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

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Iskandar323 (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

[[1]]

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

1. 20:31, 14 September 2021 restore of this revert [2]
2. 22:35, 14 September 2021 second revert of the same material
3. [3] Personal attack

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on [4]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user was given a chance to self-revert and he still can but he refuses to do so[5]. The user also violated WP:NPA when he was told that he broken the rules. For me it seems that this editor is uncapable to edit is such area and should take a break to learn our polices. --Shrike (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the banner was applied after offending edits but now that the user knows that his edits have direct connection to the conflict he can still self rv --Shrike (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To the very least the user should understand that his statement "1RR is a guideline, not a rule" is not correct and 1RR should be adhered --Shrike (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: The reason that it was not tagged it because there was no content regarding the conflict by adding the text about the conflict you have turned the page to be covered by sanctions. It would be a good practice to add such tag yourself and understand that any content regarding the conflict is covered by sanctions --Shrike (talk) 10:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zero0000: He can add talk page notice to the very least and abide the rules even without the edit notice and that most of the regulars do. I will probably take it to ARCA as apparently you can break the rules even if you perfectly aware of them --Shrike (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra:,@HighInBC: The user still in his WP:battle mode calling me an "antagonist" [6] The user clearly here to WP:RGW --Shrike (talk) 07:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: I don't think I said that the user is "partisan" If yes could you please show me. Maybe you confusing my statement with Iscander[7] --Shrike (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[8]

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 made one revert, and then, within the same 24-hour period, made a second, modified edit following on from a discussion in the talk section of the page, where the consensus was that the content I had added had been given undue weight. Duly noted, the modified edit reduced the weight of the content. This discussion was civil and did not involve the accusing editor in the slightest. The other editors involved in the discussion have not voiced their opposition or made further reverts, though one has made further edits that have not affected the modified content, suggesting that, for that user at least, the content produced as a result of discussion towards consensus was appropriate. I maintain that the accusing editor appears to have a shallow grasp of Wikipedia's good faith principles, and I mean this in no way as a form of personal attack, but as a call-to-action for the individual to learn and engage in more civil and less belligerent forms of dialogue on the platform.

It is also worth noting that the accusing editor applied WP:PIA arbitration status to this article only after the discussions and edits in question, making the rather specific nature of his complaint somewhat retroactive in nature, but I personally do not think my good faith actions run afoul of the rules either way. I hope you will agree.

(Moved by HighInBC)Hi Deepfriedokra, consider me notified that 1RR is a rule in this subject area. I admit to being unaware that the restoration of substantially altered content could still be considered a revert, which I had though applied more technically to full reversions using undo functions. I am still not absolutely clear about whether my actions qualify in this instance, but I can see the sense of staying on the safer side of this rule, if only to prevent the waste of future resources (in the form of the valuable time of administrators such as yourself) on enforcement requests. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved by HighInBC)Ok, @HighInBC Noted. I apologise for my tone. But on the other point, in my defence, I had no idea that stricter arbitration rules could apply to pages not even tagged as such. I have had no engagement with such mechanisms, so I really had no means of knowing that this was the case. I still had not thought my actions constituted a second revert, but at least in principle, I had thought the standing rules for the page were 3RR, not 1RR, given the absence of any formal notice to the contrary. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is extremely disingenuous WikiLawyering by 11Fox11. I didn't say that the 1RR rule did not apply to me. I said that it was a guideline, as are all rules on Wikipedia. I also said that in my interpretation, based on my movement towards consensus, I did not violate 1RR in the first place, or at least not intentionally. Interpretations may differ. On the subject of the Zakaria Zubeidi article, you are neglecting to point out that the reverts I have made only pertain to technicalities about linking and sourcing, not to the core content, and in each instance I have provided substantial commentary to help guide the new user concerned (AVR2012) - advice for which, in at least one instance, they have thanked me publicly. A much more experienced editor PatGallacher, has actually removed the material in its entirety, which has then been reverted repeatedly by the new user AVR2012, but I have not engaged with this minor edit war - I have only made technical edits where inappropriate links or sourcing have been added. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of these two alleged personal attacks is a duplicate of the original. I would note that in both I do not make any direct accusations, just suppositions from my own perspective. I use the word 'seem', not 'is' or 'are'. Saying that something seems a certain way is not the same as asserting it is like that. Therein lies a very crucial difference between the expression of personal opinion and the type of defamation alleged. However, I will certainly take the advice of Deepfriedokra to refrain from even such perceived slights in future given the readily exploitable nature of such statements. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@11Fox11 I provided two sources, one a UN document and the other a Reuters story, clearly mentioning the bank's name - to suggest that it is in some way difficult to see this suggests either a huge degree of oversight or the wilful peddling of mistruth. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra From reading WP:BRD in a little more depth, I would suggest that the edit that is being suggested by some is a 'second revert' actually falls more obviously into the category of a 'Cycle', given that I conspicuously, and openly acknowledged in my edit comment that I had been overruled in the discussion with respect to the weighting of the new content and reacted accordingly. I would also note that it was the other editors in the page's discussion that deleted the content more or less without discussion - they just left a message and carried out the deletion without waiting for a reply. The only two, genuine reversions I made (over two separate days), were to restore the content that was deleted wholesale in this manner by editors who made little to no effort to improve or refine the content. I also pointed out that the wider article had only one, dead link supporting it, but, tellingly, most of the other editors seemed totally disinterested in adding content or improving the page, right up until Inf-in MD came along and added sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Yes, I understand that I need to adhere to 1RR in this subject area moving forward, and that discussing and reaching agreement before reverting again is the way to avoid the sort of disruption that AE tries to stop. I will be more careful. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Hi, I responded to GN on their talk page. I'm aware that my pattern of edits was unusual, but it was a one-off - I was just backfilling pertinent information that appeared to have been missed or omitted (possibly amid the heady rush of the early days of the global pandemic). Most good company pages should have criticism sections. If they don't, that in itself is at least cause for suspicion that the page is undeveloped. Few companies are perfect. Perhaps I gave undue weight to the new content: that is a perspective that has clearly been expressed on the talk page in question in this AE, and which I already acknowledged I understood in my edit notes prior to this AE being called. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Is it not a problem for this AE that @Shrike is so clearly partisan? He is accusing me of WP:RGW, but if speculative opinion is all we are going by, the same suppositions could just as equally be said of them. Is none of this pertinent? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Words are words, but is anything more WP:BATTLE mindset than gratuitously escalating minor edit disputes, dragging people before AEs and calling for discretionary sanctions over edits on articles without edit notices? Iskandar323 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra I hadn't even heard of canvassing before it was mentioned before, and I still need to read up on the rules on this, but I didn't intentionally canvas anyone: I accidentally looped in an editor while trying to reference another's earlier comment in the same discussion, as the context should make clear. I also corrected myself. Did you read the full exchange? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra Isn't this AE supposed to be about my inadvertent breach of 1RR? Iskandar323 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: What is the difference between accusing someone of WP:RGW and of being partisan? The very notion of WP:RGW is that someone is taking a partisan approach. It is bureaucratic to imply that one is a personal attack and the other is not simply because one is couched in technical language. I am not implying that you are intentionally being bureaucratic, but that the distinction is a bureaucratic one. WP:RGW is just a sub-category of WP:TEND, which defines partisanship. If an AE, outside of the context of normal talk pages and user talk pages, is not the suitable forum for raising the issues of the WP:TEND tendencies of certain users, where is?

@Johnuniq: But thank you for your clarification on the principle of concrete outcomes in criticism sections. Though I would ask if divestment (where actual sums are withdraw) is not, in of itself, a concrete outcome? You are also quite correct that I had not fully absorbed the implications of the alert notice posted on my talk page.

@Johnuniq: In answer to your specific questions about the Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot articles, I am not hugely vested in it and do not particularly care about the outcome, and I will not be trying to re-add a fully fledged 'criticism' section header or 'Involvement in Israeli settlements' section sub-header, because I now better understand the point about weighting relative to the article as a whole. I did not come up with these section headers spontaneously, but merely replicated the format from other similar sections on other articles, trusting that the editors who placed them there knew what they were doing, but where, in hindsight, the relative weighting may have been a little different. It still seems to me that a divestment by a large fund, as reported by Reuters, is a concrete outcome, and my tendency would still be to include a sentence on it, but I am not emotive about it. I merely made an addition that I thought was notable, based on sources that I thought were notable, in a format that I replicated from the work of other editors on other pages. All that I objected to was the wholesale deletion of material, by and large without discussion, by other editors.

@Johnuniq: If you haven't already, please do look at the edits involved in the twinkle episode yourself to decide whether I was undoing good faith edits or not. The title of that talk section is a highly leading one. I believe I was undoing disruptive edits that had re-instated information that was clearly incorrect by the standard definition of the infobox templates - a position another user quickly attested to. However, following the subsequent discussion, I undid the last revision all the same following the criticism and left it to others to edit out the demonstrably incorrect information if they so chose, which they did. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Yes, I now realise the distinction between what I thought a revert is, and what a revert is in the technical definition you have mentioned. I had though that a partial re-edit of some of the same material in a different format and location, arrived at as a result of efforts to move towards consensus as per a discussion, was not a simple 'reversion'. But I now realise that the definition is quite broad and that its interpretation can be quite ironclad, particularly on articles perceived to be IP-related, even if they don't contain an edit notice. I also don't think it was totally unreasonable for me not to have understood absolutely all of this prior to this arbitration referral.

@HighInBC: I'm getting the hang of the 'comment on the content not the editors' mantra as well. I had assumed that personal attacks meant actual insults, defamation or slander, but not the questioning of motives or truthfulness, but clearly, here too the Wikipedia definition is either very broad or very open to interpretation. I'll admit to getting a little emotive on the subject of my own persecution. But is it also not a problem for editors to demonstrably falsify formal statements in an arbitration forum?

NB: Let me once more state plainly that, while I was not aware of and certainly did not fully comprehend the 1RR rules with respect to this conflict area prior to this AE being called, I do now understand the 1RR rules quite clearly, as well as the general principle behind the 1RR and its general merit as a means of de-escalation in all circumstances, as well as the benefits of pursing a more thoughtful, civil and WP:BRD-informed editing approach. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit notice is a technicality, and Iskandar323's conduct is sanctionable without the 1RR. They are edit warring in the face of talk page consensus against them and engaging in personal attacks and commentary.

On Zakaria Zubeidi they reverted three times: [9][10][11] (and some reverts of IPs).

On Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot they also reverted multiple times: [12][13][14], when consensus was against them at Talk:Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot#Hugely undue addition.

To this one must add the personal attacks: [15] and [16] against Shrike when notified of 1RR. They also think the 1RR rule doesn't apply to them. 11Fox11 (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: the page was about an Israeli bank that is unrelated to the conflict. Then Iskandar323 came along with the seemingly innocuous edit summary "new section" and turned a third of the article into Arab-Israeli conflict material (reverted as undue by User:Number 57). Citing three sources ([17], [18], [19]) that do not even mention the Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank by name, which is WP:SYNTHESIS. It is disingenuous for Iskandar323 to complain about lacking edit notices on the conflict on the page when they turned the page into a conflict article all by their lonesome. Israeli banks are generally unrelated to the conflict, but if an editor hijacks an unrelated article into a conflict article, they shouldn't then complain that no one foresaw their own actions in advance. 11Fox11 (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC, Deepfriedokra, and Johnuniq: now Iskandar323 is engaging in blatant canvassing, pinging Nishidani who never edited the article or its talk. 11Fox11 (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never edited until after being pinged. Ping at 16:40, Nishidani edits at 17:29. 11Fox11 (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we give newer editors the benefit of the doubt, I think an informal warning is sufficient in this case.Selfstudier (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging one editor, apparently in error, is not "blatant canvassing". I believe that following the latest post, the editor now "gets it" re 1R and Arbpia. I am not overly fond of the semi automated crit thing but I doubt the editor would repeat that either.Selfstudier (talk) 17:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From 2014 until the recent editing of 2021, the user was mainly inactive and so I consider him "new" to the IP area in that sense as well as by edit count.Selfstudier (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Shrike: According to WP:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, an editnotice is required for the General Sanctions to be enforced but Iskandar323 does not have the technical ability to add one. Zero^talk 13:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC) @Shrike: Of course he should obey the rules, but nobody is obliged to add ARBPIA notices. I don't see what you want to take to ARCA as the rule about editnotices has been discussed by ArbCom before and they are unlikely to change it. Zero^talk 13:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very tangentially involved here, but wanted to add an observation (not specifically related to the AE violation in question). On 12 September, Iskandar bulk-added a "criticism" section to 30ish company articles (see here, look for the edit summary "Added section"). The bulk of these were added within the span of about half an hour. They were later mass-reverted as "Undue weight" by Mike Rothman2, whom I temp-blocked for undiscussed mass reversion and obvious attempts at permissions gaming. My concern is this: mass addition of "criticism" sections in this manner smacks of WP:RGW/POV-pushing, and I am concerned about whether Iskandar can neutrally in the topic area. GeneralNotability (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, I'm in a weird position as kind-of-involved-but-not-really, but since I'm commenting in the "other people" section and not the "uninvolved admin" section I think it's best if I'm not consulted on sanctions. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to draw your attention to recent comments by Iskandar323, where he describes this request against him as a "technicality", and despite the clear language used by Johnuniq below which says the criticism section is undue for the bank's article, that it is due and that there no "hard and fast rule" against it.[20][21]. Maybe a warning is not enough. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra I think a ban is taking it a bit too far. My comment above notwithstanding, I find Iskandar323 to be one of the more reasonable editors with whom I disagree on most things. A formally logged warning coupled with his acknowledgment that he understands what he did and will not do it again should suffice. Inf-in MD (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not something is UNDUE is a matter for the talk page and the NPOV noticeboard, not AE. A user is free to engage wider input on a content dispute, what is needed here is the user acknowledging and agreeing to abide by our edit warring policies. This group of editors that all happen to be on one side of an editing dispute (mustnt call them partisans of course) agitating for a content ruling on a conduct board is a bit troubling, as is their insistence that said content dispute be used to remove an opposing editor. nableezy - 15:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Just noting that the page in question does not seem to have an editnotice describing the 1RR restriction, though it is described on the talk page. I know this is a requirement for discretionary sanctions. This seems to be an arbitration remedy rather than a DS. I am not sure if it follows the same requirements. No comment on the merits of the case at this point. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was not my intention to suggest a technicality should excuse this instance. I feel it is important to know that not only is an arbcom 1RR restriction a rule(not a guideline), but it is one of the most strictly enforced rules we have. It has very objective criteria that seem to have been violated. Ignore all rules is a great policy, but I would not suggest you try it with an arbcom ruling. I recommend a logged warning about 1RR without further action.

Regarding the uncivil comments, I find it ironic that they are assuming bad faith about someone assuming bad faith, though I don't think it rises to the level of action. I do think they should be cautioned to keep discussion on the topic of the content and try not to comment on the editors. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an edit notice for the page so that everyone will see when they edit: Template:Editnotices/Page/Zakaria Zubeidi. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given their recent comment about the second revert being part of the BRD cycle and thus not a revert I really feel the warning should be a logged one. To be clear, A "revert" means any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. This includes engaging in the BRD cycle, this includes copyediting and minor changes, it includes anything that meets that definition. Please understand that an arbcom ruling overrides any essays or guidelines you may encounter and is enforced very strictly. A logged warning with clear wording will remove the excuse of such misunderstandings in the future. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Regarding that comment, I will echo my earlier caution to keep discussion on the topic of the content and try not to comment on the editors. Perhaps my proposed logged warning can include something to that effect. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that if Iskandar323 agrees to follow the (sometimes arcane) rules going forward, no sanction will be needed. I don't think that the "personal attack" rises to a sanctionable level. Iskandar323, please comment on content, not perceived belligerence. Now you know 1RR is a rule to be followed in this subject area. Am willing to be persuaded otherwise as to need for more than a reminder. Awaiting further opinions from those more AE experienced than I. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Ah, 1Fox11's comment posted just before I posted. Iskandar323, you really need to discuss, without making personal remarks, content. This moves us closer to the need for sanctions. AGF is not an impenetrable shield for edits that are disruptive. Sometimes AGF protestations are a red herring. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Dear Lord, I've gone cross-eyed. Must be excess iron. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: I'm afraid you are mistaken. Some Wikipedia rules, like Wikipedia:Edit warring ,are policies. And as my colleague notes above, 1RR is an ArbCom ruling. No, I too would have been surprised at being hauled in to AE when a page did not indicate that 1RR applied. That is one reason I hope we can get by without sanctions. WP:BRD is a tool to use to avoid edit warring. What my colleague has already said I agree with. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

exploitable nature ? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: What I need to see is an understanding from you that you will adhere to 1RR in this subject area moving forward. Also, once, reverted, discussing and reaching agreement before reverting again is the way to avoid the sort of disruption that AE tries to stop. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: Please address GN's concern about POV pushing and the undue weight of adding criticisms sections. I think it the type of edit to be avoided moving forward. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure that the implication implied in "to suggest that it is in some way difficult to see this suggests either a huge degree of oversight or the wilful peddling of mistruth" above doesn't cross the line into NPA. Imprecations like that only lead to trouble. @HighInBC: you've been AEing longer than I so, am I of-base or spot-on? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq, HighinBC, and GeneralNotability: The comments like calling other users "antagonists" and the exploitable nature comment give the impression of a battle ground mind set. Will cautions be enough? (This thread is stressful) FWIW, I don't like "criticism" sections. They tend to become tabloidesque. As Johnuniq writes, write about the impact, not the criticism @Shrike: I think your assertions of "partisan" and RGW without dif's are a problem. Please let us draw our own conclusions. If something new arises, feel free to draw it to our attention with dif's. Maybe paraphrase what is said in the dif w/o descriptors that might inflame emotions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq, HighinBC, and GeneralNotability: THIS plus canvassing noted by 11Fox11 in addition to the other concerns raised here lead me to believe a TBAN in this area would be a good idea. Would appreciate your thoughts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks @Seraphimblade: and @Hut 8.5: A warning should suffice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Johnuniq: I logged warning I should thing. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Iskandar323: It's time for a frank exchange of views. Given the opinions that have been expressed and which I am about to express, what is your current understanding with regard to Bank Mizrahi-Tefahot (will you be proposing including "Involvement in Israeli settlements" text?), and what will happen if there are objections to your edits in this topic in the future? Re the article, if the UN publishes something, that might warrant a mention on an article about the UN. Only if a concrete outcome occurred for the bank (e.g. stock value or equivalent plunged for a prolonged period) would it be WP:DUE to mention the bank's inclusion on a list. In general, don't add "criticism" sections to articles (see WP:CRIT)—if something significant occurred for the bank (a concrete outcome), consider writing a section on that. Further, it is totally unacceptable to baldly describe other editors as "clearly partisan" (diff). The OP mentions diff as a personal attack and technically "You seem belligerent" is a move in that direction and is very inappropriate, not to mention pointless—does Iskandar323 imagine that this rejoinder will help in any way?
  Iskandar323 was alerted about discretionary sanction two weeks ago and we could assume they haven't yet absorbed the implications. Depending on how things work out in the next 24 hours, I could conclude that an informal warning for Iskandar323 is sufficient, or perhaps it's not. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, this was a 1RR violation, and it's quite disruptive to keep reinstating challenged material while a talk page discussion isn't going your way. However Iskandar323 is fairly new and was understandably not familiar with the sanctions, the article was missing the required notices, and Iskandar323 has committed to abide by 1RR going forward, so I don't think a sanction is a good idea. A warning would be plenty. Hut 8.5 17:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Hut 8.5 that a warning is appropriate here. Of course if this should happen again, further action will be needed, but hopefully a warning and clarification of the expectations in this area will suffice to keep that from becoming necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A warning seems like a decent path forward here. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 03:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we talking about an informal "close with a note of warning" or a logged warning? I'll support either to get this closed but User talk:Iskandar323/Archive 1#Reverting good faith edits with twinkle makes me favor a logged warning. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This was a disruptive breach of 1RR, however as Iskandar323 understandably didn't understand 1RR, I agree that a logged warning is appropriate in this case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 19 September 2021 (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

11Fox11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Iskandar323 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles-1RR

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

1. 08:17, 21 September 2021 Revert of this edit
2. 12:37, 21 September 2021 This "massive rewrite" reverts many edits, including this recent edit. Iskandar323's edit completely removed Daniel J. Schroeter's article in the The American Historical Review.
3. 02:57, 20 September 2021, canvassing at page of like minded editor and personal attack ("it constitutes vandalism")

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 19 September 2021 Consensus among admins to log a warning against Iskandar323 for 1RR and other issues.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Alerted and stated at AE on 17:15, 16 September 2021 that they "did not fully comprehend the 1RR rules with respect to this conflict area prior to this AE being called, I do now understand the 1RR rules quite clearly,"

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a blatant 1RR violation. The page has an edit notice. This is coupled by canvassing and a personal attack, an issue at the last AE as well.

In addition, Iskandar323's talk page has a 20 September warning against edit warring on a whaling article and from 21 September a copyright/copying warning on a food article.

While I do agree with some aspects of Iskandar323's edit such as removing the demographic information, the removal of Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries from the lead (left only in the body with the newly coined euphemism "ultimately left" in a pipe link) is objectionable. Furthermore, Iskandar323 edit contained reverts of several bits that were contested between himself and other editors on the article and talk page:

1. Short description: Iskandar323 was reverted a few times, including here on 21 September, yet they removed "contested political" from "term".
2. Likewise, in the first sentence of the lead Iskandar323 removed "contested political" from "term", a revert of this edit from 19 September.
3. In the third paragraph of the lead, Iskandar323 was already reverted on 19 September which they now changed to "Reflecting the academic origins of the term, Jews with origins in Arab-majority countries do not often self-identify as Arab Jews" - while sources are quite explicit in that most Mizrahi Jews reject this term. Iskandar323 removed "The term is controversial, as the vast majority of Jews with origins in Arab-majority countries do not identify as Arabs, and most Jews who lived amongst Arabs did not call themselves "Arab Jews" or view themselves as such."
4. If needed, there are probably more reverts hidden in this large edit that can be pointed out.

This "massive rewrite", while containing some positive aspects, also reverted away material against the consensus of all other editors on the page. These highly POV reverts were hidden in the midst of this large edit 4 hours and 20 minutes after iskandar323's previous revert.--11Fox11 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepfriedokra, they had a chance to self-revert after this report was filed. But they chose only to partially self-revert, returning the Schroeter reference but not returning the text that was there previously. I document in the note above several other recent edits which were reverted by this "massive rewrite", which Iskandar323 made a conscious decision not to self-revert.--11Fox11 (talk) 09:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepfriedokra, contrary to Iskandar323's most recent statement, in my initial complaint I stated very clearly that their ""massive rewrite" reverts many edits". I then gave an example of a single edit that was reverted, the simplest example so it would be easy to follow. Despite this, Iskander323 chose only to partially self-revert. Their concern of "evidence tampering or attempting to mask the timeline of events" is perplexing since that would also apply to their very partial self-revert.--11Fox11 (talk) 10:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deepfriedokra, this latest statement contains falsehood. Contrary to Iskandar323's word, the 20 September canvassing/personal-attack diff in this complaint does not appear in the previous complaint as can be easily checked by looking at the version preceding this complaint. The previous complaint had a different 16 September canvassing diff and different personal attacks diff which were addressed by admins. The canvassing/personal attack diff from 20 September is completely new behaviour conducted after the previous discussion had substantially ended.--11Fox11 (talk) 12:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @HighInBC and Deepfriedokra: while this AE is open, Iskander323 just performed another revert only 27 hours and 1 minute after their previous revert. this is gaming the 24 hour period. This revert re-introduces an "Origins of the term" section and text that was first introduced by Iskander323 in this edit. For convenience this section is absent prior to Iskander323's edit now but is present in their preferred revisions from their edit at 16:38, 22 September 2021 and 15:30, 21 September 2021 with similar (but shuffled paragraphs) text. Also note accompanying talk page comment: "I've just added the most original and totally self-generated part of my previous re-write" that indicated awareness this is a revert.--11Fox11 (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notified

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

This is totally inaccurate. In the first example provided, I attempted to restore the infobox to the page after it had been deleted along with a host of other edits two days prior. This was reverted by 11Fox11, and I left it be. The second edit referenced is something completely different altogether and in no way a revert of prior edits. It was something I was working on in the background and is totally unrelated to prior edits on the page. I rewrote the page from the ground up, using academic book and journal sources to provide the beginning of an accurate, sourced background to the origin and use of the eponymous term of the page. It is just a beginning and more work and sourcing needs to be done, but it was a page rescue to push the content back towards the well-documented, peer-reviewed material on the nature of this term and the the academic framework that birthed it. It is possible that as part of this endeavour, some materials may have been removed or misplaced, but not maliciously. Wherever possible I have re-used and re-located all available sources to appropriate sections. Following the edit, I created a talk page entry explaining the rewrite and its purpose and inviting input and comment, so thank you to 11Fox11 for their engagement, although I wish they have simply pointed out any omission on the talk page, as my post invited. As of this moment, I have gladly re-included the source mentioned, and the section it concerns, "Politicisation of the term" is better for it. I still have not had much time to review this section and it still needs cleaning up. In contrast to the claim that I have set about to revert edits on this page, I have actually taken the page further in the direction that 11Fox11 was pushing when they removed the 'inappropriate' infobox. On reflection, I agreed that 11Fox11 was correct and also removed the related demographic information from the article. My edit was precisely aimed at steering the article away from the demographics of Jewish communities originating from the Arab World, which is covered in other articles, and back towards the topic of the specific term that this article addresses.

@Free1Soul: I had thought that books/journals without either a url or a doi constituted dead links. If this is not the case, it is possible that I used the dead link template inappropriately. I do now see that I tagged two archived links incorrectly, but you also removed at least one dead link tag from the definitely dead Voice of America story, as well as removed unaddressed citation needed tags, and removed the infobox again (without explanation). Iskandar323 (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Deepfriedokra: Hi again, and sorry for the trouble. I wasn't informed by 11Fox11 that they believed I had broken the 1RR rule prior to them raising this fresh AE, and Free1Soul has already rolled back that edit, along with others, so I cannot self-revert. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Deepfriedokra: Yes, I have been warned. I did not expect to get reported again before I had been warned, and it is playing havoc with the section redirects on this page, but yes, logged warning duly acknowledged. And had I been informed that someone believed I had broken 1RR again and been told to revert, before being reported, I would of course have reverted immediately. No questions asked. No administrators troubled. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Deepfriedokra: While we are on the subject of POV, and people taking offense, can I just draw you attention to where Free1Soul, in this talk page discussion that I raised to try to broach the subject of their more disruptive edits, such as deleting a stable infobox, not only used the N word in a deeply inappropriate and out of context manner (and frankly I find it offensive just seeing that on the page), but also compared a people being labelled Arab to someone being called the N word. Now I don't know about you, and I can't speak to the technicality of it, but I find that extraordinarily POV and offensive. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Reversion was never the intention of my rewrite, which was a painstakingly conducted effort based almost entirely on existing sources from within the extant article. The two principal sources I used were Gottreich and Levy, both of which were pre-existing sources in the article that I simply extracted material from. Sources that were recently added, in edits such as this, including Yehouda and Hannan (2012) and Tal (2017), were also carefully retained. In the complaint itself, the principle argument produced to suggest that this was not a rewrite, but a reversion, appears to be the removal of the word 'contested', as part of an edit numbering in the thousands of bytes (and incidentally a word that does not obviously have a source). Regardless, if this was the principle problem, then it was a simple fix. In the event, I was given no chance to self-revert, and the editor that raised this AE has still not even commented on the use of the word in the relevant talk page discussion. I do now certainly understand the point that Nableezy is making when he says, "if you have been reverted once, stop editing for the day altogether." Meanwhile, the edit that is being counted as the first revert involved the restoration of an infobox that was part of the article long before I had anything to do with it, was content that had nothing to do with me, and which was removed without consensus (and for which no consensus was reached in this talk). The edit in which this was removed, a day earlier was in fact far more sweeping than this, so at very best, this was a partial revert. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HighInBC: Hi again, I was not making excuses - only explaining my thought process. I understand that the rules are quite stringent, and breaches are inexcusable, and I was of course not going out of my way to break the 1RR rule amid an existing AE. If I had been alerted to the fact that other editors considered this edit an 1RR breach, I would have self-reverted without question, but I was not alerted and I was given no such opportunity. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Yes, I immediately partially reverted by restoring the material that 11Fox11 first stated in the AE had been omitted. I was otherwise unaware which other material was being considered a revert and no full revert was requested. I was also unsure whether it was appropriate to perform a full revert after the AE had already been raised in case this could be construed as evidence tampering or attempting to mask the timeline of events from adjudicating administrators. By the time 11Fox11's broader concerns were stated, a full reversion of the material had already been made by Free1Soul. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra May I ask what these behavioural issues (quite rude) are? I was cautioned a week ago for my poor choice of language, but have I conducted myself poorly in any way within the context of this current AE discussion? Surely you should not be calling upon examples that already fell within the body of evidence for the previous AE and which have already been underwritten with a logged warning?Iskandar323 (talk) 12:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra My mistake, it seems I got confused. You'll have to forgive me a little for having my head a little bit boggled by these overlapping AE referrals. My comments in question were directed at the wholesale deletion of a stable infobox from the page. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:42, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy It would appear that the use of prejudicial terminology is of relatively little note for these proceedings. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I am perfectly happy to take a break from this tedious conflict area and engagement with the tendentious tendencies of its actors. It is sad, depressing and frankly a waste of breath, bytes and ultimately carbon (wherever the servers are) that there are a whole rank of editors who delight in nothing more than writing up other editors. Imagine how even just the energy spent on these multiple AE referrals could have been better spent on actual editing. And that is precisely what I will be doing - taking my energies elsewhere. There is little point engaging in a content area where undoing takes precedence over doing. But I resent the accusation of incompetence. I am a perfectly competent editor - please do look at my last hurrah, which 11Fox11 has ever so kindly pointed out, and see for yourself. In hindsight, I should have simply uploaded this the first time around, but instead, I unwittingly attempted a more comprehensive re-write and clean-up of what turns out to be an ideological minefield. Clearly, I have not adapted swiftly enough to the particularly cynical brand of counter-editing that appears all-pervasive in this conflict area. But perhaps I do not wish to. Better, mayhaps, to find an area of concern that is less of a toxic soup, and where a little more good can be done. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5: I respect your opinion, but, for the record, I didn't accuse any editors of vandalism. I consulted Selfstudier, an editor far more experienced than myself, who I had previously been discussing technical issues with, for their opinion on the matter. I stated that "my instinct was" that the infobox deletion constituted 'vandalism' ('possible vandalism' in the accompanying edit note), but also noted that I had not taken action and was conscious of my own need to steer clear of potentially questionable reverts. I never made a direct accusation of vandalism, and the experienced editor I consulted duly informed that this was an inappropriate line of thinking Re: the standing definitions of vandalism. I then raised the subject in a talk page discussion where I refrained from the use of the term vandalism following the feedback from Selfstudier. More than a day later, when no satisfactory response had been provided in the talk page as to why the infobox had been deleted (instead of improved or re-sourced), I then undertook a partial revert to restore it. My subsequent edit that day was what I can only describe as an extreme error of judgement, and you are right that I stated that I understood the 1RR rules, but clearly I slightly misunderstood the brightness of the bright red line. I had thought that a re-write on the scale that I undertook would not simply be construed as 'a revert of different material', but be taken in the context of the broader restructuring of the article that I attempted. I was evidently misguided in my actions and how they would be viewed, as well as overambitious in my undertaking. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Guerillero: Yes, I restored some of the newly sourced material that made up a part of my attempted re-write, and which was never part of the body of material considered as a revert. This was also done in complete obedience to the rules, even if, as 11Fox11 would like to assert, not in spirit. The case remains that 11Fox11's main complaint appears to be against the removal of the phrasing 'contested political' in front of 'term' from the short description as part of the attempted re-write. Given that the rewrite added a significant body of material explaining the term's academic origins and history of usage, this rather specific short description was no longer inappropriate, but clearly I should have let some other editor tweak it. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage could someone point out to me where on the talk page (his or the article) Iskandar323 has been invited to self revert the alleged 1R breach as per usual practice?Selfstudier (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the edit described in revert 1, could editor @Free1Soul: kindly explain the edit summary "(deadlinks miss placed. Provide citations and fix text)" in relation to the reverted edit, in particular the removal of tags and the infobox along with all of it's sources. I did see that, the following day, when Iskandar323 asked you to restore this material on the article talk page under the section "Removal of infobox and other unconstructive edits" it was only then that you (backed up by the complaining editor here) provided a variety of not entirely satisfactory after the fact explanations.Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know whether Iskander323 intended to canvass me to his side of the discussion, we had been discussing one thing and another on his talk page prior so it is possible it was merely a continuation in the same vein. If it was a canvassing attempt, then it was a signal failure as I did not even visit the page, merely advising the editor to take things forward on the talk page which I now see that he quite properly did. Is it merely coincidental that we have the same three versus one situation as in the complaint just adjudicated? Selfstudier (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had time to examine revert 2 and even if it was not the intent to revert, it is clear that is what has happened all the same. In mitigation, I do think the editor should have been given the opportunity to self revert, that is the custom.Selfstudier (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, in this disruptive edit, Iskandar323 tagged around 20 refs as dead links. Most of those tags were wrong, either tagging live links (or links with archive versions) or tagging refs with no urls (books and journals), in which there was no url that was dead. Free1Soul (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323 is pushing his pov over and over in the page. He is not listening. Free1Soul (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, Iskandar323 is not accurately portraying my comment. "Arab Jew" is a term that most Mizrahi Jews (the so labelled "Arab Jews") find offensive, this is what sources say. I did not use the N word. I said that labelling populations, that reject this term, as "Arab Jews" in the infobox was inappropriate - inappropriate in the same manner as adding a population box to the article Nigger (or for that matter Kike or any other offensive term that has an article on Wikipedia). The example article was one where it would be obvious a population box would be out of the question. The reasons why "Arab Jew" are offensive to us Mizrahim are complex and have many layers, but one important layer is that it erases Jewish ethnic identity, reducing the Jewish identity to a religion, putting those labelled outside the Jewish people and into a different ethnic group. Use of this term implies we are less Jewish than other Jews.

My point was that labelling people who do not identify themselves with this term in the infobox was unappropriate. Free1Soul (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The argument about the N-word is obscene (Arab Jew is in fact a widely used term, objected to by some, not most as the bs above claims), and a user who thinks that is a valid argument to make should think carefully about accusing others of "POV-pushing". As far as the reverts, Iskandr, you need to slow down. If you get reverted stop editing the article for a day. Boom, never have a 1RR violation again. nableezy - 21:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the opinion piece in the Haaretz article makes the opposite point the user is making, namely that Arab is not derogatory and the response to being called "the Arab" would best be "yes, I am a proud Arab Jew". All that is quite beside the point though, there is a reason you will not find the n-word printed in most reliable sources except when the word itself is being discussed, and even then it is rarely spelled out. A user thinks it is appropriate to compare "Arab" to the n-word. You know which is more offensive? The one that even this uncouth foul mouthed African Arab won't spell out. Jesus F Christ yall are something else. nableezy - 14:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most Sephardic Jews object to this language. Nableezy links to a book by Shenhav who is one of the promoters of this language. Shenhav noted himself in an article that: ""it is not surprising that very few Jews of Arab descent, in Israel, would label themselves ‘Arab Jews’. It has turned out to be the marker of a cultural and political avant-garde. Most of those who used it, did so in order to challenge the Zionist order of things (i.e., ‘methodological Zionism’; see Shenhav, 2006) and for political reasons (Levy, 2008)" in [22] (taken from article).

Most (around 90%) Mizrahi Jews live in Israel. Shenhav, who promotes the term, says "very few" of them would use this label and that use of this label is a political marker.

This is a very loaded language to use.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 09:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: parsing Shenhav, Mizrahi Jew using this language would mark himself as a post-Zionist or anti-Zionist. This is a small minority position in Jewish or Israeli politics.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you were to call a Mizrahi Jew "Arab", that would be seen as insulting:

1. Stop Using 'Arab' as a Derogatory Term
2. [23] - "Yeshua said they also ordered him to write unfavorable articles about Netanyahu’s rivals, giving them pejorative nicknames. Naftali Bennett, a former Netanyahu ally turned rival, was known as “the naughty religious one,” and former Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, who is of North African descent, was called “smiley” and “the Arab.”"

--Geshem Bracha (talk) 09:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note that I closed the above request about Iskandar323 with a logged warning; this occurred two minutes ago and, as of now, has not yet been communicated to the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't give a hoot about any content dispute and the quality of sources and content should be determined via discussion and consensus. My only concern is, not with who agrees with what, but did Iskandar323 violate 1RR since the first thread started? If so, could Iskandar323 please acknowlege the now logged warning, self revert, and we all get on with our lives? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Free1Soul: In your own section, would you please post WP:Dif's of POV pushing? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Free1Soul: Would it be possible to address concerns raised by Iskander? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting "Re-adding Daniel Schroeter source on Mizrahi activism". So that's a partial self revert. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As nableezy puts it, " As far as the reverts, Iskandr, you need to slow down. If you get reverted stop editing the article for a day. Boom, never have a 1RR violation again."

@Geshem Bracha: I think I understand what "a political marker" means. Could you briefly elaborate on its meaning? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Iskandar323 made a “massive rewrite to re-orient this page.” Such an edit in a contentious subject area, with such an edit summary, was certain to produce contention and disruption. It was not met with cries of acclaim and the throwing of bouquets. When edits are made in such areas, one must be less bold and make smaller changes with an awareness of possible objections from other stakeholders on the page. One must be extra civil and remember to assume good faith when others disagree with one’s changes. Now, as Selfstudier has written, it would have been best to request a self revert before coming to AE, however Iskandar323 could have self reverted after being alerted to the contentiousness of this edit by the filing of this request. They did, in fact, make a ‘’partial’’ revert that was insufficient. Rather than self reverting and gaining consensus for each change, they have defended the “rightness” of their edit and sought to explain away the 1RR violation. On the face of it, they have violated 1RR.

• I also am concerned about their temperamental suitability for editing in a contentious area. There is this “arguably vandalism/unscrupulous comment”. We do not characterise edits we disagree with in this manner, even in non contentious areas. Much less in this subject area. There are also complaints about misrepresentation. Even given the possibility of simple misunderstanding, the problem is the disruption caused. Clarification and discussion is preferred to other behaviors.

• I have not looked into talk page indications of edit warring outside this area. If they are editing in a problematic manner in other areas, it does not bode well. Coupled with the possible competence issue linked by HighinBC, it strengthens the argument for a WP:TBAN.

• Guerillero has suggested yet another warning, but I think we have passed the point where warnings and admonitions can be considered. We have, in addition to the 1RR, the insistence on having things their own way, the other behavioral issues, and now the spectre of WP:CIR casting its pall on this discussion. I agree with HighinBC that a six month topic ban, broadly construed, for this subject area, is in order. If another admin thinks a shorter TBAN is preferable, then that would be fine. The goal is to stop the disruption. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting continued disruption noted by 11Fox11. It is possible to disruptively edit war by waiting to > 24 hours to perform a revert. This is gaming the system and reinforces my opinion that a TBAN is needed. It would have been better form to stop edit warring and seek to achieve concensus, but Iskandar lacks the nuance and judgement required to edit in this area. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]

• Despite the fact that the logged warning had not been given to the user at the time of the reverts, the user has had the 1RR rules painstakingly explained to them and they have acknowledged that in their previous(very recent) AE request. I feel this violation is actionable, we have already tried leniency and it seems to have not been effective. I feel they at the very least need a break from this topic area. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given their latest response[24] I am concerned this is a competence issue. It has already been explained clearly that "A "revert" means any edit that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material". They read it and said they understood it. Despite undoing the actions of other editors twice in 24 hours they are making excuses like lack of consensus or it was only a "partial revert". The 1RR is a bright line restriction and this has already been explained. My initial opinion stands that they need a break from area of sanction and now I am leaning towards a longer break, at least 6 months. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am conflifted here. The warning went out minutes after this was posted, but 1RR is a bright line rule and it was explaned to them in the last thread. My gut feeling is to tell Iskandar323 that the next time they break 1RR, or really do anthing else objectionable in the israel-palistine topic area, they will get an indef vacation from the topic. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:20, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Deepfriedokra: If people would like to try a time-limited tban now, I won't stand in the way. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Per 11Fox11's new evidence, I support a topic ban --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:39, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is actionable. On the 16th Iskandar323 left this comment saying they now understood 1RR, so I think it's fair to sanction for any 1RR violations committed after then. Both of those edits were reverts and the fact they relate to different material doesn't affect anything. Accusing good faith editors of vandalism just because you disagree with their edits isn't good either. I would support a time limited topic ban. Hut 8.5 08:16, 23 September 2021 (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

Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:21, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Piedpiper186 (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:ARBIPA

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

1. 26 september 2021 repeated request to WP:CENSOR info, after Talk:History of India#Request for removal of a certain part in the article which hurts religious feelings was closed by User:Kautilya3, who warned PiedPiper186 not to repeat that request diff...
2. september 27, 2021 ... which they refuse
3. See their talkpage for previous issues and warnings; this editor obviously is WP:NOTHERE and not willing, or able, to change course.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

• DS-alert, 24 september 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I'm not good at these processes, so apologies if I'm doing it incorrect, but their talkpage speaks for my concerns.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

diff

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.

• Looking through the contributions, I'm not sure that this needs AE action, IMHO, a regular admin action of a WP:NOTHERE block is warranted. However, since this has been brought here, I'll hold off on the block for a while to make sure there are no opposing views on that. —SpacemanSpiff 10:31, 27 September 2021 (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.

I apologize for wasting your time, I struck all my comments above. I should have taken a very deep breath and explained in greater detail before coming here. 11Fox11 (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2021 (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.

On 24 September, an editor removed material from the lead and placed it in the body instead. There were then intervening edits and continuing discussions on the talk page in the normal course. Then because the lead at that point contained zero criticism (on the 29th), I made a summary of some of what was in the body as criticism and added it to the lead as is normal practice (it's not even exactly the same although I agree it is similar). A revert would have been taking the same material back out of the body and reinserting it into the lead.

The second diff is a revert, I made that straightaway because there was an ongoing discussion at the NPOV noticeboard where an editor gave his opinion and then came to the article and reverted in order to enforce his opinion, which I thought was an unreasonable thing to do.

I asked 11Fox11 several times to explain what the second revert was a revert of and he declined to do so even though I said that if he could convince me that I had breached 1R I would of course fix it but he just ignored that and filed here. He has now reverted the material out of the lead himself so even if my editing was considered a revert, I would not be able to self revert it anyway. This is not collaborative behavior. Selfstudier (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'll ask the same question that Selfstudier asked: where is the second revert? I see addition of material and one revert. Was that initial addition the restoration of previously removed material? EvergreenFir (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never mind, I see it now. That is indeed 2 reverts. Removal, restoration, removal, revert. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The section on Selfstudier's page where 11Fox11 asks them to self-revert doesn't throw a very good light on 11Fox11, I must say. Like EvergreenFir, I can figure out how this diff is a revert — this edit four days earlier had moved material out of the lead into a criticism section, and Selfstudier moved it back — but it's not altogether simple, so why not just explain it when you're asked? You seem to have been in a tearing hurry to report Selfstudier, too much so to explain (look at the timestamps in the linked discussion, and the comment "I am writing up the AE report beginning 5 minutes from now"), which gives off a bit of a gotcha whiff. I don't think I have ever commented on an ARBPIA case before, but I'm not happy about this one. I wouldn't sanction Selfstudier. Bishonen | tålk 19:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• This is classic weaponizing of AE, which I take a dim view of. 11Fox11, this noticeboard is for intractable matters. As Bish points out, I-got-AE-on-speed-dial, you-have-5-minutes obviously falls short. Such an approach (not bothering to explain yourself when asked) does you no credit and, basically, amounts to WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. El_C 20:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, for Heaven's sake. I must say that "classic weaponizing of AE," was my first impression. Bish, as always, cuts through to the heart of the matter. To be honest, I'd sooner sanction 11Fox11 for this battleground approach. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2021 (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

Hippeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

ZScarpia (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:ARBPIA4#ARBPIA General Sanctions (standard discretionary sanctions).

I looked into ZScarpia following a blog post by David Collier from 23 September 2021 that was brought to my attention. I disagree with Collier in general, and with much of the specific blog post, however I was concerned by Collier detailing how ZScarpia smeared him on a Wikipedia talk page using extremely dubious sources and I decided to probe deeper into this aspect. I have thoroughly vetted this particular claim by Collier, and uncovered additional and systematic use of this very dubious blog by ZScarpia. ZScarpia's posting of false smears against a living he is in a feud, in regards to Palestine/Israel, requires attention.

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

1. 13:21, 28 August 2021 Accusing living person (David Collier) of "is also suspected of being associated with the GnasherJew "crew"[28][29][30][31]", using one source (Jewish News) that does not mention Collier at all and three sources that are beyond dubious and are known for antisemitism. This violates the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Source context:
   1. https://dorseteye.com/i-give-you-david-collier/ The Dorset Eye, little known site other than being infamous for: this post which led to the suspension of a politician who shared this apparent murder threat. ([32][33] )
   2. https://twitter.com/socialistvoice/status/1104051361447059456 - Twitter of SocialistVoice run by an individual expelled from Labour for his statements, which include language such as "Jewish companies" and "Jewish blood"[34] (in relation to Tesco and Marks & Spencer
   3. https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-lies-and-deceit-of-david-collier.html Worst for last, blog post by Tony Greenstein who was expelled from Labour for anti-Semitism and for whom a high court determined that 'notorious antisemite' is not libel when used to describe him (Greenstein declared bankruptcy after being order to pay legal fees to the Campaign Against Antisemitism, after losing the case he filed and and appeal).
2. 15:15, 4 September 2021 On a BLP talk page, posting links to The Electronic Intifada (red list at WP:RSP) and Tony Greenstein's blog which is even worse as a counter source to The Times.
3. 09:35, 2 September 2021 (+another copy: 09:36, 2 September 2021) Posting material in violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY, WP:NOTAFORUM.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 25 August, 2021 also indicated awareness on talk page (Israel lobby in the United Kingdom) where he posted the BLP smear using Greenstein as a source (+here).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

ZScarpia indicated on 17:31, 28 August 2021 that Collier "is not a fan" of his.

ZScarpia has a long history of using Tony Greenstein as a source on Israel, Jews, and related biographies and organisations :

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984#NOTFORUM at Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism, discussion of a NOTAFORUM post by ZScarpia on a Jewish organization and resisting removal, ZScarpia linked to Tony Greenstein's blog on azvsas.blogspot.
2. 04:13, 18 May 2020 use of tonygreenstein.com (twice!) for info on living persons.
3. 10:30, 7 May 2019 use of Tony Greenstein's blog on azvsas.blogspot
4. 13:12, 9 March 2019 same
5. 18:16, 24 July 2016 same, other article.

This list was compiled by searching for "azvsas.blogspot" and tonygreenstein.com in Wikipedia, ZScarpia is the sole user here posting these links recently.

ZScarpia use of a blog by a person whom the UK legal system upheld the descriptor 'notorious antisemite' was legitimate viewpoint for posting forumish talk page smears on Jewish persons is unbecoming conduct.--Hippeus (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ARBPIA relevance (Selfstudier): Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, Talk:Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party, Talk:Jenny Tonge, Baroness Tonge, and Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism all have Arab-Israeli conflict templates. Talk:David Miller (sociologist) probably should have a notice too, and the posted link to Greenstein's blog is conflict related (title: "The Union of Jewish Students is not a Cuddly Group of Fragile Jewish Students – it is the Israeli State on Campus – Dedicated to Defaming Opponents of Israeli Apartheid"). The posts at Talk:Denis MacShane and Talk:All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism are a posting of a 45 page ruling in which Israel is mentioned 107 times, boycott 44 times (against Israel), and (anti)"semiti*" 87 times. All of these posts fall within ARBPIA.--Hippeus (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Deepfriedokra and El C: the short version is that David Collier on his website complained that he was being smeared by ZScarpia in this diff, in which ZScarpia stated that: Collier is "suspected of being associated with the GnasherJew "crew"". This assertion is sourced entirely to dubious sources (and a RS that does not mention Collier or GnasherJew), including Tony Greenstein's blog. ZScarpia has been using Greenstein's blog in other talk pages, and I document other BLPTALK issues towards ARBPIA figures on the other side of the divide.--Hippeus (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ZScarpia&diff=prev&oldid=1046467703

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'm assuming that I won't be allowed the time it would personally take me to work up a decent response in one go. To break things down, I think the best approach would be to address a particular editor's statements in turn, starting, probably, as the statements are presented in list form, with Levivich's.

Just prior to raising this request, Hippeus went through a series of talkpages removing large chunks of my comments ([35][36][37][38][39]) in a manner which, I think, doesn't show his or her own editing in a good light. There was no attempt at discussion. A less belligerent editor might have actually have attempted to ask me what the purpose of my comments was before assuming that there was none. The deletions weren't signed, so there is no indication of who did the removals or when. My impression has been that comments should not be removed unless they very clearly break the rules, and even then, only if it serves to reduce disruption rather than increase it, yet the reasons supplied for, at least, the bulk of the removals have a pretty tenuous justification.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--- Levivich's Statement ---

(Comments I made about David Collier seem to be of most concern, so, perhaps saving everyone's time and hopefully without trying everybody's patience, I'll address Levivich's first three points on their own. An opportunity to comment before the request is closed would be appreciated.)

* Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom: The two talkpage sections involved: [40][41].

Prior to adding the first, 18 May 2020, comment I carried out Google searches to determine whether there was sufficient source evidence to state as a fact that Collier was part of the GnasherJew team or only that it was suspected. One source found was a Jewish News portmaneau webpage, whose lower part I read as describing Collier as a GnasherJew spokesman. I took the combination of a regular news source describing him thus along with other sources showing that it was believed that he was a member of the team, and why, as fairly watertight justification for describing him as part of the team on the talkpage. I could not find a way of providing a link for the lower part of the webpage separately. Using the original link I supplied now only causes the top section to be displayed. What I think was the lower part is now available, on its own, at this link. Embarrassingly, due to focussing on a small number of paragraphs, rather than the complete article, it now appears to me that my interpretation was wrong and therefore the justification for stating that Collier was an actual, rather than suspected, GnasherJew member much weakened. The misinterpretation was, clearly, a failure on my part. By the 28 Aug 2021 comment, I decided to use a form of words that was easily verifiable, by simple Google searches, as a true factual statement, so wrote: "he is also 'suspected of being associated with the GnasherJew 'crew'."

Levivich mentions that I removed the last part of the comment added on 15 June 2020, but omits when that occurred. That text was on the talkpage for 22 minutes altogether.

Levivitch stated: "This is Contentious material...poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, and it's repeated." Though, due to a failure of interpretation on my part, the statement that Collier was an actual GnasherJew member turns out to be poorly sourced, the statement that he was suspected to be a member is easily verifiable as factually true. In my interpretation of the rule, easily verifiable factually true statements are not 'controversial' (if the meaning of 'controversial' is interpretted as anything that might upset the sensibilities of any particular editor, the description would apply generally right across the whole ARBPIA topic area). Collier himself was personally referred to in a cited source which was taken as reliable until the current set of eSharp editors were persuaded to disown it, making him a legitimate subject in the article. I provided the material very much with the intention that it would, at some point, affect the article content. Levivich is taking too narrow a view of what "making content choices" means I think.

    ←   ZScarpia   14:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Denis MacShane

I was very surprised by Rosguill's remark that my talkpage comment "seem(s) to truly be unrelated to content decisions." Levivich's argument is, I think, nonsense.

As set out in the my talkpage comment and touched on in the articles on each,[42][43] Denis MacShane and John Mann was, in the former case, and is, in the latter, a prominent UK Parliamentary supporter of Israel with roles on, among other bodies, the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Anti-Semitism. As such, they acted as witnesses for the complainant in the Ronnie Fraser versus University and College Union (UCU) tribunal case, an attempt to counter boycott activity within the union which spectacularly backfired, with all 10 complaints dismissed and the judgement calling the case "an impermissible attempt to achieve a political end by litigious means."[44][45][46][47] The case was fairly widely covered in the press (try Googling, for example, the search term "ronnie+fraser"+union) and has a chapter devoted to it in David Hirsh's book "Contemporary Left Antisemitism". The Parliamentary witnesses, MaShane and Mann, were strongly criticised[48][49] MacShane was "not surprised that the U.K.’s Employment Tribunal was incapable of grasping Fraser’s arguments," stating his "concern that (the) employment law judges were not people who were intellectually equipped to deal with the UCU’s action against Jews in the U.K. and in Israel."[50]

I think that there is a good case for including at least a small amount of detail about the case in the MacShane article, especially since his "antisemitism" activities are mentioned. My comment was an attempt to spark a discussion about including material and to help editors by providing a link to the judgement document itself and a full quotation from the section concerning MacShane and Mann.

Levivich called my comment not only "a BLPTALK violation, but also a WP:NOTAFORUM violation." BLPTALK concerns itself with contentious BLP material on talkpages. What the tribunal judges had to say is not in dispute and why a full quotation from the judgement should be considered contentious is not clear to me. WP:NOTAFORM states that talkpages should not be used for general, forumy discussions of the topic. The purpose of my comment was not to start such a conversation.

Levivich stated: "No editor is entitled to pick a quote out of some document and post it on an article talk page." The quote is of the complete part of a judgement mentioning MacShane which was mentioned in various sources. What exactly was the problem with posting it and what else, if anything, should I have included?

Levivich stated: "ZScarpia never edited this article, and this is the only post ZScarpia made to this talk page." So why exactly is that a point worth mentioning at AE?

Levivich stated: "This is using BLP talk pages as a forum to argue." Where exactly is the argument and why would you think that was my intention?

Hippeus deleted the entire comment citing NOTAFORUM, BLPPRIMARY and BLPTALK. Hippeus should justify his reasons or else restore my comment. I've commented on the application of NOTAFORUM and BLPTALK above.

    ←   ZScarpia   19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC) (Please ask me to stop if this has continued beyond the point of tedium)[reply]

--- Inf-in MD's Statement---

As mentioned on the talkpage, contrary to what Inf-in MD claims, the person being referred is dead and so it's a bit dubious that WP:BLP applies. It was being claimed that the writer in question, from a blog of whose material was being inserted in the article, is "an ideal source for her perspective regardless as to whether one is Zionist or anti-Zionist." The quote shows that anti-Zionists would probably disagree.     ←   ZScarpia   17:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--- El_C ---

@El C:: "I will stop using low quality sources for BLPs would have sufficed."

Above I made an admission that I screwed up by misinterpreting what was supposed to be the reliable source providing verification for the statement about David Collier. The situation wasn't helped by a number of things. Firstly, what was displayed after clicking on the link for that source, a Jewish News webpage, changed. Secondly, the other links I provided were interpreted as having been provided as reliable sources for verification purposes, which was not actually the case. They had, in fact, been supplied to provide further information and back up the Jewish News article. I am aware of the BLP requirement for verifiability and neutrality on any page, including talkpages. In the response to Rosguill's last comment I have been working on, I was going to deal with solutions to the confusion my talkpage comments have clearly produced, such as making clear what the purpose of the links I had provided were.

I came very late to the discussion, which had grown quite bulky by the time I arrived. I'm still struggling to get to grips with it. I haven't read everything let alone absorbed it. The last couple of days were spent trying to figure out how best to go about responding and then actually write something. Probably like everybody in my position (and, overall I haven't had much practice at it), you do kind of expect people to wait to hear both sides before coming to conclusions. What pain I might have been saved if only I'd been home earlier or away longer!

    ←   ZScarpia   21:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:: "ZScarpia, doesn't feel like you're getting it. When it comes to advancing any sort of BLP assertions of note, those kind of sources are strictly prohibited (and their usage otherwise is strongly discouraged irrespectively)."

Thank you. That's clear and understandable. I'm sorry for the disruption and wasted time I caused.     ←   ZScarpia   00:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've now had more of a chance to fully get to grips with what was being said and to make sense of it.     ←   ZScarpia   12:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:: I hope that striking out and substituting new text resolves any BLP problem. Please just delete the whole comment otherwise.     ←   ZScarpia   18:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--- Rosguill ---

@Rosguill: Lest it look rude that I hadn't replied to your last comment, please know that I had been working on a response. One thing I'd like to mention which might help to explain some of the editing pecularities observed is that I have a personal rule not to directly edit the articles of people I don't like.     ←   ZScarpia   00:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused as to how this fits into Arbpia? Is the complaint based on the material related only to the page Israel lobby in the United Kingdom? If so, what is the relevance of all the other material? It seems more like a blp complaint rather than Arbpia? Selfstudier (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. The three diffs that you say violate Arbpia are in relation to Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, David Miller and Denis MacShane, the last does not have the Arbpia notice and the nature of the complaints re all three appears to be as blp violations rather than AI conflict related per se.

So there is a backstory. I can't see how trouble being caused by and for some irrelevant blogger has anything to do with Arbpia (Diff 1). There appear to be some content/sourcing issues + alleged blp vios but I can't see much else here, much ado about very little.Selfstudier (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This case is special, resolved without any testimony from the defendant;)Selfstudier (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"..the quality of the sources cited in talk page discussions" is an issue that I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree with although forumy stuff typically doesn't last very long on IP related talk pages. Reflecting on the initial complaint, I remain a little baffled where it has all come from to begin with, it almost reads as if Hippeus is acting for Collier ("...a blog post by David Collier from 23 September 2021 that was brought to my attention" and "...I have thoroughly vetted this particular claim by Collier") which would be a little unusual if that were the case. I guess what I am saying is that looked at in the round, I don't really think that Zscarpia has engaged in an intentionally unreasonable pattern of behavior and I wonder if this could not have been sorted out equably without involving this board.Selfstudier (talk) 13:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per RSP, "There is no consensus on the reliability of Mondoweiss. Editors consider the site biased or opinionated, and its statements should be attributed." so the statement "group blog of poor quality and dubious reliability" would appear to be something of an exaggeration.Selfstudier (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Collier is a blogger and activist who <redacted>. A typical article title is (admins: I revdelled this as it includes outing). Now ZScarpia quotes some sources that are "negative" (it is claimed) about Collier on a talk page. It should be observed that this case is practically a copy-paste of a portion of that article of Collier. Nearly the whole thing is there. To see the worth of this, Collier claims it is a "smear" to associate him with a twitter account "well-known for exposing antisemites" (Collier's words). Since Collier himself claims to be dedicated to exposing antisemites, exactly why is it a smear? It might be correct or incorrect, but claiming it is a smear is transparently a tendentious way to attack Zscarpia and nothing else. This case should be dismissed. Zero^talk 03:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geshem Bracha claims "ZScarpia uses a blog post from Greenstein to defend David Irving’s credentials as a historian". Everyone can see that in fact ZScarpia is quoting verbatim from the judgement of the Irving-Lipstadt libel case, which is quite rightly considered a major indictment of Irving. ZScarpia has included all of this section of the judge's remarks as well as the negative caveat in the following section. It doesn't matter a damn where ZScarpia found the link to the trial judgement. Moreover, ZScarpia included more of the judgement than Greenstein quoted, so it is not true that ZScarpia just quoted from Greenstein. ZScarpia is perfectly entitled to choose which part of the trial judgement to quote. Altogether, this is a false charge and Geshen Bracha should withdrawn it. Zero^talk 08:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Geshem Bracha, the fact that Collier tells lies about me does not mean I have to shut up about him. Your "Nazis" comment is a severe and blatant violation of NPA. Zero^talk 07:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geshem Bracha, I gave a source but I had to rev-del it as it includes outing. Admins here can look at what I rev-delled and see that my charge was eminently justified. Your "hint" that ZScarpia is a holocaust denier for quoting from a judge who concluded that Irving is a holocaust denier was simply outrageous. And the modified version of your "Nazis" attack is no better than the first version. I hope ZScarpia starts a case against you at AN/I to have you blocked. Zero^talk 08:18, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, all of the diffs provided against ZScarpia are for talk pages. There is no rule against mentioning unreliable sources on talk pages. In particular, in the process of robustly assessing the reliability of sources (as we are all required to do) it is often useful to discuss sources of all kinds. Provided the unreliable sources don't get into articles, this is just normal editing. Zero^talk 09:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More detail:
(1) "Collier tells lies about me" = without offering any evidence (because there is none), Collier falsely claims that nobody can challenge my edits because I will block them.
(2) "Insults and libels" = Collier accuses a considerable number of Wikipedia editors in good standing of being terrorism supporters and antisemites.
(3) "I revdelled this as it includes outing" = I didn't notice until after I identified the article that it includes outing; any administrator who asks me privately for a link will get one.
(4) The Irving-Lipstadt trial judgement is here. Greenstein quoted 13.7 and ZScarpia quoted 13.7 plus 13.8. The issue at hand was whether Irving has any value as a military historian, not whether he is a Holocaust denier and antisemite, and these are the pertinent sections. Incidentally, Greenstein says that Irving is "undoubtedly a neo-Nazi" so painting Greenstein as an Irving fan is simply wrong. Zero^talk 00:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why is it a BLP violation to suggest David Collier is associated with Gnasher Jew? Nobody seems to be addressing that basic point. It could be OR or a RS violation, but that doesn't belong here. By Collier's own description, the Gnasher Jew twitter account is "well-known for exposing antisemites". Collier's description of his own mission is to "expose lies and antisemitism". The two are almost the same. People are writing as if ZScarpia wrote that Collier murdered his mother, not just with being associated with a ideologically compatible activist. Zero^talk 02:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000 and ZScarpia have a COI on Collier and shouldn’t be writing anything about him.

ZScarpia systemic use of Tony Greenstein is beyond the pale, this is a person described as a “notorious antisemite” and who was expelled from Labour for mocking the Holocaust term Final Solution.

I found ZScarpia using Greenstein in another instance: in this post from September 2020, ZScarpia uses a blog post from Greenstein to defend David Irving’s credentials as a historian. Irving is a well known Holocaust denier.

This is a straightforward Wikipedia:No Nazis situation, an editor posting from Greenstein over and over again is not here to build an encyclopedia.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GizzyCatBella, I did not write that. I meant that the No Nozi essay applies to ZScarpia's repeated use of the Greenstein blog. In particular, the last line of WP:BLOCKNAZIS: "editors who come here to push this fringe point of view in articles, under the guise of the neutral point of view policy, are typically blocked as POV pushers."Geshem Bracha (talk) 07:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, ZScarpia linked to Greeenstein's blog post in his posting on Irving, in a manner that cherry picks sources on Irving.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zero0000, your statement accusing Collier of trading in "insults and libels" is a serious personal attack, without sources, against Collier.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ZScarpia posted, with a link to Greensrein's blog that has the quote, what is probably the only positive paragraph in the ruling against Irving. In the same discussion ZScarpia also introduced a Labour Against the Witchhunt video and Facebook post as sources.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting beginning of ZScarpia's post: "Tony Greenstein, one of the goup responsible for organising the Campaign For Free Speech meetings, discusses them, including Norman Finkelstein's contributions, in a recent article on his blog ..." Use of Greenstein with double link to his blog is obvious. Linking to Greenstein's blog in a discussion about the "Opinion of David Irving" (section title) is perverse.--Geshem Bracha (talk) 09:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straightforward Wikipedia:No Nazis situation..

Is Geshem Bracha accusing Zero0000 and ZScarpia of being Nazis!? Am I reading that correctly? - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not using unreliable sources on talk the problem is violation of WP:BLPTALK. We are not allowed to put negative statements without high quality WP:RS. --Shrike (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Its quite troublesome that Zscarpia don't acknowledge the problematic nature of his comments toward living person using subpar sources --Shrike (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: Do you really think that that Mondoweiss source meets our WP:BLP policy?--Shrike (talk) 16:59, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Do you think that our WP:BLP policy is garbage? Also your post contains WP:ASPERSIONS and such WP:NPA violation. Please stop you WP:BATTLE attitude there is no "adversaries" here --Shrike (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill, El C, and Deepfriedokra:Just to make it clear does Nableezy comments are acceptable? So it will be clear what kind of discourse are expected here at WP:AE. --Shrike (talk) 07:27, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked closure/additional input at WP:ANC --Shrike (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: The problem that user use the same rhetoric on talk page too [51],[52]. It doesn't really matter if his accusation are true or not there is a place for such discussion I for example have my reservation too about some users but I keep it to myself. This area is already toxic such rhetoric doesn't help build Wikipedia. --Shrike (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPTALK says Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Here are instances where ZScarpia violated BLPTALK:

At Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom:

• 18 May 2020: ...David Collier, a member of the team behind the GnasherJew twitter feed [53][54][55][56][57][58], and Jonathan Hoffman[59][60], former vice-president of the Zionist Federation[61].
• 15 Dec 2020: David Collier, part of the GnasherJew conglomerate, is currently kicking off about Jane Jackman's eSharp article.[62][63] I do hope that Glasgow University refuses to fold and tells him where to go (back under whichever bridge he crawled out from underneath, I imagine) and what to do with himself.
  • Note: ZScarpia removed the line "I do hope that..."
  • An IP removed "part of the GnasherJew conglomerate" as a BLPVIO
• 28 Aug 2021: David Collier, who is mentioned in the article as one of the founders of Israel Coalition, writes a blog called Beyond the Great Divide (he is also suspected of being associated with the GnasherJew "crew"[64][65][66][67]).
• This is Contentious material...poorly sourced and not related to making content choices, and it's repeated.

At Talk:Denis MacShane:

• 2 Sep 2021: The tribunal report had the following to say about the two MPs...[quote from the tribunal].
• This isn't just a BLPTALK violation, but also a WP:NOTAFORUM violation. Zero writes above that ZScarpia is perfectly entitled to choose which part of the trial judgement to quote, but no, no editor is entitled to pick a quote out of some document and post it on an article talk page, especially if it's contentious and on a BLPTALK and, as BLPTALK says not related to making content choices.
• This post had no relation to any content choices. Unless there are deleted edits I can't see, ZScarpia never edited this article, and this is the only post ZScarpia made to this talk page. The talk page had not been edited in over three months (June 1) prior to ZScarpia making this post. This is using BLP talk pages as a forum to argue.
• The post was removed by Hippeus.

At Talk:David Miller (sociologist):

• 4 Sep 2021: By way of contrast to the views espoused by The Times...[link to Electronic Intifada, unreliable per WP:RSP, and a blog]
• Unless there are deleted edits, ZScarpia never edited this article, and made no posts to the talk page except for this one. The last post in that thread was from three weeks' prior. Arguably, this post was related to making content choices insofar as it sought to rebut content in the mainspace article that was sourced to The Times, but in that case, ZScarpia should not be bringing unreliable sources into the discussion. It makes me nervous that someone in PIA would be rebutting The Times with Electronic Intifada and a blog.

From 2018: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984#NOTFORUM at Talk:Campaign Against Antisemitism, which is about ZScarpia violating NOTAFORUM by linking to unreliable sources in forum-y talk page posts. Two examples:

• 21 May 2018 was a restoration of comments ZScarpia had made in 2016 and 2017. Note it also links to Electronic Intifada and a blog.
• 12 July 2018: ... if the accusations made in the following blog piece turn out to be true ... is a sentence no editor should ever be typing out. I mean the last we want to be doing is linking to accusations about a living person in a blog piece.

So, this has been going on for some time now, and I think we need some assurance from ZScarpia that it won't happen again.

WP:BLPTALK also says: Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of no personal attacks.

Zero wrote above: David Collier is a blogger and activist who <redacted>. That was a personal attack against a BLP subject. Zero writes that Collier tells lies about me does not mean I have to shut up about him; actually, Zero does have to shut up about Collier on-wiki--Zero can write about Collier on some other website, not here. I have redacted the comment.

Zero wrote above: There is no rule against mentioning unreliable sources on talk pages. There is, it's BLPTALK, quoted above.

Zero wrote: I gave a source but I had to rev-del it as it includes outing. Admins here can look at what I rev-delled and see that my charge was eminently justified. WTF? An admin can't post outing, then revdel it, then tell fellow admins to go look at it so they can see it was justified. That's not how we submit private evidence. Levivich 19:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• We can't be using this website to trash BLP subjects, even if they trash us. It doesn't necessarily create COI, but we can't just respond in kind; we need to maintain our neutrality and objectivity, even if others don't. I don't think any sanctions are required here but let's all be clear about what's the right way and what's the wrong way to discuss BLP subjects on-wiki. Levivich 16:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Building an encyclopedia means summarizing reliable sources, and linking to or repeating sources that are yellow at RSP, blogs, or other unreliable sources, will not help us summarize reliable sources. What unreliable sources say is not relevant to a summary of reliable sources, and unreliable sources cannot verify anything because they are unreliable.
  If you Google a person's name and they have a Wikipedia article, the article will be the first thing that comes up, or among the first. The article talk page is but one click away from that. So type a person's name into most browser search bars, and it's two clicks to the talk page. We all know this; that's why BLP policy exists. We don't want to link to unreliable sources or repeat what they say on such a prominent place as a BLP talk page, especially since it won't help us with our task of summarizing reliable sources. And it doesn't matter what the content in the unreliable sources is, it just matters that it's content from an unreliable source. Article talk pages should be the domain of only reliable sources. Levivich 01:04, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosguill: quite disheartening to hear you say within the worn bounds of civility defined by the other parties to this dispute. It should be the same bounds of civility for everyone. Particularly when the only parties to this dispute are one editor and three BLP subjects. And as a general comment, not just specific to Ros, the whole line of argument that it's ok to violate BLP if the BLP subject deserves it, or it's ok to violate WP:CIVIL if the other person deserves it... it makes me sad to read it, I think that kind of thinking falls short of how we should enforce our own policies as a community. Levivich 14:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

vocal supporters with barely a fig leaf of pretense as to what people's motives are Seriously Ros??? What are my motives? What are anyone's motives here? Christ on a cracker you just keep making it worse. Levivich 15:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Collier is a hyperpartisan pro-Israel blogger who has levelled numerous absurd hyperbolic accusations against Wikipedia, including that it is "At war with the Jews" [68], and is "the most active spreader of antisemitism on the planet" [69]. I don't think that any of their claims can be taken seriously. That said, BLP restrictions do apply, and I have no view on whether ZScarpia has violatem them with regards to David Collier. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that because some living person is upset with the coverage of them on Wikipedia means that they get to disparage our editors and in so doing so veto who may discuss them is asinine. That a living person makes things up about an editor does not make it so that editor has a conflict of interest, and no Zero nor ZScarpia do not need to stop discussing said person. Yes they should use reliable sources when doing so, but somebody making bullshit claims on their blog about an editor does not make it so that this editor has a COI. That is beyond stupid and would allow any person to disqualify any editor they choose from editing their biography. The lockstep support for such an absurd report is also a bit concerning imo. nableezy - 15:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The claim on outing is likewise asinine. nableezy - 16:48, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The regularity in which editors on one side of a POV divide are coming here pushing such straight up garbage accusations is really more concerning than any part of this complaint. And the socks of banned users who regularly return to spare with their former adversaries. nableezy - 16:50, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No Shrike, I dont believe anything I havent said. Did I say the BLP policy is garbage? Cus that question is as silly as the outing claim. As far as aspersions, no I am saying directly Inf-In-MD is a NoCal100 sock, and I am working on that SPI presently. And lol no adversaries here. You and 11Fox11 just happen to show up in support of bans of editors with a particular editing history, and in opposition of others. Silly me. nableezy - 17:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:, sure, will cite diffs next time. But since you said you arent looking for them now, will just go back to working on that SPI. But I assure you, it is not a fire and forget accusation. I will be filing an SPI hopefully within the week. I think you mistook my "Jesus, that escalated quickly." That was a remark about how the sanctions on unrelated pages had escalated by ArbCom, not by you. I was surprised at the ruling that made ECP preferred for unrelated articles. That was the escalation (the clarification by ArbCom, not by you) I referred to. nableezy - 01:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I apologize for using "garbage accusations" about a user saying that it is an OUTING violation to connect somebody, not a Wikipedia editor, with a twitter account, again not a Wikipedia account. I will figure out another way of characterizing what I think fails even the most basic reading of the first sentence of WP:OUTING (where it says another editor's personal information). As far as the socking accusation, it was in reference to Inf-in MD, and I still promise that SPI is coming this week. nableezy - 14:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, i said in the comment immediately following the sock comment it was directed at Inf-in MD. There wasnt any hunting necessary. The garbage comment I thought was a fairly obvious addition to the the claim on outing is likewise asinine. I apologize for using the word "garbage" since you seemed to take offense to it. But yes, I think the OUTING accusation in the section by 11Fox11 is of such low quality it qualifies. Ill try to find another wording for such a low quality attempt at banning an opponent in the future. nableezy - 15:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will not again refer to Inf-in MD as a NoCal100 sock until an SPI is filed. nableezy - 15:30, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The use of Tony Greenstein's blog, whose blog posts were deemed offensive enough to result in a Labour expulsion, is not reasonable. ZScarpia has not backed down from using this blog in their comments here.

GnasherJew is an anonymous account (it was reinstated) so tying real people to the account is a form of outing, which is serious here given the amount of vitriol here directed at Jewish activists in the UK. Collier has denied being GnasherJew after ZScarpia's comments on Wikipedia.

Zero0000, Gnasher Jew and Collier probably disagree on any number of issues. Just because they both are counter-antisemitism activists does not mean they agree on all other issues. Liz Truss and Priti Patel would probably object to being mixed up even though they are both minsters from the same party. Saying somebody is somebody else is a smear. This is beyond the outing aspect. 11Fox11 (talk) 13:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C, Deepfriedokra, and Rosguill: GnasherJew is anonymous (sources above), is not tying identified real life persons to it a form of Wikipedia:Harassment#Posting of personal information (outing)? Can Wikipedia be used for outing of anonymous accounts on other platforms (in this case Twitter)? 11Fox11 (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Despite claiming he understands what he did wrong, I don't think ZScarpia actually does. Immediately after assuring us he's had time to reflect on this, he posted the following diaprging comments about a living person here. There's no link given, but it can easily be verified that this comes from Mondonoweiss, another group blog of poor quality and dubious reliability. [70] . User:Deepfriedokra recommendation of a BLP-ban seems reasonable. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I wish the lad would remove the arrow pointing left from his signature. Kinda distracting. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Am I the only one finding this complaint really challenging to parse? And I probably know a lot more about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than the average patrolling AE admin. First, who is David Collier? Not David Collier (political scientist) I gathered. So, @mishtal on Twatter and david-collier.com — okay. Personally, I've never had a Twatter or Fakebook account, and whereas Fakebook has always limited my browsing, as of like a month ago, Twatter is doing the same thing, too. Then there's the OP statements about how David Collier "is also suspected of being associated with the GnasherJew "crew" (bold is my emphasis) ←btw, who is being quoted? But this seems more than a mere "association" seeing as the SocialistVoice (non-RS) tweet cited says: Far-right extremist David Collier, who also tweets as Gnasher Jew, says ‘wherever the Palestinian flag flies antisemitism is present’. Yikes to that last part. Yet, contrasting with their (SV, I think): Jewish companies and Jewish blood — double yikes, with extra irony icing on top.

Anyway, anyone, like yours truly, not intimately familiar with the UK Labour party's anti-semitic -related (expressly so) expulsions and background, is going to be left scratching their heads here, I suspect. I get the sense that quite a bit of research is needed to figure out what's what. Because there's also David Irving, somehow, and a quote that may or may not belong to a judge (?). So confusing. I was gonna look at the revdel'd link, but it's been suppressed, so that's a secret now. I don't think ZScarpia's quoting of Ilan Pappé's Fakebook post where he describes of David Collier as a Zionist troll is a BLP violation on a talk page, but again, I, myself, am not in the position to verify that post, since Fakebook demands login (suck it, Fakebook!). Finally, the "worst for last" component RE: Tony Greenstein (whom I've never heard of before), seems... more than a bit disconcerting. Maybe I'm missing some key context there, though...? (Possible.)

ZScarpia, I will say this, however: while obviously we give a lot more leeway on talk pages wrt BLP, I don't understand why you're (seemingly) relying on unreliable blog sources and so on to such an extent. Aren't there reliable sources you're able to cite, instead? Possibly, though, the other camp is also using subpar sources in the same way and this simply hasn't been documented here yet. Who can tell. Regardless, myself, I've never been a fan of citing non-RS to get to the RS. It'd be best to just RS-it to begin with. Otherwise, I guess we'll see if another admin has an easier time decoding this request, as I'm still pretty stumped. P.S. Israel lobby in the United Kingdom wasn't on my watchlist, which does surprise me. El_C 17:24, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hippeus: well, I'm definitely not liking seeing the often-shady Fakebook, Twatter and blogosphere ARBPIA WP:BATTLEGROUND'ing becoming pervasive on Wikipedia's ARBPIA topic area, be it on talk pages or anywhere else. I'd much prefer to get any and all of that filtered through RS. The less of these -spheres featured on the project directly, the better, as far as I'm concerned. El_C 18:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hemiauchenia: I'm at war with myself. But I'm winning/losing, so inner peace achievement unlocked! El_C 00:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rosguill — making it look easy, what else is new? El_C 02:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• New AE prez is also humble? Sickening. El_C 10:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Deepfriedokra. I'd have been fine with a warning, but ZScarpia's response is just too subpar, in its WP:NOTTHEM and WP:IDHT. I will stop using low quality sources for BLPs would have sufficed (and would been mercifully brief, to boot). ZScarpia's failure to communicate such a commitment on their part, frankly, surprises me. El_C 20:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ZScarpia, doesn't feel like you're getting it. When it comes to advancing any sort of BLP assertions of note, those kind of sources are strictly prohibited (and their usage otherwise is strongly discouraged irrespectively). If that's a concept you're struggling with, which seems to be the case, a blanket BLP ban, as proposed by Deepfriedokra, seems like the logical next step (I'm sorry to say). El_C 22:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ZScarpia, the convention actually would be to deem her a recently deceased person (died this year), thus, still covered by WP:BLP. El_C 17:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nableezy: not that long ago, among other things, you provided assurances that you'd be moderating your tone a lot better, as a condition of continuing to edit the topic area. You did so facing imminent sanctions, which, I, as the admin who closed that AN/I thread, opted to forgo (unlike with your opponent), because of those assurances. A decision which I faced criticism for. So I'm letting you know that, to me, it looks like you're slipping back into those old unconstructive patterns. I doubt the community, or a quorum of uninvolved admins here at AE, or ArbCom itself, would be inclined to give you another pass if this becomes a thing again.

When you say something like: The regularity in which editors on one side of a POV divide are coming here pushing such straight up garbage accusations is really more concerning than any part of this complaint. And the socks of banned users who regularly return to spare with their former adversaries, and you do so as a fire-and-forget accusation. That's a problem. Not backing that up with evidence (which I'm not asking for at this very moment), that's a problem. If there's something in particular you wish admins to look into, be specific and cite diffs. Yes, there's partisanship in this and other contentious topic areas, but just adding more hostility to the conversation, that doesn't help anyone, yourself included. Good talk? Good talk. El_C 10:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW, the "Good talk" is in reference to this Sept 22 discussion on my talk page. Which from my perspective as an admin active in ACDS, reveals a seeming impossibility to please. If I were brief, the chances that Nableezy would have been displeased about a lack of substance was high. Instead, I was substantive, but that brought a Well Jesus that clarification escalated things dramatically. So what do you do? Can't really avoid or evade this rock, hard place, between. I don't want to belabour this... chastisement, but I'd like to stress my own displeasure with what I'm seeing recently. Hopefully, it's something that may yet be corrected, but the number of corrections that'll be extended isn't infinite, is I suppose the bottom line. El_C 12:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Chalking it up to a misunderstanding, then, Nableezy. Not sure how I was to infer that, seeing as WP:ARBPIA4 wasn't an ARCA, but sure, struck. But, Rosguill, I don't understand why you think that sort of vague there's lots of socks, garbage, etc. (i.e. who? context to here?) is in-line with the civility expected for this topic area, but I very much disagree with you that this ought to be the discourse expected. Doesn't help anyone, and it certainly doesn't help for admins to give it a pass due to... reasons. It's doing the topic area a disservice.

No objection to logging a warning to ZScarpia, now that they finally (finally, Swarm, is the point) provided assurances against repeated (is the point2) use of subpar sources for BLPs (and now also acknowledging that recently-deceased persons are also covered by the BLP policy). So I'm okay with closing this complaint thusly. El_C 10:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, I don't want to belabour this too much, but I read and re-read your "serious irony" point, and it's just not connecting for me. How does it help to express that about regulars of the other side ("garbage"), just declaratively and that's it (i.e. no substance)? How does it help to follow that up about "banned socks," etc., again, with zero substance (i.e. who/when?). To me, it's coming across as making the discussion feel negative with no benefits attached (i.e. inactionable, negativity for no discernable reason). Which hinders collaboration among good faith contributors on both sides of the POV divide. El_C 11:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, again, I was criticized for TBAN'ing Nableezy's opponent but not themselves, even though consensus at AN could have gone either way. So, no, I don't want to see that kind of rhetoric coming from them, specifically. (It's unhelpful, in general.) I want ARBPIA to be spared that kind of tone and tenor as much as humanly possible, certainly from those given an imminent warning about this already. (See my log entries dated 19 March 2021.)

I gotta stay true to my commitment as the closer of that thread, if Nableezy doesn't stay true to theirs. So this is me warning them about keeping to that. And it doesn't really help when you approach this in relative isolation when I already mentioned the broader context here. El_C 15:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: I'm not impressed with your "apology," because it qualifies for forever. Nor do I like playing guesswork or coaxing from you what you meant by "garbage" or who you were referring to as "banned socks." You promised (very adamantly, as I recall) to moderate your tone and I'm letting you know that you are falling short. Not sure what else there is to say. El_C 15:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: maybe enough with these "apologies." I apologize for using the word "garbage" since you seemed to take offense to it. That rings hallow to me. I don't need you to apologize to me. I'm not offended. But I do need you to tone it down with the acerbic barbs. As for 11Fox11, I've already warned them in the complaint directly below this one (WP:AE#Selfstudier). Anyway, maybe try to genuinely reflect on what I'm conveying to you. That's what I want. El_C 15:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @El C: Couldn't make heads or tails of it. Seemed to contradict itself. I will say 1) BLP content must be impeccably sourced. 2) Once challenged and removed, such content should not be added back without a consensus to do so. 3) We must not add negative BLP to a talk page while discussing it. You can use a dif to indicate what the challenged content is and discuss sourcing from there. I think BLP would be a more appropriate DS area to address these concerns. Much closer than this area. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Warn only and ask ZScarpia to become better acquainted with BLP. See my comment above. "I'm not sure I see the need for anything beyond warning about citing poor sources en masse in talk page discussion" .-- , echoinging Rosguill below. Well anywhere. To quote Levivich, "We can't be using this website to trash BLP subjects, even if they trash us. It doesn't necessarily create COI, but we can't just respond in kind; we need to maintain our neutrality and objectivity, even if others don't. I don't think any sanctions are required here but let's all be clear about what's the right way and what's the wrong way to discuss BLP subjects on-wiki." Special thanks to @Levivich: for making this intelligible and wrecking my Wikibreak. A gasp of surprise for @Zero0000:, who has been an admin since before I joined this project, and a suggestion they become better acquainted with BLP. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @ZScarpia: It's really quite simple. Please stop editing about living people with poor quality sources. Please do not argue your way into more than a warning. More than a warning can be a topic ban of one sort or another, blocking from editing certain pages, or a block to prevent you from editing at all. I for one take WP:BLP violations very seriously. You have now been warned. Please heed the warning. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am now convinced that a topic ban on all WP:BLP's, in articles, talk pages, discussion boards, or anywhere else, broadly construed, is in order. ZScarpia has convinced me that they will not abide by the same rules as the rest of us are bound to in this regard. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Levivich: Bravo! Bravissimo! --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• RE: Nableezy's "discourse". I would be perfectly happy to impose a TBAN on Nableezy. They know better. A block as a regular admin action would not be unreasonable. OK, a short block. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking over the specific cases identified by Levivich, only the comments at Talk:Denis MacShane seem to truly be unrelated to content decisions. The other posts are a mix of proffering examples of pro-Israel activists being active in UK at Talk:Israel lobby in the United Kingdom, and arguing for a semi-plausible (but not RS-backed) OR theory regarding David Collier's activities as they related to the discrediting of sources that were then being challenged on Wikipedia in the discussions where ZScarpia made the comments. Now, the over reliance on primary and otherwise unreliable sources is concerning, but am I correct in assessing that this only amounts to disruption insofar as off-Wikipedia commentators have complained about it being a smear campaign? And that the extent of the smear campaign is to state that Collier, a pro-Israel activist, did some pro-Israel activism and associated with other activists with similar goals? I'm not sure I see the need for anything beyond warning about citing poor sources en masse in talk page discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 01:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  El_C, it helps that I followed the Labour antisemitism debacle from afar, although now that I'm seeing it more up close I'm not regretting the former distance. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ZScarpia:, regarding the comment at Talk:Denis MacShane, now having read your reasoning it makes more sense, but in isolation its relevance to the article's content was not clear. At this point I think we're departing from policies and guidelines and instead assessing unwritten customs and norms but trying to spark conversations on talk pages as a precursor to content changes is not a typical editing process on Wikipedia, so I don't think that it's surprising that editors are asserting that it is a violation of NOTFORUM (although leaving links to potentially useful but dense, paywalled or otherwise inaccessible texts for others to use is still a good practice in my book). I'll echo Deepfriedokra and note that at this point the main unresolved issue that I would hope to see you speak to is the quality of the sources cited in talk page discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Just noting that I'm still in favor of closing this with a warning. ZScarpia could have been quicker and less pro forma with their response re source quality, but given that they have now acknowledged that issue, and that the merits of opening this case in the first place were dubious (per my first comment), I think that anything more severe than a warning is unnecessary. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As far as Nableezy's comment is concerned, a baseline assumption that socks abound for a topic like I/P isn't unreasonable: it is a topic that draws committed people who are not going to give up just because we show them the door once. Their comments in this discussion are well within the worn bounds of civility defined by the other parties to this dispute, and raking them over the coals for a technicality that occurred while they were making a complaint that pro-Palestine editors were being repeatedly grilled on trivial grounds is some serious irony. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  El C, Levivich I agree that salty rhetoric doesn't help anyone, I guess I just see it as more inevitable/understandable and don't think it merits belaboring this case. I read Nableezy's first comments as more of a general expression of frustration with the climate around I/P disputes on Wikipedia rather than targeted personal attacks, and in the context of a report whose original merits are dubious but which nonetheless has drawn out a retinue of vocal supporters with barely a fig leaf of pretense as to what people's motives are, I kinda get it. @Levivich, as far as everyone being treated the same is concerned, I was trying to express that right now I think we have rough parity of poor behavior (rough because it's a bit apples and oranges to compare the various kinds of behavior on display here), and that these standards are collectively and continuously set by people's actions. If this were happening on an article talk page I think that a more heavy handed response would be needed in order to get people back to editing constructively, but since the context for this is a report at AE, I think it's more productive to close the case, tell everyone to get back to work and remove the occasion for conflict. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• So if I'm boiling this down correctly, ZScarpia made a dubious accusation about a living person, and said living person saw it and claimed they were being "smeared". Per what is articulated above, the living person in question is biased against Wikipedia to a fairly extreme degree, believing the site is systemically antisemitic, and the "smear" in question is not actually insulting or negative to begin with. It's mostly a technicality about how the claim wasn't reliably sourced, which Scarpia concedes and says was a failure on his part. I don't see where ZScarpia's being so unreasonable, and I'm not sure what DFO is so worked up about. Maybe I'm missing something. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]