Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive327

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:30, 22 December 2023 (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

1. 22 November 2023 Immediately restores their extremely contentious additions accusing someone of having "sympathy to Nazism" after not replying to a talk page discussion for over a week
2. 23 November 2023 Now adding additional heavily biased sources that contain Armenian genocide denial and inflammatory/offensive comments about Armenians ("Armenian claims related to the traumatic events of 100 years ago", "support claims of Armenian victimhood", "Armenians seem to exhibit amnesia about their brethren’s participation") ("the Michigan Armenian lobby that in all likelihood has been greasing her political career") and otherwise ridiculous false WP:UNDUE claims ("It is practically unknown to most that Armenian antisemitism played a weighty role in Hitler’s Final Solution")
3. 15 December 2023 Makes a WP:PA against me ("Is this the way that you discredit authors that you dislike?") and that I "unlawfully" did the same in an AFD that everyone except Aredoros87 supported. When the previously mentioned genocide denying and xenophobic sources are pointed out to them, Aredoros87 denies those sources have offensive and undue claims
4. 15 December 2023 Continued edit warring and restoring these unreliable sources after all of the issues with them were pointed out

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

• Participated in process about the area of conflict (that is, requested same sanction against me with diffs that didn't merit action), on 5 December 2023.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Just that I didn't want to make an AE report on Aredoros87 any time soon after they made one about me, until they made a personal attack. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grandmaster: Did you even realize that the UN report is ALREADY IN the article (second to last paragraph) but in a proper context? Did you know that you had added the same information twice? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aredoros87:

1. List article is a copy of an article that was already deleted in an AFD consensus
2. I reverted a topic banned user blocked as a result of making that edit.
3. Okay, how about a source from the Turkish Foreign Minister? "Reynolds does not categorize the Armenian events of 1915 as genocide"
4. You added a source blaming Armenians for the Final Solution and still reverted it back.

You weren't involved in #1-3 at all. Why is the first time you are making any issue of them while asking for sanctions (again)? This is the exact same thing that Firefangledfeathers ScottishFinnishRadish had described two weeks ago, that you are still throwing mud against the wall to see what sticks. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc:

• I was literally quoting the closing statement, closed with no formal action. I took the advice to follow WP:BRD very seriously, and have already demonstrated doing so.[1][2][3] --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 06:47, 25 December 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: @Vanamonde93: Please allow me to explain in detail, I had summarized "nothing to support any action" based on these quotes: the "no formal action" closing statement, "I'm not seeing enough in those three diffs to support any sanction", "I'm thinking to close this with no other action", and a final comment by Firefangledfeathers advising Aredoros for bringing weak cases to AE and for misrepresented consensus (and yet Aredoros still doing that here). I had never meant to imply that I had nothing to improve myself, I took the BRD advice very seriously and have applied it since.[4][5][6] I was only trying to illustrate Firefangledfeathers's final point which was primarily in support of warning the OP Aredoros for a very weak report. I acknowledge my words incorrectly implied there was nothing I could've done better, but please consider that I tried to keep my words simple and few because of the word limit and respect for the admins time, which is what I think caused this misunderstanding.

And for 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, I just recalled that it was Grandmaster who first changed the section wording, which they omitted mentioning. Grandmaster was a party to the AA3 case and put on indefinite probation. Indefinite probation meaning, any further edit warring should mean an immediate topic ban. Grandmaster has been edit warring with this same UNHCR statement, using it long after the ceasefire to imply to massacres before it and then, when another user removed it, reverted them and adding the same statement back. This is also the second time Grandmaster tried to tag team in an AE report I created, previously trying to claim obvious selective removal of information was not selective. This now appears to be battleground mentality. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"That's how I realized that KU often knowingly misinterprets information/sources/rules"

Aredoros not only neglected to explain their personal attacks to instead throw as much mud as possible (despite being explicitly told not to do that), they are even making new personal attacks in this very thread. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"it feels like he wants to remove that article at any cost" yet another casting WP:ASPERSIONS personal attack in this thread by Aerodoros, this time at HistoryofIran. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

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.

R1.KU presented diffs in a misleading timeframe, but:

1. I added(14/11/23) sources([8];[9]) day after KU claimed that sources don’t mention it. After his revert(21/11/23), I assumed his WP:GF in edit-summary and talk-page.
2. He cherry-picked and calledthe source "propaganda". Then complained about WP:RSAGE and asked more sources[3]. Then claimed the source was primary and removed content from articles. ([10];[11]). Again claimedsource doesn't mention what I said. I listed all mentionings.Then KU repeats same arguments and tries to discredit all 8 sources. For example, he claims author has "COI" because he gave an interviewabout political-economical relations, or tries to discredit source because author is founder of AZ-US cultural foundation.
3. Calling well-known scholar "genocide-denier" because he said"I cannot make juridistic assestments" is nonsense.
4. Last message on talk-page was posted by me(23/11/23). After ~month(14/12/23) KU suddenly deletedcontent with 8 sources. Then I restored and talkedabout it.

R2.I support WP:BOOMERANG. KU constantly POV-pushes:

1. redirected article, claiming it was "copy" of another article. In reality, KU deleted well-written and sourced articleand redirected to low-quality article.
2. claimed to be restoring removed citations[12]. In reality, KU removed sourced information about Turkic inhabitants.
3. changed "Claims of violence against Armenians" to "Massacre of Armenians," saying it's massacre as there's confirmation of civilian killed[13]. However, no reliable source supports that. Even UN stated "there's no violence"against civilians.
4. discredits sources[7] he doesn't like as "partisan” and parallelly defends partisan outlets like Armenian Revolutionary Federation

R3.I sincerely apologize for inconvenience I have unintentionally caused. As a newcomer, I made efforts to familiarize with Wikipedia policies, but I now realize–I should be more patient in editing and commenting, and I promise to learn. I must admit, I was confused by double-standards of experienced editors: when I raised concerns about sources, I was reverted[14], and was told sources not listed in WP:RSP are reliable. However, same user reverted my edits on another article, saying sources are unreliable, even though they weren't in WP:RSP.

That's how I realized that KU often knowingly misinterprets information/sources/rules. For example, KU even in AE[10]:

- referenced a dubious sourcewrongly claiming that "children being beheaded," however source states: "five civilians died as a result of shelling".

- says he deleted the article as there was an AFD in 2018. But, KU fails to mention AFD was about one-entry article with no sources, whereas deleted article had 12,000bytes and 9 sources. Why didn’t he merge content to improve Wikipedia, but choose deleting? Just compare before and after.

- says he was reverting edits of banned user. I didn't find policy justifying that. Moreover, his edit comment was, "Restoring removed citations", but now claiming he was reverting.

@Vanamonde93: I would like to let you know that I didn't write that article, but translated. Aredoros87 (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just briefly, re reverting banned user edits, see WP:BANREVERT and WP:BLOCKREVERT. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R4.@Black Kite: I found “Good article” and decided to translate it. I admit, article I translated isn't perfect. I guess I expected that it'll require collaboration to improve, since it was first article I ever translated. I like translating articles and always announce what articles I'm planning to translate[1]. Everyone are welcomed to help me with translation in a friendly and constructive way.

I learned original author is banned here only during AfD, when I tried to invite him for discussions.[2]. Is it prohibited to translate article if author is banned here?

HistoryofIran took article straight to AFD, which was closed with no consensus to delete, but with recommendation to improve it though editing[3]. Immediately after HistoryofIran requested title change and started removing parts of article[4]. While I agree with some of removals, some I don’t really understand. However, when I tried to join the talk[5] , I felt strong tension from the HistoryofIran[6], so I decided to leave it for more experienced editors to deal with. Aredoros87 (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

R5.@Firefangledfeathers@Black Kite@Callanecc Let me explain myself. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I admit I'm not perfect. I sincerely apologize for inconvenience I unintentionally caused and assure you I'm learning from these incidents to avoid repeating them.I have no one to mentor me, my learning process revolves around familiarizing myself with policies and observing the editors I encounter. HistoryofIran, I apologize if I somehow offended you. I didn't mean to, I was simply tying to express how I felt during our interaction. I didn’t mean to WP:PA anyone,and I apologize if I did. I realize that I was genuinely confused, because as new editor I was partially mirroring experienced editors I encounter. It's difficult to explain, but I'll attempt to explain by example: I noticed Beshogur raised WP:NPOV and WP:REDFLAG concerns and reverted edit[1] and then KU reinstated it without engaging in any discussion, but with the addition of new material[2] I now understand this wasn't correct way of editing, and the best course of action is to initiate a discussion and refrain from making edits until consensus is reached. However, at time, I believed it to be the norm. It feels unfair to be indefinitely banned for beginner mistakes I made while just starting to learn or for the flaws in first article I had ever translated. Aredoros87 (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Boomerang, I think it would be appropriate to look into KhndzorUtogh's own recent activity. Today he removed from 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh the information provided by the top international organization, the UN, claiming that the UN info was false, despite no authoritative international organization or other third party source contesting it: [15] [16] Previously, he was among those who objected to inclusion of the same information in the related article of Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. In order to resolve the dispute, I followed the advice of an admin and did an RFC on whether the UN information on violence against civilians during the recent hostilities should be included or not. The overwhelming community consensus was that the UN information should be included, and it was restored to the article. [17] Now KhndzorUtogh removes the same information from another article on the related topic, despite the clear community consensus that this information is relevant to the topic. Do we have to do RFCs on the same topic on every article concerning the same event, or it is enough to form the community consensus once and follow it? Grandmaster 10:14, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the UN mission at the bottom of the article omits any mention of the UN mission report that it "did not come across any reports — either from the local population or from others — of violence against civilians following the latest ceasefire". This is the same situation that led to RFC in the article about the flight of Karabakh Armenians, where the UN mission was mentioned, but the part about civilian casualties was omitted. And 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh and Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians are pretty much the same article split in 2, as one event led to the other. The arguments against inclusion of the UN mission findings about violence against civilians were discussed in much detail during the RFC, and were rejected by the community, but KhndzorUtogh keeps bringing them up again on a related article. Grandmaster 10:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to this diff, when the UNCHR statement was removed with the comment that its place implied a rebuttal of a later statement by another source, I rearranged it chronologically to address the concern, when that was reverted by the same user, I continued discussion at talk. It is also worth mentioning that back in 2021 there was a complaint about KU [18], then a new user, of undoing edits by the same above-mentioned banned user Curious Golden regardless of their merit, and he was advised by the admins against doing that. Grandmaster 23:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers. I only restored the content because the reverting user stated in his edit summary that its place implies that it serves as a rebuttal to the claim by Manasyan, but its date is wrong for it to do so. As one can see my edit summary, I put all the sources in chronological order, added date to UNHCR report, thinking that it would address his concerns. But when the same user removed the content second time, this time saying nothing about placement, but claiming that it was generally "dated" [19], I continued the discussion at talk. The only reason that I restored the UNHCR was that I thought that the objections could be addressed by sorting information according to their dates. I always try to resolve disputes in accordance to the rules, and it was me who started the RFC, and I've been considering another RFC on the same issue, and sought an advice from Callanecc [20]. I was just unsure whether it was worth doing a repeated RFC on the same issue. I think we see stonewalling from KU, because first they argued that the UN was undue, when the community rejected that, he said that the UN was "dated", while there was no information from the UN or any other independent party that would supersede it. When asked which Wikipedia rule requires to use only "up to date" info, KU referred to MOS:DATED [21], which in fact is not a rule, but a guidance on how to format articles, and it says quite the opposite, that the information needs to be dated precisely. A user who's been around for 2 years should be able to understand the rules. Grandmaster 09:25, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I would like to let you know that I didn't write that article, but translated" Didn't wanna take part in this, but I find this somewhat disingenuous and deflecting. No one forced you to translate that mess, which is full of non-WP:RS and misused citations (I had to use 2 ish hours to only somewhat clean it up), not to mention the disconnected info, and bizarre claim of all Turks in that area and period being "Azerbaijani", an ethnonym which was not even present back then. The original article was created by a user who is indeffed in the English Wikipedia [22], and to make it worse, you have openly stated that you're planning to translate more of their messy (essentially WP:POVFORK) articles [23]. This is quite concerning, especially when there are suspicions of you not being new here [24]. Moreover, you were not cooperative in the AFD despite the evidence presented, even making a suggestion seemingly based on the one given by the indeffed user [25], but worse. While they suggested changing it to "Turkic-Mongol cultural relations in the South Caucasus and Iranian Azerbaijan", you suggested it as Turkic-Mongol cultural relations in the Caucasian and Iranian Azerbaijan, despite this clearly contradicting the presented WP:RS (there was no "Caucasian Azerbaijan" at that time). You then amongst other things went on to repeat the same suggestion at Talk:Azerbaijani-Mongolian cultural relations. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you thought you would gain by this, going more after me than addressing the concerns I made. Quoting a 7 year old comment when I was a brat and didn't know better, not to mention casting random accusations, especially when the WP:RS is literally there for you to read [26]; "I'm really struggling to understand why HistoryofIran is so harsh, it feels like he wants to remove that article at any cost. I can only guess that it's something personal,". And you're not really being completely honest here either, I did not merely "remove parts of the article" and the recommendation was not merely "to improve it though editing", the AFD [27], talk page [28] and my edit summaries [29] are there for everyone to see it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't intend to respond here except as a clerk. Aredoros87, you greatly exceeded your word limit, and I have cut your most recent response. You are free to shorten your statement to accommodate further responses—as long as you don't meaningfully change any part that has been responded to—or request a word limit extension. Please assume that you will need space for further replies and trim accordingly. I'm unlikely to accept an extension request until it's clear that responding admins would benefit from further info, but such a request might be granted by someone else. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:48, 22 December 2023 (UTC) striking a bit 23:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• KhndzorUtogh: you are at your word limit. Please do not reply further unless granted an extension. You may want to proactively trim. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Grandmaster: you are at your word limit. Please do not reply further unless granted an extension. You may want to proactively trim. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• A note in case it helps: I'm unlikely to grant word limit extensions at this time. I think the current length is already a barrier in getting admin attention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I granted KU and GM another 200 words each per requests at my user talk and am granting Aredoros87 the same for fairness. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:33, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I said I was just going to clerk, but I forgot I'd reviewed a prior dispute between these two. Might have thoughts later, but I'd prefer to hear from other admins first. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems like there are two issues here:
  1. A87's and KU's conduct at Ruben Darbinyan and its talk page.
  2. A87's and KU's conduct in the wider AA topic area.
• I think there's enough evidence presented—which I haven't reviewed quite enough yet to suggest any action—for responding admins to come to some sort of conclusion for #1, even if that conclusion is inaction. I think it makes sense to start small and go big, so I'd prefer to postpone review of #2 or have it take place in a separate filing. A narrow finding of fact might be useful in processing the wider issue. I'm partially favoring this process option because I, and probably many admins, will be busy with holiday obligations for the next week or so. Any admin that's enthusiastic about a wider and deeper review should go ahead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm grateful for the additional analysis. I'll say that I really did mean for the advice to KU to be a non-warning. I don't think we're quite at "something must be done", but I do agree that some sanctions could help relieve contention in this topic area. I'm pro-IBAN. As I understand the ban, they could still bump into each other, but they'd need to neutrally seek dispute resolution—without comment on the other party—rather than debate 1 on 1 and revert war. A TBAN from just Nagorno-Karabakh wouldn't cover something like the Darbinyan article. How about a shorter AA-wide TBAN? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rather than a TBAN I'd be okay with trying an individual consensus-required type restriction where if their edits in the topic area are reverted they need to establish a consensus for the edit before readding it (with the usual exemptions). Ping Vanamonde93 for your thoughts. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Noting that I've changed my mind from my initial suggestion of a replacement to an IBAN (that is, a ban on reverting each other) as I just noticed above there is still commenting on each other above, rather than the substantative issue, when it's really not required. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • We've got something of a logjam of sanction proposals on the table. I think we're all in agreement that both editors need some sanction. I like Callanecc's most recent proposal, and I would love to see us wrap this up in the next 48 hours or so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• My analysis of the evidence presented above:

• I believe we're in WP:ARBAA3#Administrators encouraged territory so we're at a spot where sanctions are necessary. The goal of this thread will be to determine what those sanctions are.
• Aredoros87 filed an AE request concerning KhndzorUtogh earlier this month. The request was closed on 12 December with advice to both editors. For KhndzorUtogh to follow BRD more closely, check content they're adding to the lead is sourced and include reasons with reverts. A87 was advised to build a stronger case before coming to AE and not to cite consensus where none clearly exists. Given the history between these two editors of not working well together and that they've recently filed requests against each other a mutual interaction been seems a good starting point.
• Re KhndzorUtogh:

• Despite this month's AE thread being closed with advice to them, KhndzorUtogh says above that the the AE thread saw nothing to support any action against them [30] which suggests that they don't feel they need to improve their conduct.
• I find this revert concerning given the reminder about BRD in the previous AE thread and that there was a talk page discussion underway that they had not contributed to and rather than do so first they reverted as the first step.
• At Ramil Safarov, while dismissing a concern A87 had about sources KU added to the article, KU implied that as the sources aren't listed at WP:RSP they are fine to use and reverted A87's removal of them.
• At 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, after the December AE thread was closed KU changed the section heading regarding civilian deaths from "Claims of violence against" to "Massacre of". Around 24 hours later this change was then reverted by A87. Approximately seven days later KU changed it to "Reports of violence against" without noting this in the edit summary. Neither change was discussed on the article talk page.
• At Ruben Darbinyan, KU edit warred rather than allowing discussion to take place without this added conflict. 3 November (then started talk section) 21 November (seven days after last talk page reply) 13 December (three weeks after last talk page reply) instead of only engaging constructively in discussion to come to a resolution. KU's third revert occured after they had not replied on the talk page for three weeks following A87's most recent talk page comment and article edit.

• Re Aredoros87 :

• At Ruben Darbinyan, A87 edit warred rather than allowing discussion to take place without this added conflict. 10 November (5 days after last talk page reply), 23 November 15 December. The last two reverts were following KU returning to the article after a break and reverting.
• A87 engaged in incivil behaviour and made a personal attack towards KU at Talk:Ruben Darbinyan.

Summary: As I said above the starting point for sanctions appears to be a mutual IBAN between A87 and KU. I'm currently considering whether further sanctions are necessary. That might be a crafted revert restriction (BRD with a long timeframe or a paired down version of something like consensus required) or a topic ban. I'm not convinced that this'd work in practice but another option might be that if a source they wish to use is challenged (including reverted) they need to establish a consensus in favour of using it (on the article talk page, RSN, etc) before they can readd it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• After seeing KU's reply I'm more inclined to TBAN than I was before. Their justification that they were quoting from the closure statement of the last AE request is patently false, "closed with no formal action" is not the same as "saw nothing to support any action". If they believe that that is a quote then I have no faith in their ability to assertain information from sources. In the last AE thread they were advised to follow BRD more closely and while KU has provided some examples what I think they've demonstrated is that they were doing it sometimes but not in this instance. For example, KU said that they added the "Massacres of..." section header and so when it was changed by someone else then didn't follow BRD when changing it back.
  I'm also more convinced of the POV editing from A87 and that to counter it required a TBAN, potentially limited to particilar areas around conflict in particular.
  Re Vanamonde93's suggestion of a logged warning, I think in some topic areas, especially where ArbCom has passed an "Administrators encouraged" remedy, we should look to seeing unlogged reminders/advice and logged warnings as effectively equivalent. If advice didn't work we should strongly consider skipping logged warnings in favour of more impactful sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you for organizing this evidence, Callanecc. Regarding your second KU diff, hadn't they responded twice in the talk page discussion before reverting? As I see it, at the moment of their revert, there were two talk page participants in favor of including the UNHCR paragraph and two opposed, and I'm surprised to see that GM restored the content while consensus was so unclear. GM was leaning on an RfC at a different article, with disagreement about its applicability being reasonable. Am I misreading? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, you're correct. I suspect I misread the month of the edit. I've struck it above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a difficult situation, that is in many ways similar to nationalist POV disputes in other contemporary ethno-nationalist conflicts. It's made more difficult by the fact that many sources are not in English, and assessing their quality and partisanship is therefore very challenging.
  I'm seeing sub-par behavior from both editors that smacks of POV intent; reverting while discussion is ongoing, using marginal sources to support a preferred version of content but opposing sources of similar quality elsewhere, using marginal sources to make the most sweeping statements possible, edit-warring slowly instead of discussing (not every behavior is visible for both users). KU is also showing some evidence of stonewalling/filibustering, while I'm more concerned at A87's use of sources (including at this AfD, that isn't mentioned here AFAICS).
  That said, I'm not necessarily seeing a smoking gun here that would justify a draconian sanction (such as a CT-wide TBAN); and I'm not sure what lesser scope I would choose. Callanecc, I'm somewhat opposed to an IBAN. This isn't a particularly wide topic; I find it difficult to believe these two can continue to edit constructively in this topic without running into each other constantly. I would prefer a logged warning about battleground behavior. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Callanecc: I share your concern about KU's response to the previous AE. I remain opposed to an IBAN, but as I said above I would consider a TBAN of limited scope. My hesitation is with finding appropriate scope. In my assessment KU has been more immediately disruptive within the locus of the present-day dispute between the two countries, and A87's behavior is concerning topic-wide, but I would not want to give A87 the wider sanction here. How do you (and Firefangledfeathers feel about a 3-month TBAN from the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict for both parties? That's the best I can come up with at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Callanecc: I'm okay with requiring both these editors to obtain consensus for their edits within this topic. I would like the closing statement also to remind them about battleground conduct, though, because we're entering territory where sanctions for battleground behavior may need to be applied with no further warning (I know we can do that already, technically, but it feels more reasonable to do so after a formal warning). Vanamonde (Talk) 14:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to say that User:HistoryofIran's evidence is concerning. Black Kite (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too. I'm currently considering whether it pushes me over the line to TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed sanctions

I've created this subsection so we can keep track of how we're closing this. I know it's not required but hopefully others find it useful. Admins feel free to add your username or other proposals. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93, Firefangledfeathers, and Black Kite: Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Notes

I've supported an indef TBAN for A87 primarily based on HistoryofIran's evidence and A87's reply. I've gone for the indef as I believe that A87 needs to learn about Wikipedia's norms in other topic areas rather than just needing a break from the topic area and effectively 'waiting out' the TBAN. I'm considering the same for KU but haven't decided yet. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

I'm intending to close with in the next 24 hours with the following sanctions:

Aredoros87

• formal warning re battleground editing and engaging constructively with consensus building
• IBAN from KhndzorUtogh
• indef restriction to obtain consensus whenever their edits are reverted in AA2 topic area
• 3-month TBAN from AA2 topic area.

KhndzorUtogh

• formal warning re battleground editing, edit warring and engaging constructively with consensus building
• IBAN from Aredoros87
• indef restriction to obtain consensus whenever their edits are reverted in AA2 topic area.

@Vanamonde93, Firefangledfeathers, and Black Kite: are you okay with those sanctions? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you for pushing this forward. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with this, and thanks from me too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sounds good, thanks. Black Kite (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appealing user

Iennes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Iennes (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite Topic Ban from ARBPIA

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Notified

No "final warning" message had been sent to me before the call. On December 25, after realizing that the number of Palestinian casualties was obsolete (18,600 instead of 20,000) in the lead of an article, I tried to correct it and soon realized it was impossible to edit in the actual article as some people had decided to create a template [31] to control that information and let it on December 20. So I wrote this message on the talk page to let them know that they not only abused of their editing skill but it was made on purpose to delay any update.[32]. The template was only updated on December 26, this very slow reaction in editing the right number of casualties is not at the level of wiki.[33] I was about to tone down the message the day after but the sanction had already arrived.

One week before on December 14, I wrote messages on this article talk page [34] and then got messages from SFR on my talk page.[35] The reply I had written to SFR on my talk page [36] had been instantly erased a few minutes right after,[37] so it was supposed to not be read anymore and yet SFR dug it the day after [38], to use it in the sanction report. The right to oblivion for a personal message on a personal page exists. it is unfair and unreceivable to mention his reply to this as soon withdrawn message in his present sanction, this is a convenient help to reach the three mistakes.

Directly giving an endless ban sanction is inappropriate, it has to be graduated. I am engaging myself here to comment on content and only on content from now on, and not write comments on users in any case anymore. I didn't disorganize wiki, I edited / added content with good quality sources in those articles.[39] [40]. So I would like to see this sanction reduced.

• note: wp:Good faith I only learnt that it was due to a template the day after when someone explained it on the talk page of the article.[41] Iennes (talk) 06:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either someone is entirely banned of wiki for a certain time, either they are not; or why they are just not allowed to add any comment on a talk page. A refusal of editing (when there was no problem when editing on those articles) goes against freedom of speech. Iennes (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some say wp:notnews ? The fact is that in the present time many people have chosen to learn about this war via wiki, in particular students who do not wish to read and hear talking points from press agents. they want to read all sensibilities, they read less the media with a bias. Death figures are an issue in this war because both sides have been accused of downplaying them. The figure of 20,000 victims reached at Christmas is a figure which has a highly symbolic significance in the collective unconscious. Other users before me also wrote on December 24 that they didn't understand why we couldn't modify the intro from the article, and they couldn't find the way to achieve this either [42]. Iennes (talk) 09:15, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Belato, said Competence is required whereas someone sent me last month The Auckland Museum Wiki-Award for creating an article with the comment Wonderful work!.[43] I didn't write that "readers don't want to read the news", that is distorting my words and twisting my thought, I wrote that the students, "they read less the media with a bias" and want to read all sensibilities and different views, which is what wiki is about, wp:neutral point of view. Neutrality is what I did in all the edits at these articles, these edits were certainly not incompetent but obviously she didn't check out the "neutral point of view" edits I did when enriching the content of those articles. Isabelle Belato you can't send the Competence is required stamp whereas I didn't deteriorate the content of wiki. We are not here to receive a harsh tag. Iennes (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bradv, this comment was an inappropriate over the top message. the sanction must be just for it, the rest of the messages on talk pages were not written that way in that tone. I invite you to also check out the edits I did in the articles and the edit summaries, this proves that I can handle editing there and having a second chance. and I did engage here to only comment about content at the talk pages articles. Iennes (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I agree with Galobtter. Throwing around accusations over something like this doesn't really appear good for you since the sanction was based on WP:BATTLEGROUND. Also since when is making a template a tactic to delay an update to an article? and even so, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. To say a single out of date figure is "not up to the level of wiki" makes no sense to me and to accuse the template creators of deliberately trying to prevent you from making an edit makes me believe the sanction imposed by SFR was warranted especially after browsing through your recent contribution history. Philipnelson99 (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• You know you could've just edited the template at Template:2023 Israel–Hamas war casualties instead of accusing people of censorship? Doubling down on your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in your appeal isn't helping your case. Looking at your overall the editing in the area the number of battlegroundy accusations is enough to make me think this tban is warranted. Galobtter (talk) 06:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• From reading the comments left by Iennes in this appeal alone, I think the topic ban was well-justified. Jumping straight to calling editors "pro israeli" and saying they highjacked the article and are trying to censor it shows a lack of good faith, competence on how templates work and, of course, battleground behavior. This is all compounded by further comments they make here, citing the ban infringes on their freedom of speech and the need to keep the article up to date because readers don't want to read the news. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Complaining about free speech and censorship, while posting comments calling others fxxkng wxxkers axxhxles suggests to me you have neither the experience nor the temperament necessary to edit this highly-contentious topic area. – bradv 16:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would decline the appeal. Frustration is very understandable but contributors need much more composure than shown in the diffs at User talk:Iennes#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction, particularly after a warning. An appeal after six months might succeed if there were an acknowledgment of the problem. Johnuniq (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This editor doesn't yet understand the conduct policies surrounding this incredibly contentious topic, or even conduct policies in general, which isn't surprising since they haven't actually edited much/regularly until a couple of months ago. Iennes, editing in this topic area is not a great idea if you don't understand that there's no requirement for a "final warning", if you don't understand that having a template in place has zero relation to censorship, if you think it's a good idea to argue right here at AE that the template "was made on purpose to delay any update", if you don't understand that indefinite doesn't mean "endless". This is a topic area that has many, many experienced editors with diverse points of view who are working actively, so inexperienced editors aren't really needed, especially if they aren't getting themselves up to speed on all these behavioral policies. Go work somewhere less contentious and learn what you need to know to be able to edit in this kind of area, come back with more experience after a period of productive non-problematic editing, and appeal again. Valereee (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

MarioGom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:31, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Wikieditor19920 (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 and WP:AMPOL2

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

1. 27 August 2023: Seems particularly relevant since the original AMPOL2 ban was triggered by edits related to Andy Ngo [44].
2. 28 October 2023: Clear cut ARBPIA violation.
3. 20 November 2023: Edit about US foreign policy, which violates AMPOL2 topic ban.
4. 20 November 2023: It might not be strictly an ARBPIA violation, but it walks the line if broadly construed. This is particularly concerning since this comes after a warning about ARBPIA which the editor replied to with sarcasm [45], and it does not seem they have any intention to respect any of the topic bans.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 9 December 2020: AMPOL2 topic ban
2. 19 March 2021: ARBPIA topic ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This comes after I checked this edit [46] which I partially reverted [47]. It changed the text to reflect exactly the opposite the cited source claimed. This went undetected for quite some time and it shows the editor still cannot engage in contentious areas.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[48]

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.

Again with a big helping of "FWIW" as in the previous section - ugh, this guy I recall bad interactions with a year or 2 ago. Their editing of late is sporadic, but if all they are going to do is pop in and out every month with a load of buckshot, it may just be time to be escorted off the premises. Zaathras (talk) 14:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, Wikipedia functioning as usual: Self-described "communist" editor picks a few diffs out of context to claim a "topic ban violation." None of these diffs show a topic ban violation, and the reporter admits his report is a stretch. Any edit relating to Iran or Jewish emigration is not ARBPIA. International incidents are not domestic American politics. The insincere bellyaching about a bit of "sarcasm" given the blowhards on here like Nableezy -- see above -- is a joke. Reversion of these edits made the Soleimani article materially worse -- as it stands, it's a propaganda piece disproportionately focused on insignificant biographical details and regurgitating Iranian propaganda sources without context. Not surprising that the user who filed the report took issue with this based on their bio page. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• As a procedural note, the AMPOL TBAN is a community sanction, not an AE one (logged at WP:EDR, not WP:AELOG/2020). However, given the overlap with alleged violations of the AE ARBPIA TBAN, it may be simpler to dispose of both here, so long as any potential sanction under the AMPOL TBAN isn't logged as AE. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 06:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The behavior documented in those diffs is bad. this, in particular, is not just a TBAN violation but a distinctly rude and unconstructive comment that I would consider TBANing someone for. I see at least one previous block for a TBAN violation, and also that Wikieditor has barely edited since the TBANs were imposed. I'm inclined to think it's time for an indefinite block, because a timed block isn't useful when an editor with low activity shows a disinclination to respect their editing restrictions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Well I think that statement makes it clear how this user feels about contributing to a collaborative project. I have blocked indefinitely as a community sanctions enforcement action (left the ARBPIA angle aside to avoid invoking two different appeals regimes). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• And I have removed TPA, as they carried on with it on their talkpage. Black Kite (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 20:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

90 day topic ban

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Notified

I was warned for this response to another editor on 01:22, 25 December 2023, a response that had already been modified prior to any warning for that matter (23:55, 24 December 2023). I was then topic banned with the diffs supporting the ban 12:27, 24 December 2023 (pre warning, though also cautioned about that edit on 13:37, 24 December 2023), this revert and edit summary, apparently for calling the grammar "trash", a response on my talk page about that edit (2023-12-25 22:14:30), and my participation at an AN thread. SFR has said these demonstrate a pattern of battleground editing, but I dont see how. He has also said that The individual interactions are not enough, in and of themselves, to sanction, e.g. your needlessly inflammatory edit summary (which should have been the first diff, not a repeat of the discussion on your talk page) which you tacitly admitted was unduly harsh. The problem is that it has remained a common occurrence after warnings. But the only thing that has been shown post warning is the AN thread and the revert/response on my talk page, all the other diffs pre-date that warning. And regarding the AN thread, in which I said that an editor calling a clearly good faith editor NOTHERE was uncivil and I criticized an editor attempting to overstate the level of consensus for sanctions, my views were basically accepted by an uninvolved admin (here) and another editor was convinced by my argument to adjust their previous position (here). I dont see how politely engaging in the substance of arguments on AN is "battleground mentality". I can admit that the 12:27, 24 December 2023 edit was SOAP in response to SOAP and I need to not do that, but it has not re-occurred since any warning. As far as the edit summary, I was unaware we may not criticize edits. The sentence was in fact poorly written, and I dont think it merits a topic ban to say that in an edit summary. We arent editing a fourth grade play here, this is supposedly an encyclopedia written in English, and criticism of poor English being placed in the leads of highly visible articles is not, in my view, any type of offense at all, much less evidence of "battleground behaviour" that merits a topic ban. SFR's claim that my supposed problematic behavior remained a common occurrence after warnings is unsubstantiated in my view. He has said he cautioned me to stop arguing with Andrevan, but I had no interaction ban and I do not know how to respond to people making arguments that I feel are misrepresenting both the sources and our policies without saying so. But given SFR's own admission that none of the edits merit sanctioning, and the fact that they all, excepting the edit summary calling poor grammar "trash" and the AN thread, pre-date any warning, I dont see how this ban is justified on the merits and I request it be vacated.

There are now several more diffs supposedly substantiating "veiled or not so veiled commentary on other editors' motives". Makes no mention of any motives, is a response to somebody citing NOTNEWS in a deletion discussion, which applies to routine announcements, is a remark on the systemic bias of covering all acts of Palestinian violence while not covering Israeli violence, is another remark on the systemic bias of requiring murder convictions to call the purposeful killing of a human a murder when the circumstances dictate that will never happen. None of those are about another editors motives. The last diff was a result of my misreading the prior comment, I read it as claiming that the IDF had not killed these three people, and I apologized immediately upon recognizing my error. And none of those demonstrate any ongoing issue post warning, being that they all came prior to the warning. Also, I dont think its really fair to after imposing a ban and having it appealed to then tack on other supposed issues. I would have addressed those in my initial statement if I had been aware they were considered in the original ban. nableezy - 21:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can only answer for the diffs I’ve been given and I don’t think you have substantiated any disruptive pattern, and certainly not after your warning. nableezy - 22:42, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would also request topic ban violations be enforced here. nableezy - 23:02, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SFR no it’s an indication that I misread and that when I realized my error I recognized my mistake. We don’t typically hold against editors mistakes they make that they sincerely apologize for, without prompting by an admin I’d add. nableezy - 23:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is anything in the involved editor section that needs to be responded to please let me know, and editors should know well enough to know when they are involved or uninvolved. But I have absolutely substantiated each of my claims about other edits that are being raised here. nableezy - 16:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Galobtter I agree that Ive been more frustrated and harsher than I should be, and I have been trying to moderate that, and I agree with Harry's advice, and hell I agree with SFR's advice too. I understand the cause of the ban, but I dont think that if a warning is given for past behavior and I havent done anything since that warning to indicate that I am continuing with that behavior that a ban is merited. I was warned on December 25th and banned on December 26th. I cannot see how any of my contributions in those intervening 39 hours were indicative of a battleground mentality or poor civility or really anything else to object to. I am trying to rein in my frustration here. But for the record, I called the grammar of that edit trash. The reason I removed it instead of fixing the grammar though was that it was the subject of an ongoing RFC. And I dont know why calling poor grammar poor is a problem for an English encyclopedia editor. But I *did* recognize that it was harsh, my response to Elad on my talk page was Which part? The grammar is garbage part? Sorry, Ill try to be less harsh, but Elad you are editing the lead of an English language encyclopedia article. You have to do it with better English. If you cant then suggest an edit on the talk page and let somebody with better command of English grammar make the edit. Do I think that a harsh edit summary merits a sanction? No, especially when it, even if harsh, is true. nableezy - 17:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I will add to the chorus of praise for SFR for trying to, mostly single-handedly, manage a conflagration that is approaching Chicago in 1871 in size and intensity. And I hope he continues to do what he can, and even better that others join him. nableezy - 19:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, gaslighting was in reference to sources like UN Watch, not about editors. nableezy - 20:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle, I have tried to lower the temperature, and I will continue to do so. I will redouble my efforts to not respond to soapboxing with soapboxing. But, besides for an edit summary that I already recognized as harsh, I dont know what I could have done after being warned to avoid a topic ban here. nableezy - 03:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, I’ve responded to most of these diffs already, including the Samer Abu Daqqa AFD, and for the most part I disagree with your characterization of them, but even accepting them I had indeed moderated my tone since your warning, making the escalation to topic ban a day and change later something that seems like I couldn’t avoid. Though your raising the AN thread again seems like it’s the actual trigger. That there being back and forth is a cause for a topic ban. But there is nothing in my three comments in that diff that are a. Uncivil, b. Battlegrounding, or c. Inaccurate or otherwise wrongly stated. People are allowed to disagree with each other here. You’re ignoring the substance of the comments, where one is making clearly specious claims and one (raises hand) is responding to those specious claims. And, again, my comments in that AN thread were agreed to by others and had others change their minds because of them. That isn’t disruptive, that’s constructive. nableezy - 07:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now I’m just lost here, you’re taking diffs of a response to an RFC prompt of We need a whole bunch more eyes on this article, its framing, and its intervention in other Wikipedia articles on this topic if any of y'all have better blood pressure medicine or deeper knowledge of this topic than I do. It may be fine that the current lede of settler colonialism involves accusations of genocide or that this title is completely differently formatted for every other section link coming off of settler colonialism. I really don't know and I do appreciate that the current editors on this new page have been formatting well and finding sources to build their page. An intro "graph" of exactly 4 data points seems like an excellent example of how lazy and partisan "sources" on this topic can be, however, and I'd be much more comfortable with wider community involvement from both sides plus plenty of neutrals with me questioning if a person who admittedly has no idea what the sources say but is still sure that the article is wrong. You have completely turned the purpose of this place upside down with the claims that these diffs are battlegrounding and not just asking people to abide by our editing policies. If you’re going to post diffs from going on 19 months or something then I really don’t know how I am even supposed to begin to respond. It’s as if throwing a pile of shit against the wall with the hope something sticks is how this is going. People aren’t supposed to edit based on feeling and intuition but on sources, and calling that out isn’t battlegrounding, it’s editing in support of our most core policy. nableezy - 15:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the no carve out for Davidbena's mentorship is what drove me to appeal, so I’m fine with that modification, and I would make that commitment with or without the topic ban. nableezy - 00:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, I sanctioned you for a pattern of editing which I believe I explained at your talk page where I said The issue is with the consistent pattern of your editing, rather than any single specific diff. I included the diffs to show some recent behavior, but there have been dozens of instances of your behavior demonstrating a battleground mentality, an inability to keep calm in the topic area, and lashing out at other editors. and I didn't topic ban you for a single edit summary, I topic banned you for a pattern of behavior. A pattern of behavior is more than four diffs, and the pattern goes back for weeks, before and after the numerous warnings I gave. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, you did apologize for [59], as I noted, but your first response demonstrates how you've been reacting to other editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already nearly at, or past, 500 words so I'll try to keep this short. I don't believe the four warnings I gave each provided a blanket pardon for any prior misbehavior across the topic. I gave warnings for behavior I saw as it happened, but the topic ban was based on the totality of the discussions I reviewed.

Several editors have provided more diffs, and one has said that Nableezy's behavior convinced me not to edit the most contentious pages in this subject area. That I warned for other disruptive editing does not make the other behavior no longer disruptive. Except for the indef topic ban of Iennes all of the topic bans were based on the same long-term consideration.

If consideration of long-term patterns of editing isn't the place of an admin patrolling a CTOP, that's fine and I'll keep that in mind for the future. However, I see the point of CTOP designation is to allow uninvolved admins to step in to stop disruption that is demonstrably preventing other editors from even taking part. I'm now way over 500 words so I'll leave this to others unless any of the considering admins have have any questions or require clarification. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I said I was done, but I guess wasn't. Sorry for going over my word limit. Perhaps the evidence will be a little more cohesive in one timeline. This is the two weeks leading up to the topic ban comprised mostly of diffs in this appeal, in the warnings, and in the topic ban notice.

• Dec 12 Guess it was the right amount of weight when it pushed the lie hundreds of Hamas militants have surrendered to Israel ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• Dec 14 I dont hold hypocritical opposing viewpoints on other accusations that sources attribute however. Thats the difference between us.
• Dec 16 Warning
• Dec 17 Self reverted. Tell Andres I said hi next time he emails you asking for an edit with a premade edit summary for you to copy.
• Dec 17 Warning
• Dec 17 Yes that’s why we have articles for individual hostages, for individual shooting attacks by Palestinians, for basically any act of violence by a Palestinian. Widely covered acts by Israel that are credibly called war crimes however is where we draw the line apparently.
• Dec 19 It would be Killing of Samer Abu Daqqa as he was killed by an Israeli drone attack and did not die peacefully in his sleep. In a normal world it would be Murder of Samer Abu Daqqa but for some reason we need an Israeli court to convict an Israeli soldier of murder to call it that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
• Dec 20 ...I understand the emotions that can sometimes make good editors make bad statements. But you can’t just be an ass to people because you disagree with them, or you can but eventually somebody is going to get fed up enough to ask that you be made to stop.
• Dec 21 that strikes me as the most baldly untrue assertion I’ve seen made on Wikipedia in years. Apologized for misreading, but clear assumption of bad faith, which had happened before
• Dec 22 Yes a reporter being killed by a drone attack is routine, a referral to the international criminal court is routine, accusations of war crimes are routine. Silly me.
• Dec 24 That is an absurd claim to make, Scahill was wrong about tunnels that the IDF supposedly discovered after his column lol.
• Dec 24 Oh, thanks for that bit of wisdom then.
• Dec 24 Warning
• Dec 24 1500 word personalized back and forth with Andrevan, specifically warned about at AE on Dec 16. This series wasn't already in evidence, but was part of the impetus for the next warning. The next diff was part of this exchange.
• Dec 24 Im sorry, but youre just making things up.
• Dec 25 Warning
• Dec 25 More arguing with Andrevan about a NOTHERE block that would clearly never happen
• Dec 25 the grammar is trash

Again, I did not topic ban for the 28 edits edits after the last warning, I topic banned for an ongoing pattern of behavior that continued after several warnings. I even tried the dude shut up method that had been suggested to me in the past before sanctioning, which was ineffective at preventing more BATTLEGROUND arguing. There are two editors here that have reduced or stopped their participation in the topic area due to this battleground behavior. I'd also like to draw attention to the bolded diff, outlining exactly the reasoning behind the topic ban which they explained to another editor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 05:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, I highlighted it because it is the exact situation that led to my placing the topic ban. Nableezy is a good editor making bad statements, and they can't be an ass to people just because they disagree with someone. In this circumstance Nableezy was made to stop. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 06:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I was investigating the conflict brought up by Kire1975, I started looking into the contribution histories of the editors involved at those threads, which led me to IOHANNVSVERVS's contributions, which led me to Talk:Zionism as settler colonialism. I then started reviewing the discussions. These diffs are from May 2022.

• and I still believe that the answer to the problems I see in this topic area are to get more and more people to look at those sources and policies so that those editing with less noble intentions arent able to force their preferred versions in through sheer force of will and obstruction/filibustering.
• And if you dont want me to remark about the clear effort of editors who lack even a basic minimal understanding of the topic demanding their unsourced and often propagandistic talking points be prominently reflected and their ignorance be treated as having greater standing than actual scholarsip, kindly keep your musings about "pov-pushing movement" to yourself.
• Do you have any familiarity with the scholarship? Or does material that is widely covered in reliable sources need to take into account your feelings here?
• An intro "graph" of exactly 4 data points seems like an excellent example of how lazy and partisan "sources" on this topic can be "seems like an excellent example" of an editor digging their heels into a topic they have no understanding of, and then being upset that their misunderstanding is not coddled.

It was through reviewing talk pages like this and reviewing recent edits that I came to my conclusion about the long term pattern of battleground editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, I was probably not as clear as I should have been, and I'm not intending to add more evidence. I'm trying to illustrate how I read a lot of your edits that had taken place over a long period of time. I wasn't just reviewing recent edits, and you've made a lot of comments in a lot of discussions in the topic area, so I read a lot of them while reviewing discussions. I brought this up because it just happened again while looking into the complaints against Homerethegreat. I had not seen those particular diffs when considering sanctions against you.

Sluzzelin, The WP:BATTLEGROUND policy says Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. If necessary, point out gently that you think the comments might be considered uncivil, and make it clear that you want to move on and focus on the content issue. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others. and the enforcement procedure at WP:CTOP says Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guidelines; follow editorial and behavioural best practice. It's not should, it is must. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading and taking on board the responses of the administrators below, and in the interest of wrapping this up, I'll propose a compromise. I'll cut the duration of the topic ban to 30 days, with a carve out for Nableezy to continue to assist Davidbena with their topic ban, with an assurance from Nableezy that they will moderate their tone and bring concerns about editor behavior to an uninvolved administrator or AE rather than engaging over behavior on talk pages.

I think that's a fair compromise accounting for the administrator responses. If Nableezy agrees I'll implement the change, otherwise I'll leave it up to the admins responding. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Nableezy's agreement, I've modified the topic ban [60]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally edit on popular culture nowadays. I started editing I/P about two weeks ago and found the atmosphere to be poisonous. I commend ScottishFinnishRadish for doing the hard work required to improve civility on that page.

When I began editing 2023 Israel-Hamas War, I made this comment on the talk page concerning an overlong paragraph: Perhaps what is being conveyed here can be described succinctly rather than reeling off what one media outlet after another said on this subject. The paragraph in question is overlong and disproportionate weight.

Nableezy responded [61]. Guess it was the right amount of weight when it pushed the lie hundreds of Hamas militants have surrendered to Israel ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. II was new to the page, had never interacted with this editor before. I had never edited that paragraph before. I had never "pushed the lie" to which he referred. This was not "exasperation." He was questioning my motives.

Nor was it an expression of "exasperation" when he accused me of being a hypocrite. Such personal attacks are no longer prevalent on that talk page entirely due to ScottishFinnishRadish and him alone. Coretheapple (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that I have not directly addressed the topic ban. I agree with it. I believe that three months is not excessive and that a permanent Tban would not be unreasonable. The following statement appears on his user page as a userbox.

This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties, but due to an alleged consensus he is disallowed from naming particular individuals or groups which certain administrators find to be unacceptable.

He also has a section on his user page called "Trip down memory lane," which further speaks to the battlefield behavior noted in the diffs. Coretheapple (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re the points raised by Novem Linguae and SFR, I wanted to clarify one point. If you check my contribs you can see that I have largely gone back to popular culture in the hope that things will cool off a bit, and they have not. The I/P subject area is pretty much hopeless in my view. It is not unusual, for instance, for editors to refer to Israel as the "Zionist entity" in talk page discussions, which is the kind of thing that poisons the atmosphere as well as potentially bringing the project into disrepute if not curbed. SFR's tough enforcement of civility (and he has addressed the "Zionist entity" issue) should be supported and not undermined if WP:NPA is to be more than a rumor in I/P. Coretheapple (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I begun interacting with Nableezy I've felt a lack of understanding and respect and at times what has felt very clearly as complete lack of civility. Nableezy accused me of tag teaming [[62]] without presenting evidence. I once wrote to Nableezy stating that I thought he/she/they had done a false edit summary and Nableezy responded with what really felt like a series of personal attacks [[63]]. Nableezy said the following:

 "You have, consistently across a range of pages, attempted to skew the leads of articles by adding whatever bullshit you can Google up and stuff it in to the lead without a thought as to weight or how poorly you make the lead read. "

He also said this:

 " your complaint here is as low quality as most of your edits. "

Nableezy's inability to explain without using derogative terms and his negative style alarmed me.

In another edit the user said the following[[64]]:

 "...Both are accused of ongoing war crimes whereas France and those other countries you keep pretending like this compares to is not. Sorry, but no I do not need to accept your chosen framing in which you can fill the lead of Hamas with all sorts of hysteria..."

From this and other edits arouse the feeling of the inability for I and other users that do not think the same as Nableezy to cooperate since Nableezy's communications were negative in their style and tone were derogatory.

I have also seen Nableezy react in a way that can be insulting and also shows behavior that seems unaccepting and seems to show a mentality that does not accept cooperating with users that think differently (in his responses to BilledMammal)[[65]].

 "So you’re saying the UN secretary general said there is no bias? Cool cool. The section you linked to is filled with garbage sources like UN Watch, and you want to pretend like it should be treated as objective fact. Again, gaslighting, the abuser claims to be the victim to make you disbelieve anything said against them. Next you’ll tell me Btselem is antisemitic too."

 "The only people claiming a bias against Israel are highly partisan sources. It is gaslighting, an attempt to shield criticism by claiming to be the victim"

I've also seen Nableezy interact with other users in a way which is at minimum disrespectful.

Overall from very early on I have felt insulted and attacked by Nableezy at times resulting in a personal attack on me as a person. Over time this behavior seems to have worsened. There's no doubt Nableezy is a significant contributor to Wikipedia and has spent extraordinary amounts of time working on the encyclopedia. Perhaps it is really best for a 3 month cooling period so that the user can contribute with freshened mentality and politeness. Homerethegreat (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have known Nableezy for several years now. There is no doubt that this is an editor who invested a lot of effort and time in Wikipedia and has good contributions, but I also saw that this is a person who knows how to get stressed and behave aggressively towards other editors. I think his assault on Dovidroth was really the straw that broke the camel's back. I have also seen the attacks on Homerethegreat and BilledMammal and I think this is also very, very problematic behavior and not what I would expect from other editors. I'm sorry that such a long-time editor behaves like this. I hope that a certain period of editing on other topics will help him calm down and also remember that in the end, real life is just as beautiful as Wikipedia. Eladkarmel (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is evidence of tag teaming, edit warring, WP:HOSTAGE taking and WP:SEALIONING by Homerethegreat. There are already two discussions about this subject open on the ANI noticeboard here and the NPOV noticeboard here. Kire1975 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who is not upset by the current war in the Middle East has a heart of stone. It is simply not humanly possible to cover it on wikipedia without a lot of argument, pushing of competing narratives, and occasional incivility. Instead of punishing editors who use a rude word now and then, we should acknowledge editors who honestly strive to maintain a high article standard. Nableezy is one of the leading lights in that respect, in line with his long eminent career here. Concerning his recent behavior, I refer to Levivich's answer with which I concur: between the warning and the TBAN, Nableezy's behavior was exemplary and there was no cause to escalate the warning to a TBAN. Zero^talk 02:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish chose to highlight a Dec 20 exchange by bolding it. Actually, this example shows Nableezy being collegiate. Arminden is an excellent editor and both Nableezy and I have a lot of respect for his work here. I believe that respect is mutual. So when Arminden steps out of line, we don't rush to a noticeboard to get him banned, but instead we rush to his talk page to ask him to cool it. You can see from Nableezy's final "Take care" that his words are intended as friendly advice, tough love if you will. Nableezy and Arminden are not editing opponents except in rare moments. I also thought that Arminden needed strong advice just then, and my own admonition less than an hour later is here. Arminden's response to the advice is here. Zero^talk 06:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: We shouldn't tell our friends to stop being an ass when they are being an ass, on their personal talk pages? I find your opinion incomprehensible. In this example, Nableezy was helping Arminden, not being an ass to him. Zero^talk 08:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to stay out of these "trials by Wiki", even my own, and don't understand the lingo and system. I hope my entry is read, and not just as a reply to Zero: I'm hanging it in here because I fully agree with Zero. Don't know what block you're about to slap on Nableezy, but I don't think it would be productive. I appreciate his civility, especially as I'm considering myself to be someone who, like Nableezy, is trying to be rational & balanced on the I/P conflict (and escape it whenever possible). Still, I end up being more benevolent towards the concept of Israel and more critical of incessant pro-Palestinian Wiki activism than others (w/o any sympathy for Israeli one either), so often not on the same side as Nableezy. I'd much rather have him around than miss him. Read the last bit and toss the rest. Arminden (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't wish to speak/act like an administrator here, but I do have two cents' worth. First, I understand SFR's verdict, but second, I believe that Nableezy was by no means the worst in these exchanges, and their tone was more of exasperation than of a battleground mentality. Both sides were not totally equal here, and I think the project would benefit from having Nableezy back in the game. It would be very nice if we had more uninvolved editors and admins active in these areas who could speak words of warning before things get out of hand between editors. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. “pattern of editing”. It’s one of those amorphous, ethereal, vague pretexts that are actually an admission of “I don’t really have any real diffs but I need to manufacture a reason here”. Especially when the diffs that are provided are such weak milquetoast as this. Some people see patterns - dragons, turtles, Jesus himself - in the clouds, others just see white fluff. Usually the “white fluff” people are right.

The above applies to not just Nableezy but a few others that caught a sanction here. All of these, with one possible exception, should be rescinded. Volunteer Marek 23:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't word it the way Volunteer Marek did, and I don't think ScottishFinnishRadish is seeing Jesus in the clouds ... yet I agree with Volunteer Marek that these topic bans should be rescinded. Everyone's exasperated regarding the war, and it's impossible not to feel exasperated when reading the talk pages of most articles about the war. These are editors, however, who do try very hard to follow reliable sources, policies, and to avoid personalizing their comments or making forum-type contributions. I think en.wp needs to endure the possibility of occasional over-the-top escalations in this heated area, and manage them case by case. I certainly find the duration of the topic bans far too long. In my view, there also appears to be an intention of even-handedness in the making of these bans, and therefore I ask for all of them to be cancelled. Peace. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see battleground behavior in the old diffs added by ScottishFinnishRadish at 15:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC). As mentioned somewhere above, there is a tone of exasperation, and context allows this exasperation to become relatable (to me), but battleground behavior? ---Sluzzelin talk 15:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ScottishFinnishRadish, for your reply. I cannot fault your logic (nor do I ever find digs at other editors helpful, for the record). Having neglected to read policy recently (or closely), I guess I associate(d) "battleground behaviour" with where and how you enter a discussion too, which, I guess, implies attitude and intent, which, in turn, is not necessarily part of "behavior". I still don't think Nableezy's behavior warrants this topic ban, however, and this also has to do with having seen him reach out to editors he's in disagreement with, trying to find workable solutions, and also expressing empathy. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AMPOL is a picnic on a perfect, spring day compared to A-I. Nableezy has 52,000 edits, many in CTOP areas, without a block in a dozen years. It’s difficult to see a recurring pattern here. The constant influx of POV editors, many SPA, in the most C of CTOPs is going to result in moments of exasperation. From a purely technical POV, I don’t think SFR was out of line and I am delighted that some admins spend some time where angels fear to tread. But Nableezy is not the cause of the problems in A-I and his presence is valuable in keeping these articles within the boundaries of Wikipedia guidelines. This will always ruffle feathers as many editors in such topics put their personal beliefs over our guidelines. Nableezy’s responses here may sound defensive and defensive sounding appeals don’t go over well on this page. But I would sound defensive in this case also. In my mind, the best result is quick termination of the sanction. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the religious aspect, the likely difference between discussions in AMPOL and A-I is that people are dying on a daily basis, right now. Possibly hourly if you count deaths from injuries, illness, and starvation. Far higher rate than the barbaric war in Ukraine. In that atmosphere of immediacy, statements that may normally seem appropriate may appear as insensitive and draw intemperate responses. This is more likely to happen to someone who makes a large numbers of edits, some repetitive, like Homerethegreat’s 408 mainspace and 436 talk page edits related to this subject. To some extent we will have to live with this if we are to support current events articles. Perhaps it would be better if we handed out more 48 hour TBans and fewer 90 day TBans. Of course the number 48 could grow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mistamystery: what does this have to do with Nableezy? Homerethegreat and you have edited the same 38 pages in the last 49 days related to Israel, largely being in agreement. Nableezy also edited 30 of those pages. I presume that's the perceived connection and the suggestion of tag teaming. Just what I've noticed. I have no opinion on any possible wrongdoing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mistamystery: Homerethegreat may be editing what he wishes, but taking a quick look myself just now at his edit history, it doesn't appear I have edited (short of a single vandalism revert) a single page this he has touched in a month, if not longer. Unless I'm mistaken, see:[66]. Again, I make no claim of wrongdoing. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mistamystery:

• I made no profoundly misleading assertion and highly distorted take.
• I made no accusation of tag teaming. My brief addition was simply to answer the questions on what this has to do with Nableezy and why tag teaming was presumed.
• The retaliatory Editor Interaction Analyser report you posted goes back years over numerous subjects. I have edited 1,549 pages and Nableezy 6,433 pages. It is hardly surprising that 93 are in common. Even the three minute gap included was three years ago and we were both removing separate vandalism edits.
• Removing text in an edit after it has received a response, pertinent to the response, is not kosher. One can strike text or add a follow up.
• Your edits must remain in your own section on this page.
• Before someone at a higher paygrade than I tells you; you might want to tone it down here and WP:AGF. And let us stop taking up admin time. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy is a reasonable contributor capable of admitting their mistakes, even though my interactions with him were unpleasant [67]. I should admit such interactions convinced me not to edit the most contentious pages in this subject area, such as 2023 Israel–Hamas war. My very best wishes (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Nableezy a "net positive" in this subject area? I would say "yes", even though he is strongly "pro-Palestine". Does he always interact with others in polite and collegial matter? No, but everyone who wants to edit in this subject area should develop a very thick skin. My very best wishes (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking directly on the action by ScottishFinnishRadish... Nableezy had previous sanctions, specifically in this subject area, and he was bringing many other contributors to WP:AE very recently. Therefore, I believe that no any warnings was required in this case, and whatever Nableezy did before the warning does count (I think the argument by Levivich below was unconvincing). Based on that, issuing the sanction by ScottishFinnishRadish was within his/her discretion and not unreasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on the latest diffs brought by ScottishFinnishRadish, they are typical examples of someone commenting on other contributors, rather than on content, at the article talk page. Even if an RfC was not properly framed (this is happening very often), one should simply ignore it or explain how it should be properly framed. My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on the content, I think our page 2023 Israel–Hamas war could be improved. Consider the lead. The lead does not say in the first paragraph about the atrocities by Hamas that served as the casus belli for the war; it frames this as merely a "surprise attack". It does not say in the first paragraph the stated goals by Israel for the war (they appear only in the end of 3rd paragraph), but instead describes the Israel actions as a "retaliation". I tried to fix some of such issues, but decided not to edit this page after having a couple of unpleasant discussions with Nableezy [68], [69]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• 01:22, 25 December 2023 warning
• 16:17, 26 December 2023 TBAN
• The 28 edits Nableezy made in between

I read all 28, and 27 of them are 100% unproblematic in my view. The only one that is a little bit problematic is this edit summary, which in full is: there is an ongoing rfc about this, and youre putting contested claims in the narrative voice and the grammar is trash. Arguably, "grammar is trash" is not as nice as we want people to be. I'd suggest euphemisms, such as poor instead of trash, e.g.: poor grammar, poor edits, those poor editors, Levivich is a poor person.

The TBAN notification (linked above) cited three post-warning edits: 22:14, 25 December 2023 (in which Nableezy apologizes for the "grammar is trash" comment Sorry, Ill try to be less harsh ...), 22:18, 25 December 2023, and 22:24, December 25, 2023; I don't see a problem with any of these three edits, and one of them shows Nableezy rectifying the only one edit out of the 28 that I think is not 100% unproblematic.

I do not see any grounds for a TBAN in these 28 post-warning edits. If anything, the edits show that Nableezy heeded the warning; the one time he said something slightly unkind, he later apologized for it. The other 27 edits are Nableezy civilly and productively discussing content and policy issues in this topic area. I would go so far as to say that 27 out of the 28 edits show model behavior. The warning worked, so the TBAN is unnecessary to prevent disruption, and not having Nableezy edit in the topic area will make the topic area worse, not better. The TBAN should be overturned. Levivich (talk) 18:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, FWIW I think you misunderstood the "dude chill" thing: it's either a "dude chill" or it's a warning, but it can't be both by definition. I see "dude chill" comments in your recent list of diffs, and the only warning is the last one (the one that says "this is now a warning," which I read to mean it was your first warning). But now you're characterizing earlier dude chill comments as repeated warnings. Not every expression that someone is doing something you don't like constitutes a "warning." For example, "knock it off" is not a warning, it's a "dude chill." I see a significant lack of diffs after the clear warning (the last one). "Grammar is trash" is just not that bad, it was apologized for, and it's one edit out of 28. One apologized-for comment post-warning is not so disruptive to require a TBAN. It doesn't show the continuation of a pattern, but a change in the pattern. (Really, none of these diffs are that bad, and none involve misrepresenting sources or making stuff up, which is far worse than calling people out for misrepresenting sources or making stuff up.) I am rather shocked that you look at the AN thread and you see a bilateral problem and not a unilateral one. "People arguing" isn't something that needs to be stopped, and it's an unrealistic and impossible expectation. If one person is making stuff up and another person calls them out for it, TBANing them both for arguing is counterproductive. (And that drives away editors, too, y'know...) Levivich (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - what does this have to do with Nableezy? I see that you yourself initiated one of the discussions you link to above. It appears you are only commenting on this page because @Homerethegreat commented here and you followed his edits - not because of the arbitration action at hand. Please take care not to engage in actions that may be perceived as WP:HOUNDING, WP:CANVASS, and WP:INAPPNOTE.

Unless you have edits to make to your comment that are directly in regard to nableezy's appeal (or any of the other editors involved in the recent topic ban - of which the user you are referring to is not one of them), I respectfully recommend striking through or removing your above comment. Mistamystery (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow @Objective3000. If that's not a profoundly misleading assertion and highly distorted take on edit history. Homerethegreat may be editing what he wishes, but taking a quick look myself just now at his edit history, it doesn't remotely appear that I have touched any pages this user has been editing in any capacity or tempo that would give this impression - during the period of time you mention, if not longer. It's beyond a reach to imply otherwise. (and even a cursory review of the distance of time between edits using the edit comparison tool you cite also proves my point)

We're all in the same community working on the same pages and topics. I run into nableezy all the time (or more specifically, he more often runs into me). I do not take kindly to such an assertion (as much as you would like to say you "have no opinion", the sheer posting of such the above posits otherwise).

I stand firmly on my comment below. I simply came here to check in on the status of the Nableezy conversation, only to find an outside user clearly canvassing regarding accusations related to an uninvolved editor being made on two separate noticeboards, initiated by two separate users who were egging each other on on one of the boards - showing (what is likely) clear evidence of tagteaming against the user. So I called it out, plain and simple. Mistamystery (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised my reply below to better reflect a more thorough review of edit histories.

Invoking this tool does not prove any effective point except my own. To use the word "tag teaming" in a post that includes me, when citing a tool that shows clearly that more than 50% of edit crossover had at least a day's gap, with 17 of the edits cited happening more than a *week* apart reveals nothing more than general (and usual) activity by engaged users in a dynamic topic area filled with similar users doing just the same. This makes no further point than my initial reply - this is very much overreach. Mistamystery (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison: link

I not only make no claim of wrongdoing, I never in a million years would take edit comparisons such as these and even remotely invoke language so as to imply there is malfeasance or collusion at hand (despite the fact that, in this case, there are actually *more* instances of follow-up edits in less than a day's time than the initial link provided)

Let's please keep our heads above the water and get back to the task at hand. Mistamystery (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000 just making sure - is it clear that initial tag-teaming accusation I was referring to was an off page matter, that a user was dragging (inappropriately, I believed) onto this page?

For clarity, I'm referring to activity on these two pages being undertaken by two separate editors Here, and here.

It has nothing to do with this page at all, or nableezy, or any prior tag-teaming accusation involving any of the editors currently under sanction of discussion. Unless it was unintentional (or out of confusion as to what I was referring to) to use the word tag teaming and then mention my own edit history when I was not the target of any tag teaming accusations was neither kind nor appropriate. Mistamystery (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctioning Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 90 days for such trivial matters at a time when there's an ongoing Israel-Hamas war will do more damage to Wikipedia than good. Nableezy has been contributing to Israel-Hamas related articles in Wikipedia for years and is therefore one of the more knowledgeable editors with regard to Israel-Hamas related articles in Wikipedia, and he's also well-versed with regard to Wikipedia rules and policies. 2023 Israel–Hamas war is an ongoing war and as such the article is evolving very fast. There are a bunch of pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli editors trying to add content that do not comply with Wikipedia rules. As evident from the Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war, Nableezy has been one of the few editors who has been trying hard to keep the article balanced, neutral as well as in compliance with the Wikipedia policies. His absence from the currently fast-evolving 2023 Israel–Hamas war article and other related articles for 90 days will do way more damage to Wikipedia than good. Thank you and best regards.Crampcomes (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This sanction is unfortunate - because in general I feel like Nableezy is one of the editors in the area to most often to bring good sources to the table and make policy based arguments. But there are also a lot of hostile comments lately, so I understand why SFR imposed the topic ban. I'm open to shortening the topic ban or lifting it, but I'm concerned by the lack of recognition of Nableezy of any problems in their comments and editing (and e.g. even doubling down on the calling an edit "trash" comment). I think if Nableezy can take HJ Mitchell's advice in this comment that'd be good. Galobtter (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm happy with the reduction. I think that's a reasonable outcome here. Galobtter (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I really don't see why it's ever necessary to call someone's work "trash". Even if the edit was made in bad faith there are still better ways of phrasing criticism. That said, Nableezy has attempted to heal the hurt feelings, which should be taken into account here. I agree with the above comments that Nableezy is one of the more reasonable editors in this topic area, and removing them entirely would have a negative effect on content. But we do need Nableezy, and all the other good-faith editors, to do their part to lower the temperature whenever possible. It is also clear that we need more uninvolved editors and admins in this topic area. SFR has been doing incredible work, often alone, and I admire their patience and fortitude. I can certainly understand why they issued this sanction, but I would also like to see if repealed. – bradv 18:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• While I might not have issued the exact lengths of this TB, I am not going to second guess the admin who is striving to enforce some semblance of proper behavior. I do understand that passions are running high in the topic area and I understand why, but that doesn't mean that we should let things get worse in the editing area. Thank you to SFR for being willing to step in and I don't see a need to overturn the TB. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I see multiple diffs of an abrasive tone being used by this editor. It is not very collegial to communicate using words such as "trash", "garbage", "gaslighting", and "bullshit". This kind of tone is probably intended to drive "bad" editors away, but probably also drives good editors away, and is probably the kind of thing SFR is trying to fix in this topic area. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: "gaslighting". Sure, it was about a source rather than an editor, but it may still be a good idea to avoid it. Certain words raise the temperature. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Volunteer Marek: Please be mindful that decorum is one of the expectations in pages such as AE. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To comment on the issue at hand, I agree with others who said above that Nableezy is a net positive to the project and to the contentious topic areas they edit. This does not give them carte blanche to be belligerent towards other editors, raising the temperature of an already hot topic and creating an unwelcoming ambient for new editors. While I think the tban was justified, I wouldn't mind reducing its length if Nableezy can show they understand their behavior was not up to the standards we expect from editors in contentious topics. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:22, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Isabelle Belato, I think you are missing a "not". – bradv 03:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, it's been fixed. Not by me, though, which left me very confused for a while. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mistamystery and Objective3000: Unless you two can show the importance of Homerethegreat to this discussion, I'll ask that you stop replying to each other as completely off-topic. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Levivich's evidence, I'm unconvinced this is a suitable TBAN. I completely understand why SFR did it, and I think the rest of their actions are correct, but not this one. Black Kite (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Black Kite. Per Nableezy's explanations and Levivich's analysis I think this one at least can be lifted. The topic bans were issued together but each needs to stand on their own merits. The others have a stronger diff basis and should stay. And regardless of this appeal outcome, thanks to SFR for wading in help preserve the editing environment in this very difficult topic area. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SFR's modifications to topic ban (reduced to 30 days with carve-out for Davidbena mentoring) seem a reasonable outcome. Support closing this as resolved. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree with Black Kite. I had been waiting to see if anyone disputed Levivich's evidence but, as expected, that has not happened. Likewise, thanks to SFR and I can see why both sides got a tban but 90 days for Nableezy is not needed given the evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 03:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that two people arguing doesn't mean both are equally problematic and doesn't mean we should treat them as if they are. That just keeps people from being willing to push back out of fear. If no one is willing to argue, we make so many problems worse. Valereee (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ser! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Mr Miles (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/Gender and sexuality

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

1. 3 Jan Edit to Talk:Graham Linehan, page covered by GENSEX
2. 3 Jan Follow-up edit to same page

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 27 July 2022 Indefinite topic ban from GENSEX

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

Not applicable

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Fairly straight-forward GENSEX TBan violation. User had not edited since before TBan was installed, before editing talk page of a GENSEX contentious topic today.

Follow-up: user has re-added comments removed by another editor for being in violation of their tban.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

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

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

• I was waiting for their response here, or to see if they'd self-revert. Since this appears to be the only topic they are interested in, I blocked them indefinitely. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:42, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good block. I was up in the air about the standard escalation of blocks or just an minded, and you saved me trouble of considering too hard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI, I've now since removed their TPA due to continued personal attacks towards another editor. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

dovidroth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Dovidroth (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

90 day ARBPIA topic ban

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[[70]]

I appreciate @ScottishFinnishRadish trying to control the subject area. However, I feel that the topic ban opposed on me is too extreme.

The first edit cited on my ban was a discussion as to whether I exercised a "failure to exercise independent judgment in ... restorations", and I don't see how it relates to WP:Battleground at all.

You indeed warned me with the second edit, and I immediately apologized and explained that the edit summary had been intended in response to another edit summary, but I admitted that my words were poorly chosen.

This edit and this edit were in response to a specific user who was accusing me of doing various things, and I tried to defend myself. I will admit that I may have gone a little too far in responding to their complaints and I should have let the admins deal with it. I will try to be more mindful of this in the future.

Lastly, I do not understand how this edit and this edit qualify as battleground. In the first edit, I simply confronted a user that they did not need to remove the link but should have simply changed the link to the current title of the article. And the second edit was a simple revert that I said that I was reverting undiscussed POV.

I admit that there are things that I can improve on, and I will try to be mindful of these things moving forwardm, but I still think a 90 day topic ban is too severe. I have showed my commitment to building an encyclopedia having continued editing in non-ARBPIA topics since the ban. I would ideally like it to be lifted entirely, although I would also think it reasonable for it being shorted to 30 days - as it has been for another editor - and I would continue to edit in other topic until then.

@Galobtter - The edit summary that you mentioned was a response to this and I already apologized at the time. I am again acknowledging that it was a bad choice of words. It is not representative of my thousands of edits. Dovidroth (talk) 06:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TLDR: in my recent experience, Dovidroth (and others) used a combination of edit-warring and bad RFC-ing to attempt ram through text that had core policy (WP:NOR and WP:NPOV) violations. Full details:

• There was an RfC (ending Nov 13) with the most common option being "Option #3: Hamas is predominately described as accepting the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders, post 2017. Early viewpoints are significantly trimmed from the article."
• Around Nov 21, Dovidroth[71] and others (Homerethegreat[72][73]) edit-warred in earlier viewpoints into the article.
• Luckily, on Nov 23 Selfstudier started a discussion that was productive by all parties, including Marokwitz. It was clear that adding that the new changes didn't (yet) have consensus. Curiously, the discussion died by Nov 27.
• On Dec 5[74] Marokwitz seemed to again make those changes without any kind of note on talk.
• I reverted them and left a note on talk[75]. No one responded to this. Yet Dovidroth reverted me[76], without any comment on talk, and with the edit summary "Constructive changes made over 5 days ago after discussion; subsequently reviewed by the community with numerous edits. Any concerns should be raised in talk page." The "discussion" they refer to had clearly showed no consensus for these edits.
• On Dec 16, I explained in detail their version was not just neutral but the text was not supported by the inline citations and some sentences were WP:SYNTH.
• On Dec 17, more edit-warring was done by Dovidroth[77] and Homerethegreat[78] - but to my shock neither of them fixed the WP:NOR issues nor justified on talk that their proposed text was adequately sourced.
• Marokwitz then started an RfC[79], in which Dovidroth, Homerethegreat and others quickly favored their version - yet they still didn't explain the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR violations, despite me repeatedly asking[80][81].

VR _talk 05:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both Markowitz and Homethegreat claim that Dovidroth has been targeted because he is a librarian at the National Library of Israel, but neither of them have provided evidence for that assertion. The only relevant diff is the reasonable query at ARCA of whether this comes under COIPOLITICAL. Homethegreat even claims that query was made in bad faith, which is a personal attack on the editor who asked the question. Zero^talk 12:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also wonder why both Markowitz and Homethegreat have made their comments in the "uninvolved" section of this case. Both of them are heavily involved in these topics. Zero^talk 12:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The case at ARCA was not an "arbitration complaint" but a request for clarification of the rules. Although it went the way I would have expected, it was not an unreasonable request and accusing the filing editor of bad faith is an obvious violation of NPA. Zero^talk 02:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the removal of the topic ban placed on User:Dovidroth, considering the context and his overall contributions to Wikipedia.

Firstly, Dovidroth's track record as an editor is commendable. He has made significant contributions to non-controversial topics, such as creating and expanding articles like Elazar Mayer Preil, Fast of Behav, Shene Zetim, Yom le-yabbashah, and Pinchas Mordechai Teitz. These articles demonstrate he is here to build an encyclopedia, while aligning with our core principle.

Secondly, it's important to recognize the human aspect in the dynamics of Wikipedia editing. The recent personal attacks and aspersions cast against Dovidroth by multiple editors, and the fact that he has been personally targeted based on his disclosure that he is an Israeli librarian, need to be considered. It's understandable that, under such pressure and during personally challenging times, Dovidroth's responses has deviated from the ideal. However, I think a 90-day topic ban is too harsh, especially considering his acknowledgment of the situation, the subsequent apology, and the promise to do better.

Thirdly, we must consider the issue of fairness and consistency in the application of Wikipedia's policies. Recently, we have seen instances involving User:Nableezy, making unfounded accusations against Dovidroth, for which Nableezy was duly warned, making snide remarks, and using very aggressive language in describing other editors' work. Despite these issues, the well-known editor Nableezy has been given what can be seen as "celebrity treatment" with his topic ban shortened despite not promising to improve his ways. Comparatively, Dovidroth's edits and interactions are much less combative, and his acknowledgement of his mistakes genuine. If the appeal is not accepted this disparity will raise questions regarding the equitable enforcement of Wikipedia's policies.

Given these points, and in the spirit of WP:FORGIVE, which encourages giving editors opportunities to improve and learn from their mistakes, I believe Dovidroth deserves a chance. The essence of Wikipedia is collaboration and improvement, and maintaining the topic ban on Dovidroth, in this case, seems counterproductive to these goals.

In conclusion, considering Dovidroth's valuable contributions and his willingness to acknowledge and rectify his mistakes, I would like to support the appeal . Marokwitz (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to @Zero0000: In addition to the arbitration complaint against him, which was declined, I recall additional cases of snide remarks regarding the user's job, for example, in this very unpleasant discussion: Talk:Genocides_in_history_(1946_to_1999)#Palestinians. Regarding marking myself as uninvolved, I don't think I have any direct connection with this arbitration enforcement case, but perhaps I misunderstand the rules. Is anybody who edits in similar topics considered involved? If so, I'll move my statement. Marokwitz (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to user:Euryalus: Here are the diffs that I am aware of, I'm not sure if there were other occasions. [82] [83] [84] Marokwitz (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will begin by thanking SFR, the admin who has taken a significant amount of precious time to monitor an environment that has become very hostile in the past three months. I’ve personally seen the admin remove what may be considered Hate Speech, which I commend. Dovidroth unlike others publicly presents that the user is from Israel and not just that but also from the National Library of Israel. These, I think have brought about to him unusual amount of targeting and accusations at times fairly at others unfairly and without goodfaith [[85]],[[86]] , [[87]] , [[88]] . From a look on the user’s history it seems that Dovidorth’s contributions are far richer and beyond the conflict, touching on themes that are not adequately presented in the encyclopedia, specifically regarding Jewish traditions and music. I agree that this diff [[89]] is completely out of taste and unacceptable and very unlike the editor which I actually usually see fostering cooperation, writing amicably, and admitting mistakes and apologizing. Overall I think given the hostile environment a break could help the user but I think it should not be so long. I hope more admins can get involved and protect users especially users from a National Library and one that is personally affected by the war, brave enough to admit to be Israeli and at times is targeted based on the user's identity.

 Note: moved from #Statement by Zero0000: I'm sorry, I'm not too familiar with how it works in these pages. It's my second time here. Should I move the comment here? Homerethegreat (talk) 13:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus, I don't recall where every single incident was but here in these the user being a librarian of the National Library of Israel is directly mentioned [[90]],[[91]]; I also recall the following: [[92]], [[93]]. Homerethegreat (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the diffs cited above, I see responses to talk page posts that he should have ignored or, if he thought it actionable, brought to an administrator or AE. No, issuing template warnings to editors in this subject area is usually counterproductive and a waste of time, for instance. The editing environment in the I/P pages is extremely hostile, the hottest and most unpleasant I have ever encountered, and I personally have blundered badly. Editors are well-advised to take breaks, for hours, days or permanently. In this case, I think a 90-day ban from the entire topic area is excessive for an editor who is otherwise a good contributior to the project. I've never interacted with him one way or the other, but apparently he is a librarian with good access to source materials and basically a positive to the subject area. I think lifting this Tban, or perhaps reducing it to 30 days as was just done to another editor, would be warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Not sure I'm "involved" but putting my statement here in an abundance of caution. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Dovidroth, Marokwitz and Homerethegreat appear to have engaged in tag teaming at Genocides in history (1946 to 1999), where the entire section of "Palestinian Exodus (Nakba)" was removed without consensus and despite numerous objections.

An editor opened a discussion on the talk page of the article, saying "The section on Palestinians has been repeatedly edit-warred out of the article by Dovidroth" [94]. Marokwitz and Homerethegreat then joined the discussion, having never before edited the article or its talk page, where they both agreed with and supported Dovidroth. Dovidroth and Homerethegreat then reverted editors who tried to restore the content on the page. The content remains scrubbed from the page as of today (Jan 4 2024) since Dec 16 2023.

I've reported Homerethegreat and Marokwitz for "Biased editing on contentious topics" here [95] and I believe that all three users (Dovidroth, Homerethegreat and Marokwitz) are bad faith actors. I would hate to see these users be allowed to continue to be disruptive and to waste the time of other editors and administrators.

IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

As this was a joint TBAN action on three involved editors surrounding connected incidents, and one of the editors has already successfully appealed for a shorter ban based on the enforcing admin agreeing the punishment was too harsh for the offense, I think very simply the sentences should be revised accordingly to the other two editors involved who recieved the same punishment. To use the appeal process to apply different punishments to editors for the same "crime" only based on individual appeal would be inappropriate. Each of the editors involved have both crossed the line, as well as have been known for solid contribution. 30 days for all and let's move on. Mistamystery (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This diff is pretty horrendous by itself, and I don't see how your response justifies it at all. Considering your previous issues in the area and this AE warning that doesn't seem to have been logged, I think a topic ban could have been imposed then and there rather than the final warning you were given for that diff. Granted, the diffs since the warning are not so bad but it is still clear the overall pattern of your edits (including the frequent POV accusations) are WP:BATTLEGROUNDy so I think the topic ban is justified and even lenient. Galobtter (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I would decline the appeal at this time. The diff Galobtter highlights is very concerning; the diffs SFR cited are concerning; the recent conduct at AN (with respect to another user's EC rights) is concerning. Taken in total I'm seeing evidence of a battleground approach to editing that isn't addressed by the appeal, and a 90-day break from the topic may help to restore perspective. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Marokwitz and Homerethegreat: you are both extensively involved in this dispute, and with the appellant, and therefore I have moved your statements to the involved section. – bradv 14:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Marokwitz and Homerethegreat, when you have a moment would you mind providing some diffs of Dovidroth being harassed by other editors because of an association with the National Library of Israel? -- Euryalus (talk) 02:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:ARM#Dovidroth may be of interest to AE admins --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Toa Nidhiki05 16:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite topic ban from post-1992 American politics, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive312#Toa Nidhiki05, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#American politics 2

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Diff

This is my second appeal of this sanction; the last was over six months ago. Like I said then, I believe my behavior that led to the sanction was embarrassing and not befitting of what productive behavior in the topic area looks like. We can all agree, I think, that AP2 doesn't need that sort of behavior, and while I don't believe I was the only one at fault in the dispute, my behavior is the only thing that I can control. Since the topic ban a year ago, I've avoided disruptive behavior and have focused on productive editing, including routine cleanup of articles but also full-scale rewrites of articles like NFL Europe and Plastic Love. I've also worked productively on the BLP Huey Long, where I productively helped work on resolving conflicts and reaching consensus. This would be the approach I would take going forward in the AP2 area if this topic ban were to be lifted.

I do feel like I have made valuable contributions in this area and the encyclopedia as a whole, and I'd love to be able to contribute productively to AP2 in the future. Like I've said previously - I would be more than open to alternatives that allow me to engage productively in this area. If a full lifting of the sanction isn't something you're willing to consider, I'd be more than open to something like a 1RR restriction that would allow me to productively contribute again. Toa Nidhiki05 16:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, in response to your comments:

1) I'll note that much of my work on articles tends to be in the form of whole-article reworks. Take my rework of Plastic Love, for example; this was a top-to-bottom, complete rewrite from scratch. This was done mostly in userspace and then imported to mainspace once I finished. So while that looks like one mainspace edit, it's really the result of a month of work that included dozens of individual edits. Other recent examples of that are The Beautiful Letdown and NFL Europe, which were actually more like yearslong projects (on and off). Most of my more prominent articles (see: American football, National Football League) were developed with this method. So using mainspace edits as the only standard of activity really isn't a full look at what I do here, or what I've ever done in my decade+ of editing.

2) Your questions on my topics of interest and skirting AP2 are basically the same thing. AP2 encompasses a very, very, very broad spectrum of topics that intersect with a ton of areas. The reason I've done that is I did not realize AP2 encompassed those areas - I didn't realize it had applied to specific songs (where my changes were to remove retailer-specific charts that are explicitly banned per WP:BADCHARTS - if you look through my editing history, music is a big interest of mine). I'd rather not violate policy, even if the edit is good, and I stand by those edits. So self-reverting was the rational solution, right? The 9/11 one for example was I simply forgot to take that page off my watchlist, noticed an egregiously bad edit, reverted it, and then realized that might fall under AP2. Only real option was to self-revert and hope someone else did the work, which they thankfully did. Another example of the sort of stuff I'm interested in - I actually noticed an egregious BLP error on a page shortly after my first appeal, and was able to get it removed after reaching out to Guerillero directly. This is the sort of stuff that can get stuck on overlooked pages for far longer than it should be.

Basically, lifting the AP2 ban would allow me to make productive, uncontroversial edits in a lot of areas without having to walk on eggshells wondering whether I'll get slapped with a sanction. I'd like to be able to make edits like that. And again, I'm more than happy to accept some lesser sanction even if it's not necessary. I would just rather not be locked permanently into a situation where I can't make productive edits, unless this is a punitive topic ban, not a preventative one. And if that's the case, I guess I'll accept that judgement. Toa Nidhiki05 07:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint, I had to go back to the article to see what you’re referring to. Again, from my understanding, that portion (the preamble) of a legal decision is often not written by the judge, and holds no actual legal meaning. It’s essentially just a very very very brief summary of the case history, without any real details. So I can say that yes, I do commit to using reliable sources and not discounting them based on my own opinion (something I clearly have experience with based on my strong article track record), but no, I don't believe the example you cited (a reliable source citing a case prologue) outweighs many other reliable sources that say other things based on a more extensive review of the case history.

That being said, I have no interest in relitigating that entire discussion (much of which had actual examples of objectionable conduct) or returning to that topic area in question. Toa Nidhiki05 14:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am really not interested in relitigating a debate from a year ago, so this is the last I'll talk about it. If he wrote it, that's fine, but again, there were numerous other sources that said the case had not, in fact, resulted in legal victories for Fair Fight. And singling out a single vague line (what were the wins? what were the losses?) from the least important part (an uncited prologue) of a hundreds-page opinion doesn't add a ton of value. I disagreed with you then, I disagree with you now, that's not going to change. Toa Nidhiki05 16:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an objection to Vanamonde's narrowing of the topic ban --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

An editor deserves a chance to prove themselves. Toa' t-ban shouldn't continue if they've promised to not be disruptive in future in that area & hasn't been disruptive in other areas. We must ask ourselves, at what point does a preventative measure morph into a punitive measure. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who had tussled with the filer here and there, e.g. Talk:Ilhan Omar, FWIW I say loosen the restrictions a bit. In the past they may have gotten a little too passionate about things when consensus for edits failed, but always seemed to be aimed overall at encyclopedic improvement. Rather than being a keyboard warrior here for a cause, like others have been. I think they can be productive again. Zaathras (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toa Nidhiki05: At your previous appeal I raised the example where you rejected a reliable source's quote of a judge in the judge's legal decision by arguing, without supporting evidence, that the judge was merely being "courteous". Can you commit to avoid repeating such behaviour, and not reject content from reliable sources based solely on your own opinion, instead relying on other reliable sources? starship.paint (RUN) 11:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Toa Nidhiki05: - I can't say that I am satisfied by that response. You stated in the past that The judge is being courteous after a years-long trial. Now, in a contradictory argument, you state that portion (the preamble) of a legal decision is often not written by the judge. However, the quote was in a document literally signed by the judge, and multiple sources, some more reliable than others, attributed the quote to the judge. (1) Associated Press "... wins and losses ..." Jones wrote. (2) Politico "... wins and losses ...” wrote Judge Jones in his 288-page decision. (3) Atlanta Journal-Constitution "... wins and losses ..." wrote U.S. District Judge Steve Jones. (4) Fox News"... wins and losses ..." Jones wrote. Everything above is pointing towards the quote being written by the judge, and you have provided no evidence that the judge did not write the quote. I'm afraid that your response comes off as the exact same problem I raised - you are going against the sources, but without a shred of evidence. starship.paint (RUN) 15:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I find myself ambivalent about this appeal. A concern raised when the previous appeal was rejected was that TN had significantly reduced their activity in mainspace, which gave the appearance of waiting out the TBAN. Mainspace activity has been marginally higher since, but not by much; I'm counting ~175 mainspace edits since the appeal. Conversely, they have done some good work in other areas, and the appeal seems sincere. @Toa Nidhiki05: I have two questions for you; what topics within AP2 are you looking to work on? And why, in the last few months, have you made several edits that skirted (but not, IMO, breached) your topic-ban, and then immediately self-reverted? The ones I'm looking at are to 9/11, these [96], [97]. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying; to be clear, I was not suggesting that you be sanctioned for the edits I highlight, but they looked odd. I'm not willing to lift this outright; there have been too many sanctions in the history. I would consider narrowing the TBAN slightly: for instance, to a TBAN from BLPs withing the topic, possibly combined with a 1RR restriction. I would like to hear from other admins. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I opposed this appeal last time, as you can see; however, per WP:ROPE, I'd also be happy with loosening this to a TBAN on BLPs within AP2; we can see how that goes without the potential problem of BLPs being affected. Black Kite (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks BK; I would ideally like to hear more opinions, given the block log and how well-attended the previous appeal was; but if I don't see further input in ~24 hours, I will close the appeal with the modifications I propose above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I think scaling back to BLPs in the AP2 area is a reasonable thing to do here. I wouldn't lift it entirely yet based upon the low quantity of editing, but those which have been made seem to be reasonable and of good quality, and I don't find any indication of further disruptive behavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Seraphimblade, also because this nudged me to wrap this up. Closing with a BLP TBAN as above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ed1974LT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Marcelus (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/Eastern Europe

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

1. 2 January 2024 (nonconsensual removal-reverting of content)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. blocking history for edit warring and violating 1RR restriction in Eastern Europe topic area
2. 27 September 2023 (0RR restriction in Eastern Europe topic area)
3. 29 November 2023 (1RR restriction in Eastern Europe topic area)

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Hello, I noticed that last year User:Marcelus was sanctioned with a 0RR restriction in Eastern Europe topic area and was previously blocked for edit warring and violating 1RR restriction. On 29 November 2023 Marcelus successfully appealed his 0RR restriction and 1RR restriction was again applied to him. What is concerning is that factually Marcelus with his 2 January 2024 edit arbitrarily completely reverted content which was fairly recently added by another user with 8 November 2023 edit in a contentious topics procedure article (Eastern Europe area). It is noteworthy that no consensus was reached to edit or remove this content in talk page discussion (where Marcelus and I participated), but by ignoring this Marcelus still made this non-consensual edit (revert) despite his history of disruptive reverting and multiple sanctioning for that in Eastern Europe topic area. I think such editing style by Marcelus can be disruptive in this contentious topic area, especially knowing his editing history and multiple sanctions for reverting other users content in this topic area. I believe that user with such sanctioning history should willingly seek consensus and not edit (revert) discussed content arbitrarily how he personally want.--Ed1974LT (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarcelus&diff=1194145114&oldid=1191571124

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.

8 Nov edit is WP:SYNTH. The source referenced ([98]) mentions nothing about Báthory's "inauguration" as Grand Duke, instead it mentions that the four GDL senators wanted a separate act of inauguration during the negotiations before the conclusion of the Union of Lublin (1569 vs 1580). So the conclusion that the Báthory's ceremony of May 29, 1580 coincided with these attempts is OR. No source connects these two facts or make such implication.

Comment: In general, the very idea that there was a separate inauguration of the Grand Duke in 1580 in Vilnius is WP:FRINGE. It is actually only mentioned on the website of the Vilnius palace in its description of the exhibition of the jewels of the royal treasury at Wawel Castle in Kraków ([99]]). If historians actually believed that this happened it would be an extremely important event, which would be mentioned in every book on the history of Poland, Lithuania or the Republic. In fact, what took place then was the ceremonial handing over of the papal blessed sword and hat, which had traditionally been given to basically every ruler of Poland, to Stephen Báthory going to war with Moscow. Antemurale Christianitatis etc. And the sword itself was given through the efforts of Polish senator Paweł Uchański and not the Lithuanian lords.Marcelus (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Ed1974LT, your current statement only shows Marcelus making one edit (which probably could fairly be classed as a revert), but that does not violate 1RR. Were there any other instances of edit warring? If that's all that happened, I'm inclined to close this with no action as a content dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree this should be closed with no action. This is a normal content dispute where one editor disagrees with how to improve an article. This issue is already being discussed at the article's talk page and there was consensus among a small number of editors to make that change. Since Ed1974LT disagrees with the change, they should use our normal dispute resolution tools. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]