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

Solblaze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

CapnJackSp (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:ARBIP

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

CaptainJackSparrow refuses to drop the stick. Despite multiple warnings, he repeatedly uses WP:OR and prevaricates about the obvious meaning of quotes from WP:RS to justify the removal of the result on 2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff, and attempts to WP:GASLIGHT me instead of engaging with me in good faith.

1. 09:27, 3 September 2023 Removes result directly cited from Vipin Narang and Christopher Clary published in International Security, calls said material contentious and certainly problematic, as well as justifying Smahwk's (who has since not spoken) removal of this material on the basis of their personal assesment of the conflict (diff).
2. 12:18, 16 September 2023 Informed that the cited source is highly reliable, and scholarly content cannot be reverted based off the personal assessments of editors. Ghosts the talk page for weeks in response, but instantly returns when the result is restored with additional supporting citations, only to once again remove the result on the basis of their personal analysis of the conflict, claiming the result is out of context POV pushing (every citation provided for the result has used in-context quotes clearly referring to the failure of the Indian military's standoff with Pakistan - you can read them yourself).
3. 19:35, 16 September 2023 After being provided multiple quotes from the previously cited academic literature (even of Indian analysts stating the conflict was a failure on India's part), CaptainJackSparrow again claims I am presenting words out of context.
4. 18:22, 21 September 2023 In the spirit of WP:AGF, I once again directly quoted the words of scholars and Indian analysts stating the standoff was a failure on India's part, and asked CJS what specifically he may have had trouble understanding. However, CaptainJackSparrow again resorted to responding with his personal analysis.
5. 13:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Despite being warned countless times that his original research carries no weight in the face of scholarly literature, CaptainJackSparrow again declares based off nothing but his prevarication and personal analysis and that the conflict is not an Indian failure, going as far as to suggest his original research takes precedence over the words of scholars. For example, while Clary and Narang (quoted repeatedly) refer to the the failure of the military standoff with Pakistan - CaptainJackSparrow claims even then, the "standoff" didnt fail.
   CaptainJackSparrow also claims that the multiple scholars being cited are stating a fringe minority viewpoint being given undue weight in the lead. CaptainJackSparrow has not cited a single source in this entire discussion, while I have cited to death. However, the version of the lead which CaptainJackSparrow is edit warring for cites one source - some Indian news anchor with the Indian military claiming the conflict showed how brave India was and therefore achieved "some" objectives. A single Indian news anchor's comments on a conflict with Pakistan do not outweigh the works of multiple scholars writing in reputed published journals years after the conflict ended.
6. 10:40, 26 September 2023 At this point, four citations (incl. three scholars, Indian analysts, and Indian media) have been cited as saying the standoff was an Indian failure. Captain Jack Sparrow calls this obtruse reading of two sources to try and overrule the vast majority of sources (what majority of sources? the single Indian news anchor?) and declares he will keep removing the result. It is pertinent to note Captain Jack Sparrow has cited nothing but his WP:OR and prevarication ad nauseam so far.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No sanctions issued, but warning issued - see below.

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

User has posted template on their talk page in early 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User previously warned for behaviour on ARE and given very short piece of WP:ROPE by @Dennis Brown:. Asked to discuss more, in good faith.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Link

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.

While I may be held guilty of not investing too much time in the discussion cited, the string of allegations are widely inaccurate. When making the reverts, I saw someone using one source to justify writing the result of an India - Pakistan confrontation as being the "failure" of someone, as is frequently done by by vandals and new accounts with a POV to push - Which was the reason for my actions and arguments, which admittedly, could be framed better. I will do so below.

In essence, this is at best a content dispute that the OP has presented here. The OP has not even justified their claims against me - The claims regarding WP:GASLIGHT and WP:CIR do not match up to even their summary of events, let alone an unbiased reading of the situation. Indeed, the OP has continued to introduce material that has already been challenged, for which they know there is no consensus, and is changing longstanding material in the lead - This is not the mark of an editor interested in collaborative editing. The editor made no attempt at resolving the impasses through third opinion or RFC, instead attempting to brute force their preferred version through repeated reverts. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc I would be open to addressing the concerns of the OP through discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since the OP keeps dragging up the year and a half old ARE, I find it pertinent to bring to notice that the concerns were in particular with my misunderstanding of WP:CLOP at the time, something which has long since been remedied. Indeed, the point that I had been arguing (too harshly, as noted in the close), regarding maintaining strict attribution instead of stating accusations against WP:BLP subjects in wikivoice, turned out to be well founded as the news organisation withdrew those articles and allegations later on after being found to be untrue and fabricated by an employee of the news organisation. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't look good to me - I agree with literally everything said by the OP. And, not the first time that I have seen CJS engage in an idiosyncratic reading of sources that would have smacked of trolling if not for their usual competence in most areas. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have much to contribute here, I agree with the OP. Recently I recieved this comment from CJS which struck me as offposting, I proceeded to check their contribs which, while nothing immediately jumped out as a policy violation, also felt off. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Solblaze (talk · contribs) has accused CapnJackSp of violating Wikipedia policies, including WP:OR (original research), WP:GASLIGHT (gaslighting), and WP:AGF (assume good faith), and seeks enforcement of WP:ARBIP sanctions.

Solblaze claims that CapnJackSp has been engaging in disruptive behavior by repeatedly removing content from the article that describes the standoff as an "Indian failure." They argue that CapnJackSp's removal of this content is not supported by reliable sources and that he has instead relied on his personal analysis, which violates WP:OR. I find Solblaze this edit problamatic here, he explained the reason for changes in the summary as 'trim lead to <4 paragraphs per MOS. Solblaze asserts that CapnJackSp has not adequately supported content regarding the "Indian failure" in the article. Solblaze should provide sufficient evidence or reliable sources to justify the Indian failure and appears that the burden of evidence lies with Solblaze to justify the inclusion of this specific content, especially if it's considered contentious.

CapnJackSp (talk · contribs) claims that the changes made by Solblaze were contentious and introduced a new perspective into the article without sufficient consensus. CapnJackSp claims that the sources provided by Solblaze do not unequivocally support the claim that the standoff was an "Indian failure." He also asserts that Solblaze has failed to justify their changes according to WP:DUE (due weight) and WP:VERIFIABLE policies.

Based on the arguments, this appears to be a content dispute rather than a clear-cut case of policy violations. The issue revolves around the interpretation of sources and the inclusion of specific content in the article. It is recommended that the involved parties seek consensus on the T/P or consider dispute resolution mechanisms, such as a request for comments (RFC), to address the dispute. DSP2092^talk 05:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: I've tried my best to engage in good faith with CJS for the last month. But it's like talking to a wall. I can quote scholarly sources ad nauseam only for CJS to ignore it all and respond with WP:OR and prevaricate in a manner that seems like borderline trolling.

I have not violated the 1RR restrictions on the article, and I am welcome to other uninvolved editors' input on the matter (@TrangaBellam:, @Googleguy007: and @DSP2092: included). I will also start an RFC.

I reiterate that my concern does not stem from a mere difference in points of view held by CJS, but rather from CJS's prevaricatory behaviour and defiance of WP:RS.

CJS's conduct has not only been noted by myself but also been condemned by others within the community including a closing admin on ARE. Solblaze (talk) 09:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edits by Solblaze clearly violates MOS:MIL (especially this and it was unwise for him to edit war over this thing without gaining consensus in the first place.

That's all I have to say. Since "MOS:MIL" was not mentioned on the whole talk page,[1] I recommend no sanctions for any parties here. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This seems very much like a content dispute that needs to be resolved with dispute resolution rather than edit warring. I am hopeful that both of you will be able to move forward with discussion rather than needing have sanctions applied related to the edit warring which would likely be 1RR at this point. @Solblaze and CapnJackSp: Can you both commit to doing that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Rosguill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Contentious_topic_designation

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

1. September 26, 2023 adding unreferenced information to Bosniaks in Germany, misuse of minor edit
2. September 14, 2023 adding unreferenced information to Hidroelektra workers massacre, misuse of minor edit

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Warned for incivility at ANI February 2022 (arguably not relevant to this case)

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

1. Balkans/EE DS notification February 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Balkanite has had issues with providing proper sourcing dating back to when they first started editing (talk page warning w/ explanation from 2020). This has continued to the present day, with many examples including the creation of articles entirely comprising OR at Draft:Bosniaks in the United Kingdom (6 May 2023) and similar titles. Their misuse of minor edits has also been continuous since they started editing, and they received a talk page notice about it in February 2022. The edits that I've highlighted at the beginning of this report, are particularly egregious, however, as they not only fail to provide adequate (or really, any) sourcing, they show clear intent to emphasize a specific ethnonationalist perspective (and, in the case of Bosniaks in Germany, directly contradict seemingly well-referenced claims at Bosniaks regarding the history of Bosniak vs."Muslim" identification under the successive governments of Yugoslavia. Given the persistence of sourcing issues over multiple years, there is a case to be made for a regular site block (although there perhaps has not been enough escalating warnings for that); I think that the persistent failure to cite sources and clear POV bent mean that at a minimum a topic ban from Bosniak history and identity is needed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1. Special:Diff/1177485386

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've been made aware of these accusations for a while.

Since then, I've always ensured to properly cite my contributions towards any article that I made the decision to create or edit. Also, noting that there has not been any progress in the making of such articles in the page, I simply wanted to fill in the gap that was not addressed towards anyone who may have been interested in the topic.

Also, the accusation that I'm attempting to "emphasize a specific ethnonationalist perspective" is perposterous, because it was evident at the time that there were zero recording of anyone in SFR Yugoslavia that identified as "Bosniaks" up until its dissolution. I'm beginning to be concerned that you're accusing me of propping up a nationalist perspective of an ethnic group that has recently became more prevalent since 1991, especially given the fact that I belong to said group, and preventing the addition of more information about them to fulfill WP:CITE and WP:NPOV, even though I have made it evident that I made sure to include the involvement of the ethnic group in various sides during World War I and II, and including information about the diaspora in other countries. You can see the same thing being done with other ethnic groups, however no action has been taken against them. I understand that your concerns may seem alarming as I have been misusing the "minor edit" button when it came to editing articles, but the reason being that misusage is that the majority of the contributions that I've made are actually minor, and do not entirely change more than half of the article that has been written.

I do suggest that you refrain from the idea of banning me from providing more information to Bosniak history and identity, as I'm one of the few that finds time to add more information about the people, and its diaspora. I have not seen you made ANY contribution to any of the articles you're accusing me of editing and contributing towards, and it's unfair to accuse someone of emphasize a specific ethnonationalist perspective, especially when I do not mean to spread information intended to incite or mislead, AND when it comes from someone who has done absolutely ZERO research on the various subjects that led to the creation/editing of said articles.

Wikipedia suffered a similar situation with the Croatian page back in 2013, as it suffered from a group of nationalists that wanted to smear Croatia's history to those that may have taken an interest in it by abusing the administrative powers that were given to them, and it became severe to the point where the Croatian government advised its citizens to not use Wikipedia as a source of information. Since then, there were countermeasures made to prevent such an incident from happening again. The reason why I'm named "Balkanite" in the first place is because of the fact that ethnic identity in the Balkans is based on the individual's perception of their origins, and given that it does not show any ethnic connotations other than what I've previously mentioned, I believe it shows exactly my stance on my perception of my own identity. Balkanite (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I haven't read over all of this yet, but I'd point out the issues on the Croatian Wikipedia are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand here. That doesn't give me a lot of confidence, but I'll have to do a more detailed review. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Edits like this, which was marked minor and added a large chunk of unsourced text certainly seem to demonstrate an issue with their editing. Something like a topic ban for 6 months and 500 edits might do to let them learn how better to source their edits and follow community norms. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems reasonable to me. Anyone else have another idea? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm also happy to give that a go. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If there aren't any objections in the next day or so I'll implement that, if someone doesn't close it before me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:29, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation#December 2016

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

1. 3 October 2023 DF24 is violating their topic ban against discussing the MoS and quotation style in particular, by specificially linking to two MoS sections, one about quotation style, labeling the latter an "issue" at MoS, expressing skepticism that any of MoS's subpages are within the scope of their restrictions (!!), and casting the T-ban as simply a matter of having being subject to "accusations" instead of being found disruptive. This is entirely consistent with DF24's at least six-year pattern of "not understanding" the specifics of the restriction, and trying to convince anyone who will listen that DF24 is a victim who has been improperly restricted.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

DF24's long-standing restrictions are entirely absent from Wikipedia:Editing restrictions and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Archive, for no explicable reason. This should certainly be fixed, even if no action is taken with regard to the diff above. The two still-extant restrictions are detailed below.

1. 9 April 2022 DF24 was unblocked, but told "All other topic bans remain in place—as per my comments in the close, I strongly advise you to collate a list of which bans you're currently subject to, both to make it clear to you which restrictions you're operating under and to make it clear to other people who may think you've violated a restriction that you've not in fact done so." DF24 did not comply with this.
2. 9 April 2022 Consensus was "marginally" reached to unblock, and DF24 was instructed to "create... a list of which topic/interaction bans they're currently under and their precise wording, and either links it from their user or usertalk page or adds it to the WP:EDR master list", but has not done so. Was warned "against not just any return to the kind of conduct that got you blocked, but any discussions on stylistic issues in general or any discussion with the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/ prefix".
3. 7 June 2018 Blocked for a month after failed appeal of topic ban (and "indefinite one-way interaction ban with SMcCandlish is also imposed", which still stands); then DF24 was almost immediately indeffed again [2].
4. 29 February 2016 DF24 indeffed for playing endless WP:IDONTGETIT games with multiple admins about what their restrictions actually meant.
5. 4 February 2016 DF24 "indefinitely topic banned from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including his and other's user talk pages." This restriction still stands, and this is the one applicable here.
6. 22 January 2016 DF24 "indefinitely topic banned from articles, discussions, and guidelines, explicitly including the manual of style, related to quotation marks and quotation styles, broadly interpreted."

Elided here are multiple doomed appeals, and all the original AE cases that led to the above sanctions. Throughout all of that, DF24 endlessly recycled both a (real or performative) failure to understand the nature of the restrictions, and a persecution-complex approach, in which DF24 was simply a victim of "accusations" and seemingly could not understand the nature of their disruption. And here we are again with exactly the same problems in evidence.

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
• Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The unblocking admin in 2022 was pretty specific: "Given the history here, WP:AGF is not going to apply to you for some time" and "I reiterate my comment that this was a marginal close which could equally well have concluded with your remaining blocked. In the event of any future disruption you won't receive the benefit of the doubt".

And ArbCom's own notes, on the case page: "The Committee notes that Darkfrog24 disputes some elements of the original AE filings. We emphasize that imposing an AE sanction requires only that a reviewing admin finds sufficient disruption to warrant action and is not an endorsement of every individual claim that may be made by the filer. After review of the current appeal, we find that there is no evidence in favor of lifting or modifying the topic ban, and the disruptive behavior, in the form of repeated relitigation of the circumstances of the topic ban, has continued."

PS: I believe DF24 is also subject to one or more older T-bans that relate to specific fiction franchises, or something like that; they don't seem pertinent to this particular matter, though should be added to a DF24 entry at EDR.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

@Courcelles: Yes, that resriction is certainly still in force. It's the one DF24 has appealed unsuccessfully over and over, and the reason their unblock was so marginal. Saying "I can't talk about that" is very different from linking pointedly to two sections of it, theorizing about whether you can get away with talking about MoS material because it happens to be on MoS subpages instead of the main MoS page, painting yourself as an "accusations" victim in the whole affair, and returning to the very subtopic that got you most in trouble, quotation puncutation, and declaring it an "issue" at MOS. If this isn't a T-ban violation, then I don't know what is. If it's allowed to slide, it will be taken as pure victory in having gamed the sanctions, and will surely escalate to more boundary pushing and more pretense that the crystal-clear T-ban is somehow incomprehensible.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that it's important to note (aside from "This applies on all pages, including his and other's user talk pages") that the reason DF24 was indeffed (twice) on top of the T-ban was a remarkably persistent pattern of pretending that the T-ban wasn't clear and had to be "clarified". This pattern has resurfaced, in the form of a new supposed uncertainty whether subpages are included, and whether their own talk page is included, and whether links to MoS sections are included, and whether discussion of MoS stuff as "issues" is included, and .... DF24 should not be linking to and talking about MoS stuff with anyone on-wiki at all, for any reason. That's what a T-ban is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see where this is heading, so go ahead a close it. I really hope I'm wrong about later escalation into yet more boundary pushing and demands for "clarification". But this editor has expressed in no uncertain terms that their goal is to get back into MoS editing. It was the focus of all their appeals (along with how wronged they are) with utterly no awareness shown of the disruption they caused. And one of the first things DF24 did after getting unblocked is announce their intent to appeal the T-ban yet again (I'm surprised it has not happened yet).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh: I really want to see the list of restrictions compiled – Yes, if nothing else comes of this, the fact that DF24 is subject to various restrictions, and what they are, should be properly recorded.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was very unimpressed by Darkfrog24's actions between the topic ban being imposed and their being unblocked and have been accused of various bad things by SMcCandlish recently so it's best I'm not regarded as neutral here (hence not posting in the section below) but the diff in this report is not, in my opinion, a violation of the topic ban I imposed all those years ago. Generally it is never a violation of a topic ban to discuss that topic ban, which includes explaining why it prevents you answering questions you've been asked or cannot take part in a discussion you've been invited to, as long as the discussion is not so extensive as to be disruptive. DF should not need it clarifying that their topic ban covers all MOS subpages (and their talk pages), but now that it has been clarified there should be no issues going forwards. I have not been following DF's editing since their unblock so I make no comment about whether their behaviour has improved only that there is no evidence presented here to show it hasn't. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Is the WP:AELOG/2016 restriction "That topic ban replaced with: Darkfrog24 is indefinitely topic banned from the manual of style, and manual of style-related topics, specifically including quotation marks and quotation styles. This applies on all pages, including his and other's user talk pages. This may be appealed no sooner than 12 months from today (4 February 2016). Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)" still in force? Even if so, I don't see that one diff as enough to be blockable; a response of "I can't talk about these areas" isn't, in itself, a topic ban violation when directly asked about such areas. I really want to see the list of restrictions compiled, but this filing in itself doesn't appear to produce an actionable case. Courcelles (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's patently obvious an MOS topic ban covers all MOS subpages. Had they actually edited one, I'd block them right now. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Aye, so would I. But I'm pretty sure that linking to a page isn't a violation, especially when it was in response to a question asking them about the scope of their topic ban. I'm actually quite unimpressed with this filing, frankly - it's a waste of everyone's time. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Simply stating that you are topic banned, and that you are therefore not permitted to participate in a discussion, is not a violation of the ban. Unless anyone shortly objects, I will close this with no action. I would also agree that this request is bordering on frivolous, and that the filer should exercise better judgment about what is brought up here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan_3#Remedies

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

1. Massive, 11,000+ undiscussed addition of WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:UNDUE that actually belongs to Azerbaijani laundromat and corruption in Azerbaijan, after which concerns were pointed out with an ask to discuss
2. Reverts while discussion is only freshly opened
3. Another user reverts to the problematic version, possibly in a WP:TAGTEAM manner, while the discussion is in progress
4. Reverts again insisting on inclusion

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

Warning of sanctions

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KhndzorUtogh showed some persistent unhelpful behavior where they try to override any concerns through edit-warring, reverting to their favorite version - typical for the WP:AA3 area. In this particular case the discussion has stalled and indeed, I think there isn't much to discuss further amid such problematic additions. Currently this significantly impairs article content and I placed the NPOV tag on the article. Perhaps an administrative action is now warranted.

@El C: Personally I don't consider it to be "competing WP:AA3 complaints running in parallel" - the ANI thread was about different article and a comment made at the talkpage, while this one concerns different matter - an edit-warring in another's article namespace (even if both articles fall under WP:AA3). That's why I decided to file this report.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

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.

• Obviously, edit warring should be avoided, but I don't see how this is anything but a content dispute (specifically discussed here). El_C 08:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• ... and I suspect that what is effectively the same issue should not be at WP:ANI (here) and AE at the same time. Black Kite (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh. Well, that's not great. There should not be competing WP:AA3 complaints running in parallel. El_C 18:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that I closed that ANI report with a logged warning to ‎Brandmeister for subpar tone and tenor as well as WP:FORUMSHOP. El_C 20:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Brandmeister, you didn't even mention that at the time of filing, the subject of this AA3 AE complaint had an ongoing ANI complaint in which you were the subject. Which was pretty much the worst thing you could have done as far as this report's appearance as being retaliatory (i.e. a counter-report). Instead, this was reported here by another admin (Black Kite above). Anyway, I've applied WP:1RR to the page in question. Disputants should make AE/ANI their last resort for dispute resolution, not the first. Rather, if at an impasse on the talk page, they should attempt any of the content-related options listed at WP:DRR, such as WP:3O or an WP:RFC. I'll close this report momentarily with some of these notes highlighted. El_C 01:12, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Theleekycauldron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 08:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

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

1. Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#Sarah Jane Baker and Nomination at Prep 2
2. Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Jane Baker
3. Special:Permalink/1178675081#Appreciate

For explanation, see below.

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

• Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 2023-06-06.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After British transgender activist and ex-convict Sarah Jane Baker was scheduled to run at DYK, Lightburst made a post at DYK's noticeboard in opposition; he objected to the specific hook and image, as well as the notion of finding any alternative. As a result, Baker was pulled from prep, where discussion continued. Lightburst criticized the hook as gratuitous, provocative, and confusing; he also criticized her scheduled DYK appearance in general (and the image slot in particular) as giving exposure to a person he feels does not deserve it. Throughout both discussions, Lightburst displayed the following behaviour:

1. Criticizing the article and hook's use of Baker's proper pronouns as "confusing", on the grounds that women do not have testicles. He later defended this position, writing for thousands of years that was accepted biology.
2. Not using Baker's proper pronouns, repeatedly referring to her as "they", "this person", or "a[] male".
3. Speculating on the medical condition of Baker, a living person, arguing that the article omits her "gender dysphoria" without providing sourcing to support that claim. (He also referred to her as "mentally unbalanced", and opined that she should still be in prison.)

I wrote that I was dismayed by the seeming transphobic/transmedicalist rhetoric in the initial post. 4meter4 similarly criticized his comments, connecting them to Lightburst's opposition to the nomination. In both cases, Lightburst perceived our comments as personal attacks. Both of us attempted to clarify that we were not commenting on his character, but he was not receptive. In 4meter4's case, Lightburst responded with rather incivil rhetoric, including: I will consider you persona non grata; I remembered you from seeing you around the project and thought of you as a level headed editor. I see I was wrong and I will avoid you on the project. Please stop shitting on the nomination template with your wrong-headed attacks; and Jump in the lake. I do not wish you well.

Taken together, this request is not about Lightburst's personal views on gender and sexuality. It is about disruptive and belligerent behavior in a contentious topic area as it pertains to the Main Page. Lightburst has spuriously advocated to bar Baker from running at DYK at all, citing only his view that Baker is a bad person and therefore should not be given Main Page exposure. This push was sprinkled with objectionable rhetoric, as well as Lightburst's personal opinions on Baker; when that rhetoric was challenged collegially, Lightburst refused to engage constructively. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

message left on user talk

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

I have no history of editing articles in this area of the project. I engaged collegially with every editor in the the discussions and I discussed the subject of the nomination. The name calling began with Theleekycauldron referring to my valid concerns as transphobic. Enough people agreed with me that the nomination was pulled and sent back to discussion. But Theleekycauldron was still pushing for a version of the hook that was rejected. New hooks were proposed and I weighed in on which ones seemed best. 4meter4 then did a full review of the nomination which ended with them referring to my previous comments as transphobic; they specifically cited the fact that Theleekycauldron gave them license to call me the name. I asked 4meter4 to retract their PA but instead they sent up a wall of text justifying the PA. I tried again and they sent up another wall of text. I knew it would raise hackles for me to say "jump in the lake" or to place a charged request on 4meter4's talk page. If I need to be sanctioned for being curt with an editor who leveled a PA I can accept that. For me the matter was closed after the 4meter4 nomination review and there appeared to be a consensus to run one of the new hooks. I was only trying to get 4meter4 to remove what I consider to be a PA. As for the charge that I refused to use correct pronouns It is my practice to refer to "the person" or "the subject" when commenting on articles. See here in my nomination statement and here in this rationale for how I customarily refer to people in discussions. Both 4meter4 and Theleekycauldron have not assumed good faith in violation of WP:5P4. Many people collegially discussed the issues with the nomination and got it back on track - but only two editors leveled a PA against me: 4meter4 and Theleekycauldron. Lightburst (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my statement on El C's page - note I supported the ban. My issues are with El C's braggadocios block first behavior. They do not enjoy me calling them out for their shoot from the hip blocks like I did at ANI last week (see I do not give a fuck and will block... with edit summary: "...misrepresentations per usual"). I first began editing in 2018, I did not know how things worked. I asked El C to intervene in an edit war I was a part of and they blocked me immediately saying WP:CIR. Lightburst (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For my own part, I was doing my best to shepherd a contentious DYK hook through the nomination process. This meant summarizing and reading through both conversations at Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Jane Baker and Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Sarah Jane Baker and Nomination at Prep 2 and attempting to arrive at a consensus opinion. Lightburst made formal requests in both places to not promote this topic to the main page based on moral grounds, and it seemed impossible to promote a hook without addressing that request per our policies at WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED and the DYK hook approval process. This inevitably required addressing some of the problematic comments made by Lightburst which were identified by theleekycauldron as transphobic. It would be impossible to address a censorship request without looking at the POV of the person making the request. It's unfortunate that Lightburst took these comments as personal attacks, but I don't really see how these conversations could have happened differently given Lightburst's behavior, his choice of language, and his goal of trying to impose censorship within a DYK review.4meter4 (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Editors can have whatever convictions they choose. But they should be careful of sharing their beliefs, especially if such comments could be harmful or offensive. Such belligerent behaviour should have some consequences. Edward-Woodrow • talk 20:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Last time Lightburst appeared on my talk page, he referred to my closure of the Roxy the dog ANI thread (in which WP:GENSEX was the alpha and omega) to have been, among other things, virtue signal. And while I chose not to engage that attack and simply let it go, I can't say I'm surprised to see other complaints of GENSEX-related misconduct. Recommend sanctions. El_C 18:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As the (only) admin to have previously blocked Lightburst, I did notice that ever since that block, they'd regularly go out of their way to, as they put it above, 'call me out.' Which is fine, I suppose, as nothing ever comes of these 'critiques' due to them consistently being based on misrepresentations, and very obviously always with the aim of painting me in a negative light (pun unintended). All this is somewhat an aside to their seeming inability to edit GENSEX-related topics and discussions un-disruptively. But, if sanctions were to be imposed here, the risk of similar targeting by them of whomever the sanctioning admin might be — that risk is very real. So, if that were to happen, someone with a thick skin should be the one to take that on. El_C 19:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I say the only admin to have previously blocked them—the reason was WP:COPYVIO btw—but I see that TPA was revoked for the duration of that block by another admin. I'm not sure if that action counts as a block. I suppose it doesn't really matter, but I thought I'd clear up that up as well as the grounds for the block itself. El_C 19:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• With the clarification that the "jump in a lake" comment was intended as something closer to "fuck off" than "kill yourself", I'll look past that as long as it doesn't become LB's normal standard of communication; we're all human, we all feel the need to blow off steam sometimes. The rest ... it's tempting to see the DYK issue as a storm in a teacup, and there is discussion of genuine issues with the article/hook—LB's comments do not appear to have come solely from an opinion on the subject matter. It's also fair to say that it's complex and confusing to describe events in a trans-person's life from before they changed the way they identify; this is something Wikipedians and others have struggled with and will probably continue to struggle with and it can cause strong feelings. Nonetheless, the tone of LB's commentary is not in keeping with the level of discourse we expect in controversial topic areas (or when discussing living people). Absent any evidence that this is an ongoing problem with Lightburst, I'd be inclined to leave it at a logged warning for discussion tone but it would be unwise of LB to get further embroiled in GENSEX-related controversies. I'd welcome comments from other admins, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I see this as an issue with believing it's ok to speak disparagingly about a BLP subject that you believe is bad as much as a GENSEX issue. Both angles are bad. Any sanction or warning should cover BLP as well as GENSEX. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

KoA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Contentious_topic_designation

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions

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

1. October 3, 2023 Comment on the two users who voted for deletion of this article: Smartse states on their user page “This editor is an exclusionist.” KoA has removed valid content from this article in edit warring mode. Pursuing editors to AFD and sniping at editors rather than focusing on content.
2. October 5, 2023 This is not really a surprise bearing in mind that JzG’s only contribution to this article was deletion of content. Similar sniping, this time at JzG.
3. October 6, 2023 Continued dismissal of WP:TPNO/WP:FOC, selectively removing talk page sniping, but choosing to let sniping towards me and JzG remain. _{Added Oct. 11}
4. See previous AE for diffs dealt with there

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2013 Warned at ANI for aspersions in pesticide topics
2. August 2023 Administrative action review (following me around and making a block a WP:INVOLVED block).
3. August 2023 AE closed with no action, but Bradv advised Leyo to read the comments and course-correct.

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

• August 21, 2016
• October 17, 2018
• June 4, 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After the last AE, I was advised to come back here if Leyo kept hounding editors and sniping on article talk pages and recent discussion here. More diffs/background on Leyo are at that AE link; the short summary is that I've dealt for years with WP:ASPERSIONS from Leyo (see the GMO principle for how disruptive editors frequently used those tactics to poison the well). They escalated the harassment this August where despite multiple cautions that they were WP:INVOLVED related to me, they used their admin tools to block me. This was pretty resoundingly found as both an involved and bad block on substance at XRV as well as some comments about Leyo clearly following my edits to articles they haven't edited. The first time I came to AE, it was to get help with the behavior problems independent of the admin tool abuse.

Not addressing Leyo's behavior at AE seems to have emboldened them where they are now sniping at other editors on talk pages engaging in poisoning the well at perceived opponents in a very clear WP:BATTLEGROUND fashion. After the AE, I recently did have to remind Leyo I was trying to avoid them as much as possible and asked them to do the same after some sniping about me using the term "we" when referring to multiple editors who had been working on improving an article. That one incident was so low-level I was just trying to ignore it, but they're clearly not going to leave me alone it seems.

The first diff has Leyo showing up at an AfD for an article they never edited (potential WP:HOUNDING), but even if the article was on their watchlist, that would still be no excuse for continued sniping. This escalated to Leyo going after SmartSE in that diff and then JzG in the next diff despite being warned so many times, especially after the last caution by Bradv. This pursuit is why I asked for an interaction ban originally since Leyo basically just said they'd step back from admin duties, but repeatedly remained silent on the underlying behavior. Since Leyo is now targeting other editors though, I don't know if an interaction ban towards me alone would solve the issues, but I'm opening this because multiple editors and admins have also requested it. KoA (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I looked into this more, I've been finding that Leyo has been doing this under the radar as textbook WP:TE behavior for about a decade now in this topic starting with the warning I linked at ANI in 2013 for comments like Your massive removal of content and your arguments remind me on industry positions and tactique targeting Bon courage. There was another ANI in 2019 were Leyo also went after JzG in the pesticide topic threatening to block JzG if Leyo didn't get their way. It's very clear Leyo is treating chemical topics as a personal battleground stirring the pot in the same way that led the GMO ArbCom case. KoA (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admin replies

• Extraordinary Writ, I'll be brief, but I am away for the next few days (possibly more depending on the situation) as mentioned on Doug's page, so please consider this my short extension request while I'm away. I don't plan to post here further unless admins have specific remedy questions for me I could help with.

Just to clarify, that Leyo hasn't been moving the needle recently (i.e., deescalating) while still sidestepping discussion of their battleground attitude despite all of the formal and informal warnings over the last decade is why I posted this. There are two very clear recent diffs here of Leyo sniping to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes to directly cite the aspersions principle. I'm very worried about the anti-WP:FOC policy atmosphere Leyo is normalizing in the topic (similar to Gtoffoletto here who was recently blocked for sniping/asperisons towards me). To address comments by others, being an admin doesn't permit one to engage in battleground behavior, nor does it exclude them from standard AE actions where ArbCom already established this behavior is a problem.

In whatever decision there is, I just ask that the long-term harassment in content discussion stop not just of me, but of other editors. I'd also ask admins when discussing remedies to think about how much more those of us who don't resort to this behavior and have been stewarding the subject for years (even through ArbCom) should really be asked to deal with the sniping and timesink from Leyo's behavior. In that regard, I'd recommend reading MastCell's admin comment from a previous pesticide AE, we're being actively unkind to the subset of constructive, well-behaved editors. . . KoA (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• HJ Mitchell, could you clarify what you mean by a sitewide IBAN is not ultra vires? FYI, we actually have such one-way Ibans put in place with the GMO/pesticide DS, like against Sashirolls towards Tryptofish (more background here), and can be a step prior to a topic ban to try to reduce disruption of this nature in the hope addressing a core problem interaction reduces the other issues. That case has a few parallels here in that I'm not the only target of Leyo, but I've also been trying avoid Leyo when I could unless content interaction basically forced it. If that is an option admins pursue, happy to discuss details/logistics (probably back online Wednesday). KoA (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5]

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 mostly disagree with the statements/interpretations above, e.g.:

• I was not hounding anyone here. When I edited the de.wikipedia version in 2015, I added the en.wikipedia article to my watchlist (as I often do with other articles). At that time, I intended to improve both language versions, but I probably forgot about it or I didn't find the time. I noticed the AfD tagging by an obscure IP from Finland with few days delay, because I was offline during several days for real-life reasons.
• JzG is probably right concerning my language skills. English was only the fourth language I learnt after German, French and Latin. While I am used to read and write scientific texts, I am much less so finding the appropriate wording in delicate discussions. In contrast, I consider KoA to be exceptionally skilled to find convincing wording in discussions.
• As opposed to KoA's claim above, most of my contributions in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pesticide Action Network are solely on the content. However, I felt it is an important piece of (factual) information for the closing admin that a certain user has removed (in my view) clearly valid content (example) from the article (without which the views of uninvolved users in the AfD discussions). At the same time, I should not have mentioned Smartse's exclusionist user page tag, since it is unrelated to the AfD discussion. Apologies for that.
• As I decided not start a new battleground (and lacked the energy and time), I did not revert KoA's and JzG's removal of valid content from the article in 2019 and in 2023 (which I became aware of via my watchlist).
• Most of the diffs provided above and below are from before the AE in August 2023, i.e. they have already been considered.

--Leyo 21:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of the users giving statements in this AE, Darkfrog24 is the only user who is not involved in the case (not counting admin Extraordinary Writ who is not involved either).

If anyone still thinks I'm lying and that I found the AfD by following KoA instead of via my watchlist, they might want to take note of e.g. this 2019 discussion about the mass removal of references to pesticideinfo.org (see also PesticideInfo chemical ID (P11949)), a database run by PAN. --Leyo 15:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720's recommendation to pursue other topics is not really an option for me, since chemicals are my main area of interest (here and on de.wikipedia). The overlap with KoA is rather limited. --Leyo 00:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish seems to refer to WT:MEDRS as an example where I followed KoA. However, I started the thread and KoA joined the discussion. BTW: Tryptofish might have exceeded the word limit.

I wanted to note that in addition to the few diffs listed above and below, which extend over a long period of time, I've also regularly been the target of users mentioned or commenting in this AE (recent example). A one-way IBAN would not be an appropriate measure IMHO. As vice versa, I also try to avoid KoA as much as possible. --Leyo 22:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the short interval since the admin action review and the arbitration enforcement, it was surprising to see Leyo arrive at the AFD which KoA had already !voted in considering that they have never edited the article nor the talk page despite several recent discussions. At least to me, it appears as if they have continued to follow KoA around in what seems to be a clear case of WP:HOUNDING. It was even more surprising given the recent admonishments they were given about their behaviour that they have chosen to make snide remarks questioning the motives of myself, KoA and JzG. The previous AE discussion was moving towards an IBAN between KoA and Leyo, but given that they are now targeting multiple editors who oppose them, I suggest that a topic ban is now necessary. SmartSE (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KoA and Smartse have already provided pretty much all the relevant documentation, but I do want to add this diff: [6], from the recent WT:MEDRS discussion that also included the exchange about the supposed "royal we". Taken with the multiple diffs already provided above, especially those from the current AfD, one can see a very repetitious and ongoing pattern of Leyo going after other editors (KoA, Smartse, JzG, maybe others) who have different views about GMO/chemical content than Leyo has, and making unsubstantiated assertions that those editors' views should not be taken as valid. What really stands out to me is that, following the recent AE, the premise was that if Leyo backed off from the hostile interactions with KoA and others, no further action would be needed. Unfortunately, what is abundantly clear here is that, instead, Leyo has done the opposite. Although not using admin tools, Leyo has nonetheless continued the battleground conduct directed at his perceived adversaries, unabated. Clearly, the advice of the previous AE didn't work. Sanctions are needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see Leyo's reply as confirming the need for sanctions. Perhaps Leyo does have some language limitations, but competence is required. Even if Leyo was not hounding anyone, that does not justify what he has said about other editors. He acknowledges this about Smartse, but not about KoA or JzG, which is telling. Neither does being "right" about content justify it. And if anyone wants to get a handle on where Gtoffoletto's statement is coming from, just see Talk:Glyphosate#RfC: is the EFSA factsheet on Glyphosate an accurate summary of the EFSA's review?. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To admins: It may be a distraction to look at this in terms of whether there was hounding in the sense of following editors, or whether it was just a matter of finding the discussions through a watchlist. But that's beside the point, once one considers that (1) the previous AE instructed Leyo to tone it down (just not logged), and (2) there was a review of the KoA block that clearly informed Leyo that the community did not support that administrative action. In that context, one should see the two subsequent discussions (WT:MEDRS and the AfD) as places where, even if Leyo found each of them via watchlist, there is no getting around the fact that Leyo had to have seen that it was KoA who was there. And yet Leyo commented to KoA and JzG as he did, and indicates in his statement here that he feels justified in having done so. Please don't let your caution in not wanting to "tip the balance" with regard to an admin conduct issue lead you to treat an admin more cautiously than you would any other editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Harry. I think what you say is reasonable, and I made that comment in the spirit of making sure that those aspects of the case are considered. No, I don't think there are additional options beyond those you list. I think a topic ban is within the realm of things to consider, and other editors have been tbanned from GMOs for similar conduct in the past. On the other hand, a logged warning is also reasonable (it just seems to me like issuing a warning on top of the previous warnings, just because those weren't formally logged). I agree that continued conduct after the warning would justify more action, whether at AE or elsewhere, and I'm willing to accept that. Personally, I'd be reluctant to go to ArbCom with only a logged warning having happened, but other editors may feel differently. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this explains the instant WP:ABF here [7], anyway - Leyo obviously remembers me, though I don't remember them. The best solution to the issue at hand would be to find reliable independent secondary sources that give WP:SIGCOV. Needless to say, if such existed, we would not be here. I personally feel that Leyo has crossed the line from documenting the subject to advocating for them. As a speaker of three languages and resident in CH, I guess maybe Leyo is not aware of how aggressive their statements sound? Guy (help! - typo?) 18:42, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw someone mention AE in the AfD discussion and imagined something like this must be happening... Leyo has been obviously following the developments of many of the pages currently being edited by KoA and others. Definitely not hounding. Just following the topic. There has been a lot of edit warring involved on those pages such as the current attempt at deleting the Pesticide Action Network page while removing most of its basic and non controversial content without any consideration. The same is being done to other NGO pages such as Environmental Working Group where editors (despite overwhelming lack of consensus) are attempting to remove any basic addition from the page forcing the community to discuss trivial topics for months. This is the second attempt by the same editor at removing Leyo from the conversation in the last few months. Especially since Leyo is clearly not participating in the discussions as an admin, this seems flimsy at best. I think WP:CPP is a relevant essay here. We are collectively wasting a lot of time trying to maintain the encyclopaedia, but I'll let others decide (Caveat Emptor: User talk:Gtoffoletto/Archive 3#July 2023). {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 21:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not involved in the recent conflict. I've interacted with JzG and Trypto before but I don't remember when or where off the top of my head. First diff: Leyo repeats someone's userpage self-description and claims someone was edit warring. Second: Snippy but not exactly casting aspersions. Third: "Please read the comments and course-correct as necessary." I don't see anything wrong. Other: "Your actions here remind me of [this negative thing]" is relatively mild phrasing.

I don't think any of these are aspersions or even unWP:CIVIL. Manners-wise, I don't see Leyo doing anything that's even unusual in the diffs offered in the complaint. I mean, I've had someone literally call my contribs feces and it didn't trigger WP:CIVIL (not his exact words).

The issue that Leyo is following KOA around is more concerning and seems to have more meat on it, given that KOA has explicitly asked them for space and that there was at least one confirmed improper act on Leyo's part. If someone's asked you to leave them alone, it is usually best to respect their wishes whenever reasonably practical. I've done it, and it wasn't even an inconvenience. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that WP:AE is the wrong place for this complaint against Leyo. I suggest instead filing an ARBCOM case request to settle this issue once and for all as Leyo is an admin. The reason being AE cannot remove admin status. Lightoil (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The latest diffs are not great, but I'm not sure how much they really move the needle, especially if we accept that Leyo found the AfD via watchlist rather than via hounding. At this point my instinct would be to do what was suggested in the last AE: give a logged warning to avoid battleground behavior and focus on content rather than contributors. I'm not sure an IBAN would really be effective (per above, this doesn't seem to be a KoA-specific problem), and I don't think we've reached the point yet where a topic ban would be proportionate. That said, the elephant in the room here is that we're talking about a sysop, and there's arguably a stronger case to be made that this behavior falls afoul of WP:ADMINCOND. Whether or not it's time to go to WP:ARC is above my pay grade, but every instance of poor behavior increases the chances that this'll need to be resolved there. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be support a logged warning. If there's an appetite, we could try and craft some sort of anti-bludgeoning restriction like a limit on the number of comments they can make in a thread. There is an issue with the way Leyo has approached other editors in disputes. Disputes are a fact of life, especially in a contentious topic (hence the name), but editors can and should dispute content on its merits and not based on who they're arguing with. We can't prove or disprove that Leyo found the AfD via his watchlist but he has shown that he had an interest in the subject before the AfD. That doesn't leave us a lot. Broader questions of whether this conduct is becoming an admin cannot be answered at this board. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tryptofish I hear you, but I don't think it's because Leyo is an admin. I'm struggling to think of a sanction we could impose that is within AE's jurisdiction, and is justified and proportionate, and would be effective. If what it comes down to is that people don't think Leyo is fit to be an admin (and I'm not offering an opinion on that), then this needs to go to ArbCom. We could block Leyo, but a short block would be purely punitive and a long one would likely be overturned on appeal as disproportionate; we could impose an interaction ban but I'm not entirely sure a sitewide IBAN is not ultra vires; we could impose a topic ban but that would also arguably be disproportionate and would have no effect outside the relevant topic. If you want "more", you might be better asking ArbCom. I think, to be blunt, your choices are accept the logged warning and use that as evidence if Leyo continues the battleground mentality, or we close this and refer it to ArbCom. Is there a third option I'm not seeing? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I've pblocked Leyo from the AfD for a week. Hopefully it will be closed by then. I'm not convinced an interaction ban would get to heart of the matter but we're not at the point of a topic ban yet in my opinion. I'm still inclined towards an extremely strong logged warning about battleground mentality and commenting on contributors vs content but I'm open to other opinions. I'd love to hear from more uninvolved admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The AfD comments are more concerning because they refer to editor conduct instead of the merits of the article's adhering to notability requirements. Therefore, I support a logged warning that discussions about editor conduct should not take place on article talk pages or AfD discussions. I think Leyo's "royal we" request was a bad idea, but I do not consider it hounding or concerning behaviour. I strongly recommend that Leyo and KoA not comment on each other's threads in any discussions as there is clearly a concern between these two editors' interactions towards each other. While questions about admin conduct cannot be answered at this board, I think they can be commented on and used for a case request at ARBCOM. In my opinion, while Leyo's conduct is concerning it does not rise to a level of desysop and I do not think it needs to be taken to ARBCOM at this time. I do strongly recommend that Leyo pursue other topics on Wikipedia as there are over 6 million articles on the site and there must be other areas of interest for that user. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll note that I closed the AfD in question, and noted the problematic behavior there. I don't think that makes me involved, as that is an administrative action, but if any uninvolved admin objects and says it does, I will withdraw my comment and move it above. That said, we now have a case where Leyo was already chastised by the community for an unwarranted and involved block of KoA ([8]) and cautioned at a prior AE thread, and then here has been blocked for interactions which were at least in part with them. I think it's about time to refer this to ArbCom for a review of admin conduct. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:15, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Seraphimblade: time for ArbCom. Bishonen | tålk 07:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  @Bishonen/Seraphimblade I'm in two minds. Arbcom are better placed to evaluate the wider pattern of Leyo's editing (ie not just within a designated contentious topic), especially if his admin status is in question. On the other hand, the admin status could be addressed separately if necessary and with that aside Arbcom is unlikely to do anything we couldn't do at AE. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Harry, I think Leyo's admin status is in question, and that consequently Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case is the right place. I see Seraphimblade has now taken the issue there. Time to close this with a logged warning? Bishonen | tålk 21:55, 14 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  I'll close this but without prejudice to it being reopened if Arbcom decline the case or only consider it in terms of Leyo's adminship. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Arminden (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

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

1. 20:08, 10 October 2023, calls another user "criminal" and "moron" and tells him to "Drop dead"
2. 20:06, 10 October 2023, calls me an "idiot"

These two edits, besides the name calling and death threat also violates the 1 revert rule.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 15:17, 1 July 2020 " warned to temper their language, focus on content, and generally, conduct themselves with utmost moderation when it comes to this (ARBPIA) topic area. Just because this is a more informal warning does not mean that, next time, sanctions won't be imposed."
2. 21:33, 21 May 2015 Edit warring

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

Was notified at his talkpage: [9]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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

There is ongoing discussion on two talk pages about the broader question of use of language ("terrorist" vs "militant", application of MOS:TERRORIST etc). The discussions have been difficult and not always as civil as would be ideal. This obviously represents a significant escalation in the incivility of the whole thing. --AntiDionysius (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate to revert the page to before the edits in question? It seems inappropriate to let them stand, but I'm also aware that even the current text of the article is contentious, and I do have an opinion here. AntiDionysius (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, oh yes, you're right. A different user restored substantially the same content, which presents the same problem of bypassing ongoing discussion, but I suppose that may be a separate matter for dispute resolution or something. AntiDionysius (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly an emotional response to the horrendous events in Israel, and I can understand deeply-felt and angry reactions from anyone remotely close to what's happened. A 48h block seems appropriate to deal with the immediate need for prevention. And I'm disappointed to see people calling for stronger sanctions without offering evidence of any longer-term issue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the emotions circulating at this time, telling other editors to "Drop dead" is not acceptable, and I am extremely surprised to see such comments coming from Arminden, who has always come across as an exceptionally level-headed editor. However, no one is compelled to edit Wikipedia while in an emotional state, and those that are in such a state that they cannot edit without lashing out are better off recusing themselves temporarily from it, since such comments are clearly not fit for the project. @HJ_Mitchell: I would say the same principles apply in all contexts, regardless of external events and speculations on emotions. Isn't the room for manoeuvre facilitated in all cases by admission that perspective was lost? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arminden is an excellent editor and these comments are unacceptable. Both things are true. The ideal scenario is Arminden recognizes that, apologizes, and commits to separating his emotions from his editing. Many people have strong feelings here, but we're supposed to be on Wikipedia, not in the field of battle so to speak. nableezy - 21:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Looks like HJ Mitchell beat me to the block. I think with the diffs above, as well as this, there's some evidence that they may not be able to maintain NPOV and civility in this topic at this time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  48 hour block looks good, but this language? Needs a few months topic ban, minimum. Courcelles (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't want to go nuclear too quickly. Imagine American editors editing in the days after 9/11 if Wikipedia was more mature then. The people best placed to write the articles are also the ones most emotionally involved. If they recognise that they lost perspective, we have room to manoeuvre; if they double down then we remove them from the topic area. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  AntiDionysius, it looks like they've already been reverted. Am I missing something? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I blocked for 48 hours per ANI. Is further action necessary? Their previous trip to AE was over three years ago so I could believe that this was a one-off loss of perspective on an emotive subject and, if they agree to put their emotions aside, maybe it's not. But if they can't edit neutrally and won't moderate themselves, a ban of some form is necessary. Does anyone want to present evidence of a (recentish) pattern of poor conduct that would merit (for example) a topic ban? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I think, given recent events, this falls within "unacceptable, but understandable". If this becomes a pattern, stronger measures might be necessary, but if this is the only time it happens, I think the 48 hour block will suffice to resolve it. Let's wait and see what happens now that the block has ended, and if there aren't further problems, I think we can leave it at that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

At 2023 Israel–Hamas war‎

1. 9:43, 8 October 2023 (Reverted this edit)
2. 11:26, 8 October 2023 (Reverted this edit)
3. 04:46, 9 October 2023
4. 06:16, 9 October 2023 (Partial reinstatement of this edit)
5. 12:39, 9 October 2023 (Reverted this edit)
6. 12:59, 9 October 2023 (Partial revert of this edit)
7. 02:42, 10 October 2023 (Partial revert of this edit)

At Jabalia camp market airstrike

1. 16:32, 9 October 2023 (Partial revert of this edit and full revert of this edit)
2. 17:01, 9 October 2023

Multiple violations of both WP:1RR and WP:3RR. On the 8th, I notified them of contentious topics being applied to this area and informed them of the WP:1RR limit, asking them to be more careful in the future. On the 9th, I asked them to self-revert after breaching both 1RR and 3RR; they reverted some, but not all, of what they could self-revert in this edit. See this related article talk page discussion.

Following this, they made an additional revert on October 2023 Gaza–Israel conflict and two reverts on Jabalia camp market airstrike; see also the discussion on their talk page about the second revert.

There may have been additional reverts that I missed.

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12:18, 8 October 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

At Operation Al-Aqsa Flood:

1. 08:14, 13 October 2023 (Remove "Islamic terrorism" and "mass murder" from infobox)
2. 02:45, 14 October 2023 (Remove "massacre" and "Islamic terrorism" from infobox)

@HJ Mitchell, ScottishFinnishRadish, and Guerillero: Can I please get additional diffs to show further edit warring and 1RR violations at 2023 Israel–Hamas war‎? There are only four reverts, but to show the full context to the reverts I'll need about ten diffs. BilledMammal (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal if the diffs post-date the filing of this report and show disruptive edit warring (not just potentially accidental reverts on a busy article), then go ahead but please be as concise as you can without leaving out important information. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Thank you BilledMammal (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Over whether the infobox should include a statement saying that the IDF had retaken control of all communities in Israel:
  1. 04:22, 14 October 2023
  2. 01:30, 15 October 2023
• Over whether the article should include a statement about convoys being struck:
  1. 08:29, 14 October 2023 (Initial addition, not a revert)
  2. 10:37, 14 October 2023
• Over whether the map should depict Hamas as still in control of some territories within Israel:
  1. 05:01, 15 October 2023
  2. 06:18, 15 October 2023 (Self reverted after a request on their talk page from Alcibiades979)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

11:30, 10 October 2023

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.

Today’s wasn’t a revert as far as I know, but instead a justified removal of a topic that already violated Wikipedia policy and it was eventually fully removed.

I did mention in all of today’s edits that were reverted that I will not revert reverted edits (shown in the discussion page). Being informed on the “revert edit limit” I did try to go back and undo my own reverts, including one which messed up the page. I didn’t edit the page much today, since I was preoccupied with illustrating lesser crested, greater crested, and caspian terns (I was also illustrating common terns yesterday). Most of my activities today were in the talk page or rewords, as for the reverts of the market massacres, they were different page than the war conflict page so I don’t believe it falls under edit warring as I did not revert the reverted edits. Lots of “reverts” in that last paragraph so slay.

• That is SO true, I did try to manually revert my edits after it wrecked the page yesterday, but it is apparent that any of my engagement with the “edit warring” on the Israel-Gaza war page is from yesterday (mostly before I was told about the number of reverts limit), today saw one partial revert on the main page (when it got re added and I did not revert it since I was more aware of the edit war policy and how many reverts I was allowed) and it wasn’t a true edit war, it was the Girlbossing of a statement that had nothing to do with the war so I was fully justified in removing itThe Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, overenthusiastic editing in a very active article (they are not the only one). I believe a warning is the usual thing for a newish editor and first offense. Should lay off the slang, most won't even know what it means, me included. Selfstudier (talk) 17:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the “slay Girlboss queen?” That’s just something I say all the time, it doesn’t signify any opinion or viewpoint. I also mention it in edit summaries for birds (for example “I did not slay” when I put the incorrect file for the species) The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @The Great Mule of Eupatoria: The definition of revert is much broader than just pressing the undo button. From Edit warring: The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 12:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Relatively inexperienced editor only recently alerted to the CTOP procedures, not an edit war per se, and on a busy article about a fast-moving event. I'm not seeing the need for draconian sanctions. I could live with a short-term page ban/block but if The Great Mule of Eupatoria were to voluntarily avoid the article and stick to the talk page for 24 hours I'd be happy to close this without action as long as there aren't deeper concerns about their editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @HJ Mitchell: The use of so slay and Girlbossing make me doubt that The Great Mule of Eupatoria is acting with good faith here. The first seemed to be a language barrier. The second, less so. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Their statement that they were fully justified, and that it wasn't a true edit war leads me to believe they may not fully understand the policies around 1rr and edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guerillero, @ScottishFinnishRadish: the slang perhaps suggests they don't take this very seriously but not everyone takes it as seriously as those of us who have put years into Wikipedia. They're not a highly experienced editor who knows the rules inside out. But I won't object if either of you want to take action. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I had been about to close this with a warning but the further diffs indicate that tangible action is necessary. I've blocked them from the article for a fortnight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

LokiTheLiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Motion:_contentious_topic_designation_(December_2022)

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

1. 2023-10-05 Lots of WP:OR, asserts a published paper is not neutral because it's by a "trans activist"
2. 2023-10-08 Calls sources 'so-called "academic papers"', calls the previously mentioned professor a 'cyclist', asserts that the whole topic is out of the grasp of linguistics as a science entirely
3. 2023-10-17 Directly says that the author of said paper is not reliable because she is transgender (Edit 06:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC) : saying specifically The elephant in the room is McKinnon is transgender and is a transgender activist)
4. 2023-10-18 Doubles down on the above assertion after being challenged (Edit 06:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC) : saying specifically As for bias, well all of us have biases and potential to manifest those biases, so what matters is whether we try to compensate for them and how well we do. Some of our biases come from innate things like, you know, Gender bias on Wikipedia, Racial bias on Wikipedia. I don't think the intent to accuse her of bias for an innate trait is ambiguous at all here.)
5. 2023-10-08 #2 2023-10-09 2023-10-19 2023-10-17 GCF 2023-10-19 GCF 2023-10-19 GCF #2 Several other diffs where Colin argues for excluding sources for WP:OR reasons
6. 2023-10-19 GCF #3 A particularly long piece of WP:OR (Edit 06:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC) : and WP:NOTFORUM) about a tweet that nobody else had brought up and which is not particularly relevant

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

• Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 2022-11-13 (and also at ANI on 2023-02-22).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I've known Colin for a while as a good contributor to the GENSEX topic area. However, recently, he's been making some very odd and concerning arguments on Talk:TERF_(acronym) and Talk:Gender-critical_feminism. Many of them, as in the diffs above, are for excluding academic sources based purely on WP:OR reasons such as believing the topic to be outside the ability of academia to decide, or an apparent personal belief that "TERF" is a slur. And several are even worse than that, up to and including arguing for exclusion of a certain source because the author of the source is trans, and doubling down on this assertion when challenged.

This is surprising to me because, again, I usually think of Colin as a pretty good contributor to the topic area. I'm not sure what sanctions I'm actually supporting here but I would at least like an official warning. Loki (talk)

@Johnuniq The assertion here is a) that Colin is POV-pushing by denying the reliability of academic sources, b) that he's also doing a whole bunch of WP:NOTFORUM soapboxing on the topic in the process, c) the main reason I decided to make this report, that he's trying to deny a source is valid based on the identity of the author. I don't think anyone would have trouble seeing the issue if an editor was for excluding an academic source because the author was black, or Jewish, or a woman.

@Tamzin Noted, but I do think that what I'm calling WP:OR problems above are also WP:NOTFORUM problems. The point is that he's making a lot of arguments that aren't consistent with policy. Loki (talk)

@ScottishFinnishRadish / @Colin Now that Colin's struck the worst comment and admitted it was inappropriate, I'm okay with withdrawing this. Loki (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but one clarification: I did not think Colin was "on the TERF side" and that's not why I linked to WP:HID. My concern was with specific inappropriate comment(s) and not with Colin's overall political opinions, and I was hoping that was clear from my initial comments here. Loki (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I have struck reference to McKinnon's transgender status. I agree that was not appropriate to mention and is quite irrelevant to my argument. They are an activist who casually uses the word "TERF" to describe "people who hate trans people" or "bigots" or "assholes" as she describes them. I have not once asked for any sources to be "excluded", as Loki repeatedly asserts above, or doubted their "reliability" (though the quality of "reliability" depends quite on what information one is drawing from the source and claiming). I am certainly not asking for "an academic source" to be "excluded" because of an identity aspect of the author.

Wikipedia accepts biased sources. I think Loki has confused my claim that McKinnon is biased on the matter of whether TERF is a slur with thinking I view their work as "unreliable" or that it should be "excluded". I also think Loki has confused the academic nature of their work into thinking that makes opinions in it "facts" that can be asserted in Wikipedia voice or used to determine if a slur-redirect is just fine and dandy. McKinnon has their opinions and the article notes them. Activists on the other side (e.g. Suzanne Moore writing in the Telegraph) have their opinions. Neither of these people are neutral impartial voices, they are biased, and both opinions may be noted in attributed form on Wikipedia in accordance with due weight. What we lack, in this domain, however, are reliable secondary sources saying things like "most academics think" or "is generally considered to be / not to be ..." and so on. We just have a bunch of primary sources on people's personal opinions. That opinions on whether this word is a slur fall align exactly with "depends who you ask" is a problem for Wikipedia and frustrating. I think that has a bearing on the validity of a recent move that turned TERF into a redirect to gender-critical feminism. Previously it had the content that is now at TERF (acronym) which notes, among other things, that it is disputed whether or not TERF is a slur and whether it is, today, being used as a label about radical feminists or even feminists.

I think during the discussion Loki has learned about WP:RS/AC and accepted their article content previously overstated that there was any consensus on this. I've also learned during the discussion, what philosophy of language is.

I think McKinnon's paper and youtube arguments are sloppy and have picked them apart much as I might pick apart a sloppy work making medical claims. I also think I have written way too much and should accept that editors in the discussion have dug their heels in and there is no consensus or likely to be one. -- Colin°^Talk 08:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I ask Loki strikes his above link to Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive. For the avoidance of doubt for anyone joining this who don't know me, I'm very much not on the "TERF" side. My argument in this debate is that TERF, today, is a hate word, and Loki should read Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive to find out what it says about people who fling about slurs. I don't think either side hating each other is productive, respectful or a good way to be a human being. -- Colin°^Talk 08:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to notice this because this page is lingering on my watch list, and a report on Colin seemed surprising. I went straight to the most grave accusation "Directly says that the author of said paper is not reliable because she is transgender" sourced to this[10]. But looking at the diff that is not what is said, "directly" or otherwise. The point being made is that a source written by an activist is likely to be biased on the topic of that activism, which seems totally reasonable to discuss, especially on an article Talk page!

The fact that the filing party then tried to push back against this by invoking WP:NPA seems utterly bizarre.[11] Bon courage (talk) 05:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a lively discussion on the reliability of sources, which is precisely what Talk Pages are for! Our policy on original research clearly says "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources." Colin is the author of WP:MEDRS and thus has proven expertise on judging the quality of sources; it would be wiser to listen to him rather than protesting here. Graham Beards (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Is the assertion that Colin is mistaken, or that he is misusing sources, or bludgeoning, or something else? Is the claimed problem that Colin asserts that Rachel McKinnon is a trans activist? I have no idea but Veronica Ivy states that Ivy, formerly Rachel McKinnon, is a transgender rights activist. Perhaps the claimed problem is that, due to McKinnon being a trans activist, Colin believes McKinnon should not be used as a source regarding whether TERF (acronym) is a slur? That is an interesting issue for wikilawyers—can an activist be a reliable source given the "independent" in "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" at WP:RS? Has a discussion concluded that Colin's statement are WP:OR? At any rate, I am having trouble identifying the problem being reported. Johnuniq (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone want to comment on whether anything further is needed before closing this as no action? Does WP:BOOMERANG apply? Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Johnuniq: I don't see cause for sanctions. Maybe some sort of informal warning to Loki, although I'm not sure what exactly the warning would be for. (Failure to exhaust other steps? Failure to AGF?) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:44, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Setting aside everything else, WP:OR explicitly does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources. Editors are absolutely allowed to conduct research into a source's credentials to determine how much weight their opinion is due under WP:NPOV. If that weren't the case, NPOV would be essentially unenforceable. That's not to say that the arguments here were appropriate or inappropriate—I'll reserve judgment—but they by definition cannot be OR violations. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:33, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Further thoughts by the cold light of day (noting that this is a topic area I edit in, but not with these editors and not regarding these topics—but take it with a grain of salt if one wishes; I won't be the one to close this): Colin shouldn't have brought up McKinnon's transgender status. I see what he was getting at, but pointing out her status as a transgender activist made the point more than well enough. That's it. Everything else is within norms for talkpage discussion. As noted, editors are allowed to engage in OR on talkpages. Editors are also allowed to express personal views, as long as it doesn't cross over into forum territory. As far as I can tell, any comments Colin has made expressing his own views have been in service of improving the two articles in question. Some represent a minority viewpoint (and maybe Special:Diff/1180864538 somewhat overstates the currency of that viewpoint), but there is no WP:DONTSAYTHINGSPEOPLEDISAGREEWITH nor even a WP:DONTBEWRONG. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm of a similar mind to my colleagues above. I'm not seeing anything out of the ordinary, disruptive, or out of line. They've struck their comment on McKinnon's transgender status, and admitted it wasn't constructive. There's nothing to be done here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

48-hour partial block from the pages 2023 Israel–Hamas war and Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war for disingenuous edit summaries, edit warring, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Special:Diff/1180310664

Please copy my appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard or administrators' noticeboard.

I feel the reasons given for my block are unjustified:

1- disingenuous edit summaries: in reference to this edit. Disagreeing with my edit does not mean my edit summary was "disingenuous", nor is it a consistent editing behavior of mine. Furthermore, it is not one of Wikipedia's blocking reasons.

2- edit warring: On the article I was blocked from editing, I have initiated seven discussions on the article talk page ([12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]) and others on my own talk page, where we reached consensus in a constructive way ([19]).

3- treating Wikipedia as a battleground is also unjustified as testified by my consistent and lengthy efforts in reaching consensus with other editors in that specific article ([20], [21]).

Overall, the goal of blocking is to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, and there is no evidence that my editing was disruptive in any way. As outlined above, there was a constructive, collaborative and respectful effort to contribute to the article I was blocked from; something I have consistently engaged in for the past decade in WP:ARBPIA articles, and is attested by my clean record. These reasons were argued by someone I was reporting, and the user wanted to retaliate, there is no objective justification for it. And anyway, my good faith behavior necessitates receiving a warning before being blocked per WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323: and @Levivich: Thank you for commenting your honest opinions. I feel that the edit summary issue has been given too much weight in this discussion, as it is a simple edit that some people disagreed with, which could have been straightforwardly solved on the talk page, and not a justifiable reason for a block. The real issue here is being accused of edit warring and treating Wikipedia as a battleground; things that cannot accurately describe my behavior as demonstrated above. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I am not looking past anything, either phrasing has not been used by any reliable source reporting on the current war [22], as my original edit summary stated. In any case, this is a disagreement like any other that could happen between editors, and is easily and straightforwardly solvable on the talk page; this does not justify a block. Makeandtoss (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Thank you for your comment. Please note that the I am here to appeal the block because I find it unjustified, even if it has expired. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: I find the existence of an unjustified sanction on my decade-long, hard-earned, block-free log to be deeply demoralizing. The right to appeal should still be available, especially considering the sanction has been fully enforced already. I wish for this discussion not to be closed to give the opportunity for at least a recognition to emerge that this was not in place. Thank you for understanding. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I thank you for your patience in reading through my replies, appreciate it. I only put the latter (as a shortcut) because it basically also includes the former, but here are the two demonstrations of how these phrasings aren't supported by RS [23] and [24]. Hamas has been described in multiple ways on RS, mostly as "having ruled the Gaza Strip since 2007". Either way, it's a simple subjective disagreement that is not disruptive. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Your comment on the possibility of appeal is on point and aligned with my initial train of thought. Not being able to appeal short-sanctions, makes them unappealable, which isn't optimal.

As my original edit summary stated, my problem was with the phrasing, which is not supported by RS [25] [26]. Hamas can be described in a multiple of ways, mostly in RS as "having ruled the Gaza Strip since 2007", and much less frequently as "government of Gaza". This is not disingenuous, this is simply my perspective that we should follow RS verbatim, which other editors are free to disagree with, on the talk page peacefully; which is not disruptive either. Makeandtoss (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appellant started an ANI thread to complain about another editor (since also blocked) in a manner suggestive of weaponising processes to remove an opponent. The complaint was that the other editor had removed an RfC the appellant started and had then archived the appellant's message on their own talk page. There are obvious issues with holding a formal RfC on a six-day-old article that is in a state of constant flux. Removing the RfC altogether was the wrong approach and the editor in question was the wrong person to do anything with it, but going straight to a noticeboard instead of just restoring it was about the most dramatic course of action possible. The ANI thread (predictably) descended into interpersonal bickering, in which the appellant played a large part.

During the ANI discussion, the appellant's use of edit summaries was raised, specifically this one. The edit removed the text the de facto government of Palestine in Gaza, which is how Hamas was introduced in the article, with the edit summary Hamas is a non-state actor, no reliable sources have used this phrasing to describe the group. Issues with phrasing should be resolved by editing or discussion, not wholesale removal, and claiming that sources don't support the claim that Hamas is the de facto government in Gaza is absurd; the removal leaves the opening sentence without an explanation of who or what Hamas is. There was also evidence presented of 1RR violations.

The reason for a block does not need to be one of the "common block rationales". Warnings are not a requirement, but the standards of conduct expected in the topic area are clear and well-advertised and the threshold for sanctions is lower than in other areas. This was a mild sanction; the other party at ANI got a two-week site ban for similar conduct, mostly because they had a longer block log. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not start the complaint because I wanted to dramatically remove an opponent, I started a complaint because that was the only reasonable thing to do, given that my RFC was removed, and that my objection to the removal of the RFC was also removed from his talk page; which is clear refusal to even discuss. I would have been accused of edit warring if I restored the RFC.

I can remove the phrasing, just as someone had inserted it without seeking consensus on the talk page; this cannot be described as disruptive editing. Nor can my behavior be described as edit warring, as the edits were in response to new consensus forming on the talk page, in several discussions that I initiated myself.

I still believe that this mild sanction to have been unjustified and that I should have received a warning as Wikipedia guideline states. The other party was bickering with admins, other editors, and has an extensive history of edit warring and being sanctioned; these are things that I do not share with them and do not wish to be compared with them. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI {{gender|SPECIFICO}} = she. Editors are entitled to remove anything they wish from their own talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information on the user's gender. Editors might be entitled to remove a talk page message, but I don't think they are entitled to ignore talk page messages objecting to a removal of an RFC, which represents a doubling-down of a refusal to even discuss. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to your comment below (because we're supposed to stick to our own sections at AE), the phrase you removed was not just "the de facto government of Palestine" but "the de facto government of Palestine in Gaza". I can't tell if you genuinely don't understand the distinction or if you're deliberately looking past it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with this being left open for a determination if that's what Makeandtoss wants, even if it's purely academic. However, I stand by my action and believe it was proportionate and necessary. Nothing I've seen here convinces me otherwise. I've given my reasons but Makeandtoss is being very selective in their reading of my comments. The only thing that's changed since ANI is I'm less sure whether they're being disingenuous or they just don't understand. This will be my last comment in this thread unless I'm pinged by an uninvolved admin. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:14, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was invited to join this discussion by the appealing user.

I don’t see a reason for Makeandtoss to remain blocked. As already mentioned, we were able to amicably resolve edit disagreements via talk pages. In terms of edit warring, most editors on the article in question have engaged in similar, if not even more questionable, behavior. I don’t think these editors should be blocked either; this is just the nature of a contentious and heavily edited article.

Actually, I’ve found Makeandtoss to be far more open and receptive to dialogue and discussing conflicts than other editors. Merlin^sorca 21:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

As Merlinsorca has noted, Makeandtoss is exceptionally open to dialogue and I'm not sure the laconic edit summary mentioned above, if this was indeed part of the reason to block, was particularly onerous. The phrasing removed is indeed marginal at best, and the details were not mentioned in the body of the page in any case, so it was technically accurate that there was nothing supporting this phrasing on the page in question here, even though it is supported on the referenced topic's own dedicated page . However, one could just have easily argued for the removal on the basis of it being off-topic, excessive detail in the lead, etc. (we expressly link terms to more detailed pages for this very reason, per WP:SUMMARY), so the removal was not unsound, and indeed, the removal appears to be affirmed by its lack of restoration on the page as it stands. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Yes, it's quite possible that there's a miscommunication here. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked into the rest, but I'm going to opine that the disingenuous edit summary is actually a miscommunication. The text removed was "de facto government of Palestinians in Gaza," and the edit summary says no RS uses that phrasing. My guess is that neither Makeandtoss (nor Iskandar, nor anyone else) would deny that Hamas is the de facto government in Gaza. The confusion probably stems from the words "of Palestinians," because "government of Palestinians in Gaza" could be interpreted to mean that Hamas is the government, located in Gaza, of all Palestinians (including those outside of Gaza, e.g. the West Bank) (which is not true and no RS makes this claim) vs. Hamas is the government of only those Palestinians in Gaza (which is true and supported by RS). I think Makeandtoss interpreted the phrasing to mean the former (though I interpret the phrasing to mean the latter). Levivich (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Makeandtoss: is Hamas the government of Gaza? Levivich (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We’re here on the issue if my editing is disruptive. One edit that someone disagrees with doesn’t mean my editing is disruptive. This phrasing “de facto government of Palestine” is used by zero RS currently reporting on the war currently [27]. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course AE can vacate a sanction no longer in force. I don't know why anyone would think it can't. It's been done before and no policy says otherwise. If appeals of sanctions became moot when they expired, then every short time-limited sanction would be unappealable, and people would rush to appeal short sanctions (and decide those appeals) before they expired (or worse, the opposite), none of which would be good for Wikipedia. If admins don't want to volunteer to hear an appeal, don't. But expiration doesn't make it moot. Also, vacating-or-not-vacating aren't the only two options on an appeal.

Like HJ, I can't tell if Makeandtoss still avoiding the distinction is inadvertent or deliberate, but either way I agree it's disruptive. Arguing about whether Hamas is the government of Gaza disrupts the normal editing process, and CIR in this topic area means understanding and appreciating the difference between the government of Palestine and the government of Gaza, and appreciating the difference between removing just "of Palestine" vs removing the entire phrase "de facto government of Palestine in Gaza." Levivich (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Statement text copied from User talk:Makeandtoss (permanent link). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This is moot… the short block has expired. Courcelles (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Makeandtoss, AE’s appellate powers are limited to vacating the sanction issued. We cannot, by definition, vacate a sanction no longer in force. That’s why I say this is a moot appeal, there’s no decision to be made that isn’t ultra vires of this venue, AE can manage only active sanctions and formally logged warnings. Courcelles (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I see there was some disruptive behavior, which was met with a minor sanction which has already expired. I don't see anything else to do here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur that AE cannot overturn a restriction that has already lapsed. To the extent that this creates a sort of immunity for very short sanctions, I would say that's more feature than bug. ArbCom could resolve at ARCA that a lapsed sanction was in error, but I doubt they would be inclined to, and I do not think that that would be a good use of anyone's time. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition to what Tamzin said, there is both AN and XRV for general community review of a disputed admin action, and that could certainly include AE actions. I agree that appeals at AE should be limited to determining whether a sanction should be modified or overturned, not academically disputing the merits of one that's already expired. Unless any uninvolved admin objects, I'll close this as moot within the next day or so. (And Makeandtoss, while I'm not going to bother moving all your comments, please make any further comments only in your own section.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

Edit warring over whether and how to mention Hananya Naftali:

1. 17:51, 20 October 2023 (weakened PolitiFact's statement about Naftali's official status)
2. 04:36, 20 October 2023 (reverted removal of content)
3. 15:51, 19 October 2023 (reverted removal of content)
4. 03:37, 19 October 2023 (reverted "Israeli influencer" to "a digital aide")
5. 03:13, 19 October 2023 (reverted sentence saying his comment was misattributed as by a government spokesperson")

Edit warring over description of Channel 4's assessment of the voice intercept: (Content originally added by LoomCreek, diff not linked)

1. 05:15, 19 October 2023
2. 03:46, 19 October 2023

Edit warring over whether to attribute a casualty estimate to the "Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry", or just the "Gaza Health Ministry":

1. 15:55, 19 October 2023
2. 09:24, 18 October 2023

Edit warring over whether to mention the initial Guardian impression:

1. 19:53, 18 October 2023
2. 19:11, 18 October 2023
3. 02:21, 18 October 2023 (Same as third diff in Al Jazeera section)

Edit warring over whether to say that Al Jazeera attributed the explosion to Israel:

1. 19:47, 18 October 2023
2. 19:17, 18 October 2023
3. 02:21, 18 October 2023 (Same as third diff in Guardian section)

Edit warring over whether to use "claim" in reference to Israeli statements about the explosion:

1. 05:10, 18 October 2023
2. 03:43, 18 October 2023

Edit warring over whether sources were sufficient for a claim: (Content originally added by LoomCreek, diff not linked)

1. 05:10, 19 October 2023 (reverted removal of content)
2. 03:30, 19 October 2023 (removed "better source needed" template)
3. 22:58, 18 October 2023 (removed "better source needed" template)
4. 01:58, 18 October 2023 (reverted removal of content)

I requested that they self-revert whichever of these reverts that they could and while they said they would be careful, they did not self revert. I posted a follow up comment repeating my request for a self-revert to which they have not replied, despite having subsequently made further edits and reverts to the article in question. I've taken that as an implicit rejection of the self-revert request and that in combination with the subsequent 1RR breaches led me to decide it is necessary to bring the issue here.

This request does not include every problematic edit; I would need approximately 30 more diffs and 200 words to present them all. Note also that some of these diffs are consecutive, and thus do not count as separate reverts; however, no diffs in the same section are consecutive with each other.

This case potentially extends into AP2; while investigating these reverts I noticed they had previously been warned twice about edit warring at Red scare; investigating further I found that they had engaged in edit wars at other articles that I believe are covered by contentious topics, including Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán (3RR breach) and Killing of Rayshard Brooks. 07:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 10:34, 20 October 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

this edit is the only one that came after billedmammal had informed me There was a second revert, but it wasn't part of any repeat edit warring and so I choose to prioritize other diffs over including it. If admins are willing to give me additional diffs and words I can expand. 20:11, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Comparing the reverts above to the current state of the article I'm not sure any are still appropriate for a self-revert; many have been reverted by other editors, and the remainder has changed extensively from the version implemented by LoomCreek.

Regarding they seem to have not understood the 1RR until the 20th, they also made multiple breaches of 3RR at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion, and I am a little concerned that their continued denial of having also violated that policy at Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán (four reverts between 21:57, 7 October 2023 and 02:06, 8 October 2023) means that they will break it again shortly. BilledMammal (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression the rule was by each day at least by UTC. Once again, I don't really do super heavy editing when it comes to articles like this. I mostly do other wikimedia work, map & graph/image creation, and article creation (Coumarin derivatives for ex.). If you're certain I'll break the rule again soon, I welcome you to take it to arbitration then for a broader topic ban. - LoomCreek (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That misunderstanding makes sense; thank you for explaining. The explanation does alleviate my concerns that we are going to end up back here or at WP:AN3 again shortly. BilledMammal (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

07:57, 21 October 2023

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

As for the claim of misuse at other articles, Killing of Manuel Esteban Paez Terán and Killing of Rayshard Brooks the 3R was never broken. And they tried to claim a revert that I did removing hate speech was falsely labeled Hate speech, someone putting "(was/were)" under a gender nonconforming person whose been killed classifies as such. Red Scare was also someone singlehandedly attempting to change the lead intro after several editors told them to stop and that they were not acting in good faith. If I could back I would've done more to handle it better, the 3R rule was never broken however.

Now to address on the current topic.

For Naftali I did more then I should, before I was fully aware of the different ruleset. After I learned of it I stopped.

1. 17:51, 20 October 2023 and #03:13, 19 October 2023 don't have standing as edit warring.

The first one was simply an additional quotation from the politifact article and clean up of the intro sentence to make it easier to read, something I said in my summary (this edit is the only one that came after billedmammal had informed me).The second one was just a simple removal of original research, there wasn't any reliable sources cited to it, had nothing to do with the content. The other edits I definitely made a mistake on and I'm sorry about that.

All earlier edits were made in good faith, it was just before I was fully aware of the ruleset around the article. I would also like to mention most of the topics here were heavily discussed in the talk page. I'll drop editing this topic for a while, and if you like to implement a topic ban for a while that's fine. But I want to make it clear I was not acting in bad faith. LoomCreek (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This would be seem to be an unusually clear case of repeated disruptive behaviour. Some of the diffs provided show flagrant violations of the 1RR in place on these articles, and should have led to blocks if reported. The fact that we see so many disruptions from LoomCreek in such a short time, and on so sensitive articles, indicate that they should not edit the ARBPIA area. The occasional overstep is one thing, but systematic violations is not acceptable. Jeppiz (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I have p-blocked from Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion for 2 weeks for violating 1RR; this should be treated as a warning for edit-warring more generally as well. I'm disinclined to sanction further given that they seem to have not understood the 1RR until the 20th; the hospital explosion is the one page they continued to revert on subsequent to that (the 17:51 edit restores a sentence that had been added at 04:36 and later removed), so hopefully a p-block will make clear what counts as edit-warring here. BilledMammal, if you would like to list what edits you think should be self-reverted, go ahead. It's not entirely clear to me from the above. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:10, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on positive discourse above, this can probably be closed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Brandmeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3#Proposed enforcement

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

BilledMammal appears to still show unhelpful behavior by trying to override third-party opinion and without opening a threaded discussion. Earlier they were blocked once and received at least three warnings.

1. Reverts a six-day stable version by repeating old argument that "Dixon was hired by Azerbaijan", even though at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Luis Moreno Ocampo an uninvolved user stated: Dixon's statements are not invalidated by his connection to the Azerbaijan government. Include his statements and inform readers that he was hired to write a rejection of Ocampo's report.
2. Reverts again on the same day, claiming "no consensus"
3. Writes at the BLP discussion after the revert and nine days after the uninvolved opinion, insisting on their version

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Blocked on 25 October 2021 for 48 hours due to "abuse of process"

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

May 2023 edit-warring warning

November 2022 edit-warring warning

January 2022 warning

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Rlendog, Vanamonde93, I'm seeing a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT disruption of dispute resolution process here, where an uninvolved opinion has been a central pillar. With that in mind, attempts to seek further dispute resolution become frustrating and time-consuming. Brandmeister^talk 18:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, Vanamonde93: With regards to being circumspect after logged warning, I decided on this report because in my view BM's behavior was unhelpful. But I understand that whether a particular behavior is sanctionable or not depends on admin interpretation. In the same way, opinions of non-admin users may differ, just like mine. I recognize admins' dissent, but do not think that WP:Boomerang is an issue here - I do not have the habit to submit frivolous reports or abuse ANI in some way. I think much of it comes from the aforementioned difference in interpretation of sanctionable behavior. I've read admins' arguments about further dispute resolution and acknowledge them. Brandmeister^talk 20:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[28]

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.

To provide the full edit summaries for the first and second diffs:

1. WP:UNDUE; Dixon was hired by Azerbaijan, and his report doesn't appear to have received any media attention of note.
2. No consensus at that discussion to include. I agree that including it isn't libel, but that doesn't make it WP:DUE. The only reliable and independent source that I could even find mentioning Dixon in this context was a CNN article, which only discusses the preliminary opinion letter and not the report. It also focuses on the allegations, and is clear that Azerbiajan hired Dixon.

Next, I'm not sure why the warnings are relevant, particularly the 2022 ones, but since they are included I feel I should explain them:

1. January 2022 I was warned about my comment here, for saying I suspect that English is not their first language; it may be beneficial for them to edit on their native language Wikipedia before appealing here, as the language barrier may be why they have struggled to gain competence.
2. November 2022 I was warned about reverting changes that other people made to my talk page contribution.
3. May 2023 was a dispute about whether other editors could add options to a multi-option RfC. There was an option I believed should be considered; JFD disagreed.

As for the actual topic of this report, this is a content issue; there isn't a consensus at BLPN to include it.

This is perhaps getting a little too far into content for AE, but I believe that it shouldn't be included because it is WP:UNDUE, and because it is possibly a BLP violation. The former is because it has received almost no coverage in reliable and independent sources. The latter because we deem it a "controversy", but reliable and independent sources have not done so. Further, we give weight to the claim that he left out information that undermined his conclusions, despite no reliable and independent source doing so.

It also fails to mention that the report was commissioned by Azerbaijan, even though the comment from the uninvolved editor that Brandmeister justifies their edit with says Include his statements and inform readers that he was hired to write a rejection of Ocampo's report.

This ANI discussion from last week may also be relevant, as in it I accused Brandmeister of misrepresenting three sources in this topic area. 10:42, 13 October 2023

@Grandmaster: In the talk page discussion on adding that report three of the five participating editors disagreed with doing so. It's another content issue, not worth bringing to AE. 13:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Meh. While the idea of 'a six-day stable version ' of an article is an intriguing one, this just looks like robust-ish editing from BilledMammal very similar to the kind that the complainant has been doing on the same page. So: a content dispute in an area where consensus is indeed unclear, with nothing rising (yet) to the level of disruption where admins need to step in. Both editors would be advised to dial things back and try for a wider consensus before resuming the back-and-forth reverting to the point where it does become a problem, in my humble view. Bon courage (talk) 11:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only recently started editing the article in question, but immediately noticed problematic editing by BilledMammal. In particular, here he completely removed the important finding by the UN mission to Nagorno-Karabakh region, claiming that it was WP:UNDUE. In reality, the finding reported by the Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General Stéphane Dujarric [29] has a direct relevance to the topic of the article, and the opinion of the number one international organization that actually sent a mission to the conflict location cannot be undue. If there are sources that question the UN finding, we can only present them along with what the UN says, but not remove the important part of the UN report. It looks to me like a tendentious editing by BilledMammal. Grandmaster 13:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A report based on diffs related to the BLPN discussion which has no consensus for OP's recent edit, not to mention WP:ONUS - but that didn't stop OP from restoring their edits repeatedly and reverting users [30]. The UN detail edit's discussion that was opened yesterday has no consensus either, in fact, several editors have disagreed to add undue barely present in RS detail to an already undue report that was heavily criticized [31], [32] by RS. This AE case is subpar and perhaps raises concerns about OP's competence and witch hunting opposing them editors, they were recently warned by @El C: for opening another content dispute AE case [33]. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:37, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping a watchful eye on Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians and its talk page. This looks an attempt to get rid of a opposing editor. An investigation should made regarding Brandmeister's edits and conducts, who seems to be doing his best to justify and minimize the actions of Azerbaijan against the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians per the ANI report and his other comments/edits in that thread. Grandmaster, who supports Brandmeister here and in that article has also just filed an SPI against one of the other opposing users, what a coincidence [34]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I felt I should make a statement, given that Brandmeister made an AE request against me as well last week. That request, also, was considered to have been over nothing sanctionable, and Brandmeister was given a WP:FORUMSHOP warning because that AE thread was made right after I had made an ANI discussion about Brandmeister. If Brandmeister is already making a new AE report for someone they are disagreeing with so soon after the last one and it is again for conduct that is non-sanctionable, should a WP:BOOMERANG apply to this excessive reporting? --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing anything sanctionable in the original request. I also don't see any problems with the diff User:Grandmaster highlighted as problematic editing. However, Grandmaster's comments in the talk page discussion are puzzling, for example stating that notability is the "main criterion" for inclusion in articles, that to remove information is to "censor" it, or that it is original research to discuss a source's relevance on the basis of statements made in other reliable published sources. Not that I'm saying those are sanctionable either, but an experienced editor making those comments is concerning, especially in a CTOP. For the record I've never edited that page, nor, to my knowledge, that topic area. DFlhb (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I am not seeing any sanctionable conduct. This seems like a content disagreement where BilledMammal regards certain facts as being given WP:UNDUE weight, has not come close to violating WP:3RR and has been willing to discuss the edits. Rlendog (talk) 14:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• With respect to the additional comment, I did not see any consensus emerging out of the linked BLP noticeboard discussion. Disagreements on contentious topics often take more than 6 or 9 days to get resolved, and admittedly can be frustrating. Rlendog (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I also do not see sanctionable conduct here. The line between content and conduct can be blurry in cases like this, but at the moment I'm seeing disagreement in which the opinions of both sides are grounded in policy. The sources being discussed are neither so unquestionably reliable that omitting them is sanctionable conduct, nor so clearly unreliable that promoting them is sanctionable. I suggest all editors concerned be a little less free with the revert button, and invite outside input where opinions on sources and content are evenly divided. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The opinion of uninvolved users at BLPN is helpful, but is not in any way sacrosanct, and any user is free to disagree with it. If you want to build an enforceable consensus on this subject, an RFC is the way to go. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm also considering whether a boomerang of some sort is needed. I note that Brandmeister was blocked for a month for behavior in this precise area. This was 10 yeas ago, so it's ancient history; but you'd hope that after such a sanction and a logged warning a week ago a user would be more circumspect. I'm still unsure what an appropriate response would be: a second logged warning feels like too little, an indef CT-wide TBAN (our typical response) perhaps too much. How do other admins feel about a time-limited TBAN from 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh, which seems the most proximal area of conflict? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bishonen: You're quite correct; the 10-month option is fine with me. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Brandmeister: The issue isn't simply that interpretations of sanctionable conduct differ, it's that you returned to make a very similar report to one you had already been warned about. @Bishonen: That's a fair point, and I don't love time-limited sanctions either. I would be okay with a 10-month TBAN, but (I just thought of this, sorry) what about a TBAN from making reports to AE/AN in this area? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Thirded: I also don't see sanctionable conduct. The DUE/UNDUE question here is a matter of opinion, where it's not disruptive to edit according to either opinion. For transparency, I was the admin who blocked BM for abuse of process in 2021, as mentioned by the OP. It's the only entry in their block log and I don't see the relevance of it here. There may be a little irony, since the abuse was overuse of AE (IMO),[35]) but not relevance. Bishonen | tålk 16:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  KhndzorUtogh makes a good point. Should there be some form of boomerang? Bishonen | tålk 22:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  Re boomerang: in view of this recent ANI, which earned Brandmeister a logged warning, and their two recent AE reports, I agree with Vanamonde that we don't want to warn them again. A TBAN from the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive might be the thing, but I never much like time-limited bans. It's too easy to merely wait out the ban and then resume the behavior. At least, if time-limited, a TBAN should be pretty long. 10 months? Bishonen | tålk 10:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  Vanamonde, the ANI that resulted in a warning was filed against Brandmeister, not by them, so I think it's just the filing of the two AE's that is obnoxious use of noticeboards here? Or was there something more? Anyway, I don't think such a TBAN would be sufficient on its own, and probably not needed, considering the pushback they've already been getting for overuse of AE. I still like a 10-month TBAN from the 2023 Azerbaijani offensive, what do you say? Anybody else? Rlendog? Bishonen | tålk 08:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  I don't feel strongly about it either way 10 month TBAN seems a bit harsh but given that FORUMSHOPPING was part of the ANI warning it may be appropriate. But on the other hand the issue there was that there were reports made to both ANI and AE, while this case just went to AE so isn't necessarily FORUMSHOPPING. If no further action is taken I hope Brandmeister will at least take this discussion as a caution to use AE appropriately. Rlendog (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd support the narrow topic ban. Would also support a ban on filing complaints about other editors. A broad topic ban would be disproportionate in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Marcelus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Cukrakalnis (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:CT/EE

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

1. [36] – removal of Lithuanian Territorial Defense Force from the category "Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany"
2. [37] – same for Święciany massacre committed by Lithuanian police in German service
3. [38]]- same for Lithuanian TDA Battalion
4. [39] – same for Category: Lithuanian Auxiliary Police; Essentially, C rebuilt the category tree so that most Lithuanian units collaborating with Nazi Germany are not directly in Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany but in Category:Generalbezirk Litauen, which is the name of the occupying German administrative unit.
5. [40], series of edits in which C removed any information about LTDF collaboration with Nazi Germany, notice the change of text from “LTDF was subordinate to the authorities of Nazi Germany” to “LTDF was disbanded for being insubordinate to the authorities of Nazi Germany” ([41]), while both are true, one shouldn’t replace the other.
6. [42] in this edit C also removed the attribution of the statement that 983 LTDF soldiers were sent to the Oldenburg concentration camp to the historian Arūnas Bubnys, although this information only appears in his older works (it does not appear in more recent works), and is not repeated by any other researcher of LTDF history. In general, the existence of the Oldenburg camp is questionable. In general, I noticed that much of this edition is a verbatim copy of a machine translation of Bubnys article ([43]) which I reported to WP:CPN (from words "On 23-24 November 1943" to "with military units assigned to them").
7. [44] - removal of Category:Lithuanian collaborators with Nazi Germany from article on LTDF commander Povilas Plechavičius
8. [45] - removal of link to article on the unit's collaboration with the Germans
9. [46] – Cukrakalnis introduced a change in which he stated that Yad Vashem claims that “the Lithuanian Provisional Government 'did not encourage brutal actions' against Jews and that only high-ranking Communist officials and members of the NKVD were supposed to be punished by death”. In fact, this was a misrepresentation (combining the description of LAF and PG activities) of the words of Lithuanian historian Vygantas Vareikis, published in a work by Yad Vashem.
10. [47], removal of information of 259th Lithuanian Schutzmannschaft Battalion allegiance to Nazi Germany
11. [48], same for 258th
12. [49], same for 256th
13. [50], same for 10th
14. [51]: trying to talk to C about these changes is very difficult. In this conversation I asked for the reinstatement of allegaince to Nazi Germany in the infoboxes of Lithuanian Schutzmannschaft Battalions quoting the source. C replied "fixed" pointing to his edit where he added the parameter "branch = Ordnungspolizei" ([52]). When I pointed out that I was advocating addition of the parameter "allegiance = Nazi Germany", he replied: "It was not part of the Wehrmacht, so adding Ordnungspolizei is more accurate", completely ignoring the thing I asked for. Typical example of WP:NOTGETTINGIT.
15. [53]: C makes also WP:PERSONAL attacks against me. For example: “you just want to demonize it as 'collaborationist'", "Your shameful attempts, shameful behaviour on your part”, “your incessant questioning of the numbers provided by one of the foremost Lithuanian experts on the matter, Arūnas Bubnys, whose given information you even accused as 'fringe' in this edit, which is absolutely shameful behaviour on your part” show lack of ability to remain level-headed in this topic.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [54], C was blocked in the past, and promised to “cease engaging in ethno-nationalist and homophobic provocations on Wikipedia” and dedicate himself to “purely to editing military and neutral history”.

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

• Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 15:57, 28 March 2023.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In my opinion edits undertaken by Cukrakalnis, are incompatible with the spirit of Wikipedia and calculated to hide inconvenient historical facts that he does not favor. And due to the fact that I am one of the few editors who monitors this area, I am concerned that they may go unnoticed. I have had disputes with C in the past on various topics, and while I have not always found his edits to be the best, I consider his edits on the topic of collaboration with Nazi Germany to be particularly alarming, as the misrepresentations made on this topic is in my opinion especially harmful. Still, I think C is capable of giving a lot in other areas.

Apologies, that's my mistake I understood that I had to say what remedy to put on Cukrakalnis, I am deleting this from "Sanction or remedy to be enforced", just to be clear: he does not have this TBan now Marcelus (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

C fails to mention that he himself made Category:Generalbezirk Litauen subset of Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany (15:46, 20 March 2023). He did so day after the creation of Category:Massacres in Lithuania during World War II (20:54, 19 March 2023‎) and three minutes before making changes in categories of Święciany massacre (15:49, 20 March 2023). Thus, the whole explanation that he made them "upon seeing that the article already had Category:Generalbezirk Litauen, which was the subset of Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany" sounds insincere, since he himself, after all, created such a category structure 3 minutes earlier.

Moreover, he did not take an analogous step with respect to other German occupation administrative units. Besides, just putting this category there makes no sense: it suggests that Generalbezirk Litauen itself was part of the Lithuanian collaboration. When I challenged this move C stated: "The Lithuanian Auxiliary Police, Lithuanian Security Police, etc., were subordinated to Generalbezirk Litauen. The Generalbezirk itself is clearly part of Lithuanian collaboration." ([55]), which makes no sense in the regard of WP:PARENTCAT and is also factually incorrect, but that's other matter.

Also untrue, is what C says, that "allegiance tag is supposed to be used if the unit is part of the armed forces of a sovereign country", because Template:Infobox military unit clearly says something opposite: "allegiance - optional - Used to indicate the allegiance of units which are not part of the regular armed forces of a sovereign state".

It is also not true that I expect a ban for C, I consider him a difficult to cooperate with but useful editor, just in my opinion he is unable to remain objective on the topic of Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany, so I think he should withdraw from editing in this space. I apologize for the length of the comment.Marcelus (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to read @Elinruby's comments. It seems that they has not familiarised themselves with the diffs. I do not understand the accusation of WP:IDHT and also the whole lecture about collaboration seems unnecessary. This is not a discussion about content, but about C's conduct. I am also not comfortable being called a "blockhead".Marcelus (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: this is not a dispute about content, I can handle that on a t/p, but only if the other side is interested in a proper dispute. The problem is that Cukrakalnis isn't such person, diff No. 14 is one of many proofs of that.

@Elinruby: I have never had a blood feud with anyone, I have never tried to impose my world view on anyone, all my edits have solid support in the sources.

@Ostalgia: I do not feel antipathy towards Cukrakalnis. Nor do I feel that I stand on a completely different position from him. I don't stand on any positions at all. I write about things that interest me (which may give the impression of "taking a position"), I am guided in my edits by objective knowledge and RS. I prepared this report to present C's actions on the subject of wartime collaboration in Lithuania, which I feel are aimed at hiding inconvenient facts and minimizing the size of this collaboration. The second issue is a complete lack of cooperation, confrontational discussion on t/p, removal of sourced information, gaming the system to block edits that C does not like. What disappoints me in the entries of those commenting is the complete lack of reference to these diff. This calls into question the relevance of AE as a tool at all.

I don't know what purpose an IBAN on me would serve. On the one hand, I am encouraged to start discussions on t/p, on the other hand, I am threatened with IBAN for conducting them. Look at this my non-confrontational attempt to start discussion about changes in the article ([56]), the answer ([57]) is immediatelly hostile: "You are very obviously pushing a POV", "It is absolutely false and misleading to claim", "Your shameful attempts" etc. it ruins a discussion before it started. Another example ([58]) is me asking to restore Wikiproject:Poland, and answer ([59]): "You do have to realize that Lithuanian history is not a subset of Polish history and that Lithuanians are not Poles". The feeling I never once expressed. How you can possibly conduct reasonable discussion in such atmosphere? Marcelus (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: Let me quote a Lithuanian researcher Justina Smalkyté: The Local Force (Litauische Sonderverbände, Vietine ̇rinktine)̇ , set up in the spring of 1944 by the Nazis, was another collaborationist military formation with a distinctively Lithuanian character, which, unlike the auxiliary police battalions, did not participate in the mass murder of Jews. You insist on using the distinction that one researcher has proposed for Vichy, and completely ignore the nomenclature used by researchers dealing with Lithuanian collaboration. And not Polish researchers, which is what a lot of people strenuously try to impute to me, that I represent "official Polish historiography," in fact I very rarely reach for Polish researchers. "Zero evidence in the body" is largely due to the fact that C purged the article of such content, but nevertheless the article still describes the circumstances of the formation and activities of the LTDF, which shows the extend of collaboration. I've never touched on the subject of concentration camp guard units, so I don't know where this came from. In general, your comments on me are very emotional, aggressive even, combined with the deletion of my comments on t/p, makes me doubt your impartiality on this issue.Marcelus (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: But I never claimed that every LAP battalion took an active part in the Holocaust. With regard to these units, I only advocated the reinstatement of the "allegiance" parameter with the value " Nazi Germany, which Cukrakalnis removed; I did not raise the subject of the Holocaust or collaboration with regard to them, so I am surprised why you bring this issue up.Marcelus (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: I'm not even arguing at you, I'm just trying to understand what's your point.Marcelus (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[60]

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.

Yes, I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. --Marcelus (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Marcelus already wrongly reported me a year ago - on 8 July 2022. Marcelus' WP:GRUDGE has not ceased over the past two years. Last year, to stop any problems caused by the problematic interactions with Marcelus, I asked for an IBAN, which was not granted. Almost a full year later, other users already noticed that the interpersonal dynamic is problematic: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1124#Cukrakalnis and Marcelus' history of incivility/bickering towards each other (submitted by a user now renamed User:Prodraxis). Just a month before this, User:Ostalgia said I think the sanction applied by Tamzin is proportional to the infraction, and just want to point out that this is the nth case involving Marcelus and Cukrakalnis. Given the huge overlap between Lithuanian and Polish history, and the evident bad blood between them, perhaps a 2-way IBAN could help prevent further disruption.. [61] Here we go again, another case by Marcelus against me.

I see nothing wrong in me following Wikipedia's rules and removing WP:PARENTCATs in articles where they were superfluous. Category:Generalbezirk Litauen is already a subset of Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany. Thus, it follows that I should remove the parent cat in favour of the more specific category. It is absolutely unfair to characterize me as trying to deny Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany, because I myself created Category:Lithuanian Security Police officers which I clearly tagged Category:Lithuanian collaborators with Nazi Germany. Furthermore, this was just a part of my broader effort to help in the work on collaboration with the Axis Powers in World War II - I was cleaning up the category tree to make sure that categories would be as precise as possible and to remove cases where there were superfluous parent categories. Here are a few cases out of the many many edits that I did: [62], [63], [64], etc. Please note: I received a barnstar User:Cukrakalnis#For intelligent discussion and content creation in the area of Collaboration with the Axis Powers, so clearly my contributions are according to Wikipedia's rules and it is only Marcelus that mistakenly finds fault where there is none.

The cases that Marcelus tries to use as proof against me only show that I was following Wikipedia's rules. E.g. with Święciany massacre [65] - I had created the Category:Massacres in Lithuania during World War II and that is why I had to remove a few categories that were the parent cat of the newly-created one I had just created. Upon seeing that the article already had Category:Generalbezirk Litauen, which was the subset of Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany, why would it make sense to keep a superfluous category ? It doesn't, so that's why I removed it. Regarding the Nazi Germany thing in the allegiance of those battalions - Marcelus omits that the allegiance tag is supposed to be used if the unit is part of the armed forces of a sovereign country. Instead, the units we were dealing with were all auxiliary police units, thus not part of the Wehrmacht - Nazi Germany's armed forces. Overall, Marcelus just wants to ban me because we disagree.

Either way, Marcelus' actions and report go directly against the spirit of the conditions on which his block was lifted not even 2 weeks before today (Marcelus' block log here). Marcelus went against the strong recommendations of administrators like User:Z1720: I strongly recommend that Marcelus stay away from the articles that caused the controversies, at least for a couple of weeks or months. [66] and even his assigned mentor User:Piotrus: try to stay away from any controversies in the Polish-Lithuanian topics, or any controversies in general, as it is too easy to make a bad edit in such articles [67]. Did Marcelus listen? No! Marcelus plunged back into the controversial topics that got him banned in the first place and even tries to get me banned instead (seemingly his ultimate goal, considering his long-term behaviour of the past few years).

Apologies for the infrequent editing the past few days (which will continue into the future), because I am busy with matters in my life.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Searching on WP:EDR, WP:AEL and in the AE archives doesn't give any topic ban for Cukrakalnis. While I'm going to assume that there is one, could you provide a diff of the sanction for other users to review Marcelus? Otherwise, if there isn't a link to an alleged TBAN, I think that this could still be handled at AE (Eastern Europe is a contentious topic), but discussing admins should note the lack of evidence for the TBAN. The linked unblock discussion also does not appear to be specifically about the alleged TBAN topic. 137.22.90.18 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Not involved in the conflict, never met these editors before. Just checking the diffs: 1) [68]Yes, this user removed the category "Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany." 2) Added cat "Massacres in Lithuania during World War II" in a context that does involve Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany. To save space, I'll say that I checked every diff, and I believe any reasonable person would conclude that all of them are indeed related to Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany in some way. Some are categoires, some are content, one is a talk page post, and some are change descriptions, but every diff is related to that concept. So even if this topic ban has a carve-out that allows C to change article categories, say, there would still be enough here to be worth considering. The issue is, as anon137 says, whether there is a topic ban in force. Could it have been one set years ago that's since expired? Has C's username changed since it was placed?

I do not believe that the diff on line 15 rises to the point of a personal attack. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plugging Cukrakalnis into the "search for sanctions" bar produces no results.[69] Using Cukrakalnis as a term to search the page history shows Cukrakalnis commenting on other cases.[70] Marcelus and Cukrakalnis have interacted here before: [71] Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I searched the archives of C's talk page for notices of arb discussions concerning him and only found this: Arbitration case about Pahonia But it seems C used to be called "Itzhak Rosenberg." Also no logged sanctions under that name:[72] Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Marcellus has cleared up the confusion... My conclusion is that the diffs above show C moving articles away from "Here's how the Lithuanians collaborated with the Nazis" and closer to "The Lithuanians did not collaborate with the Nazis." At the time, I figured C was a Lithuanian who wanted to distance that country from the Nazis because C recognizes Nazis as evil. I get the impression that Marcellus believes the articles were more accurate before C changed them. I did not check the posted sources to see which of these positions is more verifiable because that's not supposed to matter. If there's a policy here, it's WP:VERIFIABILITY, but I don't know if anyone violated it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was following Wikipolicy on WP:PARENTCATs: 'an article should be categorised under the most specific branch in the category tree possible, without duplication in parent categories above it'. Category:Generalbezirk Litauen is already a subset of Category:Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany. It is absolutely unfair to characterize me as trying to deny Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany, because I myself created Category:Lithuanian Security Police officers which I clearly tagged Category:Lithuanian collaborators with Nazi Germany. Clearly, if I had been trying to distort history into claiming that no Lithuanian collaboration with Nazi Germany took place, I would not have done that. But I was never denying any historical facts and this is just the latest of Marcelus' reports against me. See my statement for the bigger picture of this situation. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I'd offer mediation again but I don't think I have the time, will, or sufficient neutrality for it to work (since I am Polish as well). Ping User:Elinruby for their thoughts (sorry for dragging you into this... but hey, there is a tiny chance they may want to offer to mediate more themselves - they have done so recently more than me at Talk:Lithuanian_Territorial_Defense_Force). Other than that, I am at a loss whether edits by those two users are problematic enough to warrant a topic or interaction ban (newsflash: I don't like sanctioning folks if there is a chance to work things out peacefully per WP:HERE). Is the content improving? If so, then this is more smoke then flame. But are both parties improving things equally? This would require a more in-depth review than we seem to want to do, leaving us with the choice of doing nothing, or doing something, both of which could .be wrong. If nothing jumps out, well, there's time-sanctioned concept of more WP:ROPE I guess. PS. Regarding content improvement, I will note that there is a copyvio issue that came to my attention recently. See here for my analysis. How widespread is the problem I have no idea. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just suggested to Marcelus last night a search for other sources not in either Polish or Lithuanian, and proposed some definitions of collaboration, which is not as obvious as it apparently seems to some. It is largely unsourced OR overall in the many many European WW2 articles, from what I have seen.

Marcelus, if you were polishing diffs while I was explaining Stanley Hoffman vs Bertram Gordon vs Fabrice Grenard [fr]... dude, miss me with the time-wasting stuff next time you've already decided to do something like this. I don't need help finding stuff to do, at all, I despise drama, and this was not a good idea. You should withdraw this complaint if they let you.

General comments

• It is just not that simple in the case of the LDF, and "collaborationism" is wrong even if somebody does keep adding it where it doesn't belong, all over ww2. LDF fighters were not French, or a government, and if they were recruited at gunpoint they probably didn't sign up for ideological reasons or to kill Jews. Rene Bousquet and the Charlemagne Regiment were collaborationists, ok? Lots on the LDf talk page about this
• consider a boomerang for IDHT
• I haven't looked yet at the police unit's page. If this unit, not just other units like it, indeed guarded a concentration camp, good enough for me, Marcelus can call them Nazis all he wants as far as I am concerned. But fyi the Nuremberg tribunal decided not to try such soldiers unless evidence existed that they personally had done more wrong than just belong to a unit
• A better and more recent taxonomy than the three I know (Sorbonne explainer)and/or other sources possibly not dreamt of in their philosophy might maybe have avoided all this. I would like to know if Marcelus even looked those links at all. (I forgot Julian Jackson at the time btw)
• I think they are both too invested in this one unit that the Germans thought they had for a couple of months.
• I suggest Marcelus be required to cite Lithuanian history texts, and Cukrakalnis Polish. There seems to be a divergence in the history taught in those two countries. Something fundamental like who did the killing exactly. The idea needs work but might help. Topic ban optional
• Both very good editors if they can just get over WW2 and worry about the next batch of fascists
• I gave *each* of these blockheads a barnstar for teamwork (with personalized wording) and they each deserved them for some really great work on the collaboration article. I know it's hard to believe that right now
• The collaboration category tree was a huge mess the last time I looked, mostly about enterprise software. I did indeed discuss this with Cukrakalnis. The artcle's page moves didn't help and the Collaborators category is still about 20-30% people found not guilty of collaboration. Edits there may be legit, would need to look and I can't just this second
• if there really is a big copyvio, I can't defend that, and the explanation better be really really good. I need to be away for several hours and will check for any questions when I'm back

TL;DR probably worth the effort but man...totally counterproductive dramah...Elinruby (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I announced yesterday that I would have limited availability for a couple of days. I have a few minutes now, but I am out of words and speechless besides.

Marcelus' mentor asked me to look at this dispute and Marcelus brought it here instead, while I was trying to explain to him that there are many historiographies. Cukrakalnis on the other hand responded to my effort to mediate and signed on to one of my proposals to resolve this particular manifestation of clashing dogmas. The Collaboration parent category and article is a ridiculous mess guarded by people who like that. I didn't know that Cukrakalnis was working on the category, he knew what happened to me and good for him for trying anyway.

@Piotrus: if he can't hear me I can't help, sorry. But I will say as an aside that "blockhead" is a very fine word for people intent on validating every negative stereotype out there of the official Polish historiography.

@Marcelus: I looked at your diffs. Too bad you didn't look at my links. I gave you that barnstar because I was impressed that you didn't do this stuff at Collaboration with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. I thought you had grown since your blood feud over a coat of arms. I see now that I was wrong about that, and the lack of strife was simply that you and Cukrakalnis were working in different sections of the article. If that is the way forward here, then you are with this filing asking AE to impose your worldview on Lithuania, and should get back into your own lane. While I have with my eyes open gotten sanctioned for defending you in the past when you were right, I refuse to do so again here, where you are extremely wrong.

Without reference to the details of whether getting gang-pressed constitutes collaboration, or whether that is in fact what happened, I hereby repudiate your insistence that there is a single correct view of World War II. If this were NPOVN I would tell you that we explain controversy; we don't censor everything but a single historiography deemed correct. And as an aside, "blockhead" is a very fine word for people who get the people trying to accommodate them into trouble and I am not the only editor you have done that to. Sorry, Piotrus. I really did try.

To whoever is clerking, I apologize for not asking for more words but I don't know how soon I will be able to get back online. Probably not before tomorrow at the soonest. Feel free to do whatever seems best. Elinruby (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I share the fatigue Ostalgia is expressing. But would these articles get written under an i-ban? That's a real question, not rhetoric. The history of World War II really should have coverage, and this deadlock has gone on for months. Marcelus claims above to always go by sources, addressing this to me. And so I have in the past believed. But in the current dispute he insisted that the lede and the infobox of a military unit contain the word "collaborationist", a misuse of the word that he refuses to acknowledge, and aside from that, an appellation based on zero evidence in the body of the article and one single source that said that *other* police units had guarded concentration camps. Yet he was convinced enough of the rightness of his cause to bring this complaint. He shouldn't be trying to edit Lithuania, or to police anyone else's editing in the area, is my conclusion. I suggest widening the pool of sources and writing the body of the articles first as the way forward to whoever writes this, and good luck to that person. Elinruby (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ostalgia I did say that. Elinruby (talk) 17:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus is imputing an "all" into general statements about "Lithuanian police auxiliary units". Units 12 and 13 were definitely involved in the Holocaust and possibly other units as well. Unit 258 however was a training unit that existed for three months and possibly never saw action. Lithuanian Auxiliary Police battalions says it was not involved in the Holocaust, btw. When I tried to mediate this dispute, I asked for and did not see a reference that says that it did participate, or any other cooperation from Marcelus for that matter. I don't understand why the drama about such a small topic but it's longstanding at this article in particular. if there is an itch to sanction, I can definitely understand that. It should be both if anything, though. Cukrakalnis was definitely uncivil, and Marcelus still doesn't hear that, and is definitely using AE against an opponent. To allow for the possibility of constructive editing, maybe make the topic "Lithuania in WW2" rather than EE. Or page block them both, better yet. Wikipedia can survive without an article about this unit for a while longer. Elinruby (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Marcelus this is pointless. You have been arguing about that tiny little topic for months and months. Also, it isn't one historian, btw. Multiple people have built on Hoffman. But that isn't about you and Cukrakalnis, just an example of IDHT, irrelevant to whether allegations of Nazi allegiance justify a loss of temper after they go on for these many months. I think they might, but it isn't up to me. Did you ever find a source about this unit, not some units? Did you look? OK then. What was it that you expected to happen here? Sources are sources even at AE. Over and out. Elinruby (talk) 08:43, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We were here a month ago with these two in what I described as the nth case involving them. I guess this is n +1. Both are active users, both can contribute to the encyclopedia, but they stand on completely opposite positions and edit in an area that is not only conflictive in general, but also work on and around topics on which there's significant overlap (Polish and Lithuanian history are deeply intertwined). Their antipathy towards one another is evident and intractable. Last month I suggested a 2-way IBAN and I still believe that, whatever else is decided here, the IBAN rises to the level of a necessity at this point. Ostalgia (talk) 22:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby - you said to Marcelus that I thought you had grown since your blood feud over a coat of arms. I see now that I was wrong about that, and the lack of strife was simply that you and Cukrakalnis were working in different sections of the article (bolding mine). This is, hopefully, something that the IBAN could accomplish. Of course, it will not solve the underlying problem, but at the very least would delineate spheres of "non-intervention" that should, I hope, minimise conflict and force each of these editors to stay in their lane. Is it a perfect solution? Far from it. But perfect is the enemy of good. Ostalgia (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• @Marcelus: You don't specify which contentious topic this relates to (I'm assuming Eastern Europe) and it's not obvious that Cukrakalnis is aware of the restrictions. Can you show that they are aware? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I see an attempted informing in the filter logs, but it looks like the edit was never saved after the “are you sure you want to notify this user?” message was displayed. Courcelles (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the diff, Marcelus. As far as I'm concerned, that clearly demonstrates that Cukrakalnis is aware of the contentious topic procedure and this request can proceed as such. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm inclined to dismiss this as a content dispute, though both parties could make better of the talk page and ask for outside input if they can't work things out themselves. Enforcement is not the answer to disagreements over content. It can be useful if one party refuses to allow a consensus to form or refuses to abide by it but I don't think we're at that point. It can also be useful if someone is misrepresenting the source material, but I've seen no evidence of that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:47, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Respectfully, I don't agree that this is just a content dispute. This diff (Your shameful attempts...absolutely shameful behaviour on your part...you don't care, because what matters to you is your OR) is the clearest example, but it seems pretty much every conversation between Marcelus and Cukrakalnis breaks down into unproductive back-and-forths very quickly, with Cukrakalnis's behavior coming across as especially unimpressive: just read this discussion, this discussion, this minor disagreement over WikiProject tags, etc. This is a long-term problem featuring the same handful of editors, as the archives of ANI, AE, DRN, etc. show. But what can we do about it? An i-ban is the usual solution for two editors who don't get along, but in this case I worry it'd just lead to two sets of non-neutral articles. We could give Cukrakalnis a logged warning that any further inappropriate remarks will lead to sanctions, but that feels like it's just kicking the can. The best option I can think of would be a narrow, time-limited topic-ban for Cukrakalnis (e.g. from World War II in Lithuania and Poland for three months), but that has downsides too. I'd be grateful for any thoughts from other admins: this has been sitting here for two weeks now and really needs to be resolved one way or another. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic area is a relatively niche one and it's a shame that two of the main editors specialising in it can't see eye to eye. I share the concerns about an IBAN. I'm not sure the topic ban would have a much different effect. The best I can come up with is a logged final warning and perhaps a short block for focusing on personalities instead of content, to be followed by rapidly escalating blocks for any future breaches. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fair. A block would probably be a stretch at this point from a punitive vs. preventative perspective, so a strong logged warning seems to be our only option. We're now going on three weeks, so unless any other admins have something to add, one of us should probably close this in the next day or two. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll type something up and hopefully close this tomorrow afternoon UTC unless you'd rather do it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Rosguill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hedikupa Parepvigi (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:AA3

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

1. Special:Diff/1180478284, 16 October, edits to Armenian Genocide-related topic
2. Special:Diff/1180483442, 16 October, further edits to Armenian Genocide-related topic
3. Special:Diff/1180848628, 19 October, attempting to dismiss a peer-reviewed paper published in a T&F publication by accusing its author of having worked for the terrorist Gülen network

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

• Special:Diff/1176703893 notified of Armenia-Azerbaijan CTOPs and GS/AA on September 23

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Between the continued edits to AA-topics following a CTOPs notice as an account with 50 edits, the parroting of the "FETÖ" conspiracy theory line to attempt to dismiss criticisms of Turkish state sources, and the SPA-focus on Turkish-Armenian politics and related topics, I think a topic ban or NOTHERE block is warranted. I would action it myself, but I am involved in the RSN discussion about Anadolu Agency. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've gotta admit, citing an article by Anadolu Ajansi denouncing a critic of the same in the context of the RSN discussion is pretty funny. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1180903793

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

I have not edited any Armenia-Azerbaijan articles. Firstly, I edited Turkish journalist Fatih Altaylı's biography. This article did not have any warnings on its talk page that it was covered by AA. Secondly, Gülenist terror network (FETÖ) is a criminal organization that has been outlawed by Turkey, Pakistan, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Gulf Cooperation Council and Organization of Islamic Cooperation. It is responsible for the 2016 Turkish coup attempt and the killing of 250 Turkish citizens. In June 2022, Western democracies like Sweden and Finland officially pledged to curb activities of this illegal organization.^[1] This topic is not covered by AA either just like Fatih Altaylı's biography.--Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Theleekycauldron, I do not support any form of genocide denial. Genocide denial is an ignominious act. I recognize the suffering of the Armenian people and their contribution to Turkish culture. The second edit you refer to describes a debate that occurred between Sevan Nişanyan and Yusuf Halaçoğlu over the events of 1915. Their opinions do not belong to me; I summarized what the participants said. All those information is present in the sources I cited, including the Armenian Weekly. Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in the country called Armenia. I am not planning to edit any articles about it. I don't understand why you are repeatedly asking me questions about this country. I love Armenian people and their culture. They are very industrious and friendly people. But I have been falsely accused of harboring unspeakable thoughts against them. Now, people are trying to draw conclusions about my personal views based on whether I used a quotation mark or what term I chose to refer the events that took place one hundred years ago. Can someone explain me the purpose of this AE thread? Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ostalgia If you are done with attributing someone else's opinion to me, read carefully: In my view, what happened to Armenians in 1915 was completely inhumane. It should have never happened, and we should take lessons from this tragedy so that such events never occur again. Now, are you, Ostalgia, here to build an encyclopedia or berate me based on how you perceive my beliefs? Hedikupa Parepvigi (talk) 16:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely uninvolved in this topic, but since I participated in an unrelated discussion that is yet to be closed I'm checking AE every once in a while. I have to say the reply Hedikupa Parepvigi just gave Theleekycauldron does not fill me with confidence, in fact, quite the opposite. I recognize the suffering of the Armenian people and the events of 1915 are, in Turkish political discourse, common alternatives to dance around the term genocide. His "explanation" also does not at all explain why, in the entire section, the only word in quotation marks is the term genocide, as if to underscore his disagreement with its use. If you'll excuse the pointed question: Hedikupa Parepvigi, do you support the characterisation of the deportation of Armenians and the death marches they were subjected to as a genocide, yes or no? Ostalgia (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

His most recent reply is equally evasive and, quite frankly, expected. My question was largely rhetorical, given that HP's userpage is a photo of a historian who suggests that "[t]he Armenian genocide is an issue that Germany emphasizes on [sic] and exploits" in a futile attempt to make people forget about the Holocaust [73] and that "[t]rying to gather such conflicts experienced during the fall of an empire under one roof is because those that committed these crimes attempt to disguise and alleviate their crimes", plus the perhaps even more damning comment that "[t]he world is trying to enlarge the term 'genocide.' Every mutual massacre cannot be called 'genocide.'" [74] (bolding mine).

His faux indignation and hand-waving is also annoying. He apparently finds the accusation of being a denialist of the Armenian genocide to be deeply insulting, just not insulting enough to, you know, not deny the Armenian genocide. A topic ban from AA at the very least should be a no-brainer. Not only would he be a net-negative to the area, but arguing with this kind of twisted logic is something I wouldn't wish on anyone. Ostalgia (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm not terribly familiar with this topic area, but it should be clear that Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed does not require a notice on a page, especially if an edit specifically discusses the Armenian genocide. Claiming that a page wasn't tagged as a defense is wikilawyering. Further, summarizing To that effect, Finland and Sweden will not provide support to YPG/PYD, and the organisation described as FETÖ in Turkiye as officially pledged to curb activities of this illegal organization seems disingenuous at best. I'm of the mind that some sanction here is necessary. I'll try to dig in a bit more soon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  After reviewing their edits and taking into account their wikilawyering and misinterpreting sources here I find myself leaning towards a topic ban from AA/Eastern Europe at minimum. Going to give it another day or two to see if there's any other input. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: The second edit Rosguill cites is pretty cut-and-dry POV pushing of Armenian genocide denial. A tban from Armenia–Azerbaijan seems advisable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support a topic ban from Armenia or just the Armenian Genocide and related topics (the scope can always be widened if there are more problems). I would also be happy with a medium-term mainspace block. They seem to have something to contribute on Turkish topics and their comments on talk pages seem constructive so I don't think a site ban is called for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @HJ Mitchell and ScottishFinnishRadish: topic ban from Armenia and Armenians, plus a warning on Turkey? I'm also tempted to tempblock based on the back-and-forth with Ostalgia at this point... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the back and forth, along with the source misrepresentation here calls for a block, as well as the topic ban and warning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So, not sure if anyone caught the image on their userpage, but that's an Armenian genocide denier. The user's insistence above that they are not a denier themself carefully sidesteps using the word "genocide". This is both hateful and a WP:GS/AA violation, so I have indeffed per both and will log under the latter (community sanction action, not AE action). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:28, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Too bad I'm not surprised. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good block. We can discuss unblock conditions if or when they demonstrate they're able to edit collaboratively but a topic ban from anything remotely Armenian is a minimum. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:38, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

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

• 18:23, 18 October 2023 "But doubting either the Biden regime or the Pentagon requires at least two things: the first, a lot of intelligence and the second is stupidity. You, as a simple ordinary person, probably don't have intelligence, fact which makes me conclude that the second option is more likley."

This was modified to

• 18:24, 18 October 2023 "But doubting either the Biden regime or the Pentagon requires at least two things: the first, a lot of intelligence and the second is stupidity. I truly ask myself what's the right option in your case."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Either the original or the modified comment are unacceptable personal attacks.

I will aim to drop my snark level. It be helpful if the canvassing and bad faith reading of my comments ended though. nableezy - 23:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish, see for example this from the past, I for one would loooove an interaction ban with לילך5. Can make it two way even I dont care. nableezy - 23:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shes only has ~150 edits since then, though some were pretty obvious results of following me around when she did come around. As is this, given its her first ever edit to this page. nableezy - 00:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin and anybody else, I have no interest in furthering any dispute with Neutrality here, and being honest with myself some of the things I have read and seen over the past few days have left me overly emotional and likely overly confrontational. Im definitely not saying Im wrong, but I did go harder than strictly necessary. nableezy - 17:59, 25 October 2023 (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.

Not involved and happened to see this as I follow AE. Could I point out there are two possible interpretations here. "Intelligence" can mean both "information" (access to intelligence) or "mental capacity (being intelligent). It would seem the user meant the first usage, suggesting that ordinary wiki-users don't have access to intelligence. They did also use "stupid", which is not ok, but I'm less sure the intelligence part was meant to insult. Jeppiz (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: could you take a look at Special:Diff/1180879557 by Nableezy? He wrote that a fellow editor made a "dishonest claim" and also made an ethnic characterization with "and no it is not just those dishonest Arabs reporting about it". This is worse than Lilijuros' comment. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:41, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on the Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion page and have witnessed a torrent of abuse by Nableezy. In response to a moderator requesting WP:ONUS in regard to the inclusion of a source he swore repeatedly at the moderator here, casting aspersions in edit summary here, abusive comments here, more abusive comments to a moderator here, more here. And this is only in the past 24 hours and related to one page. I've been editting wiki for years and haven't seen behaviour like this before. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been mentioned here, I should probably note that (a) I stand by my 'bullshit' characterisation of Neutrality's post at WP:FTN, and (b) that whatever Neutrality was doing at FTN, it most assuredly wasn't anything a 'moderator' worthy of that name would be doing, even if Wikipedia had them. I have largely stayed away from discussions concerning recent events in the Middle East, mostly on the basis that I've given up any hope of Wikipedia being able to produce anything even approximating to encyclopaedic coverage of the topic. I do however reserve the right to point out that canvassing is going on, and when someone (anyone, admin or not) then writes I've made my position clear because I think it's important to establish the relevance to fringe notions as if this somehow mitigated transparent canvassing, I'm going to call it bullshit. Because that's what it is. Bullshit from an admin who damn well ought to know better. The FTN thread was grossly improper, and it is only my reluctance to get involved in this shitshow further that prevents me taking the matter to ArbCom where they would then no doubt than have to waste more than a few hours figuring out how to agree with my depiction of the situation while avoiding using the same concise phraseology. If I have to defend my words, I will. And those whos deeds I referred to will then have to do the same. Your choice... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm less than impressed with this attack, even after the adjustment. The rest of their behavior that I've reviewed doesn't seem too bad, although it's also not great, either. I would normally lean towards a six month and 500 edit topic ban, but they have significant experience on Hebrew Wikipedia. I don't know if the community norms are that much different over there, but I assume attacks like that are still a no-go. They're essentially an SPA in a topic area that they cannot edit in main space. I'm interested in hearing what other admins think of potential sanctions here, or if a logged warning would be sufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see Nableezy's comment as an ethnic characterization, rather it's snark directed at editors they think don't trust Al Jazeera because it's an Arab news source. Nableezy, please cut out the snark and claims of dishonesty. The topic is already actively on fire, and there's not enough admins to keep on top of all of the disruptive behavior. We don't need more of that from people who know better, especially if you're going to be bringing other editors here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Nableezy, got anything more recent than 14 months? Hard to interaction ban based on something that old. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't seen too much that is concerning in their (few) edits and this particular remark appears to be a one-off thing (though the "obviously pro-palestinian" opener in the reported edit is actually more problematic). I suggest warning them to be careful in their remarks and not call out other editors as being biased and to leave it at that. RegentsPark (comment) 15:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Umm. Aren't all of Lilijuros' edits an ARBECR violation? They acknowledged in July their familiarity with the ARBPIA CTOP regime. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Correction of the above: Some edits fell into the talkpage exception to ECR, although the RM/merge comments did not. If there's no objection, I'd like to close this with two only-warnings to Lilijuros: a procedural one for ECR violations (next offense likely indef), and a substantive one for incivility and battleground conduct (next offense likely TBAN). Speaking of battleground conduct, I'm not thrilled with לילך5's tit-for-tat approach here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support the warnings. I don't find Lilach5's counter report too concerning, as I don't recall seeing their name around here often. It's reasonable to point out that someone making a report at AE is engaging in poor conduct themselves, and it doesn't seem like they're using this venue as a BATTLEGROUND. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In light of continuing ECR violations even as this was discussed, in addition to the broader BATTLEGROUND issues, I have indeffed Lilijuros. Leaving this open as the matter of Lilach5 and Nableezy remains unresolved. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Alcibiades979: I have precious little patience for misrepresentations at AE, and precious little patience for misconduct in this topic area, so it's taking a lot of self-restraint here to assume good faith. You just made five allegations against Nableezy. Let's see... Nableezy never "swore at" Neutrality and was in fact the third person to say "bullshit" there (after AndyTheGrump and Neutrality himself). Accusing someone of canvassing isn't casting aspersions if the speaker explains why they think there was canvassing, which Nableezy (and others) did. The third through fifth diffs are varying degrees of problematic, and could lead to sanctions in the event of a Nableezy/Neutrality thread here (which, by the way, would be within AE's jurisdiction, contrary to something Nableezy said; Neutrality is CTOP-aware due to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive216 § Nishidani). I won't presuppose the outcome of such a thread, and am definitely not saying Nableezy's comment was beyond reproach. But the conduct I see in those diffs is very different from what you've described, Alcibiades. Consider this a warning for misrepresenting diffs. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:19, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, unless there's anything else, I intend to close this as 1) original complaint handled with indef, 2) Nableezy/Lilach5 dispute deferred without prejudice against new filing, 3) Nableezy/Neutrality dispute likewise deferred without prejudice, with recognition of both parties' intent to move on and of Nableezy's acknowledgment of an overly harsh tone. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:05, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Good indef. I don't see the need for any further formal action. Maybe words of advice or a logged warning to Nableezy to consider the heat-to-light ratio when commenting and lose the snark. It's not necessarily sanctionable misconduct but it's not helpful in bringing discussions towards a consensus. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm happy to close this as "Lilijuros indeffed" but I do not see why Nableezy should be picked out for a warning. I searched Talk:Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion for Nableezy's comments and they looked fine and better than others. The hostility at FTN is brief and no worse than that from others and is focused on factual claims regarding sourcing. Re the block, wasn't there a 12-month limit for an AE block in the old days? If that still applies, this would be a plain admin block? Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Johnuniq: Think we cross-posted on thoughts on closing. As to the 12-month limit, the shift to WP:CTOP changes that slightly: Whereas before an admin had to say "indef, first year AE", now it can be an indef AEblock, but after one year it loses its special protections from unilateral unblock. There's a few edge cases where that difference might matter, but more importantly there's a bit of a philosophical change, in terms of the severity of sanctions that can be imposed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 23:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. What with off-wiki turmoil, the change from discretionary to contentious has made me lose touch with these matters. Please close as you think. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Andrevan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:37, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles

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

What I want to show in the diffs here is that Nishidani accuses good faith editors attempting to make improvements as having a destructive motive, editors of incompetence, that any dispute is a waste of time, WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:CIVILITY, has been repeatedly warned and previously banned and blocked, continues to be unkind to various editors such as BobFromBrockley, myself, Tryptofish, and others. He is very abrasive, and he has a strong POV. I tried a few times to warn him, to reach out to him and tell him what he is doing is a problem as did other editors.

1. October 20, 2023 Nishidani personally attacks editors and questions editors' motivations and makes bad faith assumptions.
2. October 20, 2023 Continued.
   1. I am not attacking the motives of the two editors who persist in challenging the title. I am challenging their competence to make a fair and neutral assessment of the article. I do so because throughout these threads I can see little evidence of a mastery of the sources. The objections are all fixated on three words, a thematic index, informing the present title, which has extensive textual warrant in sources. Every alternative has been shown either to misrepresent the article as it stands, or to suffer from periphrastic ineptness (often admitted).
   2. Andrevan.You obviously don't know what you are talking about. To assert the above would imply you probably haven't read the literature on this,
   3. So the giveaway here is that the purpose of these RMS is to change the title, not because as it stands it doesn't reflect the article's focus, but because only a different title will provide a pretext to gut it of portions of existing text some editors apparently find distasteful. All of this in complete indifference to the actual scholarly literature that generated the article. The RM is speciously motivated. Its only apparent rationnale is to secure a warrant for deleting text.
3. October 19, 2023 Look,Bob. How many articles do objecting editors actually write for wikipedia, rather than talkpaging or tweaking? I cannot see any sign of it over the last years. The smearing of it as an 'essay' seems to be simply your subjective term for dislike of it. he last remark above is particularly offensive. Throughout there has been a persistent unease, irascibility, antipathy to what numerous academic texts state, that Zionism had a tradition of racial definition of Jews which dragged over into genetic studies of Jews particularly in israel. All alternatives offered have no other function that to bomb that strongly documented linkage out of sight. That is the only perceived function of these repeated challenges - don't link Zionism to either 'race' or 'genetics' or both, whatever numerous books anbd scholarely articles state. All this again shows that we are merely doomed, with this last POVish erasure push to go over the same tedious, exhausted soils of prior threads, with their errant inconclusiveness, forcing everyone, yourself included to repeat themselves,and it is a total waste of everyone's time.
4. October 19, 2023 I can see that this is an open invitation to waste everyone's time by repeating, or ignoring, what has been written over three months of relentless attrition by, mainly, two editors who can't accept the existing title.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 21 August 2023 Sanction imposed and vacated
2. 18 August 2023 Logged warning
3. 14 April 2019 "banned for a week...they are misusing Wikipedia as a battleground and casting aspersions on others"
4. 6 April 2018 warning for strong POV
5. 1 June 2017 Nishidani is topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict for one month.
6. March 2017 "Nishidani clearly violated the consensus required sanction placed by the Committee on all ARBPIA articles."
7. 2012 topic ban
8. 2012 another in 2012 topic ban
9. 2010 cautioned to mind the ban

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

• User has been to AE a few months ago. See above. They were notified between 2014 and 2017.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I invited Nishidani to amend or strike these incivil messages.

My prior discussions with Nishidani

• [[75]]
• prior statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive321
• warned user that their message was incivil and that I would file AE [76] [77]

A little puzzled by the comment by Johnuniq, I didn't claim Nishidani used the verbatim word "destruct," the exact quote was, The RM is speciously motivated. Its only apparent rationnale is to secure a warrant for deleting text. which is a characteristic of a deleting motive that is specious, that is not just an opinion on content or sources. It's a comment on editors. It is also not true that we've been repeating the same thing for 3 months. It's an evolving discussion. Furthermore, your statement that the question of competence may be well-placed is spurious. Please read the quoted text more closely if you would. Andre🚐 05:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani has responded on his own talk page with an utter lack of self-awareness, remorse or concern, no apology or intent to strike or change their uncivil behavior.[78][79]

Comment by Selfstudier fails to address, and rather excuses, civility issues and instead substitutes their own opinion on a content dispute. Presently, the RM has more support than opposition, and it is not just 2 editors carrying on, despite the continued false claims by Nishidani and others that editors are simply repeating themselves. That's a falsehood. Please note I did not participate in the AFD of the article, so that's another red herring.

Nishidani continues to respond on their own talk page with absolutely 0 collegiality or any awareness whatsoever of the civility lines breached. I find Jeppiz's comment also quite puzzling, since there's nothing frivolous whatsoever about this report, and I appreciate Ealdgyth's message. Nishidani is a valuable contributor, that was never in dispute, but I am asking for adherence to the civility policy. It is forbidden to speculate on other editors' motivations. Do I need to explain this to experienced users?

The pound of flesh thing was an unfortunate turn of phrase by someone I know to not have meant that. I hope and AGF. Regarding Tryptofish's comment. But I also want to ask the admins to understand there is a chilling effect of the antisemitic-adjacent bullying in this topic area that must be addressed. Which is that antisemitism is a big issue in this topic. Groups and individuals in this topic often bring up. It's common to paint with a broad brush. It's common to stereotype. By the actors in the content area. Not accusing any individual. But we need civility, and we need respect, good faith, and collegiality.

Nishidani, in my final attempt to offer an attempt for him to soften his tone, retract his personal attacks, etc., has doubled down once again[80]

Regarding Levivich's arguments, if Levivich shows me that I have overstated or misunderstood or misapprehended something, then I told him that he is right. I stand by where my arguments ended up - if I made errors, I try to listen and correct them. How is that tendentious? El Haj, is a supporter of BDS, a movement that some people have claimed is antisemitic. I did not say she is. But she's a pro-Palestinian nationalist actor who has been met with controversy. The bottom line is, I'm willing to change my mind in content disputes. Nishidani is not and shows extensive WP:OWNership behavior. Nobody has provided any diffs that show the same on my end.

Like I want to be clear here. Saying that a source doesn't say something, and then having someone cite that it does, is a GOOD THING. That's discussion. It's not tendentious, people make mistakes. There are hundreds and hundreds and pages cited. Nobody has an encyclopedic memory of everything or every page. It's not "misrepresentation" and it's not "debunking." It's discussion. I don't claim to be perfect. Again, all I'm asking is civility. I want to say it's deeply unfair and disturbing if I come here asking for civility and some people think that I need a warning for tendentious editing. I've never said an uncivil word to the opponents in the dispute. I attacked a professor for her positions as not being unbiased. That is based on reliable sources.[81][82][83] etc I've engaged in good faith discussion along with other editors and I am not the only one. I am repeatedly attacked in ways that are not permitted by civility policy. And the response from some admins and other users is "well, he's frustrated, so that's OK"? Incivility is NOT OK.

Tamzin, it's perfectly problematic to insinuate that El Haj is antisemitic, something that I attempted not to do. I said that El Haj was controversial and that she's a leader of BDS, a Palestinian nationalist movement that some people consider antisemitic (I didn't say I consider it antisemitic), though I made clear not to accuse any individual, and she shouldn't be given equal billing to a Jewish geneticist. Nishidani's statements on Ostrer and Behar and others were equally dismissive (I can provide these diffs, if anyone finds this useful). I didn't claim that's because they are Jewish. That's not why. It's content.

I'm assuming I'm over word count so I can't respond anymore, but I'll respond one more time. Please look at any diffs of mine or edits of mine closely. I will defend that I have always sought to understand. I would challenge the interpretation that I am refusing to change or repeating myself; that is a lie. It's also a lie that I have misrepresented or sought to misrepresent sources. I urge admins and other users not to accept, at face value, the falsehood that I have been singlehandedly disrupting this page or creating noise that is tendentious on the talk page and misrepresenting material. That is a blatant lie.

One more comment. I came here complaining about a bright line civility violation. Now we're playing a BOOMERANG game. Is Andrevan a tendentious editor, did Andrevan violate BLP, did Andrevan misrepresent sources. I promise I did not. But open a separate thread about me. This is about Nishidani's civility. Or, is it OK for some editors to be incivil to others as long as those editors were tendentious? Not what I thought.

I assume I am not supposed to comment here anymore, but I will be taking a nice long break from the article regardless.

Levivich should review the accepted definition and metrics for WP:BLUDGEON, as it in no way described responding politely to a thread and asking for clarification or discussing questions. And please let me know if I need to strike or remove these comments due to the word count. I've actually rarely been to AE before and certainly never warned or sanctioned here that I can recall. There was a kerfluffle in 2018 when I was an admin; ask me about it if you want to know. But Nishidani has been repeatedly warned and topic-banned, so despite his gracious message below and other times that he has been gracious and we've gotten along, I do think he should at the very least, agree to a mutual break on the article in question.

I will certainly be taking a long break from that article and from this dispute and any interactions adjacent to that, HJ Mitchell, so that is agreeable to me if it is agreeable to Nishidani.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[84]

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 thought it best (in terms of not wasting even more time) not to comment here. I do so now because it has been suggested that the situation is so 'toxic' on that page that all editors should be banned from it. That would be deeply unfair, especially to Levivich. I have clashed with Levivich, quite strongly (on my talk page in the distance past) over I/P issues. But, even while doing so, I have had occasion to admire and express deep appreciation for his mastery of wiki protocols, and exceptional ability in cutting to the chase to make a neutral, balanced assessment of conflicting views in lengthy disputes, on any number of other topics that, when I have noted them, arise on various administrative pages.

On the page in question, in the early deletion process, there was something very peculiar someone like myself had to handle: objecting editors refusing to accept what strong sources clearly stated. To my surprise, Levivich stepped in, and comprehensively demolished these early objections, succinctly, with analytical cogency, on the basis of source mastery. He'd done his homework thoroughly and came out in favour of its retention. Given our past clashes, I couldn't but admire the way he suspended all ideological or personal readings, and simply hewed to the documentary facts, which happened to suggest that the title, and its content were a reasonable summary of the state of scholarship on a little known and neglected topic. It was proof of exceptional integrity, shorn of any suspicion of bias, partisanship, or politics, in a very sensitive topic area where we have, elsewhere, often found ourselves at opposite ends of the spectrum.

On my page, without mentioning his name, I cited several passages from his early comments, that more or less corroborated the fact that I was not alone in my frustrations. For using that material I apologize to Levivich. I should not have dragged him into this. He certainly should not suffer from any general sanction, because his neutrality is above suspicion, and his judgment has been throughout informed by mastery of the topic sources, which few other editors appear to have troubled themselves to read. His intervention for me exemplified how an ideal administrator would behave in managing conflict.

I'd have no objection to being banned from the page, if the closer also looks at the behaviour of the plaintiff in this case and takes some similar measure in their regard. It's been three months, the dispute is driven by just two people among a score of editors, and it's time to bury it. Take out one from each side for balance to respect the cause-and-effect aspect of this continual disruption and this sorry episode can finally rest.Nishidani (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde. I am on the short end of life. Three months defending a page from erasure or radical rewriting, by editors who in my view have not read or will not read the sources and simply object to the topic with frivolous pettifogging, was already an excessive taxation on one's time. Further mediation, i.e., a month or two of the same, would only impose a recitative of source citation versus opinions already exhaustively done. A ban would end the dispute itself, since it would put an end to secondguessing what the topic is about, or should be about, without even reading the sources.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since Andrevan has just stated he has decided to take a very long break from the page, I should think any possible measure against him, as some have suggested, should be dropped. This would not apply to myself, since I maintain an active interest in the page that may lead to continued, if rare, editing. So, I have no objection to any sanction in my regard. This always in the interests of parity.Nishidani (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell.Just a technical point. I am banned from ever using AE, except to defend myself if some complaint against me is registered here (three arising from the article I wrote so far). If it has to be spelled out, that has meant that for 4 years, anyone who strongly disagrees with my work, can report me - as the record shows often on frivolous complaints that have left a mark though dismissed - while I am denied a reciprocal right. So the option you suggested, that I should have myself raised the issue here, rather than remonstrate on the talk page, was never on. Regards Nishidani (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief, North. I stopped looking at that talk page around five days ago, and have a low edit profile compared to most there over the last 500 edits, as befits a retired wikipedian. I don't read all threads. Andrevan started this case because I did not respond in two hours on my talkpage, and, given the timezone difference, I couldn't because it all happened after midnight when I was asleep . Now this. You pinged me at 18:51 and I answered you as soon as I got 'home' (19:46). though under the weather. Thanks for singling me out as disruptive. Nishidani (talk) 21:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HJ. Yes, that's fine by me. Actually, I have stayed away from the article itself for a month, with just one edit since 28 Sept., as I have from wikipedia generally for the last 2 months, the exception being the ZRG page when, in my view, a large amount of invaluable and new information for wiki (on the historical sociology of genetics) risked being suppressed in consequence of the nth title change proposal. There's no problem about an interaction ban. I don't follow editors around, and certainly for the next several months, won't be around much if at all, given travelling commitments. I just have a final obligation to reply to a request BobfromBrockley made to me, which I'll do in a few minutes (Done! Over and out). Then, go ahead. Any terms or conditions you make will be acceptable to me. Best Nishidani (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Come now, Tryptofish. That is deeply inconsiderate. HJ noted that Andrevan had undertaken to withdraw from the page for a long time, and I, asked that he therefore not be subject to any sanction, though out of a sense of parity, said I would not oppose any measure taken against myself. I was trying to be accomodating. I asked for permission to make one last edit: Bob misphrased a question to me yesterday. I asked him to clarify, and today I noted he had, so I could finally answer it, meaning that was my final comment on the talk page. There are solemn undertakings both both parties not to use that talk page for some time. Why poison the well with suspicion? Nishidani (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filer has proposed an RM to change the current article title from "Zionism, race and genetics" to "Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism" which on the face of it has little to do with the existing title. Said RM is not at present garnering a consensus and has devolved into increasingly bald assertions with little foundation such as "The point is that the article scope is synthetic and stitched together" an argument repeated ad nauseum and which failed at AfD.

Imo Nishidani is with some justification irritated (as am I, tbh) at the continued efforts of a subset of involved editors persistently advocating for a change of title and complaining about the article content for months in succession following an AfD which did not achieve the desired outcome from their POV.

The longer the talk page gets the more likely it is this sort of thing is going to occur, the RM should be allowed to conclude without further disruption (from anyone).

I must say I find this complaint somewhat frivolous. I have disagreed with Nishidani on content matters many, many times but hold Nishidani to be a valuable contributor. Looking at the diffs provided here, I see - at most - some small frustration but nothing that would rise to the level of any action.Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The way I feel about it is summed up here: [85]. The last time this came to AE, when I was the filing editor, I was told that I had overreacted, and was described elsewhere as having sought "a pound of flesh". So I've chosen not to come back to AE about what has been happening, but I thank Andrevan for making the effort. If AE admins think that saying that Andrevan and I are not motivated by anything constructive in proposing RMs is made OK by following it with the claim that "I am not attacking the motives of the two editors...", if AE admins think that saying that "I am challenging their competence..." is nothing more than a heated discussion of content because it is followed by "I can see little evidence of a mastery of the sources", and if AE admins can brush all of that off as just some nifty elegance of phrasing, then I guess that after 16 years of editing here, I have not only failed to understand how to read sources, but I also don't understand what editors are expected to behave like when there are CTs. Whatever. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow up, and this time, I'll try not to be sarcastic. I see from the admin comments that I'm not the only person who finds the talk page hard to deal with. I'll also point out that, despite the characterization of "two editors", I have very often disagreed with Andrevan and agreed with Nishidani on content matters. So I really dislike Nishidani's use of "two editors" to lump Andrevan and me together. My primary interest in the page began when I saw the AfD and decided that efforts going on by other editors to find a different pagename would be something where I'd like to help. The one RM where I was the editor proposing the change was supported by Andrevan, Nishidani, and Levivich, and the change was a mere comma. (Yes, a comma.) And it ended in "no consensus". The present RM was proposed by Andrevan, but I brainstormed with him to come up with the proposal, and I strongly support it. I've also criticized his framing of the RM nomination ([86]), but that doesn't change the merits of the proposal. Anyway, I find it really horrible to have to bat down efforts to shut down the RM discussion (and bury it in a wall of text), by Nishidani and his enablers whose very lengthy arguments boil down to "we are tired of having to discuss new proposals, and two editors – Andrevan and Tryptofish – are just here to make trouble, because they clearly do not understand the source material". That's what the comments I linked to in my initial post here are saying. Vanamonde has it right: Nishidani needs to stop personalizing his comments at that talk page. If he doesn't like what someone is saying, he can respond with a factual reference to the source material, without the lumping of editors into the good guys and the enemies, and he can take substantive conduct concerns here. Instead, comments like [87] come across to me as a personal attack, and WP:BRIE. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan makes a fair point about the boomerang aspect of this: see WP:2WRONGS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm seeing administrative reluctance, so I'm gonna repeat myself: WP:BRIE. And WP:2WRONGS: if anyone here wants a boomerang or action against anyone else, open up a separate AE thread for that. And admins, instead of feeling overwhelmed about looking at the talk page and imagining blocking everyone there, just focus on the case that has been placed before you, and deal with the merits of that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde: I'm saying this in the context of admins appearing to find it difficult to deal with this particular case, and I'm basing that on comments by your fellow admins. In difficult cases like this, I recommend reading WP:2WRONGS (not least because I wrote it). Nothing in my comment does, or could, prevent an AE admin from nonetheless throwing the boomerang. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to correct a factual untruth. Harry Mitchell repeats a claim by Nishidani et al. that Andrevan is "using the RM process to implicitly change the scope of the article". This is absolutely false. The proposed RM change would actually make the title correspond much more closely with the existing page, as I have tried to explain carefully on the talk page. This has been a falsehood that has been supported only by the argument that "we are the editors who understand the sources, so you should believe what we say". --Tryptofish (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following on North8000's comments, I want to note for the record that Nishidani did reply to North's question: [88], and I made this reply to that: [89]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty skeptical that we won't "be adjudicating the same dispute next week", given this: [90]. That's not simply a matter of "I just have a final obligation to reply to a request BobfromBrockley made to me, which I'll do in a few minutes". It's continuing the pattern of misrepresenting what other editors say, even while those editors explain that it's not what they said. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I share Self's irritation, because

1. Last month, Andre argued that the sources aren't about Zionism, race, and genetics, they're really about Zionism and eugenics. That Zionism, race, and genetic may be "synthetic, or original" (meaning WP:SYNTH or WP:OR).
2. Then he said it's about Zionism and race, not genetics, or Zionism and race/eugenics but not modern genetics. Editors listed sources that discuss Zionism, race, and genetics.
3. Then he said, it's about Zionism, race, and genetics, but not molecular genetics or actual genetic science or Mendelian genetics, and thus it's SYNTH, an anachronism and temporally confusing. Nishidani and I pointed to sources that covered Zionism, race, molecular, and Mendelian genetics.
4. Then he said "these sources cover Zionism, purported Jewish race, and purported Jewish genetics, and not Palestinians," even though I had just quoted from a source talking about all four in the same paragraph.
5. Then he complained that two sources, Abu El Haj and Ostrer, were given "equal billing." I quoted from multiple scholars that discussed those two sources as a set (they were both published in 2012 and had opposing views, and are significant works in the field).
6. Then he said just because the sources give them equal billing doesn't mean Wikipedia should.
7. Then he said Ostrer is not about race or Zionism. I quoted Ostrer discussing race and Zionism.
8. Then he said Abu El Haj only "mentions DNA". I provided an extensive quote from Abu El Haj discussing genetics. He replies, "Yes, El-Haj talks quite a bit about concepts such as Y-chromosomes or Cohen modal haplotypes, but, she isn't qualified to opine on those topics scientifically, and a lot of that is outdated already." By this point I'd quoted from a number of sources that cited and discussed Abu El Haj. But she's not qualified because "Nadia Abu El-Haj is a leader of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Some people consider that movement antisemitic," "not just a Palestinian, but a pro-Palestinian political actor," "a Palestinian nationalist with an anti-Israel POV." (For WP:BLP purposes, let me state I do not believe these characterizations are accurate.)
9. Yesterday, he said the article scope is synthetic and stitched together.
10. Then he said it violates MEDRS.

This isn't everything; Andre's signature appears 67 times on the article talk page and another 60 times in the most-recent archive page (which BTW isn't the highest, there are editors who have posted more). Levivich (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth, we're not children. Levivich (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nish, for the kind words. It's true, I was appalled at seeing a number of editors claim that sources don't cover X when they very clearly covered X, including entire pages, sections, chapters, papers, and books, directly and entirely about X. When other editors demonstrated these sources covered X, some editors would claim they didn't cover Y. When they were shown the sources covered Y, they next claimed the sources didn't cover Z. And so on. In Andre's case, we got through X, Y, and Z, then it became "not qualified" (demonstrably false), or saying that just because sources give equal billing to two viewpoints doesn't mean Wikipedia should (that is the literal, exact opposite of NPOV), or saying well, she's Palestinian, leader of BDS, and anti-Israel (probably a BLP violation), and then, MEDRS (there is no WP:BMI in the article). This is a series of baseless arguments, sometimes policy-violating arguments. Then editors lose their cool, and the editor making the baseless arguments report them for incivility. It's a story as old as Wikipedia. I've personally been on all sides of it.

If admins want to do something helpful that doesn't take three months, why not reinforce the idea, with some kind of general reminder, that editors need to WP:RTFS -- that misrepresenting sources is serious and sanctionable misconduct -- and that editors shouldn't say a source doesn't cover X if it has a chapter called "X", for example.

You could add to the general reminder that if editors are engaging in this sort of source misrepresentation, other editors should report them to AE rather than losing their cool and telling them in so many words to f off. But that only works if admins at AE are willing to sanction that particular misconduct. In my view, too often admins skip right over that and call it "content dispute." Like, you can say anything you want about a source, and admins will say "content dispute." That's also a story as old as Wikipeida. So instead of reporting it, editors just tell each other to f off.

This is true everywhere on Wikipedia, but especially true in contentious topic areas. I'm over my limit, I'll shut up now. Levivich (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I know I said I'd shut up, but this is something new, but related. Please look at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Are Hamas and Gaza ministry numbers reliable?. I don't know about everyone else, but I see the literally the same pattern of gish gallop-WP:BLUDGEONing in the discussion as I saw in the Zionism/race/genetics talk page. IMO this is an ongoing problem that should stop. It's overwhelming and thus disruptive. Levivich (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ill also add that Andrevan's edits to enforce his entirely off-base idea that El-Hajj may not be used because she has views he does not like or because of MEDRS (????????), seen in this diff (includes a pair of minor changes by another editor) is likewise tendentious. We have editors attempting to enforce an ideological purity test on sources. Participation in BDS, a wholly nonviolent protest against a state, is used as an attempt to disqualify a freaking tenured Columbia University professor, who by the way is a natural born American citizen, making a Palestinian anthropologist or not just a Palestinian, but a pro-Palestinian political actor or a Palestinian nationalist with an anti-Israel POV purely about ethnicity and not nationality, cited in a book published by Stanford University Press or in the Journal of the History of Biology. This is the same type of thing that happens in AP2, editors are seeking to enforce some ideological purity test on sources. The problem they have here however is that the views they dislike are mainstream, academic, superbly qualified, and by any objective reading of our policies should be included in our articles. Ive told Nishidani in the past, several times I think, that he should stfu about the intellectual rigor in the arguments advanced against his position on talk pages. But I have yet to encounter a single instance in which he was not right, in which the person he was arguing against was bringing specious and otiose arguments devoid of sourcing or logic. You have an editor making claims that a person's ethnicity or political views disqualifies their usage as a reliable source, when that person meets every single criteria of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You have an editor editing to that effect in the mainspace. And you have an editor annoyed with it and said so. Yes, he shouldnt say so, we should all continue to pretend that we are the best of pals and everybody is advancing honest arguments, but maybe pretend the problem isnt the annoyance, thats just a symptom of the actual problem. nableezy - 14:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if the problem of this isnt clear to you, try replacing Palestinian with Jew or Jewish in those quotes and see if it becomes clearer. nableezy - 15:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, yall should lift this bonkers restriction prohibiting a user from using the DR process when necessary. nableezy - 17:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped in at that article as an additional set of eyes. IMHO it's a weird situation, with the ostensible core question far more easy to fix than it appears. IMHO the 30,000 foot view on the biggest question appears to be:

1. Generally, folks (including Nishidani) agree on the current general scope of the article
2. Most folks think that the current title has problems. There's an RM open to move to a particular title. Nobody is wedded to that particular proposed title, it's acknowledged to be merely a best effort at a fix.
3. Nishidani is throwing out a lot a heat against any title change, saying that the motive for any title change is to change the general scope of the article! (see #1!)
4. In a effort to help sort it out, as step 1 I asked Nishidani to describe what the scope of the article is/should be. Due to #1 above, I figured that would head this towards a solution. Nishidani never answered.

So it appears that Nishidani has already "won" the main thing that they really want but is unwilling or unable to recognize that and instead keeps throwing out heat and accusations. I don't understand that, but perhaps a rest from the article (which they seem to have agreed to) would help that get sorted out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:01, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Re "as having a destructive motive", I can't find "destruct" in the above or at Talk:Zionism, race and genetics. Re "incompetence", there are places on article talk where more circumlocution should have been used but in context it's not an attack as in "X is incompetent", it's an opinion that some have made decisions with no regard for the sources (I have no idea about the accuracy of that opinion, but it's less egregious than an attack). Re "waste of time", if "written over three months" above is correct, it's understandable that someone would regard rehashing the same points to be a waste of time. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to say that I cannot find the following at all collegial or civil: "You obviously don't know what you are talking about" or "what has been written over three months of relentless attrition by, mainly, two editors who can't accept the existing title" or (from a glance at the talk page outside of what Andrevan brought here) "Like most of the comments in these endless threads, we are asked to debate questions that a competent grasp of the sources would not normally allow one to raise" (from a post at 10:48 20 October) or "Many editors appear far more disposed to argufying on talk pages than actually doing in depth reading to improve pages" (17:18 20 October) (Please note I did not investigate other editors of that page and that I have no interest in delving into the quagmire that is the whole of the editing area of the Middle East). I understand that the talk page has been contentious and subject to a lot of discussion, but when that is the case, the best practice is to work to be MORE civil, rather than let your frustration show - which will only degrade things. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, the whole discussion/topic area is not good, all around. If I had more time to mediate on the talk page, I'd try to get the discussion back on the rails. But I don't have that time. I briefly (for about 20 seconds) considered just banning everyone from the article who's commented on the talk page, but then sanity reared its head and I knew that if I don't have time to mediate the talk page, I certainly don't have time for the firestorm that would erupt if I did such a banning. Like Tamzin, I'm not going to stick my neck out for a unilateral action in THIS topic area, I don't have that much free time to devote to one rather obscure article. But can we at least have everyone engaging on the talk page TRY to behave better - less bludgeoning and more listening to each other and at least attempting to avoid being provoked by the other editors? Ealdgyth (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the fourth AE request about this talk page. I closed the first with a TBAN of Tombah, a decision which I think has been thoroughly vindicated. I closed the second with warnings to Drsmoo and Nishidani, which everyone seemed happy with, and left a warning on the talkpage of Z1720's design. In the third I gave Nishidani a short pageban and was then persuaded that that was overkill, and vacated it with apologies. I had a quite nice conversation with Nishidani afterward; I was less taken with some comments by people who were nowhere to be found during two exhausting previous AE threads. So you can bet I'm not going to be the one to close this fourth request. But I do think Levivich has made a pretty good case that Andrevan's participation on the talkpage has been tendentious and disruptive, particularly the insinuation that El-Haj is antisemitic. Something should probably be done about that. G-dspeed to whoever decides on what that should be. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't looked into this with any real depth but from Tamzins description above this feels like the kind of AE report that option of a referral to arbcom was made for. I leave it to the capable admin here to decide if it's actually a good cj in this situation. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I was mulling over that thought when I wrote this comment. Now seems like a bad time for an ARBPIA 4—at least in my non-arb judgment as someone who can recall Manning naming dispute, where ArbCom review of a rapidly-unfolding controversy turned out to make things harder in the end—but I would support a referral to ArbCom on the specific question of conduct relating to the article currently titled "Zionism, race and genetics" (not that we can stop ArbCom from pursuing a broader scope if it wants). I agree with most of Vanamonde93's analysis below, but we've already done logged warnings. We've already done a general warning to all talkpage participants. Analyzing individual editors' conduct piecemeal hasn't been very effective. If we're not going to do the kind of nuclear option Ealdgyth mentions—a thought I've also toyed with a few times—then the next step would seem to be systemic review by ArbCom. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Andrevan: There's a reason I used the word "insinuation" here. Let's say someone were to say "Andrevan is a user of Discord, which some people say is a meeting place for white supremacists". Both halves of this statement, independently, are true (the former per your userpage, the latter per e.g. [91]). But obviously, juxtaposing those two pieces of information would clearly carry the insinuation that you are a white supremacist. (Which I do not think you are, to be clear! But I thought this would make for an illustrative example.) So it's not in dispute that El-Haj is a leader of BDS. And it's not in dispute that BDS has been accused (credibly or otherwise) of anti-Semitism. But do you see what happens when you put those two things together? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The behavior of multiple editors leaves something to be desired. The difficulty is that it is bad in different ways. As Tamzin says above, Andre's comments questioning El Haj as a source are deeply problematic (not because they question her reliability, but because of the way they do so). Contentious topics do not only require civility; they do also require that editors not make specious arguments, that they ground their arguments in policy, that they not bludgeon talk page discussions, and that they read and comprehend sources they're citing and/or critiquing (I'm not saying Andre is failing to do all of that; I am making a general point). Conversely, I do wish Nishidani would respond to such comments by ignoring them, pointing out their lack of basis, or bringing them to admin noticeboards, as appropriate. Personal commentary is not only not appropriate from a policy perspective, it's actively unhelpful in resolving the conflict in any way. I'm not keen on referring this to ARBCOM. There is a lot of ongoing discussion, which the principal actors here are best placed to resolve. Symmetrical page bans would make that harder, and an ARBCOM case harder still. I'm leaning toward logged warnings, even if that feels somewhat insufficient. I'm really hoping that Andre and Nishidani recognize that if this were to go to ARBCOM, sanctions are likely; they both evidently care about this topic, but are going to find themselves unable to edit it unless a course-correction happens. Talk page mediation would be very helpful, but I absolutely do not have the time for it. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin: I don't want to refer this to ARBCOM because, in addition to what I wrote above, I don't see this as an intractable dispute; page bans would likely fix any aspect of this that ARBCOM could address. I only reluctant to impose such a ban because I'm unsure if that's too harsh, not if it's too lenient. A warning remains my preference, but if there is no appetite for that I'd support single-page TBANS for Andrevan and Nishidani over an ARBCOM referral (which of course I cannot prevent another admin from making at any point). Vanamonde (Talk) 23:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Tryptofish, it is entirely standard practice to examine the conduct of the person opening an AE complaint. I closed a report above with a boomerang just a few hours ago. I don't know why you think a separate report would be needed. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not analyzed the full discussion involved in this case, although I did close the AfD, so this is only a provisional comment. I frankly agree with Levivich's views here. Misrepresenting a source needs to be considered a red-line tendentious behavior akin to violating 3RR. Andrevan's response is a good one: course-correcting is of course what we want as a community. Nevertheless, while it's a good response, I don't know that it's an exonerating one. Everyone makes errors, but repeated errors, involving the same topic, followed by attempts to sanction their opponents in said discussion at AE? That starts to seem tendentious. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that this is a mess. Without doubt, several of the participants have contributed to the breakdown of discourse. In particular, Andrevan is pushing one interpretation that does not meet with consensus, and is arguably being tendentious by using the RM process to implicitly change the scope of the article rather than trying to work the issues out through normal discussion. Additionally, his description of a living person whose work is cited in the article is not acceptable. Nonetheless, Nishidani's responses are also inappropriate. Talk pages are not the place to discuss other editors' motives or accuse them of misconduct instead of bringing a complaint to AE; and it's not just with Andrevan that Nishidani has crossed over the line into discussing contributors rather than content, thus derailing the discussion, or at least taking it further off-course. I quite like Ealdgyth's nuclear option; I wouldn't lose any sleep over fully protecting the article and talk page for a week or so to lock everyone out and hopefully help people regain some perspective. Failing that, I favour a short-to-medium term page ban for both Andrevan and Nishidani, both whom are good editors whose contributions I respect but who are a significant part of the toxicity on this talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast. @Nishidani and Andrevan: would you both agree voluntarily to take a step back from the article and each other for a few weeks? If you will, does that sufficiently resolve the matter that we're going to be adjudicating the same dispute next week? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Stephan rostie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

Stephan rostie has been engaged in edit warring and 1RR violations at two articles within the Israeli-Arab conflict topic area

At Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion

1. 20:23, 19 October 2023 - Restored a claim that Al Jazeera attributed the strike to Israel.
2. 15:37, 19 October 2023 - Reverted edit
3. 10:32, 18 October 2023 - Removed sentence about IDF phone intercept
4. 22:46, 17 October 2023 - Removed sentence about munitions in protected locations

At 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Edit warring over how to summarize the countries that denounced Hamas for its actions:

1. 14:54, 17 October 2023
2. 10:06, 17 October 2023
3. 14:50, 12 October 2023

General 1RR violations:

1. 11:43, 20 October 2023 - Removed mention of massacring civilians
2. 22:46, 19 October 2023 - Reverted edit
3. 14:22, 19 October 2023 - "alleged Israeli war crimes" → "Israeli war crimes", with the edit summary starting with I am sorry if that would annoy some genocide deniers
4. 13:11, 19 October 2023 - Removed claim that Hamas launches rockets into civilian areas, and that Israel frequently responds with bombing campaigns

They self reverted 20:23, 19 October 2023 at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital explosion after I approached them, but when I approached then about the 2023 Israel-Hamas war violations they ignored me; since then they have made further reverts, including further 1RR violations.

They were warned for 3RR violations in March, and then blocked twice for edit warring in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area in July (linked below). The second time they were blocked it was requested that they do not edit in the topic area until they are extended-confirmed; they agreed to this. Immediately after they made a few hundred edits, mostly consisting of adding just a wikilink, (for a representative example, this edit at Jody Sperling; they made 27 almost-identical edits within the span of 11 minutes at the same article) many of which were later reverted. They stopped making these edits when they reached ECP.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 22:53, 17 July 2023 - Blocked for edit warring at Arabs
2. 09:01, 20 July 2023 - Blocked for edit warring/1RR violations at Arabs

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:11, 17 July 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

22:11, 22 October 2023

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

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

• I've blocked Stephan rostie for two weeks for the multiple 1RR violations with a history of edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good block. If this is going to become a habit, more draconian sanctions might be needed but we can address that later if we need to. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

UA0Volodymyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

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

1. [92] Added partisan sources to Kazimir Malevich and replaced "Russian avantguarde" with "Ukrainian avantguarde"; I reverted inviting them to the talk page
2. [93] Revert of my revert, says they are not going to the talk page

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [94] I blocked them previously for consistent refusal to adhere to WP:RUSUKR (read the whole thread)
2. [95] A block for 3RR in an article under the same sanction

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

[96].

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a relatively new user, and most of their edits in the RUS-UKR area were disruptive, despite many warnings. They were clearly under understanding that once they become extended confirmed they can do whatever they want [97]. Last they were blocked as a result of the ANI discussion, and there were suggestions to block them indef: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1140#Edit warring - UA0Volodymyr. Now, what they do when they get out of a one week block? They go to Kazimir Malevich, an article which had to be protected because of the constant disruptive editing - new users change Russian to Ukrainian, ignoring all academic literature on the subject, and that every textbook describes Malevich as a founder of the Russian avantguarde - and start edit-warring trying to push exactly these edits to the article. My conclusion is that the user is not capable of editing any Ukrainian-related topics on Wikipedia, and perhaps are net negative overall.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bonus: this one, which they self reverted, was a particularly nice one.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

• Considering that their userpage features the flag of a historical fascist organization from Ukraine, I'm not sure they should be editing at all. From looking at their contributions, I agree with Ymblanter's assessment that UA0Volodymyr should at the very least be banned from Ukraine-Russia related topics, though I'd also support a simple indef. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 10:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Isabelle Belato I've seen enough of this editor's name at every admin noticeboard. They've shown no interest in altering their conduct, so I've indef'd as a normal admin action. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]