A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction	none	none	25 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Historical elections	21 July 2024

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, either make the request in your statement section or email the clerks email list.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, e.g. off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128

Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland

Initiated by My very best wishes at 23:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

5.1) My very best wishes is topic banned from the areas of World War II in Poland and the History of Jews in Poland, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
5.2) Based on their disruptive attempts to defend Piotrus and Volunteer Marek, My very best wishes is subject to a 1-way interaction ban with Piotrus and a 1-way interaction ban with Volunteer Marek, subject to the usual exceptions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

My very best wishes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Information about amendment request

Requesting the removal of the bans described in 5.1 and 5.2

Statement by My very best wishes

My editing restrictions were based on the findings of fact about my comments during the arbitration. This FoF tells about two issues.

The first issue was my "desire to defend the actions of Piotrus and Volunteer Marek" (FoF). I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas. Yes, I felt they deserved some support, in part as victims of harassment by the banned user. However, the behavior by VM was clearly problematic, and I do not want to condone anything he did. It was never my intention to enable bad behavior in the project, and I am sorry for exercising a poor judgement in this case. Moreover, these guys are more than capable of defending themselves. Therefore, if the one-sided interaction ban is lifted, I would still refrain from commenting about VM and Piotrus anywhere, just in case, although a legitimate collaboration with them could be beneficial, given the overlap of our editing interests.
The second issue was my participation in the arbitration case, "extensive, often strongly stated, not always backed by evidence" and "sometimes contradicted by policies and guidelines" (FoF). Yes, I made wrong comments in this case, and I sincerely apologize for making them. I thought that including me as a party to the case was an invitation to comment, even though there was no an obligation to comment. Unfortunately, no one said that my comments were so unhelpful during the case, prior to posting the Proposed Decision (actually, I striked through one of these comments: [1]). This had happen in part because I simply had nothing new to say on this case, being only marginally involved in the editing of pages on Jewish history. That's why I did not submit any Evidence. Who cares what I think about the research article outside of my area of expertise, Wikipedia policies (arbitrators know them better) and participants whose editing I mostly knew in other subject areas? But it was not my intention to offend anyone or make your work more difficult. I am sorry if it looked that way. I just commented, exactly as I would with my colleagues or friends, and we frequently disagree on issues. Well, that was wrong. A contentious arbitration is not a proper place for such discussions. I fully understand this now. I do admit having a negative perception of the article by G&K. Not any more. I now believe their publication was a "red flag" indicating that an effort must be made to fix the issues and improve our reputation in the expert community. I would never make such comments again.
Contributing to the project was difficult for me with such editing restrictions because a lot of subjects I liked editing may be related to Poland during the war, broadly construed. In June 2023, I started editing page Slava Ukraini that existed in such version and did not mention Poland anywhere, hence I thought it was safe to edit. However, Marcelus inserted a WWII Poland-related content, and I made a topic ban violation by modifying his newly included content. Unfortunately, I realized this only much later, being busy in real life and forgetting about all unpleasant things here. As a result, the topic ban was expanded as "World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe" to make sure that the original topic ban by Arbcom would be respected [2]. I apologize for this blunder. As of note, we had only a minor content disagreement with Marcelus who said this on AE.
Once again, I apologize for making such comments during the arbitration and for the topic ban violation a year ago. But I did not have any problems with content editing or dispute resolution in contentious subject areas in recent years, including the area covered by the current topic ban (before the ban was issued). Hence, I am confident I can edit such subjects and interact productively with all users. My very best wishes (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

@Barkeep49. Thank you very much! Unlike the topic ban, the interaction ban does not prevent me from doing anything I want in the project. I would rather avoid these users anyway. For me, removing the interaction ban is only a matter of feeling myself as an editor in good standing. This is very important for me, but I can function without it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Link by @HouseBlaster. Yes, I agree. This is an unusual case when my positive relationships with two other contributors were deemed as disruptive. I agree they were arguably disruptive as something that had led to my unhelpful comments during the arbitration. But I do not see a reason to continue keeping this interaction ban right now. And to be honest, my positive relationships with these users are strongly overstated. Admittedly, I do not like Piotrus, and for a good reason. It is another matter that I can easily collaborate with him, especially given his immense experience. VM? I like his erudition, but he is not my "buddy". Sure thing, I am not going to support them anywhere. Why would I do it? To be a glutton for punishment? My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquillion. A simple warning to me during the case would be sufficient. I was very much willing to listen what arbitrators have to say: [3] (Speaking on my comment in this diff, it appears in diff #5 of the FOF as a proof of my wrongdoing, but it was merely my honest answer to a ping by another user who asked me a legitimate question, and I happily striked through my comment after a clarification). I thought mere fact that some of them talked with me during the case was an indication that I am not doing anything seriously wrong. And it was a civil discussion, even though I admittedly assumed bad faith by the off-wiki party and good faith by VM. My very best wishes (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery. Yes, indeed. Importantly, this wider topic ban on AE was imposed only to prevent any future violation of the original topic by Arbcom, nothing else [4],[5]. Therefore, if the original topic ban is lifted, there should be no reason for keeping this wider topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster. Actually, after having this experience, I would rather not support anyone in any administrative discussions, just to be safe. My very best wishes (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments that do not support anyone specific, such as [6], I believe would be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh. Yes, the iban is not hugely restrictive. I can even edit same pages as Piotrus and VM, just should not interact with them per WP:IBAN. Although I never had problems interacting with them on any article talk pages, and we rarely reverted each other's edits. The issue is my comments during administrative discussions that could be regarded as supporting these users. I fully understand this now and would never do it again, even if the iban was lifted. My very best wishes (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that anything in my statements was incorrect, please tell, and I can provide additional explanations. If the motion will not pass, and I will come with same request next year, what should I do differently? My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only I never met Piotrus and VM in "real life", but I did not interact with them off-wiki or through email during last 10+ years. I am not saying anything about EEML case, per this advice by Barkeep49. My very best wishes (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back. Once again, I did not say anything about EEML per this advice by Barkeep49. I believe my statement was true. Yes, I never met them physically/in person/in real life. Yes, I communicated with them through email, more than 10 years ago, before this old case. Yes, I interacted with them on many pages. Other than that, I do not have any personal connections with them. I did not interact with them in any social media like Facebook. I never talked with them in person, over the phone, Zoom, etc. I do not know where they work because I am not interested in any personal information. And frankly, I do not care about them. My very best wishes (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdrqaz. Thank you! Yes, I do not really see why this iBan would be needed. I do have an editing overlap with VM in Wikipedia:RUSUKR and some other areas. These subjects are debated at article talk pages, and VM participate there. As a practical matter, why can't I say on an article talk page that I disagree (or agree) with such and such argument by VM because [an explanation]? What harm that would be? My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 3. Yes, I do ask to remove the wider topic ban issued on WP:AE, please. Otherwise, this does not make any sense. I thought it was clear from my statement. My very best wishes (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:. Thank you very much! Would you also consider supporting motion 3? That wider topic ban was introduced specifically to ensure that the original topic ban by Arbcom would not be violated. Hence, it is not logical keeping it if the original ban will be lifted. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to remedy 5.2 (motion 2)... Admittedly, I do not understand it. What exactly this is going to prevent? If I come again asking to remove 5.2 next year, what should I do differently? My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Statement by Piotrus

Statement by Aquillion

The topic ban always struck me as one that shouldn't have happened. There simply wasn't anything in evidence that MVBW had problems in the topic area; and topic-bans are meant to be preventative, not punitive. I can understand why it happened (ArbCom needs to maintain decorum during cases and has a limited toolbox to enforce that) but if they felt something was necessary, just the interaction ban, ejecting MVBW from that specific case during the case, or at most restrictions on participation in future ArbCom cases where MVBW isn't a party would have made more sense, since those were the actual issues it was supposed to resolve. Beyond this specific instance, I feel that ArbCom might want to consider how they'll enforce decorum in cases in the future and what sort of sanctions someone can / ought to get for issues that are solely confined to the case pages itself like this - partially it feels like the topic ban happened because there wasn't a clear precedent of what to do, so they just tossed MVBW into the bin of the same sanctions they were leveling at everyone else even if it didn't make sense. Possibly more willingness to eject unhelpful third parties from specific cases while the case is in progress could be helpful. --Aquillion (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pppery

Note that My very best wishes is also subject to an overlapping AE topic ban (WP:AELOG/2023#Eastern Europe: My very best wishes is topic-banned from the areas of World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, and is warned that further disruption may lead to a topic ban from the whole Eastern Europe topic area, without further warning. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

Acknowledging courtesy ping. To nitpick procedurally, the TBAN I enacted was an AE-consensus sanction, not an individual one. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319 § My very best wishes. Courtesy pings to @ScottishFinnishRadish, Courcelles, Valereee, Seraphimblade, and Guerillero, who participated in the admin discussion there. I personally have no opinion on whether to lift the sanction. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HouseBlaster

I remain of the opinion that MVBW should not be under an iban. Would someone kindly be able to explain to me what preventative purpose it is serving? Any "don't do this again" message (both to MVBW and people in the future who might consider disruptively defending someone at ArbCom) has surely been received at this point, so I don't see it remaining serving as a further deterrent. House Blaster (talk · he/they) 23:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Four Deuces

My very best wishes' has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek.

My very best wishes (then known as User:Biophys) cooperated off wiki with Piotrus and Volunteer Marek (then known as User:radeksz) in order to influence articles' contents and to get opposing editors sanctioned. Details are available at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list. The case resulted in Eastern Europe's listing as a contentious topic for Arbitration enforcement.

TFD (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby, I did not say that MVBW's involvement in the Eastern European Mailing List (EEML) should affect the current application. I said that MVBW "has minimized his history with Piotrus and Volunter Marek." He wrote above, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." No one asked him to bring up his previous relationship, but if he does, it should be the whole truth. TFD (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elinruby, there is no reason I should disclose my interactions with you since it has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.

MYBW wrote, "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." Do you think that is a fair and accurate reflection of their previous interactions?

My advice to you and to myself is to let the administrators decide what signficance if any it has.

TFD (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elinruby

I want to say that MVBW is an invaluable contributor, particularly when it comes to Russia and Russians. I deeply regretted losing contact with him because of the topic ban, given that I was still trying to straighten out the pages about collaboration with Nazi Germany and was talking to Polish editors about that.

I was a party to the Holocaust in Poland Arbcom case. as best I can tell for much the same reasons as MVBW; we were editing in the topic area of the war in Ukraine at the same time as VM and Gitz6666. I protested the topic ban at the time. MVBW is interested in the war in Ukraine, and not Poland. However the history of the region is such that part of Ukraine was once part of Poland (to vastly oversimplify) and I completely understand both that it would be difficult to respect a topic ban and that it would be necessary to break ties with me because of it.

If it is relevant to anyone's thinking I strongly support removing this topic ban. I do not think the interaction ban is necessary either; he seems pretty serious about addressing the Committee's concerns. Elinruby (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: is bringing up the truly ancient past. As someone who is on friendly terms with all three editors and frequently was in discussions about the Ukraine war where MVBW and VM were reasoning witH editors who thought the Russians could do no wrong, I can assure you that Piotrus was in entirely different topic areas at the time, and told me he lost contact with MVBW after the email list case. It is true that MVBW often agreed with VM on Ukraine, but then so did I. VM did his homework on Ukraine and every time I checked him, he was completely correct. I will also add that when I went back to the war on Ukraine article after the HiP case I found more than one source misrepresentation in the limited area of casualty numbers that I was trying to update, and vast resistance to edits to the "stable version". So I regret to say that in my informed opinion the sanctions were not only unnecessary but harmed the encyclopedia. Elinruby (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Four Deuces: this is someone else's appeal so I am going to give that rather specious argument the silence it deserves. I'll just note you are not disclosing your interactions with me either, for that matter. I am not saying you should have; sometimes ancient is just ancient, is all, and that is true in both cases. Elinruby (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Horse Eye's Back

EEML is relevent and "I never met them in "real life", but I interacted with them on many pages in various subject areas." appears to be misleading at best and a lie by omission at worst. EEML is definitely relevent here, if MVBW doesn't want to speak about it thats fine but their refusal to address the relationship in a forthright and honest manner has to count agaisnt them. If they can't be honest about their connections I have no faith that those connections aren't going to continue influencing their behavior going forward. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification MVBW, I find your clarification to be forthright and honest and to the best of my knowledge cover all of the ground that needs to be covered. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Created from [7] on request. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recuse (I expressed my opinion on the iban on the PD talk page). House Blaster (talk · he/they) 18:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion

Recuse I was involved with one of the articles in this case. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had mixed feelings about the topic ban which is why I didn't end up voting for it. I am open to repealing the topic ban, but not the interaction ban as a first step. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Pppery for that. I'll note that it seems to have been placed as an individual administrator action by Tamzin and as it is a year old (as of today) I'd support repealing that as part of the motion given the broad overlap, but will wait for further feedback before doing so, though admittedly the justification for the topic ban being necessary a year ago is strengthened by that action). Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not immediately opposed to this request; there was cause at the time to implement these remedies but it was by no means a central part of the original case. Primefac (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting proposal of AE topic ban repeal below. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clerical note: I have removed Barkeep49's votes from the count as he has resigned. Maxim (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland

Remedy 5.1 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic ban on My very best wishes) is repealed. Remedy 5.2 (the 1-way interaction ban) remains in effect.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 2 arbitrators abstaining, 4 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

As explained above I thought our factual basis for the topic ban was weaker than for the i-ban. I ultimately didn't vote for or against it because I decided a firmer outcome to the case was better than a milder one but this particular case I wasn't sure it was ever necessary. I think a year on and given the assurances here by MVBW that we can revoke it, also knowing that should it ever be a problem again that an individual admin or AE could swiftly reimpose it. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a reasonable request especially when it can be reimposed as necessary if it becomes an issue. Also support repealing the AE sanction, though if there is objection from editors on that point I'd be open to reconsidering that point. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure the iban needs to stay in place, but otherwise I am not finding great issue with this motion. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am making this my second choice to a motion (below) to repeal both bans. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. I'm not convinced that the interaction ban is necessary either, but this is better than nothing. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to extend MVBW some rope. Ultimately, the best result all round from a topic ban is that the topic-banned editor spends some time contributing constructively elsewhere and then comes back after the requisite period and is once again an asset. The second best is that the topic ban keeps an otherwise productive editor away from an area where they can't see their own bias but I don't think MVBW is that sort of editor. They have made positive contributions elsewhere instead of just sitting out the ban or testing its limits and their appeal shows a level of self-awareness that hopefully means they won't make the same mistakes if given a second chance. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having carefully reviewed this request, and the case itself, I think a second chance is appropriate. ArbCom repealing a TBAN doesn't mean that AE can't impose a new TBAN should fresh issues arise. Maxim (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the history and leadup to the case, I am very very wary of repealing the majority of remedies from it; in particular given how past granted appeals/repeals of remedies contributed to escalations and further conflict. However, this was a very harsh sanction and MV's appeal is not bad. I still cannot support the appeal but I will not oppose. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

I think this is something I'd support, but I'd like to give editors more time to comment before doing so. - Aoidh (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had time to look over the history of the case through the lens of this amendment request, and this request has been open a week which I think is a sufficient amount of time. - Aoidh (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything I would rather it be the other way around; the recent AE topic ban would appear to overlap with this one, but the interaction ban does not appear to be a problem any more. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AE topic ban was a year ago and happened only a couple weeks after the case closed so I don't think it outrageous to be appealed (and rescinded) now else we should have made the minimum time to wait longer. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appear to have misread the timestamps. Primefac (talk) 18:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting addition of links and changing commas to parentheses for easier parsing. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 2: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland

Remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) are repealed.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

First choice. Primefac (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. I am not convinced that the interaction ban serves any preventative effect; I think that based on this appeal and the unusual nature of the interaction ban (effectively for serving as a "fan club"), its usefulness has worn out and My very best wishes understands what went wrong. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. Cabayi (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First choice; see comments above. Maxim (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially per Sdrqaz. Equal choice with just removing the topic bans. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comments above. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a mistake. The Iban can be looked at in the future but I am skeptical of appealing it at this time. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the history that led to its implementation, nothing in the request is compelling enough to warrant removal of the interaction ban, which does not appear to be unduly restrictive. - Aoidh (talk) 20:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

Noting addition of links and changing commas to parentheses for easier parsing. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 3: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland

My very best wishes' topic ban from World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, imposed under the Eastern Europe contentious topic procedures, is repealed.

For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

Given that a repeal of the narrower Polish topic ban is on the cards, it seems pointless to me to repeal that and have a broader topic ban (which covers the Polish topic ban) in place, sending My very best wishes back to square one. I am generally in favour of the Committee not interfering in Community affairs, but given that the topic ban was carried out as arbitration enforcement, it is well within our remit to repeal as well. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I had understood it to be an AE consensus rather than individual sanction I'd have incorporated it until my original motion (as an individual it could have just been "undone" as a normal undoing). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment in the first motion. - Aoidh (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As per above. Maxim (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Maxim says above, this is still a contentious topic and if there are more issues it's relatively straightforward to re-impose the topic ban or other proportional remedies. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

If one would like a restriction lifted, one should ask --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

Please note that this is meant to be in addition to the two prior motions. Sdrqaz (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Extended confirmed restriction

Initiated by 142.113.140.146 at 09:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request

142.113.140.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
122141510 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. Edit requests include RMs

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Extended_confirmed_restriction

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below. Edit requests exclude RMs and AfDs

Statement by 142.113.140.146

I concur RMs are ERs. WP:Edit requests are requests for edits to be made to a page where editors cannot or should not make the proposed edits themselves. This social concept is independent of technical details of which template is used. A RM requests to edit the title. An AfD requests an edit to blank the page or replace its contents with a redirect.

A 2023 "clarifying" motion actually repealed some other clarifying language. This may "contain a loophole". A repeal of a RM prohibition clause is taken to be license to participate in such RMs.

We need to settle this once and for all. Request 1 approves, while request 2 forbids (along with AfDs), edits to RMs.

I just found the 2021 amendment request. Although I disagree with but will accept the interpretation, I agree that Very few people should have to read the ARCAs at all. I also shouldn't need to read to understand WP:Enforcement only empowers editors to enforce P&G not arbitration restrictions.

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Not sure why there is overextension of ARBECR at ARCA, especially when my original concern was ARBECR overpolicing. There's no {{If IP|Please login|Click here to file a request}}. Previous IPs filed statements, but I seemingly set the precedent for opening. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Despite another editor's ARBPIA diff, my ARCA request doesn't specify ARBPIA. I never had the audacity to edit ARBPIA. ARBECR applies "to specified topic areas." I am potentially interested in other areas like APL, RUSUKR, AA, or KURD, so not any "specific" area. 142.113.140.146 (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 122141510

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I am not familiar with arbitration requests and have to find time to read through some previous arbitrations to get an idea of what decorum and normal cadence of conversation it. If this is closed solely on the basis of being submitted by an IP user I would look to open it again afterward. I am curious if a satisfactory answer for locking editors out of consensus conversations can be provided at this level – I do not think stating that WP:RM is different from WP:ER and/or claiming it's all self-evident is a compelling one. I would like at least 24-48 hours to submit a statement and would be annoyed if this request was already closed on a technicality by that time, as the onus would then be shifted onto to me to submit an otherwise redundant request. 122141510 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: The Edit Request Wizard situationally prompts me to obtain consensus first. Consensus forming discussions can be a necessary component of edit requests and some level of consensus (between submitter and the processor of any successful request) is needed to process any edit request. 122141510 (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For those limited by time I believe my statement is effectively expounding on what I already said.

I don't buy the idea that a move request should not be considered as a type of edit request. Any change to an article is an edit. The idea there's a difference between between a WP:RM and a WP:ER is an argument based on bureaucratic pedantics than on shared reality. While there may be practical reasons for the bureaucratic decision to not consider an RM a type of ER, editors should always refuse to accept as immutable reality any status quo which begs credulity to a wider audience. User:ScottishFinnishRadish's "thems the breaks" rationale comments were effectively the opposite, which is why I expressed frustration in our exchange. (I want to make it clear that I have no animus towards ScottishFinnishRadish. I appreciate that no one seems to have been left with an impression of, or suggested, otherwise.)

Regarding the fact I mentioned systemic bias, I'm accusing this interpretation of WP:ECR of introducing unintentional systemic bias, in at least two ways;

1. This interpretation of ECR will have unintended lapses in enforcement such that systemic bias is reinforced.

For example, in a recent RM for an article under extended protection , my contribution [8] was never reverted. However, ScottishFinnishRadish reverted my contribution in the RM related to this arbitration. Under this interpretation of ECR, editors/administrators are less likely to notice and revert the contributions of junior editors in RMs if the editors agree with the existing consensus of senior editors, and more likely to notice and revert the contributions of junior editors if they disagree with an existing consensus of senior editors. In effect and especially over a long time horizon, junior editors can either agree and probably be included, or disagree and probably be excluded.

2. This interpretation of ECR will indirectly place difficult onuses on newer and less experienced editors to challenge consensus.

Quoting from my conversation with ScottishFinnishRadish; The policies as you are interpreting them can be taken as a bureaucratic manoeuvre by which a minority of editors can determine the topic of any contentious article – sure, the protection will eventually end, but not without shifting the WP:ONUS onto those who prefer a different title to build consensus, under more difficult conditions as consensus must be achieved from a much wider pool of editors. I am not sure I can expand on this while remaining relatively succinct – this is about as concise as I can get here, as I think the implications of this are wide-ranging and existential for Wikipedia as a project.

I'd like to note that at time of posting my reverted contribution is still the only non-comment contribution which has been made to the RM in question [9]. This can be taken any number of ways, of course, but I don't mean to suggest "this specific article doesn't merit ECR in the first place" so much as it's not obvious to me what the policy is intending to guard against here. I do not see any benefit to the interpretation of ECR as enforced by ScottishFinnishRadish, and have outlined in broad strokes what I believe are the drawbacks. 122141510 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Everyone is supercool with an uninvolved IP opening a request for clarification in violation of ARBECR? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Primefac, the IP is asking about this discussion about this diff which is directly related to United States complicity in Gaza genocide. This seems like an internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions that is directly related to ARBPIA. This is your court so your rules, but this looks related to ARBPIA to me. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

122141510, the diff you presented is for an article that is extended-confirmed protected, but the topic area isn't covered by ECR so you can still engage fully on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M.Bitton

RMs are not edit requests as they usually require consensus, something that is especially true for contentious topics (WP:EDITXY is pretty clear on this and the fact that edit requests shouldn't be used to attract attention to a post, even in the name of finding consensus). M.Bitton (talk) 09:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: the thought definitely crossed my mind, but I didn't say anything because I wasn't sure. M.Bitton (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree and Primefac: is the IP allowed to open this request? M.Bitton (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

It used to be that consensus forming discussions (AfD, RFC, RM etcetera) were specifically listed out and excluded but that was amended in favor of the current restriction to straightforward edit requests a la WP:EDITXY. Consensus forming discussions are self evidently not edit requests.Selfstudier (talk) 10:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@122141510: Once an editor is made aware of the restriction, WP:ARBECR and WP:EDITXY do not allow for controversial edit requests and so no consensus forming discussions are needed or necessary. While there is some degree of (EC) editorial discretion involved, for example, requesting clarification of an unclear edit request, the matter will otherwise be dealt with by EC editors.Selfstudier (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kashmiri

I initially intended to warn the IP editor about ARBPIA, but then realised that the subject requires discussion anyway, and so their input is indeed constructive and should be appreciated. I wouldn't be comfortable with shutting the discussion now for formal reasons, as it's not really about PIA but about ECR, and it needs to be had.

The purpose of ECR is to let experienced editors work on controversial articles in relative peace by minimising disruption caused by inexperienced editors, socks, SPAs, etc. The idea is only to let them make a simple suggestion ("Change X to Y" per sources) where the response would be positive (Yes, done) or negative (No, not done). It was not the idea to let them start lengthy discussions on whether they like article titles or not. I'm all for making it absolutely clear that move requests, deletion requests, merge requests, etc., are disallowed under ARBECR. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Kip

Wide-ranging discussions involving heated debates between users are, quite bluntly, entirely separate from a simple "please change this" edit request - I think it's fairly clear that RMs are not mere edit requests, and should be subject to the same ECR protection as virtually everything else in the area.

There's already been enough off-wiki coordination/pressure/etc from various groups relating to the ARBPIA area. The last thing any of us want is a loophole allowing brand-new SPAs, POV-warriors, and/or sock farms from Twitter, Reddit, news comment sections, and so on to flood the topic area with even more WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct than it already has. The Kip ^(contribs) 15:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Extended confirmed restriction: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Extended confirmed restriction: Arbitrator views and discussion

Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. This clarification was removed by a motion that removed the right to "post constructive comments", so it was no longer necessary to clarify that, yes, RMs are internal discussions, and no, RMs are not edit requests. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; RMs are not edit requests. Primefac (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The IP is asking a general question, and last I checked ARCA is not a page covered by ARBECR. Primefac (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with PF --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Shortcuts

This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

Historical elections

Motion: Historical elections

Following a request for action based on evidence of alleged harassment and canvassing, the Arbitration Committee directs its clerks to open a case to examine the topic area of historical elections. Subject to amendment by the drafting arbitrators, the following rules will govern the case:

The case title will be Historical elections.
The initial parties will be:
- Anonymousioss (talk · contribs)
- BigCapt45 (talk · contribs)
- CroatiaElects (talk · contribs)
- DemocraticLuntz (talk · contribs)
- Mcleanm302 (talk · contribs)
- Number 57 (talk · contribs)
- Talleyrand6 (talk · contribs)
- VosleCap (talk · contribs)
Guerillero will be the initial drafter
The case will progress at the usual time table, unless additional parties are added in which case the drafters may choose to extend the timeline.
All case page are to be semi-protected.
Private evidence will be accepted. Any case submissions involving non-public information, including off-site accounts, should be directed to the Arbitration Committee by email to Arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Any links to the English Wikipedia submitted as part of private evidence will be aggregated and posted on the evidence page. Any private evidence that is used to support a proposal (a finding of fact or remedy) or is otherwise deemed relevant to the case will be provided to affected parties when possible (evidence of off-wiki harassment may not be shared). Affected parties will be given an opportunity to respond.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

Support in principle. I think Number 57 raises three excellent broad questions where we can definitely be of use. I'm mildly in favour of trimming the parties list to experienced editors only per my comment below, but that doesn't affect my support of opening the case. Maxim (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions

Proposing --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly changed the proposed case to "Historical elections", which solves the problem that we already have a case by basically that name, and also clarified that the scope is focused on completed elections, going quite far back in history, and not super focused on current elections. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And now, for a comment on the merits. This case is what another Arb intelligently described as "hybrid." There's not so much private information that we can't hear it in public. But there is so much private information that we can't hear it as fully public as we usually would. This case rather much reminds me of the WPTC case. For the moment, we're obviously being a bit coy about what the private parts are; but I do hope that we can lay them out a little more completely at some point. As for the on-wiki parts, that's where the public part of the case comes in. We're looking for indications of broader issues in the realm of articles on historical elections, including the on-wiki/off-wiki interface. If you're an editor in the election articles area, your thoughts, commentary, and feedback are welcome. If you have been named as a party, we want to hear that as well, but beware that you've probably been listed because you have been involved in a dispute in the elections area or are suspected of off-wiki misbehavior. As for the peanut gallery (i.e. you haven't edited in the historical election articles area but would still like to chime in), if you have comments about how the WPTC case did or didn't work well, or other suggestions for hybrid cases, this would be a good time to mention that so we can take those lessons to heart before we do another hybrid case. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The more I sat with my above message, I feel like it didn't quite do justice for describing the process, since this isn't how we usually do things. If you've been named as a party, I imagine that feels pretty scary. And I won't lie: yes, this could have repercussions to your editing career. At the end of the day, we ask for your honesty and cooperation. I would treat this as we usually would a case request at WP:ARC. We're not deciding the merits of the case here; we're just deciding if we need to take the case and do the whole nine yards of collecting evidence, workshopping, and proposing a decision. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Anonymousioss (51 edits) and BigCapt45 (29 edits) be formal parties? Even with evidence of their material involvement in the matter at hand, I'm not sure it's fair to designate editors with this little experience as parties. A talkpage message along the liens of "please review our policies and don't do this again" may be more appropriate (alternatively, a block if the conduct is egregious enough to warrant it). Maxim (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support removing editors with few edits from the list of parties. If they need to be added back in, it can be done later. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of adding parties later during the case, as this prolongs the case for everyone else and creates an imbalance in the amount of time people have had the chance to provide statements before the decision is made. It may lead to chaotic situations or perceived, perhaps actual, unfairness. So if parties are removed from the list, let's please keep them removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Anonymousioss

Statement by BigCapt45

Statement by CroatiaElects

Statement by DemocraticLuntz

Consensus was clearly achieved in favor of not removing elements of county pages (presidential election results) that had been there for decades and are clearly a key aspect of understanding a county. I'm not sure what this is about other than someone having sour grapes that the universe of users who care deeply about this aspect of county pages and believe it’s a critical aspect (even if prose might be preferable). DemocraticLuntz (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mcleanm302

Statement by Number 57

I have seen an increasing problem with off-wiki canvassing (largely done via Twitter) since the middle of last year. This has largely taken the form of editors posting on Twitter about disputes they are having on Wikipedia (or about matters they disagree with), which in turn has driven both edit warring and canvassed contributions to discussions. In several cases, these canvassed contribution have changed the direction/outcome of the discussions (for example this discussion, the consensus of which completely changed after off-wiki activity started on 15 June).

In addition to the canvassing effect, the off-wiki activity has often involved personal attacks and sometimes veered into harassment. In one recent incident, an editor who edits under their real name had their details posted on Twitter by another editor who was using Twitter to canvass people to an American politics dispute. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative environment, but from a personal perspective, it is extremely hard to maintain civil collaboration with editors that you are aware are saying things about you on their social media accounts that would fall under WP:NPA if posted here. When raising off-wiki personal attacks with one editor, rather than apologise, they brushed it off, saying it was "separate" to their Wikipedia work, while another editor who became involved in the dispute after seeing the posts on Twitter saying such attacks were fine "as long as it does compromise your privacy or safety".

If there is to be a case on this issue, I personally would like to see three outcomes:

Clarity on whether making personal attacks on other editors on social media is sanctionable under WP:NPA.
Clarity on whether posting about Wikipedia discussions/disputes on social media is canvassing (as some editors have claimed that such behaviour is not canvassing).
Guidance given on how editors/admins should react to any future social media-based canvassing (e.g. locking articles affected, restoring articles to the pre-disruption status quo, discounting canvassed talk page comments etc).

Number 5 7 21:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Talleyrand6

Statement by VosleCap

Statement by Tryptofish

I'm phoning in from what The Good Captain aptly called the "peanut gallery", to comment about the aspect of hybrid cases that concerns whether or not ArbCom should assume the role of the filing party. I've been thinking about this, and I think I can offer a distinction that may be useful, and points in this case to yes, you should accept this case.

There's a pretty well-established consensus that ArbCom should consider cases where (a) the community has said there's a problem, and where (b) the community cannot solve it ourselves. Here, there have been some ANI threads, and there appear to be private communications from community members to ArbCom, in which there is private evidence of concerns about harassment and/or canvassing (per discussion here). That satisfies the criteria of (a) the community asking for ArbCom help, and (b) the community being unable to process private information. Also, and this is key, it might well be awkward to expect the editor(s) who feel harassed to come forward in public and be the filing party. So it makes good sense for ArbCom to "self-file".

In contrast, hybrid cases didn't work so well in the Polish Holocaust case, where ArbCom initiated the case after an outside publication criticized Wikipedia. (Strictly speaking, there had also been requests from the community, including a declined case request, but those never reached critical mass.) What prompted ArbCom to initiate that case was ArbCom's reaction to outside pressure. A couple of months later, ArbCom granted ECP to an account representing an outside group, in order for that account to file a case, but it turned out that that person was wasting everyone's time.

So the distinction I want to make is that it's good for ArbCom to self-initiate a case when there is private evidence, particularly of harassment, and members of the community have provided this private evidence, but might suffer further harassment if they filed the case themselves. I would want ArbCom to consider such cases, including this one. But when the pressure to start a case is coming primarily from outside the community, ArbCom should generally wait for a community request to come forward (or private evidence from the community about harassment), instead of ArbCom jumping ahead themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Historical elections)

The purpose of this statement is to respond to the Arbitration Committee's note that it is welcoming thoughts about the Tropical Cyclones case and other "hybrid" cases involving both public and private evidence. A principle that should be followed in this case, as in other cases involving off-wiki coordination, is that transparency is the best policy when possible, and that ArbCom should consider whether evidence that is received as private evidence must be kept private, or may be made public. Private evidence should be made public unless there is a sufficient reason for keeping it private. Valid reasons for keeping evidence private include preserving the identity of pseudonymous editors and fear of reprisals or adverse consequences. As much information as is possible should be made public, in order to maintain the trust and confidence of the community. Since Twitter / X is an open social medium, discussions on Twitter / X should be entered into public evidence, although the identity of pseudonymous editors should be preserved.

I have not been involved in the discussions of historical elections. However, I infer from the mention of county pages that one of the issues is similar to one of the main issues with tropical cyclones, which is at what level of detail should information be broken out. One of the issues with tropical cyclones was that discussion of when individual articles were in order about specific storms was being suppressed, based on a previously established consensus. If there are issues about keeping or merging county pages, it is necessary that they be discussed openly, on article talk pages, or by deletion discussions, not off-wiki. Guidelines for when separate articles are in order at the county level or other specific level should be agreed to by consensus when possible.

Transparency is the best policy whenever possible, and ArbCom should make as much evidence public as is possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this motion as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should open the proposed case or provide additional information.

Requests for enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Salfanto

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

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

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

Request concerning Salfanto

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBEE

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2 July 2024

Discussion concerning Salfanto

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

Statement by Salfanto

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

Statement by JDiala

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

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

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

Statement by ManyAreasExpert

I'm still waiting for the editor to explain their edits here Talk:Bogdan Khmelnitsky Battalion#Assessed by the ISW . Another edit, where they add ambiguous This claim was assessed by Institute for the Study of War on 7 November 2023 , is [10] . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found another piece from the editor [11] where they spread poor- or unsourced Russian propaganda as a thing actually happening. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another misrepresentation [12] where the source 'War in Ukraine is like WWI but with drones,' says foreign fighter | Euronews says Bjørn reckons that of the recruits end up at the front, 20 % leave after 2-5 missions because they realise that “war is hell” but it becomes "20% desert". ManyAreasExpert (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SaintPaulOfTarsus

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

Result concerning Salfanto

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

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

Aredoros87

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

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

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

Request concerning Aredoros87

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

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

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

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

16 June 2024 Re-adding contentious content that was previously reverted and never reply to the talk discussion
24 June 2024 Removes the development projects for being "unsourced" when there are in fact multiple sources (see Philanthropy and social entrepreneurship section, which Aredoros87 also edited in [13])
22 June 2024 During an AFD likely to be redirected (which happened two days later), Aredoros87 heavily expands the article and says they will add the content elsewhere if the article is redirected
24 June 2024 Moves the AFD article content to this article, with a number of WP:NPOV violations, such as using the word "occupation" for a town (Shushi/Shusha) that wasn't part of the occupied regions
30 June 2024 Further POV pushing use of "occupation" for Shushi, with partisan low-quality sources

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

That cannot be "false" when there was never any consensus to include the contentious content. If Aredoros had discussed the sources on the talk page, instead of reverting in violation of their sanction and adding “3 new sources”, I would've pointed out that 2 of those sources are both by Fahrettin Kırzıoğlu who "probably never before has a single person in Turkey falsified history so massively".
Err, no, we don't have to. Citations in the lead are usually redundant because it's a summary of information in the body. Aredoros just removed cited information they didn't like. And it wasn’t added by a "random non-EC" user [14].
Aredoros clearly didn't just add sources, they added POV pushing.
Ditto, POV pushing with obviously partisan sources.
Again, if Aredoros adds the Shushi "occupation" POV pushing to the article after it already has a strong consensus to redirect, then copies that to another article after, then it's not just moving content. Vanezi (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[15]

Discussion concerning Aredoros87

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

Statement by Aredoros87

False. When the content was removed by Vanezi, I started a discussion on talk page.[16] He said "more sources would be needed"[17]. And I added 3 new sources for that specific content under the edit summary "added Kökçe version with extra sources per discussion".[18]
I removed an unsourced claim. Even if there is information in the body of the article, we still need to have references for the statements in the intro. This could have been restored with a proper reference. Deleting unsourced claims is not a violation.
That particular page is being edited by a number of random non-EC, newly registered users. Even I had to request for protection[19]. This edit was also done by a person that I reported here[20]. Just one day after it's being closed, Vanezi made this report.
Not correct. The page was proposed to be deleted or redirected just because it was unsourced and duplicate as mentioned by the nominator.[21]. I added sources and left a comment saying: "I added sources and pics to all items in the list...Technically speaking, I would support redirecting,..If the consensus will be "Redirect", I will move the content as well. Otherwise, I will extend the article."[22]. In the end article was redirected, and I moved the content there.[23]
The result of the AFD was to redirect. That doesn't mean the sourced content cannot be reused in the redirected article.
I simply moved content from the deleted article, without checking the wording. If there's problem with the wording, Talk Page is the place Vanezi should discuss first. -- Aredoros | 17:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Vanezi never challenged reliability of the sources. As you can see from the talk page[24], he complained about WP:WEIGHT, and asked for more sources, and I added.
Please pay attention that, in this report, initially, Vanezi claimed that I re-added a content without a discussion, now he/she is challenging sources.
2. From MOS:LEADCITE: Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.
3. From WP:DISCUSSAFD: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination which is what I did. If there's a problem with the sources Vanezi could start a discussion first.
4. On talk page, arguments should be presented first to challenge the sources.
5. As I mentioned in this edit summary (copy from the revision)[25] I just moved content from this revision[26] which was redirected without any discussion.
Also, stating that Shusha was occupied is not POV pushing. Some international organizations, such as PACE, considered Nagorno-Karabakh an occupied territory. From PACE report: "Nagorno-Karabakh and the other occupied territories of Azerbaijan".[27].
We could have a discussion to decide whether to use "occupied" or "controlled", but Vanezi never started a discussion. Aredoros87 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish,

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

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

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

3. All you mentioned in green text already exists in article. I just added missing part. And I want to note, the article was heavily edited by user who declared it's connection to the subject[28]. Originally this article had almost no critical information about Vardanyan, despite critical reports in major Western media. Aredoros87 (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Aredoros87

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

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

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

78.147.140.112

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

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

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

Request concerning 78.147.140.112

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

n/a

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning 78.147.140.112

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

Statement by 78.147.140.112

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

Statement by BRMSF

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

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

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

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

Statement by JackTheSecond

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

Statement by Star Mississippi

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 78.147.140.112

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

This IP's first edit was to WP:ANI, which leads me to believe that this is logged out socking. ANI is project space, and logged out or alternate account participation there is not permitted. I'm rather inclined to block them given that. If the IP editor wants some other result, you will need to log in to your actual account. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{checkuser requested}}: Is there evidence of WP:LOUTSOCKing here from a technical perspective? The behavioral evidence in this tread also leads me towards suspecting it as plausible, but I would want a bit more. This is because the CIDR range is a /15, and one of the related /16s do appear to show some recent awareness of projectspace outside of this instance (see: this IP's comments on ANI last month). We obviously cannot connect to a specific master publicly, though NewPolitician (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) appears in last month's ANI thread, and appeared to have an interest in the politics of the United Kingdom. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's at least Likely that all three of the IPs (including the two below) are the same user. Dynamic IPs are not inherently forbidden, but it meets the definitions of WP:PROJSOCK and WP:LOUTSOCK to take advantage of changing IP addresses to give the appearance of being multiple editors, and I think PROJSOCK compels an editor who edits from dynamic IPs to make an effort to disclose the connection. This user has not, and appears to have claimed the opposite on at least one occasion (see point 3 in the complaint). I'll leave it to the other reviewers here to determine if that merits a sanction. I saw no indication that they are also participating with an account. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that lying about not having previously made an edit is worthy of something. But if a stern warning to not WP:LOUTSOCK going forward is all that is needed to prevent that sort of disruption in the future, then that is all the something that we should pursue. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least as a first resort, hopefully "Don't do that again" will suffice. If it proves not to, we can always take further action then. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absent anyone else relying in the next 18ish hours, I will close this thread along those lines. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Seraphimblade. The IP editor can either use their regular account, or create one in the unlikely scenario that they are genuinely a new user. It is hard to AGF given their apparent attempt to deceive (see the sequence: [29], [30], [31]) when editing from other IPs including:
- 92.30.6.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and
- 82.16.150.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

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

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

Amayorov

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

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

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

Request concerning Amayorov

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Discussion concerning Amayorov

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

Statement by Amayorov

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

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Amayorov

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

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

JoeJShmo

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

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

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

Request concerning JoeJShmo

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

JoeJShmo, a non-XC editor, has been warned about CT restrictions in force on certain pages related to Palestine–Israel conflict. In particular, they were explained that they can only place edit requests[32]. 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

Discussion concerning JoeJShmo

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

Statement by JoeJShmo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Selfstudier

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

Statement by Nableezy

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

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

Statement by TarnishedPath

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JoeJShmo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dadude sandstorm

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

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

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

Request concerning Dadude sandstorm

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Contentious topic designation

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1234574296

Discussion concerning Dadude sandstorm

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

Statement by Dadude sandstorm

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

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

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

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

Statement by Isabelle Belato

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dadude sandstorm

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

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

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by JoeJShmo

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of that administrator

[33]

Statement by JoeJShmo

I request the topic ban to be lifted.
Background: An Arb request was opened with concerns on violating ARBPIA as a non EC editor. I explained at length in multiple discussions that I never violated the rules intentionally; I hadn't been clear on what exactly was not allowed (see my statements here, also see my responses on my talk page). Red-tailed hawk ended up giving me a topic ban until I reached EC, asserting that I don't seem to understand the restriction. I thought that assertion was off the mark, but I didn't appeal as I was about to hit EC. There was no gaming the system in hitting EC; every edit was either a part of productive discussion[34], 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."[35]
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.[36] This is the discussion SFR pointed me to to back his claims of a violation of NPOV[37] (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.[38] I believe I've demonstrated in the past a pattern of mindfulness of NPOV, along with a willingness and desire, to accept new information and guidance. I do often seek clarification from editors on the exact problem they are raising, and it is possible that some may have misconstrued that as being 'argumentative'.
In conclusion, I don't believe there's any evidence of POV or a lack of policy awareness to the point of justifying even a temporary topic ban. Some editors may believe I have been too hasty to edit, and I will be slowing down in the future, as I noted above. However, the concerns outlined by SFR do not exist.

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

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

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

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

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

The topic ban was placed because the editor clearly does not have the necessary experience and grasp on WP:PAGS to contribute constructively in the topic area. I brought up the technical 1RR violation as it demonstrated that they immediately jumped into removing, even after being reverted, prose that they disagreed with. They did this claiming NPOV violations, and demanding that their edits not be reverted[39][40]. We don't need more stonewalling POV warring going on in the topic area. The discussion at User talk:JoeJShmo#WP:CLAIM demonstrates a lack of a clear understanding of WP:PAGS which is necessary to edit constructively in this incredibly contentious topic. This comes after a block and a topic ban for behavior in the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

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

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by JoeJShmo

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

Statement by BilledMammal

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

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

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

Statement by TarnishedPath

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

Statement by The Kip

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

Statement by berchanhimez

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

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

Result of the appeal by JoeJShmo

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

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

Tobyw87

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

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

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

Request concerning Tobyw87

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Tobyw87

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

Statement by Tobyw87

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

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

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

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

Statement by Kashmiri

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tobyw87

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

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

Dtobias

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

Request concerning Dtobias

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

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

(Diffs below)

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

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

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

[42] 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.

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

[44] 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.

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

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

[47] 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.

[48] 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.

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

[50] 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

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

[52] 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: [53]

Discussion concerning Dtobias

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

Statement by Dtobias

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

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

[54] 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".

[55] 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.

[56] 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).

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

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

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

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

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

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

Statement by starship.paint

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

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

Statement by BilledMammal

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

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

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

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

Statement by berchanhimez

Initial comment hidden because I incorporate/clarify it below

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

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

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

I will begin with analysis of the evidence provided:

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

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

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

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

Statement by (Sweet6970)

I see that Isabelle Belato has said This is a topic already fraught with hostility. This is, indeed, true. And I do not think that an admin who until recently had an image on her User page which included the slogan: I THROW TERFS INTO THE SUN yeet is a suitable person to be sitting in judgment on this matter. (It looks like the only reason this image is no longer visible is that it has been centrally deleted. [58] ) Sweet6970 (talk) 13:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the final diff quoted in the complaint above [59]. Without any input from anyone else, this was corrected one minute later. [60]. This edit is part of a series of edits, which started with an edit where ‘Wadhwa’ was misspelled as ‘Wradha’ [61]. This was corrected in the next edit, one minute later: [62]. Dtobias is obviously correcting himself as he goes along. To present the final diff in the complaint out of context is misleading, to put it politely. I think that Snokalok needs a formal warning not to behave like this. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

wikt:transgenderism:

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

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

Now, DTobias knows these are offensive phrases, because at WP:NOQUEERPHOBES (an essay written by myself and other queer editors to address rampant queerphobia on Wikipedia) they objectd on the grounds that: In particular, it's quite a useful thing that one of the prime tenets of gender ideology is that there's no such thing as gender ideology; that nips any opposing arguments in the bud! The aim of Newspeak was to ensure that expression of dissident opinions was impossible due to all relevant words being either eliminated or redefined. Modern social-justice crusaders are making great progress at achieving this, particularly in the area of sex and gender.[63]

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.[64] 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...). [65]

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[66], 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.[67]

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Isaidnoway

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

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

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

Statement by LightNightLights

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

Statement by LunaHasArrived

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Dtobias

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

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

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

Ok, now I have reviewed all the diffs presented in the original complaint: one was a misgendering error that was quickly corrected and a few others ([68], [69], [70]), 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 ([71], [72]), belittling language ("throwing tantrums", "screams of activists") or inapt analogies ([73], and especially [74]) served only to inflame the discussions.

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

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Emdosis

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

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

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

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

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

logged at

      16:34, 21 July 2024

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

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

Statement by Emdosis

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

 (topic:ECR)

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

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

Original block was unlawful:

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

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

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

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

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Just noting that I have indefinitely topic banned them as well, for WP:BATTLEGROUND editing and casting aspersions.[75][76][77] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Emdosis

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

Statement by BilledMammal

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

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

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

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

Statement by Selfstudier

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

@Barkeep: How to resolve the technicality, although I would have thought the later should override the earlier in case of ambiguity? An ARCA? Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Emdosis

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

Given the subsequent topic-ban, this appeal regarding the scope of ECR would seem to be moot. Any objection to closing on that basis? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Good question NYB. I think in the end I have no objections. However, I will note that the contradiction between the "topic area" as defined and what areas ECR do not allow for is present. And so in a different scenario I would say this user shouldn't have to eat a block that could then be escalated if there are future transgressions. However, given that there was other conduct leading to a topic ban that factor doesn't seem to apply here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABHammad

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

Request concerning ABHammad

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested: ABHammad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

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

Removals of "colonization" and similar (partial list): מתיאל June 6, Kentucky Rain24 June 6, האופה (not to be confused with User:מתיאל) June 7, KR June 8, ABHammad June 10 (another), O.maximov June 11, האופה June 12, Galamore June 12, מתיאל July 1, ABHammad July 2, O.maximov July 3, האופה July 4, Icebear244 July 4, [fully-protected July 11-14], ABHammad July 21
For context: they've made 16 edits total to this article [78], 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 [79], both in May: first one claims that Nur Masalha and New Historians like Ilan Pappe and Avi Shlaim often present fringe views; the second one doubles down.

Discussion concerning ABHammad

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

Statement by ABHammad

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

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

Attempts to push the controversial framing of Zionism as colonialism in Wikipedia's voice, despite the lack of consensus on this matter. This was done anyway due to consistent edit warring by several editors, including Levivich ([103], a revert which also saw them attacking other accounts just for being "new"). The article now uses colonization in Wiki voice at the very first sentence.
Attempts to remove maps of ancient Israel and info on Jewish identity
Attempts to describe the events in Gaza as genocide in Wikipedia's voice, unfortunately also successful

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

Statement by Selfstudier

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

Statement by starship.paint (2)

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

@Sean.hoyland: is absolutely right, in fact the offsite recruitment on Israel subforums has already occurred multiple times in the past week. See [104], [105] and [106]. starship .paint (RUN) 23:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

Statement by xDanielx

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

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

@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]

Statement by Vegan416

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by KoA

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

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

Statement by Nableezy

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

Statement by Dan Murphy

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

Statement by RolandR

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

Statement by Iskandar323

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]

Result concerning ABHammad

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

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

Discussion about Vegan416

Vegan416, perhaps you'd like to rephrase Levivich is just trying to push his extreme eliminationist anti-Zionist views, exemplified by his statement "We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have topic banned Vegan416 from the Arab/Israel conflict, broadly construed for BATTLEGROUND editing, casting aspersions, and inappropriate politicization. I'm still stewing on the actual report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've read some but not all of what's going on here and hope to have time to fully catch up on this. However, I share ‌Levivich's concern about the comment 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 hesitate to suggest one absent the fuller context, and about an editor who this report isn't filed about but feel confident in that assessment. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:44, 23 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]

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

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

[a]

[b]

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	5
2–3	4
4–5	3

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4