Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Makeandtoss: close with warnings
→Boy shekhar: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3-6)
 
Line 1:
<noinclude> {{pp-move-indefRedirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
{{Redirect|WP:AE|the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae|MOS:LIGATURE|the automated editing program|WP:AutoEd|the English language varieties in Wikipedia|Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English{{!}}Wikipedia:Manual of Style § National varieties of English}}
__NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
--><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|Requests for enforcement]]=</includeonly>
Line 6 ⟶ 5:
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 328347
|minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(5d14d)
|archive = Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
 
==PerspicazHistorian==
==Mkstokes==
{{hat|{{u|PerspicazHistorian}} is blocked indefinitely from mainspace. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 03:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC) }}
{{hat|{{no ping|Mkstokes}} is indefinitely [[WP:TBAN|topic banned]] from making edits related to [[Nick McKenzie]] or [[Peter Schiff]], [[WP:BROADLY|broadly construed]]. {{no ping|TarnishedPath}} is warned to remain civil and to refrain from future edit warring. Both the topic ban and the warning will be logged as Arbitration Enforcement sanctions under [[WP:NEWBLPBAN]]. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 02:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
 
===Request concerning MkstokesPerspicazHistorian===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|TarnishedPathNXcrypto}} 1415:2053, 1619 JanuaryDecember 2024 (UTC)
 
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|MkstokesPerspicazHistorian}}<p>{{ds/log|MkstokesPerspicazHistorian}}</p>
 
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
 
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WikipediaWP:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living PersonsARBIPA]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
 
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&diff=prev&oldid=1263796191 17:57, 18 December 2024] - removed "discrimination" sidebar from the page of [[Hindutva]] (fascist ideology) even though the sidebar was inserted inside a section, not even the lead.
#[[Special:Diff/1194548436|10 January 2024]] engaged in [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] at [[Talk:Nick McKenzie]] when they wrote that any article that didn't specify that McKenzie defamed Schiff was on my conscience.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hindutva&diff=next&oldid=1263796191 17:59, 18 December 2024] - tag bombed the highly vetted [[Hindutva]] article without any discussion or reason
#[[Special:Diff/1194923894|11 January 2024]] Engaged in [[WP:Civility|incivility]] when they passively aggressively wrote "Thank you for the correction and tacit admission that you got it wrong. I know that couldn't have been easy and it is a positive first step in restoring your credibility." after I corrected a mistake in a tempate warning that I left on their user talk regarding their behaviour at [[Nick McKenzie]]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu&diff=prev&oldid=1263741163 10:15, 18 December 2024 ] - attributing castes to people withhout any sources
#[[Special:Diff/1194975996|12 January 2024]] [[WP:AGF|Assumed bad faith]] and engaged in [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]] at [[Talk:Nick McKenzie]] when they stated that "You are continually misreading Wikipedia policies to suit your own narrative" after I advised them that [[WP:BLPUNDEL]] applied to removed material and that the onus was on them to obtain consensus for restoriation.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu&diff=prev&oldid=1263751613 12:11, 18 December 2024] - edit warring to impose the above edits after getting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu&diff=prev&oldid=1263748652 reverted]
#[[Special:Diff/1195253051|13 January 2024]] Inserted YouTube video into [[Peter Schiff]] against [[WP:RSPYT]] when I had earlier advised them that it was unreliable at [[Special:Diff/1194706454]]
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu&diff=prev&oldid=1263788964 17:09, 18 December 2024] - just like above, but this time he also added unreliable sources
#[[Special:Diff/1194751203|11 January 2024]] Reinsertion of contested material after [[WP:BLP]] quoted in edit summary by me
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu&diff=prev&oldid=1263800669 18:29, 18 December 2024] - still edit warring and using edit summaries instead of talk page for conversation
#[[Special:Diff/1194871124|11 January 2024]] First reinsertion of contested material despite [[WP:BLPUNDEL]] being quoted in a previous edit summary
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1263948649#Please_check_if_they_are_sockpuppets 14:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)] - filed an outrageous report on WP:ANI without notifying any editors. This report was closed by Bbb23 as "{{tq|This is nothing but a malplaced, frivolous personal attack by the OP.}}"
#[[Special:Diff/1194911124|11 January 2024]] Second reinsertion of contested material after [[WP:BLPUNDEL]] being cited in a previous edit summary
#[[Special:Diff/1195028608|12 January 2024]] Third reinsertion of contested material after [[WP:BLPUNDEL]] being cited in a previous edit summary
#[[Special:Diff/1195417650|14 January 2024]] Fourth reinsertion of contested material after [[WP:BLPUNDEL]] being cited in a previous edit summary
#[[Special:Diff/1195819565|15 January 2024]] Fifth reinsertion of contested material after [[WP:BLPUNDEL]] being cited in a previous edit summary
 
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [[Special:Diff/1193367548|4 January 2024]] (see the system log linked to above).
*Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on [[Special:Diff/1195869965|16 January 2024]].
*Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic [[Special:Diff/1194975996|12 January 2024]].
 
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
*Already 2 blocks in last 4 months for edit warring.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3APerspicazHistorian]
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&diff=prev&oldid=1237950943][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&diff=prev&oldid=1263067375]
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
Firstly, I need to apologise. I could have saved much disruption if I had warned this editor of CTOP earlier and also if I had brought their disruption here earlier when it became apparent that they had no intention of listening to any guidance when informed about [[WP:BLP]]/[[WP:BLPUNDEL]]. By not taking the correct action fast enough I have been part of the problem.
 
I do not see any positive signs that this editor will ever improve. So far he has only regressed. [[User:NXcrypto|<span style="color:#004400;">'''Nxcrypto'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User talk:NXcrypto|Message]]</small></small> 15:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
A review of Mkstokes [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Mkstokes&offset=&limit=500 contribution history] indicates that between 28 Dec 2006 and 27 Sep 2014 they only edited on 13 occasions. The overwhelming majority of their edits since 21 December 2023 (after a long break in editing) have involved either [[Nick McKenzie]] or [[Peter Schiff]] and have been aimed at inserting Nick McKenzie's part into a lawsuit that Schiff ultimately won regardless of whether secondary sources mention McKenzie at all or just in passing. They have alternatively argued between attempting to use court transcripts and unreliable sources regardless of [[WP:BLP]], [[WP:BLPSOURCES]], [[WP:BLPPRIMARY]] and [[WP:RSP]] and using reliable secondary sources which only mention McKenzie in passing, and do not mention that he defamed Schiff regardless of [[WP:OR]]. When I've removed material per [[WP:BLP]]/[[WP:BLPUNDEL]] and advised Mkstokes of this they have sought to sidestep the onus on them to obtain consensus prior to re-inserting the material by assuming bad faith at my end. Mkstokes is clearly a [[WP:SPA]], their behaviour highlights [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] at best and a desire to [[WP:RGW]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 14:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 
:While going through this report, PerspicazHistorian has made another highly problematic edit [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Students%27_Islamic_Movement_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=1263965401 here] by edit warring and misrepresenting the sources to label the organisation as "terrorist". This primary source only provides a list of organisations termed by the Indian government as "terrorist" contrary to [[MOS:TERRORIST]]. [[User:NXcrypto|<span style="color:#004400;">'''Nxcrypto'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User talk:NXcrypto|Message]]</small></small> 03:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Please note [[Special:Diff/1196612026]] in which Mkstokes makes further [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. ''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 02:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 
*PerspicazHistorian is still using [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Devane_%28clan%29&diff=prev&oldid=1265342226 unreliable Raj era] sources (see [[WP:RAJ]]) and wishing to move [[Shivaji]] to [[Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj]][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fylindfotberserk&diff=prev&oldid=1265349729] which is a blatant POV. [[User:NXcrypto|<span style="color:#004400;">'''Nxcrypto'''</span>]] <small><small>[[User talk:NXcrypto|Message]]</small></small> 04:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
[[Special:Diff/1196136230]]
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
 
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1263956438]
===Discussion concerning Mkstokes===
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Mkstokes====
A review of my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Mkstokes&offset=&limit=500 contribution history] is not dispositive and can easily be explained by the fact that not a single one of my previous edits was disputed. Thus this is my first experience in dealing with contentious topics. So I'm not even sure why this needs to be a case.
 
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
As to my aim to insert data related to Nick McKenzie, deciding that a news source mentions the subject's name "''in passing''" is an editorial opinion, not a fact. The fact is that I've noted at least 2 secondary sources that mention his name while not determining whether if it's in passing or not because it is not my place to make that determination. One source says "...compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer..." and the other source says "Schiff's lawsuit, which was filed against Nine, The Age Company and McKenzie and other reporters including Charlotte Grieve, claimed the October 2020 broadcast, titled 'Operation Atlantis’ defamed him by implying that he "facilitated the theft of millions of dollars from the Australian people” by assisting customers to commit offshore tax fraud."
 
===Discussion concerning PerspicazHistorian ===
The [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_McKenzie RfC] associated with the Nick McKenzie article poses the following question: "Should this material be removed such that the established consensus becomes that this subject matter is not covered in any way in this article moving forward until such time that alternative consensus is established?" Then, without obtaining consensus for this question, the person creating the RfC removed or updated the article. I've only just learned now that the user shouldn't have asked to obtain consensus for removal, but given the context of the RfC it is clear that I was trying to stop an editor from going forward with unsupported edit.
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
 
====Statement by PerspicazHistorian ====
The other editor has seemingly created their own restrictions on reliable secondary sources. These are as follows:
*By far I am also concerned how my edits were forcefully reverted without a proper reason despite providing enough references. Please check how I am getting attacked by them on [[Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu]] Page.
* Any secondary source must say that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_McKenzie&oldid=1195372660 McKenzie defamed Schiff]. If it does not, then the source can't be used. This is strange because the section is "Court cases and shield laws" and this is unquestionably a court case that involves McKenzie.
I didn't know about the three-revert-rule before [[User: Ratnahastin]] told me about this: [[User_talk:PerspicazHistorian#c-Ratnahastin-20241219023900-December_2024|User_talk:PerspicazHistorian]].
* Despite a reliable source saying "...the episode and its accompanying news articles, compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie..." he says [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_McKenzie&oldid=1195049987 the only controlling text is]"...its accompanying news articles, compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie..." This is strange because I keep providing him the full quote and he keeps misquoting it.
Please grant me one more chance, I will make sure not to edit war.<br>
*In the below statement by LukeEmily, As a reply I just want to say that I was just making obvious edit on [[Chandraseniya_Kayastha_Prabhu]] by adding a list of notable people with proper references. And according to [[Edit_warring#What_edit_warring_is]] it is clearly said: "Edits from a slanted point of view, general insertion or removal of material, or other good-faith changes are not considered vandalism." It was a good faith edit but others reverted it. I accept my mistake of not raising it on talk page as a part of [[Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle]].<br>
*As a clarification to my edit on [[Students' Islamic Movement of India]], it can be clearly seen that I provided enough reference to prove its a terrorist organisation as seen in this [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Students%27_Islamic_Movement_of_India&diff=prev&oldid=1263965401 edit]. I don't know why is there a discussion to this obvious edit? Admins please correct me if I am wrong.
:@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]], Yes I read about 1RR and 0RR revert rules in [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is#Other revert rules]]. I now understand the importance of raising the topic on talk page whenever a consensus is needed. Thank You ! [[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 07:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::Yes, I will commit to that. [[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC) <small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC) </small>
:At that time I was new to how AFD discussions worked. Later on when [[Draft:Satish R. Devane|Satish R. Devane]] was marked for deletion, I respected the consensus by not interfering in it. The article was later deleted. [[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 11:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
*Hi @[[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] , I just checked your user page. You have 16 years (I am 19) of experience on wiki, you must be right about me. I agree that my start on Wikipedia has been horrible, but I am learning a lot from you all. I promise that I will do better, get more neutral here and contribute to the platform to my best. Please don't block me.
::''<small>P.S.- I don't know If I will be blocked or what , according to this enforcement rules, I just want to personally wish good luck to you for your ongoing cancer treatments, You will surely win this battle of Life. Regards.</small>'' [[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 12:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)<small>Moved comment to own section. Please comment, including replies, only in this section.[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 15:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
 
*1) I just asked an user @[[User:Fylindfotberserk|Fylindfotberserk]] if the page move is possible. What's wrong with it? I still have not considered putting a move request on talk page of article.
I was not notified that the video source was unreliable. Rather, the other editor said YouTube videos '''MUST''' come from "a verified account of an official news organization." The [[WP:RSPYT]] policy actually says "Content uploaded from a verified official account, '''such as''' that of a news organization..." Such as means "for example," not what the other editor suggests.
:2) Many of other sources are not raj era. Moreover I myself have deleted the content way before you pointing this out. Thank You ! [[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 06:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::even @[[User:NXcrypto|NXcrypto]] is seen engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rape_during_the_Bangladesh_Liberation_War&diff=prev&oldid=1265556284 see1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NXcrypto#c-Worldbruce-20241227144400-It_takes_two_to_edit_war see2] [[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 06:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:::as mentioned by @[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] before, <sub>Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here</sub>. You can discuss content related topics on talk pages of articles rather than personally targeting a user here in enforcement. [[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 06:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] I once filed a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1263948649#Please_check_if_they_are_sockpuppets complaint] to find it @[[User:NXcrypto|NXcrypto]] is a sock (out of a misunderstanding, as all were teamed up similarly on various pages). I think he felt it as a personal attack by me and filed this request for enforcement. Please interfere. [[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 06:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC) <small>moving to correct section [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 13:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)</small>
 
*Hi @[[User:Toddy1|Toddy1]] @[[User:Valereee|Valereee]], In my defense I just want to say that
'''UPDATE''': <font color=blue>I will accept any ban that you decide to place upon my account. I honestly don't care anymore. Do as you wish.</font>
:1)Yes I usually edit on RSS related topics, but to ensure a democratic view is maintained as many socks try to disrupt such articles. Even on [[Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]] page, I just edited on request of talk page and added a graph. I don't think its a POV push.
[[User:Mkstokes|Mkstokes]] ([[User talk:Mkstokes|talk]]) 18:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
:2) My main interest in editing is [[Hinduism]] and [[History of India|Indian History]] topics.
:3)There have been certain cases in past where I was blocked but if studied carefully they were result of me edit warring with socks(although, through guidance of various experienced editors and admins I learnt a SPI should be filed first). I have learnt a lot in my journey and there have been nearly zero case of me of edit warring this month.
:Please do not block me. [[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] I beg apologies for the inconvenience caused, thanks for correcting me. I will now reply in my own statement section. @[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] I am a quick learner and professionally competent to edit in this encyclopedic space. Please consider reviewing this enforcement if its an counter-attack on me as mentioned in my previous replies. You all are experienced editors and I have good faith in your decision-making capability.[[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]]@[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] I have edited content marked as "original research" and "mess" by you, I am ready to help removing any content that might be considered "poorly sourced" by the community. Please don't block me.[[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] This enforcement started for edit-warring and now I feel its more concerned to my edited content(which I agree to cooperate and change wherever needed). After learning about edit wars, there has been no instance of me edit-warring, Please consider my request.--[[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 08:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]] I am not a slow learner, I understand the concerns of all admins here. I will try my best to add only reliable sources, and discuss content in all talk pages, as I already mentioned [[User talk:Valereee#c-PerspicazHistorian-20241230102100-PespicazHistorian|here]]. [[User:PerspicazHistorian|<span style="color:orange;">'''PPicazHist'''</span>]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 12:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*::@[[User:Valereee|Valereee]]@[[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] I think admins should focus more on encouraging editors when they do good and correct when mistaken. I have made many edits, added many citations and created much articles which use fine citations. The enforcement started out of retaliation by nxcrypto, now moving towards banning me anyways. I started editing out of passion, and doing it here on wiki unlike those who come here just for pov pushes and disrupt article space(talking about socks and vandalizers on contentious Indian topics).
*::The article [[prasada]] doesn't only has issue on citations, but the whole article is copypasted from the citations I added. I just wanted to point that out. Remaining about [[Wikipedia:CIR]], I am currently pursuing Btech in cs from IIT delhi, idt I am a slow learner by any means. Still, happy new year to all ! [[User:PerspicazHistorian|<span style="color:orange;">'''PPicazHist'''</span>]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 14:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] You mean to say, "<sub>The ''prasada'' is to be consumed by attendees as a holy offering. The offerings may include cooked food, [[fruits]] and confectionery sweets. Vegetarian food is usually offered and later distributed to the devotees who are present in the [[Hindu temple|temple]]. Sometimes this vegetarian offering will exclude prohibited items such as garlic, onion, mushroom, etc. "</sub> is not copy pasted by [https://health-gov.kailasa.sk/uncategorized/food-offering-tamil-new-year/ this] website? Is this also a wiki mirror website? How would you feel if I doubt your competence now? [[User:PerspicazHistorian|<span style="color:orange;">'''PPicazHist'''</span>]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 14:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*::::@ [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] I just asked others to share their opinion in the enforcement. With all due respect, I don't think its wrong in any sense. [[User:PerspicazHistorian|<span style="color:orange;">'''PPicazHist'''</span>]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 15:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::::To all the admins involved here,
*:::::* I agree to keep learning and apologize if my previous edits/replies have annoyed the admins.
*:::::* I have not edit warred since a month and please see it as my willingness to keep learning and getting better.
*:::::*Please give me a chance, I understand concern of you all and respect your opinion in the matter. But please don't block me from editing from main article space. I promise that I will abide by all the rules and will learn from other editors.
*:::::[[User:PerspicazHistorian|<span style="color:orange;">'''PPicazHist'''</span>]] ([[User talk:PerspicazHistorian|talk]]) 15:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
 
====Statement by (username)LukeEmily====
PerspicazHistorian also violated [[WP:BRD]] by engaging in an edit war with {{u|Ratnahastin}} who reverted his edits and restored an article to a stable version by admin. Also, I want to assume good faith but it is surprising that PerspicazHistorian claims that he did not know the three revert rule given that he has more than 800 edits.[[User:LukeEmily|LukeEmily]] ([[User talk:LukeEmily|talk]])
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
 
====Statement by Doug Weller====
===Result concerning Mkstokes===
I'm involved so just commenting. I don't think this editor is competent. I had to give them a community sanction caste warning as they were making a mess of castes. See this earlier version of their talk page.]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&oldid=1262289249] and [[User:Deb]]'s comment that "It was very unwise of you to keep moving [[Draft:Satish R. Devane]] to article space when it has not passed review. As a direct result of your actions, a deletion discussion is taking place, and when this is complete and the article is deleted, you will be prevented from recreating it. [[User:Deb|Deb]] ([[User talk:Deb|talk]]) 14:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)" There have also been copyright issues. I strongly support a topic ban. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 11:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I noted yesterday when this same incident was filed as a case request (it's since been removed) that I full-protected [[Nick McKenzie]] as in my view ''both'' editors were perpetuating a revert war which started on 10 January, and have also been edit-warring at [[Peter Schiff]] over the same issue and stretching back about two weeks earlier. It did not seem to me that the content rose to the level of [[WP:3RRNO]] exemption, though I did not review in great detail, but I removed the content anyway in the conservative spirit of [[WP:BLP]], pending resolution of a talk page discussion which was already open. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 19:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
*Based on a review of Mkstokes's contribution history that I conducted yesterday when I saw the RfAR case request filed, I support an indefinite ban under CT provisions from [[Nick McKenzie]] and [[Peter Schiff]] for frequent and egregious violations of the biographies of living persons policy, as well as battleground behaviour. I agree with TarnishedPath that their behaviour and contribution history is disruptive and also reflects that of a single-purpose account. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
*I do agree that we've got edit warring going on here. I don't think a TBAN from the topics broadly is necessitated by the edit warring (a P-block from the articles could do that), but I do have some concern about [[WP:BLUDGEON|bludgeoning]] from the respondent that can't be resolved by a mainspace PBLOCK. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 03:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
*:I will note [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMkstokes&diff=1196613737&oldid=1196612026 this diff] by the filer, which Ivanvector has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mkstokes&diff=next&oldid=1196613737 correctly noted] come fairly close to gravedancing (or at least the spirit thereof). — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 02:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
*I'm not impressed by either party's behavior here. I'd probably be inclined to give both of them some time away from that article. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 20:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
**For me, while TarnishedPath definitely hasn't been perfect in this whole situation, I feel like they haven't been anywhere near as disruptive as Mkstokes. When you then factor in that Mkstokes is, in my opinion, a single-purpose account (167 edits total) pushing a pretty clear point of view and without the high level of sourcing required for negative BLP content, I don't think an equitable sanction is appropriate here. I'd encourage a bespoke but firm warning to TarnishedPath and, as per my view above, an indefinite ban from Nick McKenzie & Peter Schiff for Mkstokes. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 23:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
*::I could live with that. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 01:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
*::I could also live with that, provided that the {{tq|bespoke but firm warning}} is a logged warning. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 05:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
**Absent any objections from admins here, I plan to close this by the end of today as a topic ban from Nick McKenzie and Peter Schiff for Mkstokes, alongside a warning for the filer. I think this reflects consensus here. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 05:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
***Sounds good to me, thanks in advance for actioning. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 06:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
 
:::I won't be involved in the decision. No more treatments for me, just coast until... [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 12:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
==KhndzorUtogh==
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
 
====Statement by Toddy1====
===Request concerning KhndzorUtogh===
This is another editor who appears to have pro-[[:Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh]] (RSS) and pro-[[:Bharatiya Janata Party]] (BJP) views. I dislike those views, but find it rather alarming that Wikipedia should seek to censor those views, but not the views of the political opponents. Imagine the outrage if we sought to topic-ban anyone who expressed pro-[[:Republican Party (United States)|Republican]] views, but allowed [[:Democratic Party (United States)|Democrat-activists]] to say whatever they liked.
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Parishan}} 19:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 
A lot of pro-RSS/BJP editors turn out to be sock-puppets, so please can we do a checkuser on this account. And to be even-handed, why not checkuser NXcrypto too.
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|KhndzorUtogh}}<p>{{ds/log|KhndzorUtogh}}</p>
 
If we want to talk about [[:WP:CIR]] when editors make mistakes, look at the diff given by NXcrypto for "Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested" - it is the wrong diff. He/she did notify PerspicazHistorian - but the correct diff is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PerspicazHistorian&diff=prev&oldid=1263957158].
 
A topic ban from Indian topics would be unhelpful, unless given to both parties. Wikipedia is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India. Loading the dice against BJP and RSS editors will turn Wikipedia into a fringe encyclopaedia on Indian topics.
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3]]
 
I can see a good case for restricting PerspicazHistorian to draft articles and talk pages for a month, and suggesting that he/she seeks advice from more experienced editors. Another solution would be a one-revert rule to last six months.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 13:55, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193048516&oldid=1193015852 1 January 2024] The sentence "Azerbaijan regains control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh" added by a third-party user;
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193282641&oldid=1193266053 3 January 2024] KhndzorUtogh changes "regains" to "takes" and leaves a note on [[Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh#NPOV issues|the talkpage]];
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193834496&oldid=1193773170 5 January 2024] KhndzorUtogh's edit reverted, with a discussion ensuing on the talkpage;
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1196950366&oldid=1196704089 18 January 2024] KhndzorUtogh reverts back while the discussion is in progress and nowhere near reaching consensus.
 
====Statement by Capitals00====
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
I find the comment from {{U|Toddy1}} to be entirely outrageous. What are you trying to tell by saying "{{tq|Wikipedia is meant to be a mainstream encyclopaedia, and BJP and RSS are mainstream in India}}"? If you want us to entertain those who are in power, then we could never have an article like [[False or misleading statements by Donald Trump]].
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive327#Aredoros87 28 December 2023] KhndzorUtogh is currently subject to an indefinite arbitration enforcement sanction requiring them to obtain consensus before readding any reverted content in AA3 articles. They have also been warned not to engage in battleground editing.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Callanecc#Questions 9 January 2024] The sanction conditions were clarified to them (on their own request) just a few days ago.
 
You cannot ask topic ban for both editors without having any evidence of misconduct. Same way, you cannot ask CU on either user [[WP:NOTFISHING|only for your own mental relief]]. It is a high time that you should strike your comment, since you are falsely accusing others that they "{{tq|seek to censor}}" this editor due to his "{{tq| pro-Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and pro-Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) views}}". You should strike your comment. If you cannot do that, then I am sure [[WP:BOOMERANG]] is coming for you. [[User:Capitals00|Capitals00]] ([[User talk:Capitals00|talk]]) 15:20, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
KhndzorUtogh narrowly escaped an indefinite topic ban following the most recent AE request addressing their battleground behaviour, but unfortunately continues to display the same editing pattern that earned them the one-revert sanction they have just violated.
 
====Statement by Vanamonde93====
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKhndzorUtogh&diff=1197259263&oldid=1192423239]
{{U|Toddy1}}: I, too, am baffled by your comment. We don't ban editors based on their POV; but we do ban editors who fail to follow our PAGs, and we certainly don't make excuses for editors who fail to follow our guidelines based on their POV. You seem to be suggesting we cut PH some slack because of their political position, and I find that deeply inappropriate. Among other things, I don't believe they have publicly stated anywhere that they support the BJP or the RSS, and we cannot make assumptions about them.
 
That said, the fact that this was still open prompted me to spot-check PH's contributions, and I find a lot to be concerned about. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banajiga&diff=prev&oldid=1265951024 This edit] is from 29 December, and appears to be entirely original research; I cannot access all of the sources, but snippet search does not bear out the content added, and the Raj era source for the first sentence certainly does not support the content it was used for. [[Baji Pasalkar]], entirely authored by PH, is full of puffery ({{tq|"first to sacrifice his life for the cause of Swarajya"}}, and poor sources (like [http://shivchatrapati.rf.gd/single_blog.php?id=142&i=2 this blog], and [https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/Frontiers/sDJjDwAAQBAJ this book], whose blurb I leave you to judge), from which most of the article appears to be drawn. [[Appa (title)]], also entirely authored by PH, has original research in its very first sentence; the sources that I can access give passing mention to people whose names include the suffix "appa", and thus could perhaps be examples of usage, but the sources most certainly do not bear out the claim.
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning KhndzorUtogh===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by KhndzorUtogh====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193282641&oldid=1193266053 3 January 2024] is not a revert, it is a general copyediting diff, all of the changes of which [[Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh#NPOV issues|I explained on the talkpage]] for Ken Aeron, the user that edited [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193048516&oldid=1193015852 1 January 2024]. Ken never replied, instead Parishan later did. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193834496&oldid=1193773170 5 January 2024] edit by Parishan (who is the un-named editor) was only a partial revert; I didn't receive a notification that I was reverted and hadn't realized that I had been. I also wasn't notified Parishan had replied to me four days later on 9 January because I didn't get an alert. By the time I noticed it on 18 January, I didn't remember a one-word change out of a much larger copyediting edit I made for a different user. Since I wasn't notified of Parishan's revert, it appeared that the word was never changed. The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1196950366&oldid=1196704089 18 January 2024] edit came [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=1196949883 after I posted several sources for it on the talk page], so it had seemed like a single bold edit I had made, in line with [[WP:BRD]].
 
I will note in fairness that I cannot access all the sources for the content I checked. But after spotchecking a dozen examples I have yet to find content PH wrote that was borne out by a reliable source, so I believe skepticism is justified. We are in territory where other editors may need to spend days cleaning up some of this writing. {{U|Bishonen}} If we're in CIR territory, just a normal indefinite block seems cleanest, surely? Or were you hoping that PH would help clean up their mess, perhaps by providing quotes from sources? That could be a pathway to contributing productively, but I'm not holding my breath. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 18:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
And it seems like incredibly bad faith and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality for Parishan to link a discussion I had with Callanec showing several examples of me being careful to adhere to the rules, and then somehow conclude "continues to display the same editing pattern". For example, I followed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Callanecc&diff=prev&oldid=1194096116 the advice given here] to the letter on the [[Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh]] article. [[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]] ([[User talk:KhndzorUtogh|talk]]) 23:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 
:Thanks Bish: I agree, as my exchanges with PH today, in response to my first post here, have not inspired confidence. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Appa_(title)#Sources]. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Red-tailed hawk}} This article had a massive amount of activity within the first few days of January ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193836972&oldid=1192871205 42 revisions by 13 users]). I was reviewing every change and copyediting where needed, and unfortunately amid all the other changes, I forgot that I had already changed this one word. The confusion also came from interacting with two different users. After I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193282641&oldid=1193266053 copy edited several changes] made by Ken Aeron, that user never disputed anything in my edit, so I must've made a mental note this issue was resolved. Then Parishan made a manual change; ''not'' a revert, so I never got the "Your edit on X was reverted" notification. When I changed the word on 18 January, I thought I was changing it for the first time as [[WP:BRD]] allows. I wouldn't have changed the word otherwise, I'm being very careful not to get into an edit war. [[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]] ([[User talk:KhndzorUtogh|talk]]) 17:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 
====Statement by UtherSRG====
::By partial revert, I only meant that the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193282641&oldid=1193266053 3 January 2024] edit was not 1:1 reverted by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=prev&oldid=1193834496 5 January 2024] edit; Parishan only made one change (perhaps {{purple|<u>not '''an undo'''</u>, so I never got the "Your edit on X was reverted" notification}} would've been a better choice of words). Of course I understand this is still a revert, but because it left most of my changes intact, didn't use the undo button (which sends a notification), and the article had a lot of recent activity, I hadn't noticed it at the time. And regarding the various [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193062885&oldid=1193015852 1 January 2024] edits by Ken Aeron, I remember the most alarming changes being the addition of false/unsourced claims (the part about the armed forces) and the unexplained removal of sourced information. I hope this explains why I didn't recall changing one word as clearly as the other differences. [[User:KhndzorUtogh|KhndzorUtogh]] ([[User talk:KhndzorUtogh|talk]]) 23:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I've mostly dealt with PH around [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankur Warikoo (2nd nomination)]]. They do not seem to have the ability to read and understand our policies and processes. As such, a t-ban is too weak. The minimum I would support is a p-block as suggested below, though a full indef is also acceptable. They could then ask for the [[WP:standard offer|standard offer]] when they can demonstrate they no longer have [[WP:CIR]] issues. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 20:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
 
:Based on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prasada&diff=1266183836&oldid=1249305648 these two edits], I'm more strongly leaning towards indef. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 12:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
::They now indicate they believe the article they edited was copied from one of the websites they used as a reference, when in reality the website is a mirror/scrape of the Wikipedia article. I believe we are firmly in [[WP:CIR]] territory here. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 14:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
:::[https://hinducouncil.com.au/what-is-prasada-or-hindu-religious-food/ This] is a mirror of the Wikipedia article. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
 
===Result concerning KhndzorUtoghPerspicazHistorian ===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
 
{{u|PerspicazHistorian}}, can you explain your understanding of [[WP:edit warring]] and the [[WP:3RR]] rule? I'd like you to read thoroughly enough to also explain wny someone may be edit warring ''even if they aren't breaking 3RR''. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 21:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
:@[[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]], that explanation of edit warring is a bit wanting. An edit war is when two or more editors revert content additions/removals repeatedly. Even a second reversion by the same editor can be considered edit warring. Best practice -- and what I highly recommend, especially for any inexperienced editor -- is ''the first time'' someone reverts an edit of yours, go to the talk page, open a section, ping the editor who reverted you, and discuss. Do you think you can commit to that?
*I'm looking at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&oldid=1196949883#NPOV_issues talk page] of [[2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh]] as it was at the time that you made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1196950366&oldid=1196704089 this edit]. I'm plainly not seeing consensus in the relevant discussion (i.e. the NPOV issues section of the talk). The guidance given by [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1194625896#Questions Callanecc] on your talk page, particularly {{tq|An editor adds something to an article. You revert/change what they added. An editor reverts you. You can't revert their edit without a consensus}}, makes the restriction quite clear.{{pb}}{{yo|KhndzorUtogh}} In light of the above, would you be willing to explain ''why'' you made the edit to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1196950366&oldid=1196704089 re-insert] your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193282641&oldid=1193266053 preferred language] of {{tq|takes}} even though it had been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193834496&oldid=1193773170 reverted] to {{tq|regains}} by another editor prior to your doing so? — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 05:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
:<small>Re: your question on why your "obvious edit" was reverted: we don't deal with content issues here, only with behavior issues, but from a very quick look, the source is 50 years old, and using a list headed "TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS LISTED IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967" that includes a certain organization as a source that the organization should be described as a terrorist organization is [[WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH]]; in their [[Special:Diff/1264084002|revert]] NXcrypto provided an edit summary of "Not a reliable source for such a contentious label. See WP:LABEL." Please discuss at talk, not here; we don't deal with content here.</small> [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|KhndzorUtogh}} Let me lay this out a little bit more clearly, from my understanding:
::I'm seeing this as a CIR issue. I'd like input from other admins, if possible. I'm a little concerned that setting a tban from IPA is just setting a trap. Maybe a p-block from article space would be a kinder way to allow them to gain some experience? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 13:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193048516&oldid=1193015852 An editor adds something to an article] ({{tq|Azerbaijan <u>regains</u> control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh}})
:::@[[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]], have you seen how many times I or others have had to move your comments to your own section? This is an example of not having enough experience to edit productively. Please do not post in anyone else's section again. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 16:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
*:#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193282641&oldid=1193266053 you change what they added] ({{tq|Azerbaijan <u>takes</u> control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh}})
::::I do agree we're in CIR territory, and the concerns expressed are completely valid. I don't think this editor is ill-intentioned. They just don't seem very motivated to learn quickly. Well-intentioned-but-a-slow-learner is something that can only be fixed by actually practicing what you're bad at. I'd prefer an indef from article space which gives them one more chance to learn here before we send them off to mr.wiki or Simple English to try to learn. Not a hill I'm going to die on, though. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 11:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
*:#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1193834496&oldid=1193773170 an editor (partially) reverts you] ({{tq|Azerbaijan <u>regains</u> control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh}})
:::::@[[User:PerspicazHistorian|PerspicazHistorian]], like Uther I have major concerns about the edit you made yesterday, which included replacing a citation needed tag with these sources.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Significance of Different Type of Prasad in Hinduism For God |url=https://www.ganeshaspeaks.com/predictions/astrology/prasad-food-for-god/ |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=GaneshaSpeaks |language=en-GB}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=What Is Prashad |url=https://www.swaminarayan.faith/articles/what-is-prashad |access-date=2024-12-30 |website=Shree Swaminarayan Mandir Bhuj |language=en}}</ref> The first is a company that markets astrology services. The second is the site for a religious sect. Neither is a reliable source for explaining the concept of prasada in Wikivoice. You made this edit ''yesterday'', after you'd confirmed here and on my talk that you understood sourcing policy.
*:#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&diff=1196950366&oldid=1196704089 You revert edit No. 3 without a consensus] ({{tq|Azerbaijan <u>takes</u> control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh}}, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2023_Azerbaijani_offensive_in_Nagorno-Karabakh&oldid=1196949883#NPOV_issues talk page does not show consensus to revert])
:::::The reason for an indef from article space is to allow you to learn this policy: You would go into article talk and suggest sources to fix citation needed tags. Another editor would have to agree with you that the sources are reliable before they'd add them. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 12:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
*:Am I missing anything here? Alternatively, to what extent do you not understand how Edit #3 ''is'' a [[WP:3RR|revert]] (i.e. {{purple|An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole '''or in part'''}}) of Edit #2, or how Edit #4 is a revert of Edit #3?
*A tban from IPA for PerspicazHistorian would be a relief to many editors trying to keep this difficult area in reasonable shape. However, Valereee makes a good point about 'setting a trap': it's doubtful that PH would be able to keep to a tban even if they tried in good faith. I would therefore support a p-block from article space. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 16:48, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
*:The ability to have a narrowly tailored restriction that requires one to limit one's own editing, rather than requiring more blunt technical enforcement measures to do so, (i.e. your "consensus-required"-lite restriction given on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive327#Aredoros87 28 December], as clarified on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1194625896#Questions 9 January]), rests in large part upon one's ability to understand what sorts of edits would be in that restrictions scope. If you don't understand why Edit #3 and Edit #4 constitute reverts, this very well could pose a problem going forward. Can you help me to better understand what your thought process is around what is and isn't a revert? — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 02:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
*:{{u|Vanamonde93}}, no, I don't really think PH can usefully help clean up their mess; I was following Valereee, who has been going into this in some depth, in attempting to keep some way of editing Wikipedia open for PH. It's a bit of a counsel of desperation, though; there is very little daylight between an indef and a p-block from article space. Yes, we ''are'' in CIR territory; just look at PH's [[Special:Diff/1265911217/1265912777|recent supposed evidence on this page]] for NXcrypto being "engaged in edit wars before on contentious Indian topics": one diff of an opponent complaining on NXcrypto's page, and one diff of somebody reverting NXcrypto. What do those actually prove? That NXcrypto has opponents (big surprise). So, yes, as you suggest, I'll support an indef as well. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 20:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC).
*::If I'm understanding KU right, they are not disputing that edits 3 or 4 were reverts. I think they are saying that they: {{olist|did not remember making edit 2|therefore did not perceive edit 3 as a revert at the time|therefore knew that edit 4 was a revert, but not that it was a re-addition of reverted content}} It's hard for me to reconcile that version of events with the talk page discussion, which was mentioned in edit 3, and which would have acted as an obvious reminder that there was history of dispute over "regains"/"takes". Regardless, whether it's a failure to understand, a lapse of memory, or something else, I'm not sure it matters. The purpose of the sanction is to stop KU from edit warring, and if it's not working, then we should escalate the sanction. I'd support something like a one week block. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 02:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
*Is there a length of time proposed for the p-ban or would it be indefinite? [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*:::With respect to {{tq|they are not disputing that edits 3 or 4 were reverts}}, the respondent’s stated above {{purple|Then Parishan made a manual change; <u>not a revert</u>, so I never got the "Your edit on X was reverted" notification}} (emphasis mine), referring to Edit #3. I think they may be confusing the “undo” feature with the broader concept of a revert, but the respondent can speak for themself.{{pb}}The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the revert restriction is a [[WP:SLS|self-limiting sanction]]; the sanctioned editor needs to have a decent understanding of what reverts are if they are going to avoid violating a revert restriction. And they haven’t understood that even after a pretty clear explanation on their talk page. Absent them understanding what a revert is, for purposes of their sanction, they are likely to violate it going forward even ''if'' they are willing (in the abstract) to abide by it.{{pb}}I don’t want to set up an editor to fail—the editor either needs to demonstrate that they understand the sanction, or we need to move to a more restrictive one that the editor ''does'' understand. I agree that we can block one week for a first-offense violation of the revert restriction (particularly in light of the explanation/clarification posted on the user’s talk page), and I would hope that we can get some assurance from the editor that they understand their revert restriction going forward. — <span style="background: linear-gradient(#990000,#660000)">[[User:Red-tailed sock|<span style="color: white">Red-tailed&nbsp;sock</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: white">(Red-tailed hawk's nest)</span>]]</sub></span> 14:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
*:I would say indefinite; not infinite, but I'd be wary about letting them back into articlespace without some kind of preclearance. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 18:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*::::I have the same hopes. Re the terminology, KU described edit 3 in their first response as a "partial revert". I think they get it, but maybe the got sloppy with the wording. {{u|KhndzorUtogh}}, it would help if you could clarify your understanding of what a revert is. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 16:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
*It looks to me like there is a consensus for an indefinite partial block for PerspicazHistorian from article space. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within a day or so, I will close as such. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 06:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*If I am understanding correctly, KU is not disputing the facts of the case at all, but is saying that because, on 5 January, another user reverted a small part of a much larger edit KU previously made, ''and'' did so in a manner that didn't notify them, they didn't realize they had been reverted in the first place. I find this explanation quite reasonable given the number of intervening edits on that article, as well as KU's activity level. I don't like that we're at AE over a single word that could have been self-reverted, especially when the party being reported here voluntarily engaged on the talk page. Though this is a violation of the letter of the law, I would not levy sanctions here. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 16:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
*:Given PH's recent slew of requests on multiple admin talk pages, yes, please do. - [[User:UtherSRG|UtherSRG]] [[User_talk:UtherSRG|(talk)]] 12:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
*I much prefer to see someone reach out at a user's talk page and explain the reverts and request a self-revert before a trip to AE. When dealing with consensus required, 1RR, enforced BRD , individual sanctions, and all the rest it is easy to make mistakes. I don't think any sanctions are necessary with a commitment to self-revert if a violation is raised and explained. A word that a pattern of such lapses, even with self-reverts, will result in a tightening of sanctions may also not be amiss. That said, as they are already under sanction, and with the explanation and talk page discussion I wouldn't object to a block if other admins believe it is called for. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
*<!--
-->
 
{{reflist talk}}
== Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sakiv ==
{{hab}}
{{hat|Appeal declined. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|talk]]) 04:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
 
==LaylaCares==
<small>''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]]).''</small>
{{hat|There is consensus to remove LaylaCares's EC flag. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
 
===Request concerning LaylaCares===
; Appealing user
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|SakivVice regent}} – [[User:Sakiv|Sakiv]] ([[User talk:Sakiv|talk]]) 2308:1900, 203 January 20242025 (UTC)
 
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|LaylaCares}}<p>{{ds/log|LaylaCares}}</p>
; Sanction being appealed
: [[Special:Diff/1197345527|Sixth-month topic ban]]
 
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
; Administrator imposing the sanction
: {{admin|ScottishFinnishRadish}}
 
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ARBPIA]]
; Notification of that administrator
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
: [[Special:Diff/1197542462|diff]]
 
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
=== Statement by Sakiv ===
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
There was a discussion about the [[Greater Palestine]] article that began on January 6, when I brought up the topic of moving the article that began in August. Onceinawhile promptly replied in a non-objective manner and began to personalize the discussion, always referring to me with the word “you.” The same editor had agreed to a rename to PLO and Jordan. Notice that in the history of the article, there is an [[Special:Diff/1197345527|IP address]] that suddenly entered the discussion and described me as not being there to build an encyclopedia unlike Onceinawhile. Days passed and the discussion died down for a week, specifically on January 12, when the aforementioned editor nominated the article for deletion. At the same time, as a right to save any article that one of the editors deems worthy of survival, I have attempted to develop it in good faith and constructively. After several hours, editor Zero000 comes and removes content that they find problematic without discussion. I admit that my role was not completely good, but what happened was an accumulation that the other party also contributed to. This reply was very [[Special:Diff/1194002419|unnecessary]] and [[Special:Diff/1195602249|is this a response that helps make the encyclopedia a place for cooperation?]]. On the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I acknowledge that I was supposed to notify the two editors involved, but there was a discussion that was ongoing and it was not clear what was the appropriate place - [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard|dispute resolution]] or a third opinion. My goal was an administrative measure not to delete texts from an article until the picture became clear. I didn't get any warnings about complaints due to my "battleground edditing". Most of my edits revolve around football and season statistics. My edits bear witness that I stay away from sharp and uncontrolled debate and adhere to neutrality.[[User:Sakiv|Sakiv]] ([[User talk:Sakiv|talk]]) 23:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hamas%E2%80%93UNRWA_relations&oldid=1263583395 13:54, December 17, 2024] EC gaming
 
:I received one message on my discussion page and after that I did not say anything about the topic. I am committed to the decision and the topic revolves around that article alone. There are no complaints about my contributions to other articles. I acknowledge that what I did in the Administrators' noticeboard was not what was expected, but that was the basis for the emotions that followed the heated discussion of the article and the discussion of deletion. [[User:Sakiv|Sakiv]] ([[User talk:Sakiv|talk]]) 20:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
::Despite this good intention and my avoidance of any disturbances during these days, it seems that there is nothing left to be said. I find it very difficult to understand this reaction. [[User:Sakiv|Sakiv]] ([[User talk:Sakiv|talk]]) 03:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Where did I attack other editors? How will I explain to you what happened? If there is another way. Tell me instead of this type of talk. Everything I explained to you seems to be of no use. [[User:Sakiv|Sakiv]] ([[User talk:Sakiv|talk]]) 17:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
=== Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish ===
 
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
=== Statement by Zero0000 ===
Pretty obvious case of EC gaming. Account created on Nov 17, 2024, then about 500 mostly minor edits followed by the first substantial edit ever was the creation of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hamas%E2%80%93UNRWA_relations&oldid=1263583395 this article] on Dec 17 (subsequently moved to draftspace).'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)</sub> 08:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I won't repeat everything I wrote at ANI, except to note that here again Sakiv demonstrates a serious OWN problem with that article ([[Greater Palestine]], now merged). Every disagreement with his/her changes is taken personally no matter how much they are explained.{{pb}} Also, I have never deleted anything from that article without explanation so that charge is false. On the other hand, with only the pseudo-explanation "restore valuable information", [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greater_Palestine&diff=prev&oldid=1195401691 this edit] of Sakiv undid 10 months worth of edits. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 03:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LaylaCares&diff=prev&oldid=1267028255]
=== Statement by Star Mississippi ===
*While I supported the topic ban in the referenced discussion, I also think their conduct post TB shows that Sakiv got off too lightly. Continuing to re-litigate the old fights is not conducive to collaborative editing and would support a broader block. <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#a117f2;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#df00fe;">Mississippi</span>]]</span> 20:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC) '''NB''': not a frequent AE editor, please re-format me if needed. <span style="font-family:Calibri; font-weight:bold;">[[User:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#a117f2;">Star</span>]] [[User talk:Star Mississippi|<span style="color:#df00fe;">Mississippi</span>]]</span> 20:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
=== Statement by (involved editor) ===
 
=== Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sakivconcerning LaylaCares===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
 
==== Statement by (uninvolved editor 1) LaylaCares====
 
==== Statement by (uninvolved editor 2) Aquillion====
Question: Assuming it's determined that they gamed the extended-confirmed restriction, would the page they created be [[WP:G5]]-able? I've asked the relevant question in more detail [[Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#WP:G5_and_people_who_have_gamed_the_extended-confirmed_restriction|on the CSD talk page]], since it is likely to come up again as long as we have such a broad restriction on effect, but I figured it was worth mentioning the issue here as well. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 14:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
 
=== Result of the appealStatement by SakivDan Murphy===
Please look at [[Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations]], written by the account under discussion. It's a hit job, originally placed in mainspace by this account. Anyone who wrote that shouldn't be allowed with 1 million miles of the topic.[[User:Dan Murphy|Dan Murphy]] ([[User talk:Dan Murphy|talk]]) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
 
====Statement by starship.paint====
: ''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
I've edited Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations, so Dan Murphy's link is inaccurate for the purposes of this discussion. For the version of Draft:Hamas–UNRWA relations with content only written by LaylaCares, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Hamas%E2%80%93UNRWA_relations&oldid=1263609741 click this link]. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|cont]])''' 10:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
 
* Spending your appeal attacking other editors is not going to get you anywhere. I think it would have been helpful if ScottishFinnishRadish had linked to a few diffs/[[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Constantly_deleted_content_without_discussion|the ANI thread]] to explain the topic ban, but the ANI definitely provides enough examples of poor conduct to justify a TBAN (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Palestine&diff=prev&oldid=1196779108 You are clearly anti-Israel]). [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|talk]]) 00:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
====Statement by (username)====
*Based on what's been presented here, I see no reason to overturn the 6 month topic ban. It might have even been too lenient, but time will tell on that one. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup><span style="font-family:Papyrus"><small>''[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]''</small></span></sup> 03:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 
*An appeal that is spent attacking other users is a non-starter for me. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
 
===Result concerning LaylaCares===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*I agree that this looks like EC-gaming. Absent evidence that the edits themselves were problematic, I would either TBAN from ARBPIA or pull the EC flag until the user has made 500 edits that aren't rapidfire possibly LLM-assisted gnomish edits. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*I agree on the gaming piece and would suggest mainspace edits+time for restoration of EC. I will throw out 3 months + 500 (substantive) main space edits. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
*I agree with Barkeep but I'd up it to 4 months. I don't believe that a TBAN is necessary at this point. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 04:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
*@[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]]: I agree that the draft should be G5'd, but will wait for consensus to develop here. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 01:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:I don't think the wording of [[WP:ECR]] allows for deletion of a page that was created by an EC user. <small>(ECR also seems to forget that anything other than articles and talkpages exists, but I think the most reasonable reading of provision A still allows for G5ing drafts at admins' discretion if the criteria are met.)</small> That said, a consensus at AE can delete a page as a "reasonable measure[&hairsp;] that [is] necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project". Deleting under that provision is not something to be done lightly, but I think for a case where a page's existence violates the spirit of an ArbCom restriction but not the letter, it'd be a fair time to do it. And/or this could make for a good ARCA question, probably after PIA5 wraps. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 03:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*I would just pull EC and require the editor to apply via AE appeal for its restoration. They should be very clearly aware that receiving such restoration will require both substantial time and making ''real'', substantive edits outside the area, as well as an understanding of what is expected of editors working in a CTOP area. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 01:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*I see a clear consensus here to remove the EC flag. For clarity, when I proposed a TBAN above it was because removing this flag ''is'' an ARBPIA TBAN as long as the ECR remedy remains in place; it's simply a question of whether the editor get the other privileges of EC or not. I don't see a consensus on what to do with the draft, but given that other editors have now made substantive contributions to it, I don't believe it's a good use of AE time to discuss the hypothetical further. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 17:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
 
==IrtapilAstroGuy0==
{{hat|{{u|AstroGuy0}} has been issued a warning for source misrepresentation by {{u|Voorts}}. No other reviewers have expressed any wish for further action. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 06:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC) }}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
 
===Request concerning IrtapilAstroGuy0===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|BilledMammalHemiauchenia}} 1003:2141, 234 January 20242025 (UTC)
 
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|IrtapilAstroGuy0}}<p>{{ds/log|IrtapilAstroGuy0}}</p>
 
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
 
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:ArbitrationContentious topics/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIARace Generaland Sanctionsintelligence]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
(Even though this isn't the usual R&I fare, I consider the intersection of "Race/ethnicity and sex offending", to come under "the intersection of '''race/ethnicity''' and human abilities '''and behaviour'''")
 
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
[[WP:1RR]] violations:<br>
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse_in_the_United_Kingdom&diff=1267213766&oldid=1267191838 03:19, 4 January 2025] Asserts that "A majority of the perpetrators were Pakistani men" despite the cited source (freely accessible at [https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/67529/1/GLG_paper.pdf]) does not mention the word "Pakistani" or any variant once.
At [[List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war]]:
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huddersfield_sex_abuse_ring&diff=1267196771&oldid=1267189784 01:40, 4 January 2025] Describes the sex offender ring as "Pakistani" in the opening sentence when the cited source in the body [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-45618067] says that they were only "mainly Pakistani"
#{{diff2|1195586651|13:12, 14 January 2024}} - Partial revert of {{diff2|1193806050|19:09, 5 January 2024}}
#{{diff2|1195644008|18:32, 14 January 2024}} - Partial revert of {{diff2|1195622216|16:33, 14 January 2024}}
#{{diff2|1195915578|20:14, 15 January 2024}} - Partial revert of {{diff2|1195848182|16:12, 15 January 2024}}
#{{diff2|1195952145|22:20, 15 January 2024}} - Partial revert of {{diff2|1192581176|04:34, 30 December 2023}}
#{{diff2|1196112198|11:05, 16 January 2024}} - Partial revert of {{diff2|1195925074|20:43, 15 January 2024}}
#:[[User_talk:Irtapil#WP:1RR_at_List_of_engagements_during_the_2023_Israel–Hamas_war|I requested they self-revert after the 22:20, 15 January 2024 edit]]. They did eventually revert, but not before making an additional 1RR violation at 11:05, 16 January 2024. Note that this edit was only problematic due to the 1RR violation; absent that I would agree with it.
#{{diff2|1196950102|23:23, 18 January 2024}} - Partial revert of {{diff2|1195921771|16:33, 14 January 2024}}
#{{diff2|1197123656|10:10, 19 January 2024‎}}, {{diff2|1197131921|10:42, 19 January 2024}}, {{diff2|1197139520|11:11, 19 January 2024}}, and {{diff2|1197162396|12:42, 19 January 2024}} - Partial reverts of {{diff4|old=1197025547|1197004036|03:49, 19 January 2024}}
#:[[User_talk:Irtapil#Additional_1RR_violation|I requested they self-revert after the 11:11, 19 January 2024 edit]]; rather than doing so, they made an additional 1RR violation with the 12:42, 19 January 2024 edit. They still have not self reverted these violations.
 
Looking through a few of their edits, I see they have also violated 1Rr elsewhere, although no request to self-revert these were made, such as at [[Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel]]:
#{{diff2|1193786756|17:04, 5 January 2024}}
#{{diff4|old=1193790944|1193798856|17:38, 5 January 2024 to 18:22, 5 January 2024‎}}
#{{diff2|1193804861|19:01, 5 January 2024}}
 
From the discussions that took place on their talk page, my belief is that they want to comply with the 1RR restrictions, but they are struggling to understand what they need to do. I've seen similar behavior elsewhere; where they appear to intend to comply with the relevant restrictions, but for various reasons fail to do so.
 
For example, I previously raised {{diff2|1195730732|this edit}} with them, in which they added the claim that the {{tq|Entire Population 2,375,259}} of the Gaza Strip had been {{tq|Captured}}, a claim that is both extraordinary and unsupported by the source they added which was from May 2023 and provided the population figures for the Gaza Strip.
 
When I [[User_talk:Irtapil#January_2024|warned them about it on grounds of NPOV]], their explanation convinced me that they added this figure in good faith; that they believed the number of affected individuals needed to go somewhere, and they believed the "captured" column was the best of the various options. However, they should have realized that leaving it out was a better choice than introducing a serious [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:OR]], and [[WP:V]] issue.
 
Similarly, other editors have warned them about [[User_talk:Irtapil#Wikipedia:Citation_needed_templates_do_not_excuse_citations|adding content without citations alongside a "citation needed" tag]]. Again, their explanation convinces me that they are acting in good faith, with them intending to add sources later, but they should realize that they should add the sources and the content in the same edit - or at least at the same time.
 
Elsewhere, I've seen them misunderstanding {{diff2|1193584264|where and how it is appropriate to notify editors of discussions.}}
 
To summarize; I believe they want to contribute positively and within the restrictions to the topic area, but I'm not convinced they have the ability - or at least, I don't have the ability to provide the guidance necessary for them to do so, although perhaps some here will be able to.
 
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|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 {{diff2|1185244021|13:54, 15 November 2023}} (see the system log linked to above).
 
: Made aware of contentious topics criterion: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAstroGuy0&diff=1267198951&oldid=1266424240 01:52, 4 January 2025]
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
:I've added diffs of the edits they reverted per request from Galobtter; I'm happy to include a written summary of what they reverted as even with these diffs it isn't immediately clear, but I will need a few hundred extra words to do so. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 03:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
::In regards to {{tq|The what and why aren't just rhetorical flourishes, I want actual answers}}, I think what I said when I originally brought up the revert addresses your questions:
::{{tqb|I note that you have since made another 1RR violation; {{diff2|1196112198|11:05, 16 January 2024}}. Making a 1RR violation while a request to self-revert a 1RR violation [is outstanding] isn't a good look; I won't ask you to revert this one because it's a reasonable change, and I wouldn't even have brought it up outside this context, but I would suggest you be more careful in the future.}}
::Admins, this takes me over the word limit; please revert if inappropriate. 06:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AstroGuy0&diff=prev&oldid=1267217781]
{{diff2|1198194465|10:20, 23 January 2024}}
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
 
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
 
Additional comments by editor filing complaint:
===Discussion concerning Irtapil===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
 
This new user seems intent on POVPUSHING regarding "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" and making contentious claims that are not backed up by sources. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 03:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
==== <big>{{colour|#009000| Statement by Irtapil }}</big> ====
[[Image:"Afghan" cameleers with visitors, Australia, c 1891.jpeg|thumb| again just so I so losing my place ]]
 
===Discussion concerning AstroGuy0===
===== {{colour|#007000| Questions }} =====
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
 
====Statement by AstroGuy0====
Am I allowed to link this discussion to other users to ask for advice?
 
====Statement by Iskandar323====
===== {{colour|#007000| Draft Response }} =====
This rather dated "Asian/Muslim grooming gangs" malarkey from the UK has recently been pushed on social media by a certain US tech billionaire and is now recirculating in right-wing social media and the blogosphere, partly in connection with UK politics, so this trend could flare before it dims. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 03:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
 
====Statement by (username)====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#BilledMammal_disruptive_editing a recent related discussion]
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
 
===Result concerning AstroGuy0===
Talk page discussion [[User talk:Irtapil # BilledMammal ]]
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
-->
:The second diff was before AG0 received a CTOP alert. I've alerted AG0 to other CTOPs that they've edited in, and I am going to warn them for their conduct in diff #1 without prejudice to other admins determining that further action is warranted. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 04:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:I also looked at the source, and it indeed does not in any way support the claim made; it does not mention "Pakistani" even once. This is a fairly new editor, but I think we need to make it very clear to them that misrepresentation of sources is not something we will tolerate. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 04:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::Given that AstroGuy0 has already been issued a warning, I don't think anything further is necessary, and will close as such unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 18:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
 
==Lemabeta==
There were no violations of 1RR left outstanding when BilledMammal brought this to arbitration.
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
 
===Request concerning Lemabeta===
For the majority of requests requests to self revert that [[user talk:BilledMammal]] made on my talk page I already responded. I usually within hours and complied with the implied self-revert request as soon as they clearly explained what they would consider a self revert. Most of the edits were too old to simply click "undo" and many were complicated, so I wanted to be sure I understood what they wanted done.
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|EF5}} 20:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
 
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Lemabeta}}<p>{{ds/log|Lemabeta}}</p>
I refused to self revert '''{{pink|one}}''' edit, made on 19 January in multiple steps.
 
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
By my interpretation this counts a '''one''' revert made in multiple steps?
 
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision]]
For this <u>one</u> revert I clearly explained what I was doing as I did it
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
* in edit summaries
* and in the talk page
* and in a temporary header I added to the page while I was actively working on it, including an {{tl|in use}} box and some additional notes.
 
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Rachvelians&oldid=1267563887 5 Jan 2025] - Made a draft on a European ethnic group, which they are currently barred from doing.
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mate_Albutashvili&oldid=1267352999 4 Jan 2025] - Started a page on a Georgian ethnologist.
 
====== One revert in 10 DAYS doesn't violated 1RR ======
 
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
As far as I can tell, This is the only "revert" I hadn't already self reverted in a window of over ten days between now and '''13:12, 14 January 2024''' and now.
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
I likely filed this improperly, but to sum it up they continue to make pages in a scope they were banned from. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:On the bullet point, I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:(Not sure if I’m allowed to reply here) I’ve never filed an AE report before, and I wasn’t sure if “block” meant T-ban, p-block, etc., so I just picked whichever one made the most sense. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:: <small>Response to Bishonen. Moved from results section. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)</small>
::(RES to Bishonen) That's fair. When starting the AE, it only gave me nine options, none of which seemed to fit right. The third bullet ("Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on DIFF by _____") didn't seem to fit, as the sanction wasn't for verbal conduct. [[User:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''E'''</span>]]<sub>[[User talk:EF5|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''F'''</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User:EF5/Creations|<span style="color:#A188FC;">'''5'''</span>]]</sup> 22:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lemabeta&oldid=1267592570 Here]
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
 
===Discussion concerning Lemabeta===
My one multi step revert came after a sudden series of approximately 60 consecutive edits by Billed mammal, most of which removed content (so they would count as reverts).
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
 
====Statement by Lemabeta====
I am willing to define that as one (very big) multi step revert.
Yeah, my bad. Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed" I recognize my mistake. --[[User:Lemabeta|Lemabeta]] ([[User talk:Lemabeta|talk]]) 20:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
 
:Ethnographic groups and cultural heritage are '''related but distinct concepts'''. An ''ethnographic group'' refers to a '''community of people''' defined by shared ancestry, language, traditions, and cultural identity. In contrast, ''cultural heritage'' refers to the *''practices, artifacts, knowledge, and traditions preserved or inherited from the past''. But cultural heritage is indeed a component of ethnographic groups.
But in that case BilledMammal really had no basis to drag this to arbitration based on the series of edits I made when I reverted that 60-step revert.
:So i don't believe ethnographic group should be considered as either history of the Caucasus or cultural heritage. [[User:Lemabeta|Lemabeta]] ([[User talk:Lemabeta|talk]]) 20:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::In my opinion, cultural heritage (both tangible and intangible) '''emerges from''' ethnographic groups but '''does not define the group itself'''. [[User:Lemabeta|Lemabeta]] ([[User talk:Lemabeta|talk]]) 20:57, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:::I think ethnographic groups fall under the category of Ethnography, or even socio-cultural antropology but for sure not cultural heritage. [[User:Lemabeta|Lemabeta]] ([[User talk:Lemabeta|talk]]) 21:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
::::I understand, i already apologized on my talk page for this accident. I will not repeat this mistake again. [[User:Lemabeta|Lemabeta]] ([[User talk:Lemabeta|talk]]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
 
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
 
===Result concerning Lemabeta===
====== Why I did that big revert ======
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
-->
* I don't see Lemabeta mentioned in the case itself, but they're currently under [[Special:Diff/1241682950|a topic ban imposed by a consensus of AE admins]] from "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed". [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 20:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:To be fair, when you click above to add a new enforcement request, the template states:<br><nowiki>;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION]]</nowiki><br><nowiki><!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---></nowiki> [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{tq| Didn't realize translation of a page of ethnographic group would count as a violation of my topic ban about "history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage, broadly construed"}} @[[User:Lemabeta|Lemabeta]]: what did you think "the history of the Caucasus and its cultural heritage" meant? I think it's pretty obvious that that an article on an ethnic group from the Caucasus and about an ethnologist who writes about that region is covered by your topic ban. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 20:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Note that I've deleted [[Draft:Rachvelians]] as a clear G5 violation. I think [[Mate Albutashvili]] is a bit more of a questionable G5. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 20:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:Your definition of "ethnographic group" includes the phrases "shared ancestry" (i.e., history), and "shared&nbsp;... traditions" and "shared&nbsp;... cultural identity" (i.e., cultural heritage). Your attempt to exclude "ethnographic group" from either of the two categories in your topic ban is entirely unpersuasive, particularly since your topic ban is to be "broadly construed". [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Tamzin|Tamzin]]: this doesn't seem like a mistake to me, but I'm okay with a logged warning here. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 21:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]]: This is about violating the TBAN. Per my response to leek, I think the issue is with the AE request template, which is a bit unclear. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]]: I don't think a block is needed here, but the next violation, definitely. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:EF5|EF5]]: They were "[p]reviously given&nbsp;... [a] contentious topic restriction", the topic ban at issue. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 22:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{re|Lemabeta}} Not every single thing you could write about an ethnic group would fall under cultural history, but that's not really relevant on the Rachvelians page, where the History section was entirely about their cultural history, even containing the words {{tqq| highlighting their ethnographic and cultural identity}}. There's a reason we use the words "[[WP:broadly construed|broadly construed]]" on most TBANs, and a reason we encourage people to act like they're TBANned from a broader area than they are. (Consider: Would you feel safe driving under a bridge where clearance is exactly the same height as your vehicle? Or would you need a few inches' gap to feel safe doing it?){{pb}}This does seem like a good-faith misunderstanding, so if you will commit to not making it again in the future, I think this can be closed with a clarification/warning. But that's an important "if". If you want to argue semantics, then the message that sends to admins is that you don't intend to comply with the TBAN, in which case the next step would be a siteblock. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">&#91;[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they&#124;xe&#124;🤷]])</small> 21:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
*{{u|EF5}}, I don't understand your {{tq|"Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above"}} statement, can you please explain what it refers to? [[Special:Diff/1241682950|This T-ban]]? Lemabeta's block log is blank.
:That said, I'm unimpressed by Lemabeta's lawyerly distinctions above, and also by [[Special:Diff/1267592241|their apology for "accidental violations"]]. I'll AGF that they ''were'' accidental, but OTOH, they surely ''ought'' to have taken enough care to realize they were violations; compare Voorts' examples. I suggest a block, not sure of what length. A couple of weeks? [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
::{{u|EF5}}, OK, I see. Blocks and bans are [[WP:BLOCKBANDIFF|very different]], and the block log only logs blocks. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC).
*It seems that the general consensus here is to treat this as a final warning, and Lemabeta has acknowledged it as such. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 01:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
 
== GokuEltit ==
BilledMammal had deleted parts of every section of the page. They claimed it should be left deleted pending discussion on the basis of [[WP:ONUS]], but it really would not be feasible to discuss such widespread changes in a timely manner, and I worried it would very quickly lead to forked versions becoming impossible to re-integrate if the discussion did come out in favour of keeping the version before BilledMammal did that.
{{hat|Issues on the Spanish Wikipedia will need to be handled there; the English Wikipedia has no authority or control over what happens on the Spanish project. This noticeboard is only for requesting enforcement of English Wikipedia arbitration decisions. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC) }}
I was blocked from Wikipedia for ignoring the formatting of a table, I edited an article wrong, Bajii banned me for 2 weeks, but it didn't even take 1 and Hasley changed it to permanent, I tried to make an unban request, they deleted it and blocked my talk page. I asked for help on irc, an admin tried to help me make another unblock request, but the admin jem appeared and told me that I was playing the victim and banned me and expelled me from irc. I just want to contribute to the platform [[User:GokuJuan|GokuJuan]] ([[User talk:GokuJuan|talk]]) 20:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|GokuEltit}} This is a complaint about Spanish Wikipedia - see [[:es:Especial:Contribuciones/GokuJuan]], where you have [https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Especial:Registro&page=Usuario%3AGokuJuan&type=block a block history from August 2023 to September 2024] ([https://es-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/w/index.php?page=Usuario:GokuJuan&title=Especial:Registro&type=block&_x_tr_sl=es&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp machine translation]). Your block affects Spanish-language Wikipedia - it does not affect English-language Wikipedia.<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
:You also had some blocks on Commons, but they have expired.<sup>[https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AGokuJuan]</sup><span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;font-size:10pt;color:#000000">--[[User:Toddy1| Toddy1]] [[User talk:Toddy1|(talk)]]</span> 20:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
 
==Boy shekhar==
They had mentioned some of the things they wanted removed on the talk page in the few days before that, but '''nobody''' agreed that it should be removed. I disagred, nobody else joined the discussion.
{{hat
| result = Blocked by Rosguill as a regular administrative action. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 23:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
 
===Request concerning Boy shekhar===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Daniel Quinlan}} 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
 
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Boy shekhar}}<p>{{ds/log|Boy shekhar}}</p>
====== Why I did it in multiple steps ======
 
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
I regret doing it that way. What I should have done is just reset the page to the version immediately before BilledMammal started.
 
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics/India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan]]
The reason I did it a bit at a time was I was trying to seriously consider some of BilledMammal's changes, I ended up keeping a lot of them.
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
 
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
I then read through her talk page comments and tried to accommodate some of her concerns by comprising on some of the things I had previously objected to.
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
*{{diff2|1268704307|This edit}} violates the topic ban because it is in the topic area. It's also based on an unreliable source and the section header includes a derogatory term.
 
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
If I recall correctly BilledMammal responded to my attempts to cooperate and comprise by continuing to harrass me with a series of alleged 1RR violations.
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
*{{diff2|972891251|Here}} is the topic ban for {{tpq|persistent insertion of [[WP:NOR|original research]], use of unreliable sources or no sources at all, and [[WP:tendentious editing|tendentious editing]]}}.
 
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=972891251 14 August 2020 ] by {{admin|Doug Weller}}.
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boy_shekhar&diff=prev&oldid=945640767 15 March 2020] (see the system log linked to above).
 
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
====== The other edit I didn't self revet was already a self revert ======
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
*I've edited the article so I am involved. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] ([[User talk:Daniel Quinlan|talk]]) 06:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Vanamonde93}} No, I don't think you're being too harsh. I think you're right. My thinking was that if I was uninvolved, I would have blocked them under [[WP:CT/IPA]] so I sleepily submitted it here last night instead of ANI, which is what I should have done. [[User:Daniel Quinlan|Daniel Quinlan]] ([[User talk:Daniel Quinlan|talk]])
 
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
As far as I am aware, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1195586651&oldid=1195440487&title= this edit] was a self revert in the first place. I have asked BlledMammal whose edit I was reverting in the edit if not my own, and I've not seen an answer. That edit involves some weird politics and weirdly behaving templates, so I wanted to talk to the other editor about it if it wasn't me. But, as far as I know, nobody's was editing that section other than me. There was also a copyright bot that had me confused in that section, but i already discussed this with BilledMammal.
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boy_shekhar&diff=prev&oldid=1268726708 Diff of the AE notification]
 
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===== Questions for BilledMammal =====
===Discussion concerning Boy shekhar===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
 
====Statement by Boy shekhar====
Sorry I'm taking a while to get to some of these, those template links don't work on a lot of my devices.
 
====Statement by Vanamonde====
"{{tq|11:05, 16 January 2024. Note that this edit was only problematic due to the 1RR violation; absent that I would agree with it.}}" Is that the one where you:
This user hasn't edited for 4.5 years since they were TBANned, and none of their 31 edits show any ability to follow our PAGs. At the risk of sounding harsh, an extended AE discussion is a waste of time; a passing admin should indef them (I cannot, I am INVOLVED on most of the content they have edited). [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 23:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* complained that I removed words identical to the column heading and identified it as an alleged 1RR violation
* so I self reverted, explaining why I was doing such a weird edit in the edit summary, and identifying you as the person who wanted me to do it.
* then said something like "I didn't actually tell you to revert it"
That on Earth did you WANT as a response?
 
:{{re|Daniel Quinlan}} Apologies if that sounded like a criticism of you, it wasn't intended as such: I'm just advocating for the first uninvolved admin who sees this to block and close. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 00:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Why tell me about an alleged 1RR violation if it is not a request to self revert?
 
===Result concerning Boy shekhar===
You gave me a huge list of imaginatively interpreted alledged "reverts", self reversing that was one of the easiest to get off the list, and being so silly, another editor was very likely to fix it quite quickly.
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
-->
*Vanamonde93's assessment is spot on, the edit in question is the kind of gross violation of [[WP:NPA]] we indef people for on the spot even when it's not a TBAN violation. Blocked as a regular admin action. Although I will say, without knowing how exactly Vanamonde93 is involved here, this is so far beyond the pale that they could have gone ahead and blocked on an "any reasonable admin" basis. <sub>signed, </sub>[[User:Rosguill|'''''Rosguill''''']] <sup>[[User talk:Rosguill|''talk'']]</sup> 04:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
{{hab}}
 
==שלומית ליר==
If even YOU don't think that needed undoing, why list it?
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
 
===Request concerning שלומית ליר===
How did it even count as an excessive revert? It was an edit we seem to both agree improved the page? And the result of removing the redundant words was not identical to any previous version of the page.
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Smallangryplanet}} 17:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
 
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|שלומית ליר}}<p>{{ds/log|שלומית ליר}}</p>
@[[User:BilledMammal]] The what and why aren't just rhetorical flourishes, I want actual answers,
* Why did you tell me about an alledged 1RR violation if you didn't even want me to self revert it?
* What DID you want me to do about it?
[[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 05:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:ARBPIA]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation of ''how'' these edits violate it :
 
ShlomitLir (שלומית ליר) created their account back in 2014. The breakdown of their edits is as follows:
 
*2014 to 2016: no edits.
*2017 to 2019: 1 edit per year. None related to PIA.
*2022: 7 edits. Mostly in their userspace.
*2023: 21 edits. Again, mostly in their userspace. Made two edits in the talk page of [[Palestinian genocide accusation]] complaining about its content and calling it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestinian_genocide_accusation&diff=prev&oldid=1179967500 “blatant pro-Hamas propaganda”].
* 2024: Started editing after a 10 month break at the end of October.
**Made 51 edits in October and 81 edits in November (copyedits, adding links, minor edits).
**In December, that number rose up to almost 400, including 116 in December 6 alone and 98 in December 7. Became ECR that day.
**Immediately switched to editing in PIA, namely in the [[Battle of Sderot]] article where they [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sderot&diff=prev&oldid=1262061760 changed the infobox picture] with an unclear image with a dubious caption, and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sderot&diff=next&oldid=1262061760 removed a template] without providing a reason why.
**They also edited the [[Use of human shields by Hamas]] article, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas&diff=prev&oldid=1262833700 adding another image] with a caption not supported by the source (replaced by yet [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas&diff=prev&oldid=1262933991 another image] with a contextless caption when the previous image was removed) and WP:UNDUE content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas&diff=prev&oldid=1262855377 in the lead].
**they also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Calls_for_the_destruction_of_Israel_(2nd_nomination)&diff=prev&oldid=1268039937 voted] in the second AfD for [[Calls for the destruction of Israel]] despite never having interacted with that article or its previous AfD. They have barely surpassed 500 edits, but the gaming is obvious, highlighted by the sudden switch to editing in PIA.
 
More importantly, there's the issue of POV pushing. I came across [https://www.ynetnews.com/article/syf5kylb1g this article] authored by them on Ynet, once again complaining about what they perceive as an anti Israeli bias on Wikipedia. They have also authored a report for the World Jewish Congress covering the same topic. The report can be seen in full [https://wjc-org-website.s3.amazonaws.com/horizon/assets/4eQd1wRR/the_bias_against_israel_in_english_wikipedia_240314_5-1.pdf here]. I think that someone with this clear POV agenda shouldn't be near the topic.
===== Response to feedback =====
 
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
@[[user:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] I honestly appreciated your feedback earlier this week and took it on board. I do remember making some of those still unfinished edits and was I was meaning to find them and finish them or move them to my user space until they were presentable. I probably would have done that already if not kept busy and stressed by an endless stream of alleged 1RR violations. [[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 07:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC) edited a bit [[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 09:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:שלומית_ליר#Introduction_to_contentious_topics 2023-04-05] and re-iterated on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:שלומית_ליר#c-Nableezy-20241125215500-Rosguill-20230405042800 2024-11-25] (see the system log linked to above).
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive346#c-Femke-20241218202100-%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A8 2024-12-18] by {{admin|Femke}}.
 
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
:[[File: My talk page this week.png |thumb| '''Edit history of my talk page this week.''' Red = discussion with Billed Mammal about things which allegedly technically count as violations of the one revert rule. Other colours = each colour is a different user. Most had interesting suggestions or polite constructive feedback (like [[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus]]) that actually would have improved Wikipedia if my time had been spent on that instead. ]]
<!-- Add any further comment here -->
:@[[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]]
:I agree I got too over-enthusiastically speculative with the belligerents data that week. I have made user:space pages for unconfirmed events now, a much more suitable place for them, pending a full story in reliable sources.
:Again, I honestly did take the feedback on board, but i didn't get far through checking my old edits and improving them because I was kept very busy with alleged [[WP:1RR]] errors.
:[[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 15:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] I am a bit confused by what you said in the linked discussion about the un-referenced belligerents.
:I'm not sure why you didn't just remove it? Different editors seem to have contradictory interpretations of the etiquette and policy on that.
:If your fund any old errors where I've already agreed with constructive criticism, removing them for me when you see them seems helpful? Just let me know in case I want to add unfinished stuff to my user-space, or in case I have made similar old errors elsewhere.
:At least I found it now, fixing now.
:[[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 15:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:%D7%A9%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A8&diff=prev&oldid=1268807887 Notification diff]
@[[user:SaintPaulOfTarsus]] We discussed already this week that I have been over-using or misusing {{tl|cn}} for "follow up" notes, and I probably would have fixed a lot of them by now if I haven't been stuck on the [[WP:1RR]] stuff. {{red| BUT also }} Those out-of-context quotes and inaccurate paraphrasing severely distort what I said. e.g.
* leaving out {{teal|"might be worth researching some background to give this more context, as far as I can gather…"}} from the first one of makes it sound like a very aggressive assertion, when it was actually a very timidly phrased pondering of a thing I didn't claim any certainty about all.
* and the last one has been rearranged to give an almost opposite meaning to what I intended.
[[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 18:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning שלומית ליר===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
 
====Statement by שלומית ליר====
:'''I would like this response to stay next to the comment where what I wrote has been misleadingly paraphrased, please.'''
:@[[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] I'll get rid of the misused cite notes and/or unnecessary commentary in them, {{red|but}} those out-of-context paraphrasingss severely distort what I said!
:* Leaving out {{tq|"might be worth researching some background to give this more context, as far as I can gather"}} from the first one makes it sound like an aggressive baseless assertion, when I was actually very awkwardly trying to describe a topic I am very unsure about. But I'll just delete it, from your reading of it I can see I articulated my point in a way that was very open to misinterpretation, and it's a misuse of a cite note anyway.
:* The key part of what I said in the second was "{{tq|The amount of scripture K. S. Al-Aqsa quote seems incongruous with "secularism" as a core ideology}}" but I will delete the vague speculation, the more important point is that the reference there, like the rest of the page, is over 15 years out of date and they seem to have dissociated from the secular Fatah party since then. Reliable sources do descends them as further apart than the general "arms length" relationship between most political and militant wings, they're barely even on the same side anymore, if at all. That whole page needs a maybe update.
:* In the last case you've reshuffled what I said to look like I said almost the exact opposite of what I actually meant, '''and''' that comment starts with "{{tq|I'm not sure if the following would help or just add more confusion?}}" The way to respond to that would be to say on the talk page for that article "{{tq|yeah, the ISIS bit is a confusing a mess, definitely leave it out}}" any time in the paste couple of months, not suddenly bridging it up here when we have never discussed it previously.
:[[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 00:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 
====Statement by SelfstudierThebiguglyalien====
This is the first ARBPIA report since the proposed decision [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Proposed decision|was posted at ARBPIA5]] and it's specifically a matter of POV pushing, responding admins should be aware of the "[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 5/Proposed decision#AE topic bans|AE topic bans]]" remedy. The committee is discussing whether to implement a remedy stating that admins at AE are "empowered and encouraged to consider a topic ban" purely for biased editing. So far, the argument against is that it's redundant because AE admins are already supposed to do this. [[User:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:#324717">The</span><span style="color:#45631f">big</span><span style="color:#547826">ugly</span><span style="color:#68942f">alien</span>]] ([[User talk:Thebiguglyalien|<span style="color:sienna">talk</span>]]) 05:39, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#BilledMammal_disruptive_editing This recent ANI discussion] seems relevant, in particular the interaction between filer and defendant.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2024-03-29/Special_report
 
====Statement by SaintPaulOfTarsusSelfstudier====
To the extent that it is relevant, the WJC report was discussed at [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2024-03-29/Special report]]. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 11:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I feel justified making a statement because a talkpage message I authored was linked above and discussed by admins.
 
I have had frequent interactions with the user starting in early December, mostly in ARBPIA. I quickly started experiencing CIR concerns like those Galobtter expressed below, culminating in a series of edits to [[Battle of Sufa]] last week I felt bordered on disruptive.
 
====Statement by starship.paint (2)====
* {{diff2|1196205949|20:09, 16 January 2024}}: addition of a section on media portrayals of the 7 October attacks (all the attacks, broadly speaking), which seems to have little direct relevance to this specific single attack.
 
I would to like to raise [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sderot&diff=prev&oldid=1262061030 this 9 December 2024 edit] at [[Battle of Sderot]], where there had been an existing unsourced paragraph ({{tq|On the morning of October 7, a tour minibus...}}) that שלומית ליר added [https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/newstv/p-11894/s1/574451/ a reference] to ([https://archive.is/bT2uD archive 1] / [https://web.archive.org/web/20240910141805/https://www.kan.org.il/content/kan-news/newstv/p-11894/s1/574451/ archive 2]) from the [[Israeli Public Broadcasting Corporation]]. '''The reference is relevant, but I believe it may not verify every detail in the Battle of Sderot paragraph''' (e.g. "Netivot", "Holocaust survivors"). The reference contains a short paragraph of text and a video that is 4:21 long. I can't watch the video in the reference, but I believe it is this same [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwOZ403J7RA YouTube] video that is 4:20 long which contains the same screenshot as the reference, on the same topic. Most of the video is an interview of the daughter of a dead victim who was on the bus (the daughter had been on the phone with the victim), except for 1:58 to 2:13 which appears to be a quote from the bus driver. The publisher themselves do not have too much reporting in their own voice (on the video), yet this reference was used to cite a paragraph entirely stated in Wikivoice. No attribution was made to the relative or the bus driver, or to the publisher. I can't be totally sure though, due to unfamiliarity with Hebrew. '''[[User:Starship.paint|<span style="color:#512888">starship.paint</span>]] ([[User talk:Starship.paint|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Starship.paint|cont]])''' 13:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
* {{diff2|1196214059|20:45, 16 January 2024}}: unsourced extension of the battle date in the infobox by four days. This was discussed [[User talk:Irtapil#Battle of Sufa end date|on the user's talk page]]. I didn't come away from the conversation with any idea where the alternative date came from.
 
* {{diff2|1196094615|08:12, 16 January 2024}}: unsourced addition of a new group as a belligerent in the battle. After I asked for clarity, [[Special:Diff/1196196883|a later edit]] added unsourced information (on Khan Yunis) that had no direct connection to the article's subject (Sufa). I addressed this on [[Talk:Battle of Sufa#Battle *may* still be ongoing|the article's talk page]] (last reply in linked section) after reverting it, but received no explanation.
 
In addition [[User_talk:Irtapil#Wikipedia:Citation_needed_templates_do not_excuse_citations|to what you previously read from me]], the user deploys citation needed tags in other disruptive ways.
 
* {{diff2|1196190721|19:08, 16 January 2024}}: addition of a citation needed tag to a portion of the infobox reading "Al-Qassam Brigades: 3,000 entered Israel." A comment attached to the template reads "'''is that 3000 militants or does that include people celebrating at the destroyed fence?'''" I opened the cited article and found that its fourth sentence read "'''The 3,000 figure in the latest assessment only includes armed terror operatives and not the waves of Gazan citizens who took advantage of the enormous gaps in the fence to also make their way inside later in the day.'''"
 
* {{diff2|1194851932|01:50, 11 January 2024}}: addition of a citation needed tag to the translated name of a military group: "Salafi Army of the Ummah in Jerusalem." In part, the user's comment reads "'''Please double check the citation supports that translation'''". I double-checked the citation and found that the second sentence of the referenced article read '''Its full name is 'Jaysh al-Ummah al-Salafi fi Bayt al-Maqdis' ('The Salafi Army of the Ummah in Jerusalem').'''"
 
These examples indicate a tendency to dispute content without checking existing citations. The user wouldn't have had to scroll far to have these questions answered.
 
The user has also added citation needed tags to already-sourced information, in order to speculate on whether [[Special:Diff/1195925822|Hamas likes Israeli Arabs less than other Israelis because they view them as "traitors"]], or on how often [[Special:Diff/1193300647|Muslims who want secular government quote the Quran]], and includes commented-out speculation in articles on whether [[Special:Diff/1191675409|ISIS was involved on October 7]], because "I've read half a dozen in depth articles on this, but i need to find them again."
 
Reading [[WP:DISRUPTSIGNS]], I felt I had observed nearly all the listed examples from this user.
 
[[User:SaintPaulOfTarsus|SaintPaulOfTarsus]] ([[User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus|talk]]) 04:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 
====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
 
 
===Result concerning Irtapil===
===Result concerning שלומית ליר===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*Users are allowed to have a POV - it's a rare user indeed who edits a contentious topic without having some strong opinions about it. For conduct to be actionable at AE it needs to be an actual policy violation. The misleading use of images doesn't rise to the level of AE action in my view, and judging whether an addition like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Use_of_human_shields_by_Hamas&diff=prev&oldid=1262855377 this] is UNDUE is not within AE's purview, as long as it is supported by the source. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 23:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
* I'd appreciate if there was a link to the diffs you are saying Irtapil reverted, because otherwise it is very hard to follow sequence of reverts/verify the 1RR violations. I looked at the diffs at [[User_talk:Irtapil#BilledMammal]] too, and it's hard for me to see where the revert is, especially since table edits are very hard to follow in a diff format. But it seems like part of the issue is Irtapil will try to partially revert an edit through a sequence of many edits, split over a long enough time that there will be interventing edits turning that one revert into multiple. We [[User_talk:Galobtter/Archive_8#counting_"reverts"|already discussed]] this on my talk page where I tried to explain why that counts as multiple reverts. It seems like Irtapil could avoid issues by fully reverting in one edit, and if they want to preserve part of the edit that they reverted then that edit can be safely added back over a sequence of many edits without any issue.
*:The PIA5 remedy hasn't passed yet, and its interpretation is as yet unclear to me: but in my view we are already empowered to deal with biased editing, in the sense of editing that violates NPOV. What I'm not willing to do is sanction on the basis of someone's opinions alone; they have to be shown to have let their opinions get in the way of following our PAGs. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 07:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm more concerned about the other edits, especially adding edits with citation needed. Regardless of the issues with editing on their device, in this topic area every edit is going to be controversial and needs to include an inline cite with the edit, and cannot be based on "know[ing] citations exist".
* While I understand {{u|Vanamonde93}}'s concerns, I think that we are required to assess the totality of the user's contributions. Contentious topic editors are required to uphold NPOV. [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Guidance for editors]] places an obligation to {{xtn|Within contentious topics,… edit carefully and constructively… and… adhere to the [[WP:Five pillars|purposes of Wikipedia]]}}. The linked page provides that {{xtn|Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view… We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence}}. If an editor is ''only'' adding content that significantly favours one or the other side to the conflict, this is incompatible with their contentious topic obligation. That is because an editor making ''only'' one-sided edits will simply not be taking the necessary steps to ensure that the ''whole article'' is written from a neutral point of view. As their number of one-sided edits increases, the likelihood decreases that the editor is ensuring our content is neutral and impartial. Once we reach the point of being sure that they are not attempting to ensure neutrality of content, we can conclude the editor is not meeting their contentious topics obligations and we can issue a sanction. This can only be assessed with hindsight and by looking at the editor's contributions as a whole. [[User:Arcticocean|<span style="color:#5A4FCF">arctic'''ocean'''&nbsp;■</span>]] 20:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:I'm getting increasingly concerned Irtapil [[WP:CIR|doesn't have the competence]] to keep editing in this [[WP:CTOP]]. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|talk]]) 03:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
:: Assessing the topic area contributions of the respondent (שלומית ליר) since they became extended-confirmed {{logid|166341641|at 17:33, 8 December 2024}}, there is cause for concern. I counted 19 edits to the area conflict. Taken together, they significantly skew the articles negatively against the opposing side of the conflict:
*{{u|Irtapil}}, you may only respond in your own section. Reaching out to other editors for advice is pretty close to canvassing. By informing them of this discussion by asking for advice you're essentially blocking them from engaging with this AE request.{{pb}}I've warned Irtapil at least [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irtapil&diff=prev&oldid=1197534151 twice] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irtapil&diff=prev&oldid=1197515004 now] about personalized commentary. Along with the example BilledMammal provided, there is also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IOHANNVSVERVS&diff=prev&oldid=1196160322 this] recent example of not understanding canvassing. Combined with the confusion about reverts and the citation needed issue I find myself in agreement with {{u|Galobtter}} that they may not be net positive in the topic area. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 23:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
::* [[Special:Diff/1262061030|Adding a citation for a claim that Hamas terrorists shot dead a group of Israeli tourists]].
::* [[Special:Diff/1262061760|Replacing map with a photograph of victims of violence]].
::* [[Special:Diff/1262061843|Removing an outdated maintenance tag]] which was perhaps casting doubt on the relevant section, ''Massacre of pensioners'', and [[Special:Diff/1262065677|again]].
::* [[Special:Diff/1262833301|Adding specification to claims of the use of human shield (specifying who has made the claims)]], therefore giving greater weight to the claims, in a context where the claims were already described at considerable length; [[Special:Diff/1263038492|adding another reference to that claim]]; [[Special:Diff/1263038827|and adding another]].
::* [[Special:Diff/1262833700|Adding an image contentiously captioned 'Weapons Found in a Mosque']], then [[Special:Diff/1262933991|again ''Rockets hidden at a house'']], both to the first line of the article.
::* [[Special:Diff/1262855377|Adding, without sufficient context, an assertion that a philosopher has determined that one side of the conflict is culpable]] and [[Special:Diff/1262935292|expanding other coverage of culpability of that side]].
::* On the talk pages, there has been a [[Special:Diff/1263202611|tinge of failure to AGF]] although I would be prepared to look past that (it was like meeting like). I am skipping a few further and insignificant talk page comments.
::* There are then edits to [[LGBTQ rights in the State of Palestine]]: [[Special:Diff/1265721615|inserting a reference to execution into the first sentence of the lead]]; [[Special:Diff/1265722280|adding more references to news coverage of executions of LGBT+ people by the other side of the conflict]]. At [[Houthi movement]], there is then an expansion, again of the article lead, [[Special:Diff/1265724152|to add references to terrorist attacks]] ([[Special:Diff/1265746529|with follow-up]]).
:: Assessing the edits as a whole, it is difficult not to conclude that the respondent user is failing to meet their contentious topics obligation to edit neutrally in this topic area. As the number of edits is so far limited, if a sanction is imposed, it could justifiably be light-touch. [[User:Arcticocean|<span style="color:#5A4FCF">arctic'''ocean'''&nbsp;■</span>]] 20:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
 
==MakeandtossLuganchanka==
{{hat|{{u|Makeandtoss}} is warned to avoid (slow-motion) edit warring in the area of [[WP:PIA|the Arab-Israeli conflict]]. The user is also warned to adhere to the area's topic-wide [[WP:1RR|one revert restriction]].— [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 19:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
 
===Request concerning MakeandtossLuganchanka===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|BilledMammalHemiauchenia}} 1620:0026, 2412 January 20242025 (UTC)
 
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|MakeandtossLuganchanka}}<p>{{ds/log|MakeandtossLuganchanka}}</p>
 
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
 
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:ArbitrationRequests for arbitration/Index/Palestine-IsraelEditing of Biographies articles#ARBPIAof GeneralLiving SanctionsPersons]]
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
 
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
[[WP:1RR]] violations:
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Ritter&diff=1269047798&oldid=1269047600 19:55, 12 January 2025] Reversion to version of article where the article says "He is a child sex offender" in the second sentence despite consensus at BLPN discussion that this is problematic because Ritter never actually interacted with a real child.
At [[Israel–Hamas war]]:
#{{diff4|old=1198198697|1198197889|10:52, 23 January 2024}}
#{{diff2|1198199141|10:55, 23 January 2024}}
 
At [[Assassination of Sadegh Omidzadeh]]:
#{{diff2|1197453567|15:41, 20 January 2024}}
#{{diff4|old=1197447834|1197427721|15:08, 20 January 2024}}
#{{diff2|1197411365|11:10, 20 January 2024}}
#{{diff2|1197409866|11:00, 20 January 2024}}
 
They have previously responded quickly to self-revert requests ([[User_talk:Makeandtoss/Archive_9#WP:1RR_at_2023_Israel–Hamas_war|October]], [[User_talk:Makeandtoss/Archive_11#Gaza_war_1RR|November]]) but they were [[User_talk:Makeandtoss#WP:1RR at Israel–Hamas war|unwilling to do so here]], arguing that these don't constitute reverts. There are additional unreverted 1RR violations, but I lack the diffs to present them and they were not raised with Makeandtoss at the time.
 
Outside of [[WP:1RR]] they have engaged in extensive edit warring at [[Israel-Hamas war]]. They have edit warred over describing in Wikivoice Israel and the US being internationally isolated amid calls for a ceasefire:
#{{diff2|1197901253|10:08, 22 January 2024}} - {{tq|Israel and the United States were internationally isolated}} to {{tq|Israel and the United States were internationally isolated <u>amid global calls for a ceasefire</u>}}
#{{diff2|1197622412|08:01, 21 January 2024}} - {{tq|Israel and the United States were internationally isolated}} to {{tq|Israel and the United States were internationally isolated <u>amid global calls for a ceasefire</u>}}
#{{diff2|1197132420|10:44, 19 January 2024}} - {{tq|Israel and the United States have <s>been described as</s> increasingly internationally isolated}} to {{tq|Israel and the United States have <u>become</u> increasingly internationally isolated}}
#{{diff4|old=1196431881|1196431881|13:01, 17 January 2024}} - {{tq|Israel and the United States have been described as internationally isolated}} to {{tq|Israel and the United States have been described as increasingly internationally isolated <u>amid calls for a ceasefire</u>}}
#{{diff2|1195131075|12:47, 12 January 2024}} - {{tq|Israel and the United States are becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage <s>in their refusal to accept a ceasefire</s>}} to {{tq|Israel and the United States are becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage <u>amid global calls for a ceasefire</u>}}
#{{diff2|1194030142|21:26, 6 January 2024}} - {{tq|<s>The United States has sided with Israel in rejecting those calls</s>}} to {{tq|<u>Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage</u>}}
#{{diff4|old=1193574783|1193575127|14:33, 4 January 2024}} - {{tq|<s>The United States has sided with Israel in rejecting these calls</s>}} to {{tq|<u>Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage</u>}}
#{{diff4|old=1192635040|1192641212|14:32, 30 December 2023}} - {{tq|Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated <s>on the world stage</s>}} to {{tq|Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated <u>amid growing global calls for a ceasefire</u>}}
#{{diff4|old=1190172465|1190170637|10:16, 16 December 2023}} - {{tq|<s>The United States has sided with Israel in rejecting calls for ceasefire</s>}} to {{tq|<u>Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated amid growing global calls for a ceasefire</u>}}
 
They have also edit warred over whether Palestinian casualties should be led with "Since the start of the Israeli operation":
#{{diff2|1197900317|10:03, 22 January 2024}}
#{{diff2|1197622174|07:59, 21 January 2024}}
#{{diff2|1197132029|10:43, 19 January 2024}}
#{{diff2|1195124480|11:52, 12 January 2024}}
 
This isn't the full extent of their recent edit warring on that article; the most significant violation that I have not detailed here is over the number of paragraphs in the lede, with them being very insistent that it must be four, but I am running out of diffs.
 
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
#{{diff2|1180149051|20:45, 14 October 2023}} - Page blocked from [[Israel–Hamas war]] for 48 hours for {{tq|disingenuous edit summaries, edit warring, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground}}.
 
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALuganchanka&diff=1269034364&oldid=1258300081 18:28, 12 January 2025] BLP CTOP warning given
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on {{diff2|790067168|11:32, 11 July 2017}} (see the system log linked to above).
 
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
At BLPN, there has been consensus that the version of the article describing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the second sentence of the article is problematic, as he did not actually have sexual contact with a child, only a police officer impersonating one. [[Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines]]. Luganchanka has been persistently edit warring against this apparent consensus. For which he has been warned by {{Ping|NatGertler}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALuganchanka&diff=1269047181&oldid=1269034364], which he subequently blanked [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luganchanka&diff=next&oldid=1269047181] There has been persistent objection to descrbing Ritter as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article going back to at least August [[Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence]], but Luganchanka persistently cites a "consensus" for its inclusion that as far as I can tell does not seem to exist, with Luganchanka aggressively editing to enforce its inclusion. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:Vanamonde, may I have ten more diffs and 200 more words to address your comment? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 18:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
: Luganchanka's response is disingenuous and misleading. Look at the [[Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence]] discussion I linked above. Nobody other than Luganchanka thinks that Ritter should be described as a "child sex offender" in the opening sentences of the article. The dispute isn't about whether or not the convictions should be mentioned in the lead at all or not, it's specifically about the use of the phrase "child sex offender", and there is no consensus to include that as far as I can tell, despite Luganchanka's vociferous claims to the contrary. [[User:Hemiauchenia|Hemiauchenia]] ([[User talk:Hemiauchenia|talk]]) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you. 10:55 was a revert of {{diff2|1194654468|this edit}}, where an editor added {{tq|a counteroffensive it called}}; this was modified over the next thirteen days, and was in the form {{tq|a counteroffensive named}} when Makeandtoss removed it entirely. I believe this constitutes a revert, but if my understanding of a revert is mistaken I would welcome a correction.
::Regarding the second set, at [[Assassination of Sadegh Omidzadeh]]:
:::11:00 and 15:08 involved edit warring over the use of [https://www.ajc.org/news/hezbollahs-dangerous-provocations this source]; Makeandtoss first removed it at 11:00, saying {{tq|removing unreliable source}}; Eladkarmel then re-added it in the same context at {{diff2|1197422324|12:23, 20 January 2024}}, and then Makeandtoss removed it again at 15:08, saying {{tq|arms associations are not reliable sources}}.
:::There was some discussion on the talk page about this source, but I'm not seeing any consensus to re-remove the source.
:::15:41 is less problematic, because by that time Eladkarmel had said {{tq|If you think the current paragraph is bad, I'm not against deleting it}}, although it remains a technical 1RR violation.
::Regarding the third set, "global isolation":
:::This has been discussed a couple of times ([[Talk:Israel–Hamas_war#International isolation|1]] and [[Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_35#"Increasing_isolation"|2]]). However, I'm not seeing any consensus to include it there, with a number of editors either opposing it generally or opposing the specific form that Makeandtoss has been insisting on; while it is currently in the article, I would attribute that to persistence rather than consensus.
::Regarding the fourth set, "Since the start":
:::As far as I can tell, Makeandtoss and PrimaPrime have been disputing this since Makeandtoss first added it, and nobody else has cared to comment on this specific aspect [[Talk:Israel–Hamas_war#Recent_edits|despite some discussion between the two on the talk page]]. Again, while it is currently in the article, I would attribute that to persistence rather than consensus.
::[[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 18:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Thirteen minutes after you re-removed the source Ecrusized, not Eladkarmel, {{diff2|1197450077|said}} {{tq|Yup, I am over 1RR so I would support if you reverted this}}. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 19:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
{{diff2|1198616208|16:00, 24 January 2024}}
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Luganchanka&diff=prev&oldid=1269053287 20:27, 12 January 2025]
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
 
===Discussion concerning MakeandtossLuganchanka===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by Makeandtoss====
:1 The second edit was not a revert since the edit had been stable there for 13 days.
:2 These were not edit wars, there was actually a friendly and constructive talk page discussion for each of the edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assassination_of_Sadegh_Omidzadeh ]. Furthermore, there was no way for me to self-revert since when notified to this, the article had been moved and the content was completely changed.
:3 These were restorations of the phrasing that was agreed upon in two talk page discussions that I engaged in with other editors.
:4 This was also a restoration of the term that was presented on the talk page.
There are no violations of 1 RR above, and the rest of the edits were restoring edits that were agreed upon in the talk page of a constantly changing article at the [[Israel-Hamas war]].
In my defense, I will admit that, although I believe the last article ban was excessive, I accepted it, learnt from it and kept it always in my mind to avoid violating 1RR again and engaging in the talk page more. This behavior is the opposite of edit warring.
On the other hand, it is important to note that the filing editor has a documented history of making false accusations to get editors they disagree with in contentious topics banned:
 
====Statement by Luganchanka====
:1- They have been warned on AE in 2021 that "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive295 BilledMammal is warned that groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions]". And they were blocked afterwards.
:2- Editors also pointed out to this behavior of theirs just 3 days ago at AN [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1147#BilledMammal_disruptive_editing ]
:3- They have filed [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Irtapil another complain against another editor] just yesterday here on AE, just above this discussion.
 
The intro on the [[Scott Ritter]] page had remained largely the same for several months, as you will see on the talkpage it is an intro approved, and reverted to, by multiple senior editors. There has been a recent flurry of activity / edits. While I [[WP: assume good faith]], it does look like those edits are attempting to downplay / whitewash Ritter's sexual offence conviction(s). I have not been 'aggressive' at all, rather I have simply referred contentious edits to the talkpage to build consensus, attempting to do my duty as a good Wikipedia editor.[[User:Luganchanka|Luganchanka]] ([[User talk:Luganchanka|talk]]) 20:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
It is crystal clear now that instead of engaging on the articles' talk pages to solve disagreement and reach consensus, they have chosen instead of spend countless hours trying to find fault in other editors to get them banned. This is not about making everyone conform with WP's guidelines, this is about them continuing to edit unopposed. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 17:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 
Please see the [[Talk:Scott_Ritter]], where there has been a clear consensus reached, on more than one occasion, and by senior wikipedia editors, that Ritter's sexual offence conviction should be included in the lead to the article. My edits have simply been aimed at ensuring this consensus reached is maintained in the article.[[User:Luganchanka|Luganchanka]] ([[User talk:Luganchanka|talk]]) 20:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping|Vanamonde93}} Thank you for the reasonable assessment. Please note that the second revert was not because no one responded in the talk page but because as you can see from my edit summary I was objecting to the mass reversion of my edits on the basis that I should receive permission from the editor, and that I wanted them to revert the specific edits that they objected to. After this happened there was a talk page discussion that they eventually stopped responding to. I hope what I meant is clearer now. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 18:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Vanamonde93}} It was genuinely made in good faith, I didn’t expect it to be controversial at all; my point was to allow the editors to revert specific edits so that the talk page discussion can be more streamlined instead of focusing on dozens of things. Looking back, at that moment, I was pretty upset that the hours-long effort I put into summarizing the article was reverted, so you are right, I did indeed overreact impatiently, but this is not a general editing behavior of mine, evidenced by 10 years of being on here and working constructively with everyone. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
:::{{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} {{ping|Red-tailed hawk}} Thank you for taking the time and effort in reviewing this and all other cases. I realize the importance of your role in identifying and subsequently minimizing disruption to ensure WP remains a constructive place. At the same time, equally important, is to ensure that defenses are given adequate attention so that fairness is ensured. As mentioned above, it was impossible for me to revert myself, because the content had completely changed at the assassination article. As for the other edit it had been 13 day stable, so it cannot be considered a revert, especially considering that article is constantly being edited. Most importantly, on the sentence regarding international isolation, there was a constant discussion on the talk page in which consensus (the process of addressing all editors relevant concerns that involves putting compromises) was present in the talk page as you can see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1198030824&oldid=1198027839&title=Talk%3AIsrael%E2%80%93Hamas_war here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1194140098 here]. As noted by {{ping|Vanamonde93}} there was a genuine effort to talk this through, and compromise was made several times. This is constructive and is not just repeatedly undoing other editors' works as defined at the guideline. Although I admit this should have been more thoroughly and appropriately discussed through an RFC, but I was hesitant given the high levels of activity on the article and its talk page, in which it is difficult to track who changed what and why. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 10:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 
====ResponseStatement toby additional commentsNatGertler====
Editor's edits today focused on trying to main a negative descriptor of what subject believed, despite it not being in the three sources that were listed (nor in the old version they ultimately reverted to.) Efforts were first trying to simply restate the claim, then trying to source it to an opinion piece (problem) from the Washington Examiner (also a bit of a problem, per [[WP:RSP]]), then trying to state as a fact what had merely been stated in a non-prime article as an accusation. BLP concern was pointed out repeatedly via edit summary and on Talk page. Removal of unsourced contentious BLP claims and even false claims is not "whitewashing" despite how editor wishes to depict it, it is in accord with our practices. -- [[User:NatGertler|Nat Gertler]] ([[User talk:NatGertler|talk]]) 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:I did not "remove" counteroffensive, I replaced it with invasion because that's what the linked Wikipedia article is called. More importantly, this was a 2 week stable edit and is not a reversion.
:At the assassination article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assassination_of_Sadegh_Omidzadeh talk page], the editor who I reverted explicitly told me that he reverted me by mistake: "Sorry, I didn't notice the unreliable sources thing." And then they also explicitly told me: "Yup, I am over 1RR so I would support if you reverted this". And then in another comment: "If you think the current paragraph is bad, I'm not against deleting it". There was no dispute and thus no edit warring. On the contrary, it was an evolving consensus on what is the best way forward.
:The third set, there were two discussions on the talk page. In both, there was disagreement on the phrasing of the words, but this was constantly evolving as seen above. Furthermore, the fact that this sentence remains in the article roughly reflects that there is agreement for its inclusion.
:As for the "Since the start.." in the edits I added a RS from the NYT, an addition not just restoring, which is also based on the talk page discussion and trying to find what RS say about this. More importantly again is the fact that this sentence remains in the article, also roughly reflecting that there is agreement for its inclusion. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 18:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
::This was 2 hours after Eladkarmel told me: "Sorry, I didn't notice the unreliable sources thing." I just noticed that I might have mixed up the users Eladkarmel and Ecrusized since they have similar usernames, but that just proves that all 3 of us were working together and not reverting each other. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 19:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
:Please do not take this out of context to settle scores, you were mass reverting my edits, claiming editors needed to take permissions from you to edit since it is a featured article; this is shown explicitly in my edit summary: "per talk page, '''anyone is welcome to revert any specific edits they disagree with'''". Furthermore, you even stopped engaging on the talk page. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 17:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 
====Statement by Midnightblueowl(username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
 
===Result concerning Luganchanka===
Makeandtoss has engaged in similar behaviour, namely [[WP:Edit Warring]], at the FA-rated [[Nelson Mandela]] article, where they have sought to push additions about Israel/Palestine in recent days. After their initial alterations/additions were reverted, with a request that they abide by [[WP:BRD]], they twice restored their edits:
 
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Mandela&diff=prev&oldid=1197102258 08:47, 19 January 2024]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Mandela&diff=prev&oldid=1197451769 15:31, 20 January 2024]
 
This appears to be a pattern of behaviour across multiple articles, one motivated particularly on issues regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. [[User:Midnightblueowl|Midnightblueowl]] ([[User talk:Midnightblueowl|talk]]) 17:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 
====Statement by Zero0000====
 
Makeandtoss is an excellent and valuable editor, not least because he is one of the very few in ARBPIA who can read Arabic. Just before this case was filed, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMakeandtoss&diff=1198225398&oldid=1198213199 spent some time] explaining aspects of the 1RR rule that Makeandtoss did not understand. For example, he thought it was ok to do a second revert if the editor he was reverting had apparently agreed to it on the talk page. In terms of his combativeness level, among regulars in ARBPIA he is around the middle, well below many others who are more careful. Of course he has personal biases but so does everyone who edits in ARBPIA. In my opinion a stern warning is a sufficient outcome. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 00:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 
==== Statement from Irtapil ====
: Please note, the accuser here is symaltaniously accusing (at least) two editors of long lists of alleged 1RR violations. (See also the section directly above this) [[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 03:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 
@[[user:BilledMammal]] can you please more clearly identify the edits, that the accused is supposedly reverting, and the user who made them?
* Firstly it is hard to tell what is being reverted without seeing who is who?
* Secondly it takes at least two people to have an edit war, who is the other side of this?
[[User:Irtapil|Irtapil]] ([[User talk:Irtapil|talk]]) 08:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 
===Result concerning Makeandtoss===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*<!--
*Some parts of this complaint are concerning, others less so. I'm struggling to see how the examples in the initial complaint are 1RR violations. The edits to the Israel-Hamas war could be, but if the second edit was an obvious revert, I'm not seeing evidence of it yet. The second set as best as I can tell is a genuine example of consensus-building via editing, with multiple editors modifying each other's contributions, and with constructive talk page discussion. The other set of edits (re: global isolation) on the Israel-Hamas war are spread far apart in time, and are clearly not 1RR violations. The contested text is currently present in the article, meaning they could reasonably be seen as enforcing consensus; if there is evidence that those were edit-warring over disputed content, I have yet to see it. The edits on Nelson Mandela are more concerning to me; there's at least one too many reverts being made there. I would have preferred to see more substantive engagement on the talk page from all parties, but nonetheless that does not justify the second revert while discussion was ongoing. Makeandtoss, best as I can tell you performed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nelson_Mandela&diff=prev&oldid=1197451769 this revert] an hour after MBO left [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1197224439&diff=1197441380 this message] on the talk page, and a minute after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nelson_Mandela&diff=next&oldid=1197441380 your response] on the talk page. I don't see how you can justify that based on a lack of engagement. At the ''very least'' more patience is expected with contentious content on an FA. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 18:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
-->
*:BilledMammal, yes, length extension is fine by me (and in the interest of fairness I think Makeandtoss should get an equivalent extension for rebuttal, should they want it). [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 18:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
*:Makeandtoss,@[[User:Luganchanka|Luganchanka]]: yes,whether ityou'sre obviouscorrect thator not, you objectedwere toedit beingwarring. mass-reverted;I butbelieve thatan doesindef notblock justifyfrom athe revertarticle onand/or youra part.temporary Ifsite youblock can'twould seebe that,an I'm beginning to feel aappropriate sanction may be needed here. [[User:Vanamonde93Voorts|Vanamonde93voorts]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 1820:2254, 2412 January 20242025 (UTC)
::I've blocked the user for 48h for violating 3RR based on the report at [[WP:AN3]].--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 23:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
*I see multiple 1RR violations, not remedied after being approached on their talk page, and long term, if low intensity, edit warring over the lead of [[Israel-Hamas war]]. 13 days is reaching stability in these articles, but it's something I would hang my hat on to rebut 1RR. I don't find pointing to a two+ year old warning at AE about vexatious complaints convincing either, as the section above certainly doesn't appear vexatious, and at ANI there wasn't any consensus that their behavior was disruptive. That whole line of argument is just [[WP:NOTTHEM]]-style deflection. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 23:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
*I'm a bit concerned that the slow-motion edit warring continued on the ''very same article'' that the respondent was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=153650669 partially blocked from] by {{u|HJ Mitchell}} a mere three months ago. That the behavior is continuing makes me think that some sort of longer-term restriction may warrant consideration. The topic area is already under 1RR, and I don't think a 0RR is going to be really all that much more effective at deterring the user's edit warring here—particularly so given that the warring is ''already'' in slow-motion. This leaves the possibility of a topic ban/page ban, or alternatively a final warning before one. I'm not sure which would be more appropriate here. {{pb}}With respect to the complaints about the filer raised, I agree that that, as SFR mentioned, the {{tq|two+ year-old warning}} given to BM is immaterial here; this isn't a vexatious complaint, nor is it groundless.{{pb}}— [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 03:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Vanamonde93|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Would you be OK with closing this with a warning to Makeandtoss to avoid slow-motion edit warring within [[WP:ARBPIA]]? I'm increasingly thinking that a broad TBAN is not ''yet'' warranted, but I don't see the behavior as being limited to one page. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 19:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
*::{{re|Red-tailed hawk}} yes, I'm okay with that. I agree with both your assessments above. I haven't commented here because I've been undecided. I think fundamentally Makeandtoss needs to recognize that they have been too free with the revert button; I'm not impressed with their reply to me. But a broader sanction feels disproportionate, and it's clear that they are quite capable of collaborating with editors of differing POVs when they put their mind to it. [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]] ([[User talk:Vanamonde93|talk]]) 20:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
*::Slow motion edit warring and 1RR, and I'm fine with that. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 21:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
*:::Noted. I'll close this in a few hours as such so long as no other admin objects. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed&nbsp;hawk</span>]]&nbsp;<sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 23:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
{{hab}}
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement"