to newer editors how to go about editing in this topic constructively when they hit EC instad of letting them potentially dig themselves into a hole (although they may have enough experience to know basic policy and avoid blatantly disruptive editing, the bar for these topics has been shown here to be much higher and more complicated), and I encourage all involved to do the same. Thank you. JoeJShmo^💌 07:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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[42][43]. We don't need more stonewalling POV warring going on in the topic area. The discussion at User talk:JoeJShmo#WP:CLAIM demonstrates a lack of a clear understanding of WP:PAGS which is necessary to edit constructively in this incredibly contentious topic. This comes after a block and a topic ban for behavior in the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• In principle, I think that the topic ban issued by ScottishFinnishRadish is appropriate given the series of events that led to here, though I would like to hear the admin's response here to clarify the reasons that this topic ban was given. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I consider the ban to have been appropriate per the arguments given above by ScottishFinnishRadish which is confirmed by my own experience in trying to advise JoeJShmo. The purpose is to help them gain experience with our WP:PAGS. Reaching the 6 months and 1000 edits won't automatically expire so they will have to reach out to an Admin to restore EC, but I believe that this should be granted then without relation to edits in other edits or the quality of their edits. Any problems in other areas should be treated separately. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with concerns above about consistently enforcing EC restrictions, and responding consistently to gaming ECR; but that does not change my assessment that this editor needs to gain more experience - and hopefully learn restraint - outside this topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the TBAN was well within the bounds of admin discretion "to prevent damage or disruption" and there has not been a compelling case put that the ban is no longer necessary therefore I decline the appeal. Absent any further admin comments in the next ~24 hours or so I'll close the appeal as declined as there aren't admins arguing in favour of overturning it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

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

• Removals of "colonization" and similar (partial list): מתיאל June 6, Kentucky Rain24 June 6, האופה (not to be confused with User:מתיאל) June 7, KR June 8, ABHammad June 10 (another), O.maximov June 11, האופה June 12, Galamore June 12, מתיאל July 1, ABHammad July 2, O.maximov July 3, האופה July 4, Icebear244 July 4, [fully-protected July 11-14], ABHammad July 21
• For context: they've made 16 edits total to this article [44], they are (not in chronological order):
  • The 4 edits linked above
  • 5: removing a source (The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine) and replacing it with {{dubious}}
  • 6, 7: making a bold edit and later reinstating part of it
  • 8, 9, 10, 11, 12: adding "we were here first" content
  • The remaining 4 are innocuous: 13, 14, 15, 16
• 2 talk page edits [45], both in May: first one claims that Nur Masalha and New Historians like Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim often present fringe views; the second one doubles down.

Other examples at other articles:

• April-May at Israel and apartheid
  • האופה April 17, האופה May 16, ABHammad May 18
  • No other edits to the article [46]
  • One talk page edit [47] to vote in the related RFC.
• May-June at Genocide of indigenous peoples
  • האופה May 23, ABHammad May 24, O.maximov May 27, האופה May 27, ABHammad June 23, ABHammad June 23 again, האופה June 24
  • No other edits to the article [48]
  • 2 talk page posts [49]: 1, 2
• June at Palestinians
  • To remove "indigenous": האופה June 2, ABHammad June 2, Owenglyndur June 2, ABHammad June 3
  • To remove "native": ABHammad June 7, האופה June 13, Owenglyndur June 13, ABHammad June 14
  • No other edits to the article [50]
  • 3 talk page edits [51], all in June: the first one says Palestinians are not native to Palestine; the next two are about ONUS and edit warring.
• June at Nuseirat refugee camp
  • Galamore June 8, האופה June 8, ABHammad June 8
  • No other edits to the article [52] or talk page edits [53]
• June at Causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight
  • XDanielx June 24, ABHammad June 24 (next edit)
  • No other edits to the article [54]
  • 6 talk page edits [55] all on June 24, mostly advancing the "endorsement of flight" theory (example 1, example 2)
• July at Settler colonialism
  • האופה July 7, האופה July 7 again, ABHammad July 7
  • No other edits to this article [56] or talk page edits [57]
• July at List of genocides
  • האופה July 8, ABHammad July 8
  • No other edits to this article [58] or talk page edits [59]
• July at History of ancient Israel and Judah
  • האופה July 8, ABHammad July 8
  • No other edits to this article [60] or talk page edits [61]

Since July 8, ABHammad has made five edits [62], they are:

• Zionism edits #7, #16, and "Jul 21", all linked above
• July at Roman Palestine (disambiguation) (related article: Roman Palestine)
  • Uppagus (5 mos, 647 edits as of now) Jul 9, EliasAntonakos (3 weeks, 93 edits) Jul 9, EliasAntonakos Jul 9 again, ABHammad Jul 10
  • No other edits to this article [63] [64] or talk page [65] [66]
• July at Mohammed Deif
  • Reinstating removed content on Jul 13 (added by someone else Apr 26, removed Jul 13)
  • No other edits to this article [67] or talk page [68]

Previous UTP discussions between us (permalinks): Jun 12, Jun 13, Jun 24 (response). Levivich (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Special:Diff/1224151800

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re Vegan's comment: I don't think Vegan misunderstood me, I think they are intentionally twisting my words. If I say "We are witnessing climate change", it obviously doesn't mean I support climate change. And nobody would confuse "settlement dismantlement" for "the dismantling of Israel". Unfortunately this is not the first time Vegan has tried to "catch" me with this kind of rhetorical gamesmanship, recently at Talk:Zionism: 1, 2, 3. This may be because I accused Vegan of bludgeoning last month. Levivich (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

one veteran editor here explicitly wishes for the end of Zionism and the dismantling of Israeli society is another example of the rhetorical gamesmanship/twisting of words, now aimed at another editor. Nobody said anything about dismantling Israeli society. Equating "the end of Zionism" with "dismantling of Israeli society" is no different than equating "settlement dismantlement" with "dismantlement of Israel." Basically it's an attempt to equate anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Sound familiar? I believe it's nothing other than trolling/baiting. The point is to derail this report and take the focus off of the reported editor by creating new endless arguments, just like Vegan's bludgeoning behavior I complained about earlier. Admins, please put a stop to this. Levivich (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the dismantling of Israel's colonial settler society is not the same thing as the dismantling of Israeli society. There is more to Israel than settler colonialism; neither Israel nor any other Jewish homeland needs to be a colonial settler society. Calling for an end to Israel's occupation and apartheid is not the same thing as calling for an end to Israel itself. Levivich (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, still continuing with this ideological purity test, now on another page: And still above all you simply refuse to say the simple words "I don't wish for the end of Zionism". Why is that? I'm of course not going to take this bait, my political beliefs are irrelevant, but I should not have to put up with this in response to filing an AE complaint. Levivich (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More. Levivich (talk) 16:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SFR et al: This is not a single revert, this is a pattern that's lasted for months, since they joined this topic area, that is unlike any other editor I know of in this topic area. This is almost nothing but tag-team reverting. Of the 5 edits made between when the last AE was closed and this one was opened, 4 of them were tag-team edit-warring (diff'd above). Nobody else's edits have such a high proportion of tag-team edit warring.

Case in point: two new edits since this AE was opened, one of them a revert (not tag-team) on an article they'd never edited before [69] with no talk page posts [70]. This account seems to exists for the purpose of pressing the "undo" button; I've never seen anybody else press the undo button this often on articles they've never otherwise touched.

The last AE didn't seem to make any difference to them, nor did these talk page warnings: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. But maybe a formal AE warning will make a difference.

And that's without getting into the POV stuff, which I think is more serious. We don't ask editors to edit trans-related articles with editors who edit articles to say that sex=gender, nor do we ask editors to edit race and intelligence articles with editors who edit articles to say that Black people are inferior to white people. Why should we ask editors to collaborate with someone who edits articles to say that Palestinians aren't native to Palestine (diff'd above)? Levivich (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SFR: Sure, if you slice the stack of diffs up and just look at one article, you can say "Well, it takes two (or four) to edit-war!" But now look at Self and Make's edits over the last 3 months. You will not find them tag-teaming anywhere near as frequently, and not on articles that they've never touched before or since. None of the PIA "regulars" do this in this frequency. That's why there a big pile of diffs: it's an overall pattern, it's not a one-off thing. I mean this is a dozen articles here, and it's not even everything, it's just what I'm aware of. It's not even the entirety of the EIA (should you want to run that, look at how many 1's are on that table, for any combination of this group of editors). Levivich (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man, this "enforce it topic-wide" line of argument bothers me. This is a report that shows diffs of a pattern of disruptive editing. Enforce this. The idea that we shouldn't enforce our policies because they're also violated elsewhere by others is... Because you can't say "file a report" and then when a report is filed, say "well other people do it too". What do you want me to do? Diff out everybody's disruption or nobody's? If there is disruption elsewhere, let someone spend the hours collecting diffs and filing an AE report. Levivich (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SFR Fair enough, and FTR I appreciate that admins are paying attention to this, thank you. Levivich (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another POV revert. Levivich (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: I couldn't figure that out exactly, either, but much of it is a revert of recent edits by Iskander and Astropulse. The edit summary was restoring important, well sourced material by scholars and leading analysts, meanwhile it removed the sentence "Both Israel and Palestine frequently accuse the other of planning to commit genocide", which was sourced to Damien Short's book about genocide and an article in Journal of Genocide Studies (so it removed scholarship, not restored it). Meanwhile, it restored content about the opinions of Doron Weber and Mosab Hassan Yousef, neither of which are scholars or leading analysts. It restored the lead image to the blood-stain image (which was a change made on Jul 16 by Nice4What). It changed "Hoffman opined that Hamas has consistently maintained genocidal intentions" to the less neutral phrasing "Hoffman underscored the significance of the 1988 Hamas charter, asserting that Hamas has consistently maintained genocidal intentions and demonstrated a lack of interest in "moderation, restraint, negotiation, and the building of pathways to peace." It added content about the Hamas Charter to the Background section. There were a bunch of changes in addition to that, it seems. It's a tough diff to read, I'm not sure entirely if everything was "restored" or if some of it was new. Levivich (talk) 16:02, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And following the pattern, that's their one and only edit to the article [71] and they've never edited the talk page [72]. Levivich (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1235959754

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

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

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

• Attempts to push the controversial framing of Zionism as colonialism in Wikipedia's voice, despite the lack of consensus on this matter. This was done anyway due to consistent edit warring by several editors, including Levivich ([73], a revert which also saw them attacking other accounts just for being "new"). The article now uses colonization in Wiki voice at the very first sentence.
• Attempts to remove maps of ancient Israel and info on Jewish identity
• Attempts to describe the events in Gaza as genocide in Wikipedia's voice, unfortunately also successful

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

@ScottishFinnishRadish what has been noted on Israel and apartheid is quite similar to other experienced I had. Take for example Zionism, where a new framing of it as "the colonization of a land outside of Europe", was implemented through edit warring by experienced editors in June and July, against consensus and while discussions are still ongoing. In these and other articles mentioned above (another example is List of genocides), my reverts were to the consensus version, not to a preferred new version. Vanamonde93, I want to emphasize that this was not about being 'correct on the ideological issues' but about preventing forceful changes made against consensus. I would really ask what should one do in cases like this. ABHammad (talk) 12:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@ScottishFinnishRadish:The current consensus version seems to match the POV of ABHammad and האופה. Apart from the fact that I had valid reasons for reversion, that's not even true. On the weaponization matter, the current state is as I wished it (that is the link is included, not excluded, and I helped workshop the RFC that led to that conclusion). So, please, find another rabbit to hunt. Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I am at it, where is the response to the questions I posed? We have an editor casting aspersions left and right and that passes us by? Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I don't understand that revert, what is it exactly, it seems that many things have been changed, is it just going back to a previous version of the page? Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Editor Levivich has made a decent fist of trying to pin it down, the bulk of it is as he says and editor Iskandar has confirmed that all of his edits were reverted, no matter the reason they gave for removal in the first place, while the business about the image should have been subject of talk page discussion, the edit even reverts notelist and reflist (!), presumably to some prior version and I know not why. I will try to dissect it further but it will take some time and frankly, this sort of editing is uninspiring however it was manufactured.Selfstudier (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Sean.hoyland: is absolutely right, in fact the offsite recruitment on Israel subforums has already occurred multiple times in the past week. See [74], [75] and [76]. starship.paint (RUN) 23:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

@Iskandar323: yes the 1RR violation Selfstudier pointed out is clear, but it involved a ~21 hour gap, and ABHammad self-reverted when it was pointed out. Seems like a timing error. Regarding the other instance, I'm not sure this would be considered a revert? It seems like any deletion might technically fit under the broad definitions of reverts given in WP:3RR and elsewhere, but at least there wasn't a specific recent change being reverted here (the closest seems to be this, almost a month ago). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 21:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aside from the general behaviours mentioned, including a lot of reverting, aren't there two very specific instances of very clear and very knowingly performed WP:1RR breaches on templated pages after the user was aware? The first is mentioned by SelfStudier, and the second is visible in the two diffs provided by Levivich, both on the 23 June. That appears to be two blatant breaches in as many months. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XDanielx: The edit summaries make it plain that they were reverting content based on a disagreement. And yes, material added a month ago counts, especially when it has been contested and is part of a slow-motion edit war. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The 2x 1RR breach in just over a month has been noticed right? Back in my day, phew one could get in trouble for that. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see how Hammad's doggedly persistent habit of drive-by mass revision and edit warring (with often little to no talk page engagement) can be considered constructive or collegiate, and given the persistence of such behaviours even during this AE, how they are expected to refrain from such behaviours with only a slap on the wrist. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The edit-warring is concerning, but more concerning is what appears to be removal or negation of a priori reliable sources without apparent justification besides ideological leaning. ABHammad, your entire argument as presented here appears to be that your conduct was justified because you believe yourself correct on the ideological issues, which is not a persuasive argument if you wish to continue editing this topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SFR, my concern above is almost independent of the number of reverts; ABHammad is bringing a battleground attitude to this topic, which to me indicates they're not going to be a net positive within it. I think a logged warning for battleground conduct is the minimum we should consider: tag-teaming is secondary to me (and much harder to legislate against, as you say). Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Vanamonde93, if you'd like to see a topic ban, the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Wikipedia, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose them is enough to get me there, as that is plain battleground editing. I just think we need to be holding everyone to these standards. This is not an uncommon type of statement, and the topic is full to the brim with battleground mentality. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm okay with a logged warning, and won't advocate for a TBAN given that you are BK49 appear to be less in favor of one. But I think the emphasis needs to be on the battleground issues, not tag-teaming as such. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Having now looked into this, my analysis largely agrees with that on Vanamonde. I think there has been enough good faith efforts at collobartive editing to merit a logged warning rather than a harsher sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, the conduct I would like to warn about is the battleground attitude for the reasons Vanamonde has pointed out on 22 July and 26 July. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Selfstudier what diff is being restored? Because whatever it is is more than weeks old which seems like an inappropriate amount of time to restore a diff from without a talk page consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is important to me. Because acting like this while at AE is very troubling for me because as it stands now I see that edit as battleground conduct in multiple ways. It makes me lean towards a topic ban rather than a warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with a warning for this, but if we're going to start treating single reverts to an article after someone on the same "side" has reverted as edit warring we'll need to hold everyone to that standard. There was concern above about even application of ECR, and this is going to open a much larger can of worms than that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Levivich, taking Israel and apartheid from your examples to illustrate what I'm saying, we see that Selfstudier has reverted twice [77][78] and Makeandtoss once [79]. The current consensus version seems to match the POV of ABHammad and האופה. How many other articles where Makeandtoss and Selfstudier have both reverted the same content do you think I would find? How many times did would consensus eventually be against their position? Should we warn them for edit warring or POV violations because of this? If we're going to warn someone over this behavior then everyone needs to meet that standard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Selfstudier, the current consensus falls closer to what was reverted here, which is what I was pointing out. I'm not saying you should be on the hook, but that if we're going to start looking at reverts broadly like this we'll find it all over the place. As to your question the real issue here is a group of veteran editors pushing an anti-Israeli viewpoint on Wikipedia, promoting controversial views as encyclopedic facts, and threatening those who oppose them is bad, and that should certainly be part of any warning, but if you want action on your edit blatantly promotes false information then, again, that will need to be enforced topic-wide. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Levivich, I'm echoing what was said by other admins up the page a bit about consistency of enforcement. I'm not saying don't do anything about this, I'm saying that when we do and the next report shows up showing a pattern of editors making the same or similar reverts across multiple pages we can't just shrug it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How do we feel about a warning for battleground conduct and 0rr? Or just a topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –

Sanction being appealed

AE Topic ban, imposed at Sagecandor v Tlroche

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

User talk:Timotheus Canens#AE appeal (Cirt case)

I was topic-banned from AE (16 December 2016) as a result of making a comment warning about a sockpuppet of Cirt (Sagecandor), who was at the time massively weaponizing AE in order to take out political opponents (among other things).

In retrospect, I would be surprised if anyone were to maintain that this was not a case of shooting the messenger. Since that time, some people have expressed their distaste for Wikipediocracy. Perhaps if en.wp's behavioural "courts" were less likely to sanction whistleblowers, there would be less reason for folks to show diffs of misbehaviour off-wiki rather than trusting internal processes.

Today, with significant evidence to present in an active AE case, I find myself still gagged by this decision protecting former administrator Cirt's Sagecandor sockpuppet.

Though I did request on 24 February 2019 that the admin remove the sanction, they declined to do so and, as such, I have scrupulously respected that AE ban by not participating in any cases to which I was not a named party. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 13:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AE ban having been imposed at AE and having only been mentioned as a pre-existing topic ban, it can obviously be removed at AE, otherwise it would be double jeopardy for having spoken up about a rogue admin sockpuppeting weaponizing AE in 2016. There was absolutely no discussion of the TBAN in question at AN, therefore the "community" is not responsible for it in any way. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:22, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After 7.5 years served, this "parole" does not seem to be asking me to never again be found "injecting" unrelated matters evidence of a user's misbehaviour into an AE thread about someone else's that user's conduct. Is that correct? If that is correct, that's fine. If not, please explain further. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As with the dubious (EE) TBAN imposed in the AN close and then subsequently removed by the community, there won't be any problems from me. That I can promise. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here as an involved editor since I had to deal with a lot of the battleground issues Sashirolls caused at AE and in the GMO topic.

1. Barkeep49 and Extraordinary Writ, seeing your conversation mentioning Sashirolls wanting to comment in the KlayCax thread above, wouldn't that be in violation of their AP2 topic ban anyways since that dispute seems to be entirely centered on the US election?

2. What really caught my eye here though is Sashirolls' WP:NOTTHEM attitude about their sanction and related behavior. It's dismissive and avoids mentioning what else happened:

• Dec 2016 (4 days after AE restriction), they were also blocked (6 months) for disruptive editing and wikihounding, which was closely tied to their AE actions/battleground behavior.
• June 2017. After the block expires, they only go a few days until they are blocked for 1 year for continuing similar hounding issues.
• May 2019. Sanctioned again for continued personal comments/battleground pursuit.

The point here is that a series of related sanctions occurred closely tied to Sashirolls' pursuit of editors in AE and other venues. The way Sashirolls leaves that context out and dismisses the initial sanction is concerning. Sashirolls even links to their 2019 direct appeal to the admin where the sanctioning admin was clear You were sanctioned for the manner in which you expressed these concerns. . . and This sanction was imposed for injecting unrelated matters into an AE thread about someone else's conduct. . .. Similar comments came up when Sashirolls then appealed at AE that was unanimously rejected, I'd suggest admins review those discussions for more context since this is feeling like a repeat of those.

The NOTTHEM issue came up in their 2020 site ban and appeal to return last year Like that ban appeal, they don't seem to show an understanding of why they were restricted from AE and instead show dismissal of the pursuit of editors problem claiming it was "shooting the messenger" instead. That's usually a sign the sanction is still needed to some degree, especially since they've had trouble not pursuing editors in the past (not getting into their full block/sanction list here). If that sanction had been a more isolated case given its age and the appeal wasn't so dismissive of the behavior that persisted after the initial sanction, then there would be more weight towards the sanction being unneeded. Instead, I'd have to echo what Volunteer Marek asked Sashirolls during an appeal; why would they want to comment at AE? That's especially given the guidance they were given after their site unban to stay away from CT topics. KoA (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm probably open to repealing the topic ban completely, but will note that when filing a request someone is inherently a party so I do not think this tban would stop you from filing a request Sashi. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like SashiRolls wants to comment in the KlayCax thread. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @SashiRolls: my suggestion is more "probation" than "parole" (words I both intentionally avoided when writing my thought). If there are no problems in 12 months, it all goes away. If there is disruption, the topic ban could be imposed. I would hope/expect that it would all go away, otherwise I wouldn't be supporting it. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This topic ban was later separately imposed by the community as an unban condition, so even if we lift the first one you'd still have to go back to AN for the second one. I'm not exactly thrilled with this appeal on the merits, but it might make the paperwork easier to just lift this topic ban and let the community sort it out from there. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The community has the ability to undo the topic ban as well. So given this it seems like the community should just handle it all? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would work too. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sashi seems to prefer that AE undo the AE ban which is their right. Given your correction to me of what Sashi wants to do, I'm in favor of "on the merits" (the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed) repeal and as such the tone of the appeal is less bothersome to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Ping to ScottishFinnishRadish about the community restriction. Was there consensus for the community to double up the AE topic ban or were you just summarizing all the restrictions in one place and so if AE repeals the topic ban, SashiRolls won't also need community approval? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I see those as the conditions the community required for the unban. I don't know paperwork-wise if that means that the community assumed the topic ban or created their own. As I don't recall any specific discussion on that topic ban I'd say it's fair to call it just the AE tban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose I can support (no probation needed); this was an unusual sanction that didn't really fit the problem it was supposed to address, as became clear a few days later. But I don't at all agree with SashiRolls' portrayal of the original sanction as "shooting the messenger", "sanction[ing] whistleblowers" "protecting" sockpuppets, etc., and I agree with KoA that this persistent NOTTHEM attitude doesn't augur well for the future. Hopefully we're wrong. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be OK to remove this AE TBAN, particularly given the context of what has happened thereafter. I do find the title a bit odd; we normally don't title AE complaints as X v. Y (though this might be some legacy thing?), but the title isn't relevant to the substance of the appeal. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Same. I also am in favour of repealing on the merits. To clarify, there are three ways to appeal: the community at WP:AN, a quorum of uninvolved admins here at WP:AE, or to ArbCom at WP:ARCA. Either of the former two would be fine for this appeal (the latter probably less so), so like others here, I see no issue with having AE as the venue. El_C 01:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Given KoA's feedback and the general consensus here, what are thoughts from other uninvolved admin of removing the TBAN but allowing an uninvolved administrator to reinstate it, if necessary, in the next 12 months. This is possible with a rough consensus here but isn't something normally open to individual admin (though I do think individual admin could cutoff further participation from Sashi in a given AE discussion where there's been discussion). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that's a good idea and compromise. El_C 19:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a sort of probation here is warranted. The user was unblocked with a good number of conditions, and one has been successfully appealed one so far without any behavioral issues reported. I'm not seeing any evidence of malfeasance by SashiRolls post-2020 presented here, and the current trajectory of the user does not indicate that a parole restriction is necessary. Of course, if I am wrongo and the user does wind up showing persistent behavioral issues here after the topic ban is lifed outright, we can still partially block the user from this page as an ordinary admin action. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems like discussion has moved past this, but just to confirm: I don't think it's sensible to construe the unblock as requiring community review of the AE TBAN, and I think this is the proper venue for an appeal. I support removing the TBAN; time served + the revelation of sockpuppetry is enough for me. I'd be fine granting the appeal with or without B49's 12-month parole proposal. Either way, I echo the unblock discussion's suggestion that SR avoid contentious topics and this discussion's suggestion that disruption on this page is very likely to lead to a restored TBAN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

1RR

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

1. 19:47, 1 August 2024 Ads US recognition in lead of article.
2. 15:00, 1 August 2024 Ads US recognition in lead of article.
3. 14:28, 1 August 2024 Ads US recognition in lead of article.
4. 13:37, 31 July 2024 Ads US recognition in lead of article.
5. 03:25, 31 July 2024 Ads US recognition in lead of article.

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

Was notified before: [80]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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

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

• Blocked for a week from Golan Heights. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

Violated WP:1RR at Hamas with 13:16, 1 August 2024 which reinstated several earlier reverts, with the justification reverting because of violation of WP:3RR and 1 edit revert max 24hrs. The most self-evident of these reverts is 06:19, 1 August 2024, which reverted 20:46, 31 July 2024.

They have refused to self-revert or discuss further, saying that consensus is required to restore the previous content. My assessment of the talk page discussion is that consensus is against their edit.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 4 July 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Astropulse has now, rather than self-reverting, expanded one of the sections their revert affected, making it harder for them to self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astropulse, this wasn’t your only revert, just the most self-evident. BilledMammal (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

02:14, 3 August 2024

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

I have explained my reasoning on my talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Astropulse

There is already discussion about this here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hamas#Neutrality

BilledMammal is not involved in any of these discussion. People are okay with the current version. We are debating on how to include details about oct 7 attacks without violating NPOV

Edits in question is an attempt to fix NPOV issues flagged by other editors.

some consensus reached here : quoting replies from article talk page

I don't think the article currently needs an NPOV tag, and I would support its removal. Hemiauchenia (talk)

After the latest edits I agree, although I still think the original edit that emphasised the war crimes and stated the background to the ongoing war was a better article Stratojet94 (talk)

+1 FortunateSons (talk)

Astropulse (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you want me to revert to? You want me to revert to a version that violated NPOV ? please read the hammas talk page. latest replies by Hemiauchenia, Stratojet94 and FortunateSons. Good progress has been made to resolve the differences. People agree, current version is better and we are close to remove the NPOV tag. We are still ironing out few last pieces. Astropulse (talk) 02:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  quoting replies from article hammas talk page

  I don't think the article currently needs an NPOV tag, and I would support its removal. Hemiauchenia (talk)

  After the latest edits I agree, although I still think the original edit that emphasised the war crimes and stated the background to the ongoing war was a better article Stratojet94 (talk)

  +1 FortunateSons (talk) Astropulse (talk) 02:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ScottishFinnishRadish people has made further edits to fix issues in my edit. BilledMammal is not the involved editor. Im tagging @Hemiauchenia whose edit i reverted. I think we resolved most of the differences. Please confirm. BilledMammal is claiming i need to revert this [[81]] Astropulse (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hemiaucheniawe have some consensus from some other people about current version. reverting all changes will take more time to resolve the NPOV. We should work to resolve issue by making further edits not reverting to old version. Astropulse (talk) 03:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see WP:DRNC and WP:DOREVERT Astropulse (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ ScottishFinnishRadish Please see WP:DRNC and WP:DOREVERT - i think this discussion should be closed as per WP:PRESERVE and make further edits to make improvements. Astropulse (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I still maintain i only did one revert [[82]]. this edit [[83]] is minor - even though appear to be a revert - it is an edit because this tag is no longer needed as no more edits were made on that topic Astropulse (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also i want to confirm the edit i reverted [[84]] is as per wiki policies.

  It says in WP:3RR that "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." But here there were intervening edits made by other user [85]] Is this revert [[86]] by Hemiauchenia still count as one revert? Astropulse (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ScottishFinnishRadish

  I acknowledge that my edit technically constituted a 1RR violation, and I apologize for any confusion it caused. My primary intention was to address the NPOV concerns raised by multiple editors on the talk page. My edits were aimed at improving the article and aligning it with Wikipedia’s neutrality standards.

  As noted in the talk page discussions, there is a developing consensus that the current version, which includes my edits and subsequent adjustments by other editors, is an improvement over the previous version.

  Given this context, I propose that we continue to refine the article collaboratively rather than reverting to an earlier version that still had unresolved neutrality issues.

  I understand the importance of adhering to the 1RR rule, I will take more time to read it fully. But i think we should balance it with other policies. Also i have not involved in edit warring with BilledMammal. If there is a problem - i think it is with Hemiauchenia - who has not made this Enforcement request.

  I have no further comments on this matter. Do what you feel is right. Astropulse (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. The accused made some edits to the Hamas page, I did a reversion back to a previous version before these edits were made (as I was entitled to do under the 1RR). The accused then reverted my reversion under mistaken logic that I was violating the 1RR. As far as I am aware, they did not make a revert on the page prior to that during the previous 24 hour period, so I assumed that they were entitled to make that revert under the 1RR even if their logic was wrong. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I get it, they did make a technical (not clearly demarked) revert several hours prior, though the actual content change was pretty minor. I agree that they did violate the 1RR. One issue is that the changes to the lead will have to be reverted manually (I am okay with my edits being undone as part of this, as they were partially restoring the previous version anyway). Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Astropulse's "consensus reached here : quoting replies from article talk page", since Stratojet94 is not extendedconfirmed and should not be participating in that discussion, their views have no bearing on assessments of consensus. That statement should probably be struck out. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this gem. It’s not catastrophic or anything, but I think it’s clearly over the line, particularly within a Contentious Topic. FortunateSons (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Astropulse, nothing in your explanation meets the exceptions in WP:3RRNO. Please self revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If other editors believe that version is correct then they can restore it, provided they have not made a revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Astropulse, yes, that revert by Hemiauchenia was a single edit and therefore a single revert. Also the essays you cite are not included in WP:3RRNO, out edit warring policy. Your lack of understanding of the policy coupled with doubling down with your editing while this discussion is ongoing doesn't inspire much confidence that this won't recur. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So that's a no on the self-revert? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Extended confirmed restriction, 500/30 rule

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

• 19:19, 25 July 2024, removes: " internationally recognized as the occupied Palestinian territories."
• 19:08, 25 July 2024, ads that the occupied and disputed city of Jerusalem is in "Israel"

These two edits were made after I notified him about the 500/30 rule 16:13, 25 July 2024 , I also asked him to self revert which he declined: [87]

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:13, 25 July 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[88]

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.

According to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles the article should be - "reasonably construed" as in -

"4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the

ARBPIA

topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

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

Is Or Sasson the related to the Arab-Israeli conflict? If so, then Judo, Clothing and any other article on Wikipedia is related in one way or another to the Arab-Israeli conflict. If one follows your edits, it is clear as day that you are trying to erase as many as possible mentions of Israel. As seen, you reverted my edit to Ori Sasson and Doms in Israel although both Articles are not related to the Conflict. Also, you tried to frame Hanadi Jaradat, a known terrorist, using the ambiguous term "militant" while her actions were objective terrorism.

Being disputed doesn't change the fact that it is de-facto a part of The State of Israel and under its sovereignty, so he was born in Israel. Again, whether disputed or not, it is a fact that relates to him.

I removed it from the Dom article because it is not related to the Doms themselves and there's no need to mention it as it discussed further in the subject of the West Bank itself.

Again, as these two articles are not a part of the Arab-Israeli conflict nor the edits were relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict but to the subjects themselves, and therefore, not under the Arbitration rule, I will not revert.

If his request is accepted, then each and every namespace with the mention of Israel/Palestine and Any Arab country or any other country which had interaction with the region or the entities above and every object, physical or not, geographical or not, that is directly or indirectly related to any of the mentioned entities above should be under the Extended confirmed protection.

• Oh no I understand, it just seems very absurd considering the edit and the subjects. If you would check, for other subjects which are an actual part of the conflict, such as Hanadi Jaradat, I did not revert his changes.Ytyerushalmi (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Selfstudier - It doesn't seem like you appear to be in an objective position to recommend.

One more in what is turning into a procession of non EC editors contesting without merit WP:ARBECR restrictions. The talk page discussion following the awareness notice is in addition sufficient reason for a sanction. Selfstudier (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Ytyerushalmi, the edits are clearly related to the Arab/Israel conflict. If you continue to violate ECR you will be blocked.
  Other admins, after reviewing their contribs, basically all of it is ECR violations. Is a warning sufficient here, or should we save our time and just block now? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess it will depend on whether they can show they understand their edits fall under our ECR. Their initial response here does not fill me with confidence. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 16:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The battleground swipe at Selfstudier also doesn't do a lot to make me think that we won't be back here shortly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree and was going to say the same. I think some form of sanction would be better in this situation. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 19:05, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Is the solution of "tban broadly until they hit XC" going to work here? Or are we concerned that a sanction that requires the user to limit their own editing is just going to not be followed here? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm thinking indef tban minimum. Getting to EC isn't going to fix battleground editing. Even a topic ban I think will end up at indef, bit at least we can try it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  An indef tban would give them a chance to learn the ropes and correct their behavior. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm somewhat hesitant to indef TBAN someone with all of 33 edits, all of which are roughly in one particular topic area. It feel either overkill (as WP:BITE notes, [w]e must treat newcomers with kindness and patience... Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club) or not enough (should for example, the user simply be WP:NOTHERE). But an indef TBAN here feels odd to me; the principle behind indef TBANs is that the user is productive except in one area, but we don't really have that here if all the edits are in one area. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting Red-tailed hawk's comment above, but am not convinced this is a newcomer. Support an indef tban for wp:battleground conduct, reviewable if/when there's a constructive edit history elsewhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

The Kip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Givengo1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

• ARBPIA ECR

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

User initially made these two edits to the Current Events portal:

1. 19:24, 1 August - Changes wording/content on two Israel-Hamas war current event blurbs
2. 19:42, 1 August - Does the same (including saying an Israeli civilian was "liquidated" rather than "killed")

I then issued the standard CTOP alert and ARBPIA welcome/ECR notification. They did not respond/acknowledge, then started editing again on the topic:

1. 02:41 4 August - Additions to a passage regarding Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank
2. 03:53 4 August - More content changes, multiple replacements of "Israel" with "the Israeli regime"
3. 21:24 4 August - Comparatively minor, but replaces Arab-Israeli conflict with Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A - albeit, see #1 below?

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

Made aware on 1 August.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

1. Based on similar areas of interest, POV, and especially the wording of edit summaries, I suspect this editor may be this IP, who was previously blocked in May for two weeks after similar ECR violations. I asked the user about it, but they didn't respond.
2. Outside of the ECR violations, the user seems to edit with a distinct POV; their edits have often seemed to downplay/euphemize Islam-related violence/controversy ("Acid attacks" to "Acid-related incidents," "Islamic dress" to "modest dress," "Islamist/ic" to "religious" or "fundamentalist,") while heavily emphasizing anti-Islamic and/or Middle Eastern violence/controversy (prior Mannheim stabbing edits regarding the far-right organizers, "conquests" to "invasions,", "hold on to" to "continue occupying," some rather blunt/POV descriptions). While I'll openly admit that, in my opinion, some of these changes aren't entirely wrong, simply changing the wording to one's POV without good reason/sourcing isn't the way to go about it. The Kip ^(contribs) 22:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bellerophon451, if that acct and the aforementioned IP are both this same guy, that means they’ve already been arb-blocked twice - ouch. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, just noticed - Givengo and SelfStarter made almost the exact same edits to 2024 Mannheim stabbing, including adding the rather uncommon word “injuriously.” In light of that, it seems to be a pretty clear WP:DUCK. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified at time of report.

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

I think this user is quite obviously an alt account of blocked user SelfStarter2 (talk · contribs), based on the content of his edits and the pages edited. --Bellerophon451 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Givengo1: There is an extended confirmed restriction in place for this topic area. This means that, until you obtain the extended confirmed user right, you may not:

1. Make any edits to articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted; nor
2. Make edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace.

The sole exception to this is to make properly formatted edit requests on a talk page. Editors ordinarily receive the extended confirmed user right when they have contributed 500 edits and their account has been open for 30 days.

You were first informed about this restriction on 1 August at 19:56 UTC, but proceeded to make several edits that are broadly related to the relevant topic area after being informed of the restriction.

Would you please explain, in your own words, why you believe making these edits was or was not appropriate, in light of the restriction?

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The current events portal editing is pretty quacky but not enough for an immediate block. I'll wait to see if they make any statement here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Blocked and opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SelfStarter2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]